Tag Archives: Matthew 12:30

The Day of the Lord, Part 7

Posted on by

This is a continuation of my consideration whether my assumption that Jesus called Judas Iscariot ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας (NET: the one destined for destruction) is like Jesus’ disciples’ discussion about having no bread1 after He said: “Watch out! Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod!”2 In another essay I began to look at John’s description of antichrist and many antichrists because Meyer’s NT Commentary stated that many of the Church Fathers had understood Paul’s description of the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction, as the Antichrist.

I highlighted two things he wrote about their insights:3

They correctly agree in considering that by the advent (2 Thessalonians 2:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:8), or the day of the Lord (2 Thessalonians 2:2), is to be understood the personal advent of Christ for the last judgment and for the completion of the Messianic kingdom. Also it is correctly regarded as proved, that the Antichrist here described is to be considered as an individual person, in whom sin will embody itself.

Meyer’s NT Commentary continued to elaborate on the “view of the Fathers” regarding “the Antichrist…considered as an individual person” with the following caveat:

Meyer’s NT Commentary

Google Translate
Yet Augustin already remarks, that “nonnulli non ipsum principem, sed universum quodam modo corpus ejus i. e. ad eum pertinentem hominum multitudinem simul cum ipso suo principe hoc loco intelligi Antichristum volunt.” Yet Augustin already remarks, that “some, not the prince himself, but the whole world, in a certain way, his body i. e. The multitude of men belonging to him, together with their own leader, want to be understood in this place as Antichrist.”

Mr. Meyer cataloged many evolving views: “[T]he view, first in the eleventh century, that the establishment and growing power of the Papacy is to be considered as the Antichrist predicted by Paul,”4 is a familiar one. “Yet even before the reference of Antichrist to Popery was maintained, Mohammed[55] was already regarded by the divines of the Greek church…as the Antichrist predicted by Paul.”5

The power which restrained Antichrist evolved as well.

The restraining power by which the appearance of Antichrist is delayed, is usually considered [by the Church Fathers] to be the continuance of the Roman Empire (τὸ κατέχον) and its representative the Roman emperor (ὁ κατέχων). Some, however, as Theodorus Mopsuestius and Theodoret, understand by it τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν ὅρον, i.e. more exactly, the counsel of God to keep back the appearance of Antichrist until the gospel is proclaimed throughout the earth…Chrysostom chooses a third interpretation, that by the restraining power is meant the continuance of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit…

In recent times it has often been considered as objectionable to determine exactly the individual traits of the imagery used by Paul. Accordingly the representation of the apostle has been interpreted in a general, ideal, or symbolical sense. To this class of interpreters belongs Koppe, according to whom Paul, founding on an old national Jewish oracle, supported especially by Daniel, would describe the ungodliness preceding the last day, which already worked, but whose full outbreak was only to take place after the death of the apostle; so that Paul himself was the κατέχων.[57]6

Meyer’s NT Commentary continued:

Meyer’s NT Commentary

Google Translate
Similarly Storr (l.c.), who understands by the ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας [man of sin] “potestas aliqua, deo omnique religioni adversaria, quae penitus incognita et futuro demum tempore se proditura sit,” and by the preventing power the “copia hominum verissimo amore inflammatorum in christianam religionem.” Similarly Storr (l.c.), who understands by the ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας [man of sin] “some power, hostile to God and to all religion, which is completely unknown and will betray itself in the future at the last time,” and by the preventing power the “a multitude of men inflamed with true love into the Christian religion.”

Other opinions were cited: “Nitzsch (l.c.) thinks on the power of atheism first come to have public authority, or the contempt of all religion generally.”7 “Pelt…sums up his views in the following words”:8

Meyer’s NT Commentary

Google Translate
Mihi … adversarius illi principium esse videtur sive vis spiritualis evangelio contraria, quae huc usque tamen in Pontificiorum Romanorum operibus ac serie luculentissime sese prodidit, ita tamen, ut omnia etiam mala, quae in ecclesia compareant, ad eandem Antichristi ἐνέργειαν sint referenda. To me… it seems that the opposite principle is a spiritual force contrary to the gospel, which until now has revealed itself most clearly in the works and series of the Roman Pontiffs, so that even all the evils that appear in the church are to be referred to the same Antichrist ἐνέργειαν.
Ejus vero ΠΑΡΟΥΣΊΑ i. e. summum fastigium, quod Christi reditum qui nihil aliud est, nisi regni divini victoria,[59] antecedet, futurum adhuc esse videtur, quum illud tempus procul etiamnum abesse putemus, ubi omnes terrae incolae in eo erunt, ut ad Christi sacra transeant. Κατέχον vero cum Theodoreto putarim esse dei voluntatem illud Satanae regnum cohibentem, ne erumpat, et, si mediae spectantur causae, apostolorum tempore maxime imperii Romani vis, et quovis aevo illa resistentia, quam malis artibus, quae religionem subvertere student, privati commodi et honoris augendorum cupiditas opponere solet. But his ΠΑΡΟΥΣΊΑ i. e. the highest climax, which precedes the return of Christ, which is nothing else but the victory of the divine kingdom, [59] seems to be yet to come, since we think that time is still far off, when all the inhabitants of the earth will be there, to pass to the sacraments of Christ. Κατέχον, with Theodoretus, I think that it is the will of God restraining that kingdom of Satan, lest it break out, and, if we look at the middle causes, in the time of the apostles the power of the Roman government was especially strong, and in every age that resistance, which is usually opposed to the evil arts which seek to subvert religion, the desire to increase private advantage and honor.

According to [Pelt], the chief stress lies on ΤῸ ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ ἬΔΗ ἘΝΕΡΓΕῖΤΑΙ Τῆς ἈΝΟΜΊΑς [literally: the mystery already working of lawlessness]. Antichrist is a union of the individuality and spiritual tendency in masses of individuals. The revolt of the Jews from the Romans, and the fearful divine punishment in the destruction of Jerusalem, Nero, Mohammed and his spiritual devastating power, the development of the Papacy in the Middle Ages, the French Revolution of 1789, with the abrogation of Christianity, and the setting up of prostitutes on altars for worship, in the external world, as well as the constantly spreading denial of the fundamentals of all religious truth and morality, of the doctrines of God, freedom, and immortality, and likewise the self-deification of the ego in the internal world,—all these phenomena are the real precursors of Antichrist; but they contain only some of his characteristics, not all; it is the union of all these characteristics which shall make the full Antichrist.9

Ultimately, though I found some of them illuminating, Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer rejected the views developed in recent times:

It is evident that all these explanations are arbitrary. The Pauline description is so definitely and sharply marked, and has for its whole compass so much the idea of nearness for its supposition, that it can by no means be taken generally, and in this manner explained away.

While I’m grateful to Mr. Meyer for painstakingly collecting all of these opinions in one place, I don’t intend to play guess the identity of Antichrist as an individual person. That game scatters in my opinion, rather than gathering with the Lord Jesus: and whoever does not gather (συνάγων, a form of συνέχω) with me scatters (σκορπίζει, a form of σκορπίζω),10 Jesus said. So, I want to approach it differently.

Matthew Poole’s summation from his Commentary of the difficulty of knowing “what whithholdeth” the revelation of the man of lawlessness was very accessible:

And now ye know what withholdeth: the apostle it seems had told them, as of his coming, so of what at present withheld the revealing of him. And what this was is difficult to know now, though it seems these Thessalonians knew it: there are many conjectures about it. This I shall say in general:
1. It was something that the apostle thought not safe openly to declare in writing; else he would not have written of it so obscurely.
2. It was both a thing, and a person; a thing, to katecon, in this verse, that which withholdeth; and a person, as in the next verse, o katecwn, he who letteth.
3. It was also such a thing and such a person as were to be removed out of the way, not totally, but as they were hinderances [sic] of this revelation.

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible echoed Mr. Poole’s first point:

It is not known precisely what is referred to by the phrase “what withholdeth,” τὸ κατέχον to katechon. The phrase means properly, something that “holds back,” or “restrains”….Of this, the apostle says, they had had full information; but we can only conjecture what it was.

This seems to be a natural consequence of the assumption that Antichrist is an unknown individual from the future. Rather than assuming that Paul, the Holy Spirit and the New Testament are keeping something from us, I prefer to experiment with the idea that ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας or αμαρτιας (NET: the man of lawlessness; KJV: that man of sin [Table])11 and ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας (NET: the son of destruction; KJV: the son of perdition)12 are other words for ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία (NET: sin that lives in me; KJV: sin that dwelleth in me),13 τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν φθειρόμενον κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τῆς ἀπάτης (NET: the old man who is being corrupted in accordance with deceitful desires; KJV: the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts),14 ἐμοὶ τὸ κακὸν παράκειται (NET/KJV: evil…present with me)15 and ἡ…σὰρξ (NET/KJV: the flesh).16 I’ll work backwards through this.

The spirit is willing, but the flesh (σὰρξ) is weak,17 Jesus said of disciples who both believed and followed Him. The Greek word translated willing was πρόθυμον (a form of πρόθυμος): “ready, willing, eager, predisposed.” The Greek word translated weak was ἀσθενής: “weak, powerless; weak and easily defeated; sick, ill, unhealthy; disabled, physically weak, feeble, miserable; morally weak; weak in influence, without influence; structurally weak (e.g., weak stones unable to support).” What is born of the flesh (σαρκὸς, a form of σὰρξ) is flesh (σάρξ),18 He told Nicodemus; in other words, it is weak (ἀσθενής). And again, Jesus said to his disciples, The Spirit is the one who gives life; human nature (σὰρξ) is of no help!19

Flesh (σὰρξ) and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,20 Paul wrote the Corinthians. He elaborated on this point in his letter to the Romans (Romans 8:1-8 NET):

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death [Table]. For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened (ἠσθένει, a form of ἀσθενέω) through the flesh (σαρκός, a form of σὰρξ). By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (σαρκὸς, a form of σὰρξ) and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh (σαρκί, another form of σὰρξ), so that the righteous requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh (σάρκα, another form of σὰρξ) but according to the Spirit.

For those who live according to the flesh (σάρκα) have their outlook shaped by the things of the flesh (σαρκὸς), but those who live according to the Spirit have their outlook shaped by the things of the Spirit. For the outlook of the flesh (σαρκὸς) is death, but the outlook of the Spirit is life and peace, because the outlook of the flesh (σαρκὸς) is hostile to God, for it does not submit to the law of God, nor is it able to do so. Those who are in the flesh (σαρκὶ) cannot please God.

Prior to this, Paul had written, with my flesh (σαρκὶ, another form of σὰρξ) I serve the law of sin.21 [W]hen I want to do good, evil is present with me,22 he lamented as he characterized that evil as a different law in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members.23 For the flesh (σὰρξ) has desires that are opposed to the Spirit, and the Spirit has desires that are opposed to the flesh (σαρκός, another form of σὰρξ),24 he wrote to the Galatians. To the Ephesians he characterized this flesh as the old man who is being corrupted in accordance with deceitful desires.25 He also called this old man simply, sin that lives in me.26 And to the Thessalonians he described all of this as the man of lawlessness…the son of destruction.27

I’ll continue with this in another essay.

1 Mark 8:16b (NET) Table

2 Mark 8:15b (NET)

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Matthew 12:30b (NET)

11 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Table

12 Ibid.

13 Romans 7:19 Table

14 Ephesians 4:22

15 Romans 7:21

16 Galatians 5:17 Table

17 Matthew 26:41b (NET)

18 John 3:6a (NET)

19 John 6:63a (NET) Table

20 1 Corinthians 15:50b (NET) Table

21 Romans 7:25b (NET) Table

22 Romans 7:21b (NET)

23 Romans 7:23b (NET) Table

24 Galatians 5:17a (NET) Table

25 Ephesians 4:22b (NET)

26 Romans 7:17b (NET) Table, and 7:20b (NET) Table

27 2 Thessalonians 2:3b (NET) Table

The Day of the Lord, Part 6

Posted on by

This is a continuation of my consideration whether my assumption that Jesus called Judas Iscariot ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας (NET: the one destined for destruction) is like Jesus’ disciples’ discussion about having no bread1 after He said: “Watch out! Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod!”2

In another essay I began to look at John’s description of antichrist and many antichrists because Meyer’s NT Commentary stated that many of the Church Fathers had understood Paul’s description of the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction, as the Antichrist.

2 Thessalonians 2:3b, 4 (NET)

The Church Fathers
For [the day of the Lord] will not arrive until the rebellion comes and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction (ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας) [Table]. He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, and as a result he takes his seat in God’s temple, displaying himself as God [Table]. They correctly agree in considering that by the advent (2 Thessalonians 2:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:8), or the day of the Lord (2 Thessalonians 2:2), is to be understood the personal advent of Christ for the last judgment and for the completion of the Messianic kingdom. Also it is correctly regarded as proved, that the Antichrist here described is to be considered as an individual person, in whom sin will embody itself.

The last insight into antichrist I considered in another essay I titled “the antichrist…denies the Father and the Son.” John penned a contrast to this title in the final verse I quoted under that heading: The person who confesses (ὁ ὁμολογῶν) the Son has the Father also.3 His explanation of this point is my final insight:

4. …the spirit of the antichrist…refuses to confess Jesus

John wrote (1 John 4:1-3; 2 John 1:7 NET):

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that refuses to confess Jesus, that spirit is not from God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist (ἀντιχρίστου), which you have heard is coming, and now is already in the world [Table].

For many deceivers have gone out4 into the world, people who do not confess Jesus as Christ coming in the flesh. This person is the deceiver and the antichrist!

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.5 Though I might otherwise have focused on test (δοκιμάζετε, a form of δοκιμάζω) the spirits, this study has focused my attention on the many antichrists who went out from us.

1 John 2:18b, 19a (NET Parallel Greek) Table

1 John 4:1b (NET Parallel Greek)
καὶ νῦν ἀντίχριστοι πολλοὶ γεγόνασιν…ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθαν ὅτι πολλοὶ ψευδοπροφῆται ἐξεληλύθασιν εἰς τὸν κόσμον

1 John 2:18b, 19a (NET)

1 John 4:1b (NET)
so now many antichrists have appeared…They went out from us because many false prophets have gone out into the world

This is, admittedly, the first time I’ve made any strong connection between ἀντίχριστοι πολλοὶ (many antichrists) and πολλοὶ ψευδοπροφῆται (many false prophets). The connection is made primarily by John’s descriptions of antichrist and many antichrists, but also through the verbs ἐξῆλθαν (They went out) and ἐξεληλύθασιν (have gone out), forms of ἐξέρχομαι. I hadn’t thought of these many false prophets as those who went out from us before. Jesus warned, Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.6

Up until this moment my religious mind had limited my understanding of false prophets to “religious” things, to those who make false predictions about Jesus’ return or some other false teaching of Scripture. Combined with the many antichrists who went out from us, Jesus’ warning that whoever does not gather with me scatters (σκορπίζει, a form of σκορπίζω) and my initial insights into false wonders, however, I’m willing to modify that understanding.

Charles Darwin doesn’t appear to be one who went out from the visible church literally. “Darwin and his family had a lifetime involvement with the Church of England, and various dissenting establishments…His local activities in the village of Down paint a fascinating picture of a man who, despite his own divergent beliefs and uncertainties, was determined to support the church as a social institution.”7 This was partly explained by the existence of a state church in England: “A nominal adherence to the Anglican Church’s teachings was still essential for admittance to many of the elite cultural and political institutions of England. It was required to enter Oxford and Cambridge, for example, and an Oxbridge degree was often crucial, in turn, in securing a position in the most prestigious professions. As a young man, Charles went up to Cambridge in 1828 with the aim of completing the necessary studies to be a clergyman.”8

On the other hand, it is apparent that Aleister Crowley went out from the Plymouth Brethren. An entry in Wikipedia describing “The Confessions of Aleister Crowley: An Autohagiography” states: “In reference to his early years of being raised by fundamentalist Christians, Crowley explains how he became a rebel against conventional religion and how his behaviour and conflicts with authority figures contributed to his reputation as a dark magician. Whilst Crowley does not deny dabbling with demonic forces, his memoirs reveal that his aim was the progress and spiritual freedom of humanity.”9

E.O. Wilson, the controversial10 “father of sociobiology,” according to an entry11 in Wikipedia online:

…described his position as “provisional deism”[71] and explicitly denied the label of “atheist”, preferring “agnostic”.[72] He explained his faith as a trajectory away from traditional beliefs: “I drifted away from the church, not definitively agnostic or atheistic, just Baptist & Christian no more.”[45] Wilson argued that belief in God and the rituals of religion are products of evolution.[73] He argued that they should not be rejected or dismissed, but further investigated by science to better understand their significance to human nature. In his book The Creation, Wilson wrote that scientists ought to “offer the hand of friendship” to religious leaders and build an alliance with them, stating that “Science and religion are two of the most potent forces on Earth and they should come together to save the creation.”[74]

…In a New Scientist interview published on January 21, 2015, however, Wilson said that “Religion ‘is dragging us down’ and must be eliminated ‘for the sake of human progress'”, and “So I would say that for the sake of human progress, the best thing we could possibly do would be to diminish, to the point of eliminating, religious faiths.”[76]

An entry titled “Sociobiology” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online states:

Human behavioral ecology (HBE), or human evolutionary ecology, is the current evolutionary social science most closely related to Wilson’s sociobiological project; it is the project that is sometimes still referred to as “sociobiology” by some philosophers of science (Griffiths, 2008; Sterelny and Griffiths, 1999)…

To understand the purposes of the HBE project, let’s consider one of its classic examples: Kaplan and Hill’s (1992) work on prey choice strategies amongst the Ache foragers of Paraguay. Just as in non-human behavioral ecology, behavioral strategies in HBE are usually described as complex behavioral dispositions. Behavioral dispositions involve behavioral responses to local stimuli; behavioral strategies then involve producing a set of different responses to a set of different stimuli (i.e. the response conditions of the strategy). According to Kaplan and Hill, the Ache prey choice strategy involves choosing a variety of different potential prey items from the environment; whether or not a prey item is taken depends on a number of circumstances acting as the response conditions: for example, the presence of prey with certain specific features, such as the caloric return of the prey given the time necessary to process it (known as the profitability); the rate at which that prey occurs in the environment; whether or not the prey is encountered on their search; and the search time available on a foraging trip…

HBEs explicitly accept that social learning of general purpose reasoning may be responsible for human behavioral strategies such as the Ache’s.

This was followed immediately by a Human Behavioral Ecology “statement of faith”:

However, this is ultimately irrelevant; one way or another, natural selection has, in effect, “seen to it” that humans behave in ways that tend to maximize their reproductive success.

The Lord used statements like this in E.O. Wilson’s comments on Sociobiology to help wean me from any consideration of evolution as a plausible alternative to his creation of life. As for “means” (e.g., God used evolution to create life as we see it now), it’s not what the Scripture says. Perhaps, the benefit I’ve derived from considering each of these men as I followed Jesus through the Scriptures has made me slow (or even loathe) to recognize them as false prophets and antichrists. And that brings me at last to Friedrich Nietzsche.

According to an entry in Wikipedia online, Friedrich Nietzsche was the son of “a Lutheran pastor[15]…Academic records from one of the schools attended by Nietzsche noted that he excelled in Christian theology.”[17] The Lord used Nietzsche’s12 writings to help me understand my own unbelief. I wrote of Nietzsche in another essay:

When I consider the justice of God’s mercy in and through Christ I am reminded of Friedrich Nietzsche. Jesus said, Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.[30] The soul cannot be killed with weaponry. But Friedrich Nietzsche came about as close to being a soul killer as I can imagine a human being becoming. Who can calculate his devastating impact on the souls of academics and the intelligentsia? But if I imagine him in torment in hell for all eternity, cursing his nonexistent god, I realize that I can imagine no greater destruction of the personality I know as Friedrich Nietzsche than to find him one day clothed and in his right mind,[31] and sitting at the feet of Jesus.

This particular blog entry posted: May 25, 2013. The confirmation of this “no greater destruction” insight posted: December 14, 2022. It was the first time I really grappled with the differences between the mind of Christ and my religious mind vis-a-vis John 12:31, 32 (NET).

Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.

Before that study I could only see these as three independent projects on a to-do list. Afterward, I began to see the first two accomplished in the promise of the third. Present day scientists and philosophers would call that confirmation bias. Possibly so, but it’s the kind of confirmation bias that helps to keep me following Jesus through the Scripture.

Frankly, I would much rather tell you that I learned about the judgment of this world13 from Jesus’ words, explained in his promise, And I…will draw all people to myself,14 and then declared “that I can imagine no greater destruction of the personality I know as Friedrich Nietzsche than to find him one day clothed and in his right mind,[31] and sitting at the feet of Jesus.” The opposite, that I had this insight before I heard Jesus’ words (which I had read many times before), makes me feel stupid and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!15 And the prophet here was none other than the Lord Himself!

Granted, some of my stupidity and slowness of heart to believe is attributable to the fact that what I am believing now is contrary to my religion and even to my own religious mind. This confirmation bias is one of many that helps me to gain the courage to stand up to my religion and my own religious mind and say: “No, I would rather be wrong trusting Jesus’ words when I stand before Him in judgment, than right trusting yours.”

Having said that, I think it’s important to point out that John limited the terms antichrist, false prophets and deceivers (πλάνοι, a form of πλάνος) to those who do not confess Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh,16 to people who do not confess Jesus as Christ coming in the flesh.17 These are not terms John threw out at brothers and sisters who are slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. The resurrected Jesus described us as, You foolish people (ὦ ἀνόητοι).18 The Greek word ἀνόητοι is a plural form of the adjective ἀνόητος: “uneducated, low intelligence, unintelligent, lacking understanding; unwise, not thought on, unheard of; foolish, senseless.”

I’ll continue with this in another essay. A table comparing 2 John 1:7 in the NET and KJV follows.

2 John 1:7 (NET)

2 John 1:7 (KJV)
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, people who do not confess Jesus as Christ coming in the flesh. This person is the deceiver and the antichrist! For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

2 John 1:7 (NET Parallel Greek)

2 John 1:7 (Stephanus Textus Receptus)

2 John 1:7 (Byzantine Majority Text)
Ὅτι πολλοὶ πλάνοι ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸν κόσμον, οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί· οὗτος ἐστιν ὁ πλάνος καὶ ὁ ἀντίχριστος οτι πολλοι πλανοι εισηλθον εις τον κοσμον οι μη ομολογουντες ιησουν χριστον ερχομενον εν σαρκι ουτος εστιν ο πλανος και ο αντιχριστος οτι πολλοι πλανοι εισηλθον εις τον κοσμον οι μη ομολογουντες ιησουν χριστον ερχομενον εν σαρκι ουτος εστιν ο πλανος και ο αντιχριστος

1 Mark 8:16b (NET) Table

2 Mark 8:15b (NET)

3 1 John 2:23b (NET) Table

4 The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had ἐξῆλθον here, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had εισηλθον (KJV: are entered).

5 1 John 4:1 (NET)

6 Matthew 12:30 (NET)

8 Ibid.

10 Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, 1975, “Reception and controversy,” E. O. Wilson

11 “God and religion,” E. O. Wilson

13 John 12:31 (NET)

14 John 12:32 (NET)

15 Luke 24:25b (NET)

16 1 John 4:2, 3 (NET) Table

17 2 John 1:7 (NET)

18 Luke 24:25b (NET)