How does one read I John and come away concluding that the antichrist there isn't associated with speculation about the end of the world?

I don't know. Maybe by not reading it?

Slouching Toward Silicon Valley? The Antichrist Goes Mainstream

... It is a common mistake, however, to associate the antichrist exclusively with speculation about the end of the world. When this mysterious figure first appears, it is not in the apocalyptic visions contained in the last book of the Bible. Rather, it is mentioned a few pages earlier, in two short letters traditionally attributed, like Revelation, to the apostle John. The author condemns those who “do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh,” explaining that “any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.” ...

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

 -- I John 2:18

And he missed it. Oh well!

I don't think the author was too terribly interested in what I John has to say anyway, only in what he has to say, which I did not find terribly compelling. Read it and decide for yourself. 

As for I John, it is obviously mistaken that it was the end of the world, no less than Jesus was mistaken about the end of the world, so these antichrists in I John weren't actually a sign of that, but I John unequivocally took antichrists for signs of the end of the world, and himself believed it was the end of the world.

I John notably has not just one antichrist but many, analogous to the false christs and false prophets predicted at the end of the world in the little apocalypses of the gospels (Matthew 24, Mark 13). And I John 4:1 explicitly states that "many false prophets are gone out into the world."

Both of these things are evidence that in I John's mind the antichrist is connected conceptually to those gospel narratives about the end of the world. That they are also false christs in his mind is proved by the fact that he says that they are docetists who deny, to borrow the Fourth Gospel's language, that the word was made flesh in the incarnation. 

So I John is nothing if not speculation about the end of the world, and you'd have to not read it to miss it. 

It is also notable that I John does not explicitly use the typical word for sign, let alone any word for sign, that we might expect him to use if in fact he is the same author as the author of the Fourth Gospel, who uses the language of signs like water. This is a little puzzling, but it does not detract from the main point that I John knows from the presence of antichrists that it is the last hour.

Be that as it may, Jesus after the flesh unequivocally repudiated such signs, but the new theology's Christ of faith which sprang up after him didn't just embrace signs.

For it, Jesus was the sign. 

And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. ... And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;

-- Luke 2:25f., 34

Oddly enough this Jesus grew up to say otherwise:

No sign shall be given to this generation (Mark 8:12).

Sign-seeking and sign-performing were the unequivocal evil business of the devil, this Jesus insisted (Matthew 4:1ff.; 16:1; Mark 1:13; 8:11; Luke 4:1ff.; 11:16).

But the empty tomb swamped that narrative.  It only exists side by side in the text which has come down to us in tension with the new narrative which now dominates it in which:

The resurrection became the ultimate sign, the sign of the prophet Jonah (Matthew 12:39; 16:4; Luke 11:29), justifying elaborate timetables for a second coming foretold by signs (Matthew 24:3; Mark 13:4; Luke 21:7); Jesus' miracles in the Fourth Gospel themselves become positively described as signs; Wonder-working becomes the sign of an apostle.

Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

-- II Corinthians 12:12 

The message of Jesus in the flesh by contrast was like a bright flash, exposing the world's utter corruption and proclaiming its imminent transformation. But it came suddenly without signs to be observed (Luke 17:20f.), and especially not an antichrist.

The kingdom of God was already there among them, he said, and . . . they missed it.  

Matthew's infancy narrative says Jesus' family was made rich by the wise men, Luke's knows no wise men and says the family offered the sacrifice for the poor

 

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem ... And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

-- Matthew 2:1, 11

And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

-- Luke 2:22ff.

And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

-- Leviticus 12:8

This is just one of the many problems raised by the infancy narratives, but it's also a problem specifically for Matthew who tells us Jesus grew up to insist

... That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. ... It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

-- Matthew 19:23f.

That is one indication that Matthew's infancy narrative is an independent unit from the rest of his composition, which may have begun originally with chapter three with John the Baptist just like Mark, and that it was artlessly added after the fact.

From that one may take the Lukan infancy narrative as a corrective response, more harmonious with the Jesus who grows up to say

But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.

-- Luke 6:24

A Jesus angry with the exploitation of the poor shows up in the Cleansing of the Temple narratives, specifically overturning the tables of the sellers of doves in Matthew 21, Mark 11, and John 2.     

Mark's Jesus eschews signs, so it makes sense that Mark omits any mention of Jesus' nativity such as Matthew and Luke have relying on Isaiah

 

 The virgin birth, according to Isaiah, is a sign, after all.

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign [σημεῖον -- LXX]; Behold, a virgin [παρθένος -- LXX] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 

-- Isaiah 7:14

Behold, a virgin [παρθένος] shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.  

-- Matthew 1:23

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign [σημεῖον] unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

-- Luke 2:11f.

There shall no sign [σημεῖον] be given unto this generation.

-- Mark 8:12

 

The angels, once again, were mistaken

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. 

-- Luke 2:14

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:  

-- Luke 12:51

Liberal Phil Jenkins reviews Tom Holland's DOMINION in Christianity Today, spending zero time on its central thesis about the poor, talking instead about what he wants to talk about, which is classic Phil Jenkins

Oh look! A deer!

Tom Holland's DOMINION: HOW THE CHRISTIAN REVOLUTION REMADE THE WORLD is reviewed here by Phil Jenkins:

In Holland’s view, the teachings of Jesus constituted an ethical revolution that would gradually transform human consciousness, to the extent that we today find it hard to imagine credible alternative systems. ... Christianity mattered because it taught respect (or even veneration) for the poor and the oppressed. That implied the historically unprecedented exaltation of humility, forgiveness, and love.

A proper examination of the thesis would discuss the extent to which the antecedents of Jesus' teaching in Judaism as well as Jesus' personal historical circumstances do or do not explain it, but you won't get that from Phil Jenkins.

The ethical revolution of the good news preached to the poor (Matthew 11:5, Luke 4:18, Luke 7:22) is itself part of a long backstory which gradually transformed Judaism as its society degenerated and came to manipulate and oppress its own people. The rise of the prophets as social critics cannot be understood apart from Israel's mistreatment of the poor. Jesus comes on the scene as a prophet himself at the end of this long period of cultural degeneration, the poor bastard child of parents who could not afford the required lamb offering for him (Leviticus 12:1ff.).

[T]hey brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

-- Luke 2:22ff.

The cleansing of the Temple's "thieves" (Matthew 21, Mark 11, Luke 19), the warnings against wealth (Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 18), the favoritism for the have-nots (Matthew 5, Luke 6, Luke 14, Luke 16), the transvaluation of poverty as a good in the call to discipleship (Luke 14:33), and the woes pronounced against the haves (Luke 1, Luke 6, Luke 12, Matthew 23) cannot be understood apart from his personal experience, let alone from the cultural history.

The basis of culture is in the cult, and Jesus attacked it. Jesus is a revolutionary in that he found in the Temple cult the central means by which the poor were oppressed, but he was a religious, not a political, revolutionary, and specifically an eschatological revolutionary. That he expected apocalyptic judgment on this system by the Son of Man and his armies and its replacement with a heavenly Temple, a Jerusalem descending from above, shows this.

It is also what repulses interpreters, who would rather talk about, and make it about, anything else.   

Jesus did not become Messiah at his baptism, as Bill Johnson says, but was the Christ from his birth according to Luke

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

-- Luke 2:10f.

The near poverty of Jesus' family was shown by what Mary offered for her purification after Jesus' birth

Doves in America today run about $25 while ewe lambs run upwards of $500

 

 

  

And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

-- Luke 2:22ff.

And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: ... And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

-- Leviticus 12:6,8

Perhaps it was Jesus' personal experience of exploitation of his own family's poverty which lurks in the background to this passage where he speaks directly to the sellers of doves:

And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. 

-- John 2:14ff.

See also:

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,  

-- Matthew 21:12

And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; 

-- Mark 11:15

The detail is missing in Luke 19, where the cleansing of the temple is only a summary affair.

Luke does not keep the story straight: And on earth peace . . . or division?

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!"

-- Luke 2:14

"Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division."

-- Luke 12:51

Pick Your Poison

Sunday's sermon was based on 2 Corinthians 12:1 ff., but what caught my attention was the Gospel appointed for the day, from Mark 6:1 ff., where Jesus sends out the disciples "by two and two," commanding them to take "nothing for their journey, save a staff only" and to "be shod with sandals."

The parallel in Matthew 10 contradicts these details, where Jesus says "provide . . . neither shoes, nor yet staves . . ." (vss.9-10), whereas Luke fails to mention the staves altogether, but agrees with Matthew about the footwear (10:4).

Neither Mark nor Luke represent the episode in the explicit eschatological terms which thoroughly infuse Matthew's parallel account. Indeed, Matthew transfers much of the eschatological imagery and language which Mark reserves for the yet somewhat distant time of his "little apocalypse" in Mark 13 into a much earlier period of the ministry of Jesus. In Matthew 10:23 Jesus says, "For verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." This latter is the startling saying which so preoccupied the imagination of Albert Schweitzer's Quest of the Historical Jesus. As such these differences are a reminder of how the author of Matthew is at pains to correct the record of Mark. Luke also does this in his own way and at a later date, and openly states it as his aim in providing his own orderly and accurate account, the existence of other similar declarations of the gospel (presumably Mark and Matthew) notwithstanding (Luke 1:1 ff.). The Synoptics thus represent a stream of tradition worked and reworked because of perceived but unstated deficiencies, the fact of which underscores the importance of the work of redaction criticism and of the need to let the individual compositions speak for themselves and be understood on their own terms as much as is possible.

Every critic will have his favorite problem texts from the Bible. One of mine is from 2 Peter 2:6-8 where the reader is reminded about righteous Lot, who "vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds" in Sodom and Gomorrah. Jesus is made to recount this story of Lot's escape from God's judgment on those cities in Luke 17:28 ff. But neither author seems to be in the least bothered by the seamy conclusion of the story in Genesis 19 whereby "both the daughters of Lot" were "with child by their father" (vs. 36). Having lost their husbands (!) to the fire from heaven and being unable to find new ones in their mountain hideaway, they got their father senseless drunk (on successive evenings, at least) to get children by him without his knowledge. The apples don't fall far from the pillar of salt, so to speak. What a family.

And never mind the internal problems with the story in Genesis 19. Are the daughters virgins (vs. 8) even though they have husbands (vs. 14)? Or has some considerable but unstated period of time intervened? Lot at length finds himself in difficult straights, barricaded in his house, but does a righteous man offer to throw his own flesh and blood to a mob of rapists in the street to protect the messengers of God within? It's as if none of this is known, or matters, to the authors of 2 Peter and Luke.

Another wonder is the famous example from Titus 1:12 f., which approvingly quotes the ancient maxim "The Cretans are alway liars." If you need a proof text for stereotyping an ethnic group, there you have it. Some say such reputations were justly deserved, however politically incorrect it may be today to say so openly. But it is hard to imagine the Paul of the Epistle to the Romans saying such a thing: "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men" (12:18).

Some problems are more serious than others, for example, the difficulty with identifying Cyrenius the governor of Syria from Luke 2:1 f. It bears repeating, however, that such problems are not unique to the Bible. Tacitus' understanding of the Jews in his Histories is riddled with mistakes, but we don't give up in despair of learning from him about matters nearer to Rome because of it. It should more often be considered that the weaknesses we discover on the page are more nearly a reflection of our own, and tell us more about the human condition than we care to admit, the theme of the sermon, had I been paying better attention.