Hippolytus of Rome and the Eschatological Exegesis of the Early Church

By David G. Dunbar

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois 60015

The second century was a time of intense eschatological concern for the church. Martin Werner in his book The Formation of Christian Dogma has argued that the non-fulfillment of the Parousia precipitated a crisis which led to a fundamental reshaping of the understanding of the Christian revelation.[1] While Werner’s thesis represents an exaggeration of the significance of the crisis,[2] it is clear that the unexpected extension of history was the cause of speculation, disagreement, and doctrinal and institutional development among the early Christians. The rise of Montanism in the latter part of the second century witnessed the concern of many to preserve the primitive eschatological fervor of the church in the face of growing institutionalism and the decline of the extraordinary operations of the Spirit.[3] Montanist preachers declared the imminent return of the Lord, and some even went to the point of specifying a definite time after which the Parousia would surely occur.[4] The influence of Montanism was such that orthodox church leaders could not avoid the issues raised. At the close of the century in Rome, a scholarly churchman by the name of Gaius opposed Montanist enthusiasm by denying the authenticity of the Apocalypse—apparently because of its importance to the Montanists—ascribing it to the Gnostic Cerinthus.[5]

Eschatological interest was therefore already in the wind at the opening of the third century when the shock of renewed persecution fell upon the church in the tenth year of Septimus Severus (either August 201 to August 202 or April 202 to April 203).[6] This had its usual salutary effect of reminding Christians that their citizenship was in heaven: the result was an increase in interest in the events and chronology of the end times. One Christian writer named Judas composed an exposition of the Seventy Weeks prophecy of Daniel. The fulfillment of the prophecy was made to coincide with the opening of the Severan persecution, and the Antichrist was expected shortly to appear.[7] It is not surprising that this period also produced the most extensive treatment of biblical eschatology found among the Fathers. The author of this material is Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-c. 236), a student of Irenaeus, whose exegetical writings were largely devoted to apocalyptic themes. In this paper we will examine the leading theme in the Hippolytean view of the end times—his speculation regarding the Antichrist. The earlier works of Hippolytus are especially significant for our study. His Commentary on Daniel, the oldest known continuous commentary on any book of the bible by an orthodox Christian,[8] dates from the period 201–204, either during or shortly after the Severan persecution. It supplies important expositions of passages which Hippolytus relates to the coming of the Antichrist. From a slightly earlier period comes the treatise On Christ and Antichrist which gives an even more detailed eschatological exposition than the Commentary. Of some relevance too are the fragments from his treatise On Matthew 24, his comments On the Apocalypse, and his polemical work Chapters Against Gaius.

I. The Antichrist

The traditions which form the basis of Hippolytus’ speculation on the Antichrist have a long and complex history. A brief overview of the material will be useful as a basis for our study.[9]

1. The Earlier Development of the Theme

In a strict sense it is anachronistic to speak of a tradition regarding the Antichrist prior to the end of the first Christian century since the first use of the title “Antichrist” occurs in the Johannine epistles (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7). Yet the ideas which were gradually woven into this theme were present, not only earlier in the NT, but also in Jewish apocalyptic and in the OT.

The OT background for the Antichrist tradition finds its basic motif in the historical opposition between Israel, as the people of the living God, and the pagan nations which surround Israel and oppose themselves to God’s kingdom. This general opposition takes concrete form in the persons of specific rulers and particular nations who, in the prophetic literature especially, may serve as types of a final rebellion of the kingdoms of the world against the kingdom of God. In this way history becomes a model of the eschaton.[10] Thus, in the prophecy of Daniel, we find the well-known problems of interpretation surrounding the figure of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. In chapter eleven, especially, the movement from history to eschatology becomes most apparent as the Seleucid opponent of Judaism becomes a type of the Antichrist.[11] Several other aspects of the picture of the Antichrist become stock-in-trade from the time of the prophets onward. Above all perhaps is the arrogance which is to characterize this God-opposing tyrant. The prophet Ezekiel cries against the king of Tyre: “In the pride of your heart you say, ‘I am a god; I sit on the throne of a god in the heart of the seas.’ But you are a man and not a god, though you think you are as wise as a god” (Ezek 28:2 NIV). Likewise, Isaiah thunders against the king of Babylon:

You said in your heart, “I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.” But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit [Isa 14:13–15 NIV].

These and similar passages were to become favorites in the later tradition.[12] In addition to the pride of the Antichrist, we find also the theme of idolatry and the concomitant idea of the persecution and martyrdom of all those who refuse to worship the God-opposer. The story of the colossal statue made by Nebuchadnezzar and the miraculous deliverance of the three Jewish youths from the fiery furnace is interpreted typologically by the Fathers in reference to the times of the Antichrist.[13]

In the later Jewish literature the leitmotiv becomes the identification of the Antichrist with the Roman Empire. In 2 Baruch 36:5; 39:3; 40:1–2 the last leader of Rome is brought to Mount Zion, judged before the Messiah, and put to death. This may have been a reference to the Roman general Pompey, but the identification is not clear.[14] Likewise, in 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) 11:40–46 Rome is the eschatological opponent of God which must be destroyed before the earth can be refreshed again. 4 Ezra 5:6 possibly refers to the Antichrist in the words: “one whom the dwellers upon the earth do not look for shall wield sovereignty.”[15] In the Sibylline Oracles the Antichrist tradition first becomes linked with the idea of Nero redivivus who returns from the east to destroy Rome.[16] The reference in Sibylline Oracles 3:63ff to Beliar, who works miracles and deceives many, may also reflect the Nero myth, or perhaps it indicates the elaboration of the Antichrist tradition in terms of the figure of Simon Magus.[17]

We have noted already that the NT literature introduces the term “Antichrist” only in the Johannine epistles, where it is used in both a collective and an individualistic sense and where we are probably obligated to distinguish the eschatological Antichrist in the strict sense from his forerunners who are already at work in the world.[18] Apart from the specific designation of this figure, however, the basic tradition is present elsewhere. In the Olivet discourse “the Abomination of Desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet” (Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14) is related to the tribulation and apostasy of the last time. In 2 Thess 2:1–12 the Antichrist is described as the “lawless one” or “son of destruction” who exalts himself against God, performs miraculous signs and wonders to deceive the world, and is finally destroyed by the returning Christ. In the book of Revelation the basically religious motif of the Antichrist theme—the beast out of the earth (Rev 13:11–18)—is merged with a political interpretation which views the Antichrist—the beast out of the sea (Rev 13:1–10)—as the head of the Roman Empire.[19]

In the extracanonical Christian writings leading up to Hippolytus there are many references to the Antichrist. Polycarp interprets the concept in a noneschatological sense, relating it to the docetic heresies after the fashion of the Johannine epistles.[20] The Epistle of Barnabas, on the other hand, admonishes believers to moral steadfastness in view of the soon-appearing of “the final stumbling-block” who is equated with the Danielic “little horn.”[21] Likewise, in the Didache, the imminence of the Parousia calls forth a warning concerning the world-deceiver who shall appear “as a Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders…and shall commit iniquities which have never been since the world began.”[22] In the apocryphal Ascension of Isaiah the Antichrist appears as “Beliar, the great prince, the king of this world” who is incarnated as Nero redivivus.[23] Justin Martyr looks for the imminent appearing of the Danielic Antichrist who will appear for a time, times, and half a time. Justin rejects the Jewish interpretation that a “time” is equivalent to one hundred years, but he does not make explicit his own understanding.[24] Tertullian, like Polycarp, connects the appearance of the Antichrist with the many false prophets of docetism already at work in the world (1 John 4:1–3); however, unlike Polycarp, he is clear that these prophets are only the forerunners of the eschatological Antichrist, who, as the Arch Deceiver, will come “in all power, and with lying signs and wonders” to mislead those who “believed not the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thess 2:9–12).[25]

Among the writers prior to Hippolytus, the most elaborate discussion of the Antichrist is given by Irenaeus in book five of his Against Heresies. Here the Antichrist is an unrighteous king, the little horn of Dan 7:8, who reigns over the earth during the last three-and-one-half years of the seventieth week (Dan 9:27).[26] With Irenaeus the tradition begins that the Antichrist will arise from the tribe of Dan,27 and the blasphemous self-exaltation of the Antichrist in the temple (2 Thess 2:4) is interpreted literally as occurring in the Jerusalem temple (rebuilt!).[28] The broader theory of recapitulation is applied to the lawless one: “And there is therefore in this beast, when he comes, a recapitulation made of all sorts of iniquity and of every deceit, in order that all apostate power, flowing into and being shut up in him, may be sent into the furnace of fire.”[29] Irenaeus speculates on the meaning of the numerical riddle 666, but he thinks it improper to pronounce positively on the subject.[30] We should note, finally, that he adds two passages to the standard NT proof texts on this theme: in John 5:43, the other “who shall come in his own name” is understood as the Antichrist, as is also the unjust judge of Luke 18:2–8 “who neither feared God, nor regarded man.”[31]

2. Hippolytus on the Antichrist

Most of the early traditions regarding the Antichrist are collected in the writings of Hippolytus where they receive further development. Since he was a student of Irenaeus, we are not surprised to find that he employs the same chronological scheme as his mentor: the seventieth “week” is interpreted eschatologically[32] and the career of the Antichrist is placed within these seven last years of world history.[33] The seventieth week is important as it provides the conceptual and chronological principle by which Hippolytus is able to coordinate his interpretations of Daniel, Revelation, and the Synoptic Apocalypse. An analysis of his exegesis yields a threefold perspective on the Antichrist in his relationship to the world, to Judaism, and to the church.

The Antichrist will emerge as a world leader only after the dissolution of the Roman empire. The empire is that which “hinders” the appearance of the man of lawlessness (2 Thess 2:7), and only after the collapse of the empire into ten kingdoms—the “ten horns” of the fourth beast (Dan 7:7)—will the Antichrist—the “little horn”—arise.[34] It is important to recognize the close connection which Hippolytus sees between Rome and the kingdom of the Antichrist. The latter not only succeeds the former, but it also represents a continuation or revival of Rome. Interpreting the vision of Rev 13:11–18 regarding the beast arising from the land, Hippolytus writes:

And the words, “he exercised all the power of the first beast before him, and caused them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed” signify that, after the manner of the law of Augustus, by whom the empire of Rome was established, he too will rule and govern, sanctioning everything by it, and taking greater glory to himself. For this is the fourth beast, whose head was wounded and healed again, in its being broken up or even dishonored, and partitioned into ten crowns; and so he [the Antichrist], being treacherous, will heal and revive it. For that is what is meant by the prophet when he says, “he will give life to the image, and the image of the beast will speak.”[35]

It is apparent from this text that Hippolytus understands the “first beast,” the “beast arising out of the sea” (Rev 13:1), to be Rome, fallen but now eschatologically revived.[36] It is possible that Hippolytus believed that the Antichrist himself would be a Roman; this would perhaps explain his preference for the name Λατεῖνος as an explanation of the mystical number of the beast.[37]

We are given the following scenario for the Antichrist’s rise to power. The Antichrist establishes himself first in the east where he raises up the kingdom of the Jews.[38] Then he forms an alliance with Edom, Moab, and Ammon, who, because of their relationship with the Jews, are the first nations to recognize the Antichrist as king.[39] He next embarks on a program of imperialistic expansion which is directed first against the coastal areas of Tyre and Sidon (Isa 23:4–5); then an advance toward the south leads to the downfall of three of the “ten homs”: Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia (Dan 11:43).[40] In the execution of his grand designs the Antichrist will prove invincible:

He will gather together all his strength, from the east even to the west. Those whom he calls, and those whom he does not call, will go with him. He will make the sea white with the sails of his ships, and the plain black with the shields of his armaments. And whoever will oppose him in war will fall by the sword.[41]

The Antichrist emerges in the works of Hippolytus not only as a political tyrant but also (and even primarily) as a religious figure, a false Messiah. As such he bears a special relationship not only to the church but also to Judaism. D’Als states correctly that “the most conspicuous feature in the prophetic figure of the Antichrist is, according to Hippolytus, the diabolical intention to imitate in everything the Son of God.”[42]

Christ is a lion, so Antichrist is also a lion; Christ is a king, so Antichrist is also a king. The Savior was manifested as a lamb; so he too, in like manner, will appear as a lamb, though within he is a wolf. The Savior came into the world in the circumcision, and he will come in the same manner. The Lord sent apostles among all the nations, and he in like manner will send false apostles. The Savior gathered together the sheep that were scattered abroad, and he in like manner will bring together a people that is scattered abroad. The Lord gave a seal to those who believed on him, and he will give one in like manner. The Savior appeared in the form of a man, and he too will come in the form of a man. The Savior raised up and showed his holy flesh like a temple, and he will raise up a temple of stone in Jerusalem.[43]

We should elaborate several points. Of first importance is the Jewish origin of the Antichrist. Like his teacher Irenaeus, Hippolytus regards Dan as the tribe of the Antichrist. Moses says, “Dan is a lion’s whelp, and he will leap from Bashan”; Jacob prophesies concerning the Antichrist, “Let Dan be a serpent, lying on the ground, biting the horse’s heel,” and “Dan will judge his people”; and Jeremiah also speaks, “From Dan we are to hear the sound of the swiftness of his horses: the whole land trembled at the sound of the neighing, of the driving of his horses.”[44]

The Antichrist will appear to the Jews as their Messiah. He will regather the people of the dispersion and restore their land to its original borders. He will declare himself to be their king and will rebuild Jerusalem and the temple. The Jews will worship him as the Christ, forgetting the words of the prophet which call him a deceiver and a liar.[45] That the Jews will incite the Antichrist to persecute the saints is foretold in the parable of the unjust judge (Luke 18:2–5):

By the unrighteous judge, who fears not God, neither regards man, he means without doubt Antichrist, as he is a son of the devil and a vessel of Satan. For when he has the power, he will begin to exalt himself against God, neither in truth fearing God, nor regarding the Son of God, who is the judge of all. And in saying that there was a widow in the city, he refers to Jerusalem itself, which is a widow indeed, forsaken of her perfect, heavenly spouse, God. She calls him her adversary, not her Savior; for she does not understand that which was said by the prophet Jeremiah: “Because they obeyed not the truth, a spirit of error will speak to this people and to Jerusalem” [Jer 4:11].[46]

Thus we find that Hippolytus presents the Antichrist in the guise of a political tyrant who is responsible for the revival of the Roman empire, but that he shows him also as the pseudo-Messiah and savior of Judaism. The two motifs certainly present elements which are not easily reconciled with one another, yet Hippolytus makes no effort to harmonize these two strands of the tradition or to explain how they can be referred to the same individual. He does not consider the expedient of a double Antichrist adopted by certain later Christian writers.[47]

The Messianic pretensions of the Antichrist will necessarily place him in conflict with the church. It is only the second half of the seventieth week that is strictly the time of “great tribulation,” the time of the persecution of the saints.[48] However, already in the first half-week, the growing antagonism between the church and the Antichrist is illustrated in the careers of the “two witnesses” (Rev 11:3). As the Scriptures present two advents of Christ, one being in humiliation, and another in glory, so also two forerunners are indicated. Christ’s first advent was signaled in the appearance of John the Baptist; his second will be heralded by the coming of Elijah who, according to Mal 4:5, will return prior to the Day of the Lord to preach repentance to the nations.[49]

The eschatological ministry of Elijah will be shared by Enoch.[50]

These two will preach in sackcloth for 1260 days—the first halfweek:[51] “These, then, will come and proclaim the manifestation of Christ that is to be from heaven; and they will also perform signs and wonders in order that men may be put to shame and be turned to repentance for their excessive wickedness and impiety.”[52] The two prophets will oppose the Antichrist even as Moses and Aaron withstood Pharaoh and the Egyptians, and their refusal to glorify the Antichrist will lead to their eventual martyrdom.[53] The passing of the two witnesses marks the end of the first half of the seventieth week and opens the way for the Abomination of Desolation.

The Abomination is mentioned in the Bible in four passages: Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11 and Matt 24:15 (Mark 13:14). According to Hippolytus there are two different prophecies involved: the first is Dan 11:31 which refers (according to Theodotion’s text[54]) to the “Abomination which suppresses,” βδέλυγμα ἠφανισμένον; the second is the “Abomination of Desolation,” βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως, which is mentioned in the other three passages.[55] Hippolytus understands the text of Dan 11:31 as having been fulfilled historically in the pogroms of Antiochus IV Epiphanes during the years 168–165 BC. The Abomination of Desolation referred to in Dan 9:27; 12:11 and in the Synoptic Apocalypse awaits an eschatological fulfillment in the Antichrist. It may be asked whether Hippolytus did not also interpret the “Abomination” of Matt 24:15 (Mark 13:14) in relation to the destruction of the temple by the Romans in AD 70. It appears that in a proper sense he did not. The phrase of Luke 21:20, “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies,” is understood to prophesy the siege of Vespasian against the city, but Hippolytus clearly distinguishes Luke’s account from the eschatological perspective of Matthew and Mark.[56] Yet even in regard to the latter two, he is willing to see a kind of prefulfillment in the devastations of the Romans.[57]

But specifically what (or who) is the Abomination of Desolation? This describes the Antichrist himself when he reaches the zenith of his career at the middle of the seventieth week. He is the abomination because he is a messianic pretender and because he blasphemously claims divine prerogatives for himself. “He will place his image in all the churches, which are in all the world, so that anyone who desires to pray brings incense before the image before he prays.”[58] The Antichrist is the Abomination of Desolation because he will desolate the entire world.[59] The Desolation has particular reference, of course, to the church. The trampling underfoot of the Holy City for 42 months (Rev 11:2) is placed in the last half-week and is interpreted as the oppression of the righteous by the Antichrist.[60] The cessation of sacrifice and offering (Dan 9:27) is understood spiritually of the prayers and (perhaps) the eucharistic offerings of the church which will cease under the fierce persecutions of the end-time.[61]

The last half of the seventieth week will be a time of great tribulation the like of which the church has never seen (Matt 24:21).[62] The Jews will incite the Antichrist to a systematic, world-wide persecution of the Christians. The Antichrist will issue decrees against the saints that they should be cut off everywhere because of their refusal to worship him.[63] Believers will not be able to buy or sell unless they bear the name of the Antichrist on their hands or his mark on their foreheads.[64] Hippolytus describes the terrors of the future in terms shaped not only by biblical apocalyptic but also by the historic persecutions of the early church;[65] the eschatological picture is thus colored by a vividness which it would not have otherwise.

Such trouble, such distress, will then occur in all the world! All believers everywhere carried away and slaughtered in every city and country; the blood of the righteous poured out, men burned alive, and others thrown into the streets; all left unburied to be eaten by dogs; virgins and wives seduced by impudent speech and shamefully deceived and taken by force; the graves of the saints opened, their remains dug up and dispersed over the plain; blasphemies committed.[66]

During this period of persecution God will make special provisions for the care of his people. The flight of the apocalyptic woman into the desert to avoid the wrath of the dragon (Rev 12:1–6, 13–17) is an allegory of the eschatological situation of the church.[67] As this woman is given two wings of a great eagle with which to fly into the wilderness, so the church has its faith in Jesus Christ, “who, in stretching forth his holy hands on the holy tree, unfolded two wings, the right and the left, and called to him all who believed on him, and covered them as a hen her chicks.”[68] As the earth helped the woman by swallowing up the river which the dragon had poured out after her, so God will help the church by diverting the armies of the Antichrist from their march-objective.[69] The Lord will also cause at that time a shortening of the days (Matt 24:22) so that the three years of persecution will be like three months.[70] Furthermore, God will send plagues against the godless which will not affect the saints, “even as the Egyptians were destroyed by the plagues, but the Hebrews were spared from them, though they resided in the same place.”[71] The persecution of the church will continue until Christ returns to destroy the Antichrist with the manifestation of his coming and consume him with the breath of his mouth (2 Thess 2:8).[72] As the persecution of the faithful and the period of Antichrist’s ascendancy both coincide with the last half of the seventieth week, they must be reckoned to last 1260 days.[73] The book of Daniel, however, provides a more exact figure: “And they will allow the Abomination of Desolation 1290 days. Blessed is the one who survives and comes to the 1335 days” (Dan 12:11–12).[74] The true length, then, of the reign of the Antichrist is 1290 days.[75] The 45 days which separate the 1290 and the 1335 days are probably understood as a kind of interregnum between the collapse of the Antichrist’s kingdom and the full manifestation of the kingdom of Christ. The Antichrist, who intends to inherit the kingdom together with Christ, will not live through the entirety of this period. The cry of Isaiah—”let the Wicked One be taken away that he may not behold the glory of the Lord” (Isa 26:10)—is an oracle concerning the final destruction of the Antichrist. For believers the forty-five day interlude will constitute a second Pentecost, and those who persevere to the end of this time will inherit the kingdom of heaven.[76]

II. Analysis

If we examine this segment of Hippolytean eschatology from an historical perspective, two observations seem especially relevant: we must recognize the effect of the church’s historical circumstances on the development of doctrine, and we must also recognize the significant influence of earlier eschatological traditions on the views of Hippolytus.

(1) The intense interest of Hippolytus in eschatology is not coincidental; nor is it simply a function of his larger exegetical interests, which placed him (together with Origen) in the first rank of the biblical scholars of the third century. As we have suggested in the introduction to this paper, his eschatological system is an outgrowth of the theological controversies of the second century, particularly those sparked by the rise of Montanism, and also a reflection of the recent political situation in Rome—the Severan persecution. The second of these factors seems to have been particularly decisive.

Hippolytus shows less concern for the end itself (the millennium, the resurrection and judgment, etc.) than for the time of tribulation which is to come before the end. Thus, it is significant that in his primary exegetical treatises—On Christ and Antichrist and the Commentary on Daniel—there is no discussion whatever of millennial views. Only in his Chapters Against Gaius does he present a forthright attack on amillennialism, and even here his own position is so muted as to be unclear.[77] What is the source of this strong interest in the period preceding the end? Probably it lies in the fact that Hippolytus found in the Severan persecution a situation which dovetailed closely with the eschatological woes described in biblical apocalyptic: the empire which persecuted the church in his day was the same empire (revived) which would oppress the church in the end-time. It is true that he did not equate the circumstances of his own day with those of the eschaton;[78] nevertheless, these circumstances seem to have provided a focus and guide for his own understanding. Undoubtedly the context of persecution is also responsible, in part, for the strongly anti-Roman cast of Hippolytean eschatology. The close connection which he sees between the existing empire and the future kingdom of the Antichrist is most appropriate to a time of intense persecution. Such a dim view of the empire would be less likely at times when the church enjoyed a happier relationship to the civil authorities.

(2) The second observation relates to the influence of tradition on the eschatology of Hippolytus. For him, Scripture is the touchstone of truth. Failure to give close attention to Scripture leads to self-deception and false teaching.[79] Hippolytus shows a particular fear of the corruption of truth by extrabiblical traditions. In this he is at one with the other orthodox writers of the late second and third centuries who reacted vigorously to the Gnostic claims of an esoteric tradition independent of Scripture.[80] It is not sufficient, however, simply to counter heretical teachings with those of Scripture, for even the heretics use the Bible and corrupt it to their own ends. Thus, there is need to oppose not only esoteric traditions but also individualistic misunderstandings of Scripture. Like Irenaeus before him, Hippolytus finds the solution to the problem in the doctrine of apostolic succession. It is the apostolic tradition, transmitted faithfully and, therefore, guaranteed by the succession of the bishops, which insures the proper interpretation of Scripture.[81]

Given such an understanding of the interplay between Scripture and tradition, we would expect to find in Hippolytus not only a strong appeal to the Bible but also a pronounced reliance on the earlier eschatological exegesis of the church. Such a reliance is what we do find—especially a reliance on Irenaeus. Thus, Irenaeus is the source not only for specific points of Hippolytean exegesis[82] but also for the overall eschatological approach. The major patterns of historical-eschatological understanding so important to Hippolytus—the succession of world-empires in chapters 2, 7 and 8 of Daniel, the eschatological interpretation of the Seventy Weeks prophecy, and the creation-week typology—are already present in Irenaeus.[83] There is, therefore, not a great deal of new material in Hippolytus. He does develop a few original themes; but by and large he is not an innovator but a preserver and collector of what has gone before. This suggests that in Hippolytus we find a kind of “main-line” eschatology which may have been quite widespread during the closing decades of the second century.

Notes

1. M. Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma (rev. ed.; New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1957).
2. J. Pelikan (The Christian Tradition [Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press, 1971- ] 1.123-24) has described Werner’s main thesis as a “gross exaggeration of the evidence” and as “based on too simplistic a view of the role of apocalyptic in the teaching of Jesus and the early church.” Cf. H. E. W. Turner, The Pattern of Christian Truth (London: A. R. Mowbray, 1954) 20–23.
3. Pelikan, Tradition, 98-99.
4. Hippolytus (Dan 4.19 [GCS 1/1.234]) quotes such a preacher who announced, γινώσκετε ἀδελφοί, ὅτι μετὰ ἐνιαυτὸν ἡ κρίσις μέλλει γίνεσθαι.
5. P. de Labriolle, La crise montaniste (Paris: Ernest Leroux, Editeur, 1913) 278–85.
6. T. D. Barnes, “Legislation Against the Christians,” JRS 58 (1968) 41.
7. Eusebius Hist. eccl. 6.7.
8. most ancient commentary which treats the biblical text in a continuous fashion is that of the Gnostic Heracleon on the Gospel of John. Fragments of this commentary have been preserved by Origen in his own commentary on John. The works of Hippolytus will be cited according to the following abbreviations: Dan. Commentary on Daniel; Anti. On Christ and Antichrist; Matt 24 On Matthew 24; Apoc. On the Apocalypse; Gaius Chapters Against Gaius; The translations in this article follow generally those found in ANF, vol. 5.
9. The secondary literature on the Antichrist tradition is extensive and only selected works are mentioned here. The classic treatment remains W. Bousset, The Antichrist Legend (London: Hutchinson, 1896). An abbreviated and revised form of this material is found in Bousset, “Antichrist,” Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. J. Hastings; New York: Scribners, 1908–26) 1.578-81. Useful for its concise summary of the data is the excursus in R. H. Charles, Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (ICC, 2 vols; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920) 2.76-87. Dealing specifically with the biblical materials is B. Rigaux, L’Antéchrist et l’opposition au royaume messianique dans l’Ancien et le Nouveau Testament (Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1932). Dealing primarily with the later development of the Antichrist tradition are R. K. Emmerson, Antichrist in the Middle Ages (Seattle: University of Washington, 1981) and H. D. Rauh, Das Bild des Antichrist im Mittelalter. Vom Tyconius zum Deutschen Symbolismus (Münster: Aschendorff, i973).
10. Rauh, Das Bild, 21, 25, 29.
11. Ibid., 36-37; cf. Rigaux, L’Antichrist, 160-62. This is a highly debated judgment, of course. That 11:36ff should be related exclusively to Antiochus Epiphanes is held by various commentators: G. R. Driver, J. A. Montgomery, N. A. Porteous, M. Stuart. That the verses have exclusive (or at least ultimate) reference to the Antichrist is held by J. G. Baldwin, C. F. Keil, E. J. Young. Calvin understands the verses to refer to Rome.
12. 2 Thess 2:4 may be an allusion to one or both of these passages. They are linked together by Hippolytus three times in his discussions of the Antichrist: Anti. 17–18 (GCS 1/2.12-14); 53 (GSC 1/2.35); Dan. 4.12 (GCS 1/1.218). Isa 14:19–21, which is part of the prophet’s denunciation of the king of Babylon, is also applied to the Antichrist in Dan. 4.56 (GCS 1/1.328-30).
13. E.g. Irenaeus Haer. 5.29.2.
14. D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964) 277–78.
15. APOT, 2.569; Russell, Method, 278.
16. Sib. Or. 5:137–51; 5:361–70; 4:137–39. Most of the Sibyls come from Christian hands; however, books 3–5 are considered to have Jewish origin, though laced with Christian interpolations; see Russell, Method, 54-55. For notes on the development of the legend of Nero redivivus, see Charles, Revelation 2.80–81.
17. APOT 2.380; Russell, Method, 278. For the connection between Simon Magus and the tradition of the Antichrist, see Bousset, Legend, 147-50.
18. 1 John 2:14. See the comments of Rigaux (L’Antéchrist, 386).
19. A majority of modern interpreters have seen in the political features of the Antichrist a reflection of the Nero redivivus myth, although P. Minear (“The Wounded Beast,” JBL 72 [1953] 93–101) has shown that this is open to a number of objections exegetically.
20. Polycarp Phil. 7.1.
21. Barn. 4.3-6, 9–10.
22. Did. 16.4.
23. Asc. Is. 4.1–4. Another apocryphal reference to the Antichrist may be found in T. Dan 5:6, which describes an alliance between Beliar and the tribe of Dan. R. H. Charles (The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs [London: Adam and Charles Black, 1908] 128–29) believes that this is the basis of the tradition that the Antichrist will arise from the tribe of Dan. The text, however, is quite obscure and we would expect a more explicit statement—if this is actually a reference to the Antichrist—from a document which probably originated late in the second century AD; see M. DeJonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition and Origin (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953) 121–25.
24. Justin Martyr Dial. 32; cf. ibid., 110.
25. Tertullian Marc. 5.16.
26. Irenaeus Haer. 5.25.1, 3, 5.
27. Ibid., 5.30.2.
28. Ibid., 5.25.2.
29. Ibid., 5.29.2 (ANF 1.558).
30. He suggests as possibilities ᾿Ευάνθας (giving no explanation of its meaning), Λατεῖνος (suggesting a possible connection of Antichrist with the Roman empire), and Τειτάν (the best in his judgment as it consists of six letters, is quite old, and accounted by many as a divine name). It is probable that Irenaeus associates the last name with the Titans of Greek mythology who waged war against the gods. Ibid., 5.30.3.
31. Ibid., 5.25.4.
32. “By the one week, therefore, he [Daniel] meant the last week which is to be at the end of the whole world” (Anti. 43 [GCS 1/2.27]). The more common view among the early Fathers was the non-eschatological interpretation of the seventieth week which saw the terminus ad quem either in the death of Christ or in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70; e.g. Barn. 16.6; Clement of Alexandria Str. 1.125-26; Tertullian Jud. 8; Julius Africanus Chron. 50. On the early history of interpretation of Dan 9:24–27 see F. Fraidl, Die Exegese der siebsig Wochen Daniels in der alten und mittleren Zeit (Graz: Leuschner & Lubensky, 1886), and L. E. Knowles, “The Interpretation of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel in the Early Fathers,” WTJ 7 (1945) 136–60.
33. Anti. 43, 47, 60 (GCS 1/2.27-28, 30, 40–41).
34. Anti. 25 (GCS 1/2.17-18); Dan. 4.12 (GCS 1/1.216).
35. Anti. 49 (GCS 1/2.31-32).
36. In Apoc. 11 (GCS 1/2.233-34) the first beast whose wound is healed (Rev 13:3) is interpreted of the kingdom of the Antichrist. There is good reason, however, to contest the Hippolytean authenticity of the fragment. See Prigent, “Les fragments du De Apocalypsi d’Hippolyte,” TZ 29 (1973) 326–28.
37. Anti. 50 (GCS 1/2.34). Hippolytus follows Irenaeus in suggesting three possibilities: Τειτάν, ᾿Ευάνθας, and Λατεῖνος.
38. Ibid., 25 (GCS 1/2.18).
39. Ibid., 51 (GCS 1/2.34-35); Dan. 4.54 (GCS 1/1.324). Notice that this interpretation is apparently derived from the phrases: καὶ οὗτοι σωθήσονται ἐκ χειρὸς, ᾿Εδώμ καὶ Μωὰβ καὶ ἀρχν̀ υἱῶν ᾿Αμμών (Dan 11:41), and καὶ ἐπὶ Μωὰβ πρῶτον τὰς χεῖρας ἐπιβάλλουσιν, οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ ᾿Αμμὼν πρῶτοι ὑπακούσονται (Isa 11:14).
40. Anti. 52 (GCS 1/2.35); Dan. 4.49 (GCS 1/1.312).
41. Anti. 15 (GCS 1/2.12). Here Hippolytus quotes from an unknown source—”another prophet.”
42. A. d’Als, La théologie de saint Hippolyte (Paris: G. Beauchesne, 1906) 183.
43. Anti. 6 (GCS 1/2.8).
44. Anti. 14–15 (GCS 1/2.11-12); see also Hippolytus, On the Blessings of Moses 19 (PO 27.72-73).
45. Dan. 4.49 (GCS 1/1.312-14).
46. Anti. 57 (GCS 1/2.37-38).
47. The double Antichrist tradition appears in Commodian and Lactantius; see Bousset, Legend, 79-81.
48. Anti. 47 (GCS 1/2.30); Dan. 4.50 (GCS 1/1.314-16).
49. Anti. 44–46 (GCS 1/2.28-30).
50. Enoch and Elijah are probably the most common identifications of the two witnesses in the later tradition; see Bousset, Legend, 203-9. Bousset finds the Enoch-Elijah identification already in Irenaeus Haer. 5.5.1. However, this appears to be a misreading of the context. The earliest evidence for this interpretation, therefore, would be Hippolytus Anti. 43 (GCS 1/2.27-28) or Tertullian Anim. 50.
51. Anti. 43, 47 (GCS 1/2.27-28, 30).
52. Anti. 46 (GCS 1/2, 29–30).
53. Gaius 6 (GCS 1/2.245).
54. The Septuagint version of Daniel was generally avoided by the ancient church which regarded it as an overly free paraphrase rather than a translation and preferred Theodotion’s version in its place. See Jerome Dan. (prologue and notes on Dan 4:6).
55. Dan. 4.54 (GCS 1/1.322). This is an interesting example of the effect of a particular version on the shaping of a theological position. The linguistic point could not have been made from the Septuagint which reads ἐρημώσεως; in the three Daniel passages (ἐρημώσεων in Dan 9:27).
56. Dan. 4.17 (GCS 1/228); Gaius 6 (GCS 1/2.244-45).
57. Matt 24 1 (GCS 1/2.197): “The Abomination of Desolation is the image of Caesar which was placed before the altar in Jerusalem. This also, he says, is what will happen in the time of the Antichrist.” In light of his distinction between Luke’s account and that of Matthew and Mark it seems that Hippolytus regarded the events of AD 70 only as an illustration of the prophecy but not its proper fulfillment. “Was Jerusalem durch die Römer widerfuhr, ist also nur ein episodenhaftes Vorspiel der satanischen Entweihung in höchster Vollendung, wie sie der Antichrist gegen die Kirche in der Endzeit ausüben wird. ‘Die Drangsal,’ deresgleichen es noch nie gegeben hat (Matt 24:21), auch zur Zeit Vespasians bei der Zerstorung Jerusalems nicht, wird erst in der letzten Zeit durch den Antichrist über die Kirche hereinbrechen” (A. Hamel, Kirche bei Hippolyt von Rom [Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1951] 201).
58. Matt 24 1 (GCS 1/2.197).
59. Dan. 4.50, 54 (GCS 1/1.316, 322).
60. Gaius 5 (GCS 1/2.244).
61. Dan. 4.35 (GCS 1/1.280); Gaius 6 (GCS 1/2.245). It is not clear whether Hippolytus also gave a spirituauzing interpretation to “the temple” (2 Thess 2:4) or whether he followed the literalistic exegesis of Irenaeus. Fragment 6 against Gaius could well be construed in the latter sense; whereas, the generally spiritualizing approach to Dan 9:27 and Matt 24:15ff favors the former.
62. Gaius 6 (GCS 112.245).
63. Anti. 58 (GCS 1/2.39).
64. Dan. 4.50 (GCS 1/1.318).
65. Ibid., 4.51 (GCS 1/1.318): “For that which has happened in part, ought to give us an idea of that which will come.” On the merging of history and eschatology in the description of the great tribulation, see J. Neumann, Hippolytus von Rom in seiner Stellung su Staat und Welt (Leipzig: Veit, 1902) 39–44, 89–93.
66. Dan. 4.51 (GCS 1/1.318).
67. Anti. 60–61 (GCS 1/2.40-42); Matt 24:15-16 (GCS 1/2.207-8); Apoc. 4–10 (GCS 1/2.232-33).
68. Anti. 61 (GCS 1/1.42).
69. Apoc. 9 (GCS 1/2.233).
70. Matt 24 6 (GCS 1/2.202).
71. Gaius 1, 3 (GCS 1/2.241-42).
72. Anti. 63 (GCS 1/2.43); Dan. 4.55 (GCS 1/1.326); Gaius 6 (GCS 1/2.245).
73. Anti. 63 (GCS 1/2.42).
74. Ibid., 62 (GCS 1/2.43); Dan. 4.50, 55 (GCS 1/1.316, 324–26).
75. Matt 24 6 (GCS 1/2.201): “the duration of the time of the Antichrist is three years and seven months.”
76. Dan. 4.55 (GCS 1/1.326).
77. Thus the chiliasm of Hippolytus is affirmed by H. Bietenhard (“The Millennial Hope in the Early Church,” SJT 6 [1953] 19–20); L. Gry (Le millénarisme dans ses origines et son développement [Paris: Alphonse Picard et fils, 1904] 94–95; and Neumann (Staat und Welt, 70, 76), but denied by d’Als (La Théologie, 198-99) and L. Atzberger (Geschichte der christlichen Eschatologie [Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1896] 278–80).
78. Indeed, Hippolytus marks a distinct turning point in the church’s eschatological outlook. In his works we find an explicit rejection of the concept of imminency in regard to the Parousia. He employs the creation-week typology according to which the world is expected to endure for 6000 years—six “days” of 1000 years each. The birth of Christ occurred, according to Hippolytus, in the year 5500 after creation; therefore, the Parousia cannot take place until the remaining 500 years have elapsed (Dan. 4.23 [GCS 1/1.242-441). For the development of this typology in Jewish apocalyptic and its adoption by Christian writers, see J. Daniélou, “La typologie millenariste de la semaine,” VC 2 (1948) 1–16. For the significance of the rejection of imminency in the eschatology of Hippolytus see my article, “The Delay of the Parousia in Hippolytus” forthcoming in VC.
79. Dan. 4.18-20 (GCS 1/1.230-36). In this case the particular error is the misunderstanding of the biblical teaching regarding the Parousia.
80. G. W. H. Lampe, “The Early Church,” in Scripture and Tradition (ed. F. W. Dillistone; London: Lutterworth, 1955) 40–41.
81. Refutation 1. proem. “Die διάδοχοι sind μετέχοντες διδασκαλίας. Als Inhaber des apostolischen Lehramts sind sie Bürgen der apostolischen Tradition, und zwar exklusiv…. Damit liegen auch die Normen der Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift in der Hand des Bischofs” (Hamel, Kirche, 166); see also Lampe, “The Early Church,” 45.
82. For example, Hippolytus and Irenaeus are the only writers of the second and third centuries to interpret Isa 26:10 and Luke 18:2–6 in reference to the Antichrist (Irenaeus Haer. 5.35.1; ibid., 5.25.4; cf. Hippolytus Dan. 4.55 [GCS 1/1.326]; Anti. 57 [GCS 1/2.37-39]). Likewise, Jer 8:16 is taken as an oracle concerning the appearance of the Antichrist (Irenaeus Haer. 5.30.2; Hippolytus Anti. 15 [GCS 1/2.12]) by both writers; elsewhere the same interpretation is found only in the (probably later) pseudo-Hippolytean treatise On the Consummation of the World 19.
83. Irenaeus Haer. 5.25-28.