G.K. Beale, «The Old Testament Background of the «Last Hour» in 1 John 2,18», Vol. 92 (2011) 231-254
This article argues that the «last hour» in 1 John 2,18 is best understood against the Old Testament background of Daniel 8,12. In particular, the only eschatological uses of «hour» (w#ra) in all of the Greek Old Testament occur in the «Old Greek» of Dan 8,17.19; 11,35.40; 12,1. There the «hour» (w#ra) refers to the specific eschatological time when the opponent of God’s people will attempt to deceive them. John sees Daniel’s prophecy as beginning to be fulfilled in the deceptive work of the Antichrist(s) who has come among the churches to which he is writing.
246 G.K. BEALE
1. Availability to Author and Readers
All scholars acknowledge that the Book of Daniel existed be-
fore the time of the first century A.D. in both Hebrew-Aramaic and
Greek, and that it was available in written and oral form. If de-
pendence on some form of the synoptic eschatological discourse is
accepted, then it may even be possible that the author of 1 John
expected his readers to accept Daniel as Scripture (in the light of
Mark 13,14 and Matt 24,15). This becomes a likelihood, since the
Bible of the early church was the Greek OT, which, of course, con-
tained Daniel within it.
2. Volume from the OT Background
It is true that the connection of the “last hour†in 1 John with
the use of “hour†and “end†in Daniel is not identical in that
Daniel does not express that precise phrase. Nevertheless, nearly
the precise phrase does occur in 1 John 2,18 (“hour of the end†in
Dan 11,40 and “an hour of the time of the end†in Dan 8,19 — both
phrases using synteleia instead of esxatov). In addition, we
¥ ¶
have found that esxatov is closely linked in context to wra
¶ ™
(Dan 8,19), as well as being in close syntactical connection to it
(Dan 10,14). It would seem to be a pedantic criticism to say that
since the phrases in Daniel and 1 John 2,18 are not exactly iden-
tical, that this weakens the viability of a case for a direct literary
relationship. While one cannot conclude that an allusion to Daniel
is beyond doubt, the unique combination of wording makes it at
least plausible and, we think, even more probable than the more
common suggestion of a shared apocalyptic motif (on which cf.
n. 2), especially in the light of the following points of this section.
It is possible that though the author intended the allusion, which
we think is the case, the readers would not have perceived it, but it
seems likely that if the author did intend it, then he would have
expected, at least, some hearers to pick up on it initially and others
to grasp it later on subsequent readings.
In addition, the criterion of “volume†also includes a New
Testament text’s connection to unique ideas in the Old Testament.
The combined ideas of the eschatological hour, an individual oppo-
nent who represents other opponents, and the motif of deception in
1 John 2,18 is unique to Daniel 8 and 11 in the Old Testament, as
FOLLOW US