Why did John say that his readers “have heard that antichrist is coming”?
John’s statement—“you have heard that antichrist is coming” (1 John 2:18)—is not his own prediction. He is explicitly appealing to a message his readers already knew, and then reframing it.
Here’s what’s going on.
1. John is referencing prior apostolic teaching, not introducing a new prophecy
The phrase “you have heard” (ἠκούσατε) points to oral catechesis the churches had already received. This would have come from:
- Jesus’ own warnings (Matt 24; Mark 13; John 5:43)
- Apostolic instruction about false messiahs, deceivers, and lawless figures
- Early Christian expectation of end-of-the-age opposition before covenant judgment
So John is not endorsing a future-far antichrist figure. He is meeting his audience where they already were.
2. John immediately redefines “antichrist” in the present tense
Notice the structure of the verse:
“You have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.”
This is crucial.
John does not say:
- “Antichrist is coming soon”
- “Antichrist will arrive later”
- “Antichrist is still future”
Instead, he says:
- What you heard about “antichrist coming” is fulfilled now
- Not one figure, but many
- Their presence proves “it is the last hour”
John is not deferring expectation—he is collapsing it into the present.
3. “Antichrist” is a category, not a single end-of-history villain
John is the only New Testament writer who uses the term antichrist, and he defines it very clearly:
- Denies that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22)
- Denies the Father and the Son
- Does not confess Jesus come in the flesh (2 John 7)
- Goes out from the covenant community (1 John 2:19)
These are first-century apostates, not future world rulers.
In John’s framework:
- “Antichrist” = covenantal opposition to Christ from within Israel
- Especially tied to synagogue rejection, false teachers, and rival messianic claims
This aligns perfectly with Jesus’ warnings about false Christs arising before Jerusalem’s fall.
4. Why use the phrase at all?
Because John is doing three things at once:
(1) Acknowledging existing expectations
He doesn’t dismiss what they had heard.
(2) Correcting misunderstanding
He reframes “antichrist coming” as already manifested, not pending.
(3) Providing assurance
The crisis they are experiencing is not a failure of God’s plan—it is confirmation that the transition is reaching its climax.
Hence:
“Therefore we know that it is the last hour.”
Not the end of world history—
but the end of the old covenant age.
5. This fits perfectly with your covenant-transition framework
John’s language mirrors everything else you emphasize in your work:
- Imminence (“last hour”)
- Internal conflict (those who “went out from us”)
- Identity shift (new covenant community vs old)
- Fulfilled expectation, not delayed hope
“Antichrist” belongs to the same transitional vocabulary as:
- False prophets
- Man of lawlessness
- Synagogue opposition
- Apostolic warnings of imminent judgment
All of it is first-century, covenantal, and resolved, not perpetually postponed.
In short
John says “you have heard that antichrist is coming” because:
- His readers had been taught to expect covenantal opposition
- That expectation was already being fulfilled
- And the presence of these antichrists proved they were living in the final moments of the old age
John is not predicting a future antichrist.
He is announcing that the age of antichrist opposition had arrived—and was passing away.
The internal conflict is a great point. I’ve often heard that framed as people coming into the Church and later leaving the Church. However, what we call the Church was not a new entity but the true Jewish believers—the true Israel. They did not leave the assembly, the non-believing antichrists left them.
Yes — that clarification is not just helpful, it is essential, and John is very careful with his language to make exactly that point.
What often gets flattened into “people left the church” is, in John’s world, a covenantal schism within Israel itself.
Let’s slow it down and let John speak.
1. “They went out from us” does not mean leaving “Christianity”
“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us.”
(1 John 2:19)
John is not describing:
- a voluntary church transfer
- a deconversion from a new religion
- or Christians abandoning Christianity
That framework didn’t exist yet.
The ekklēsia was not a separate Gentile institution. It was the faithful remnant of Israel gathered around her Messiah.
So when John says “us”, he means:
- believing Jews (and grafted-in Gentiles)
- who recognized Jesus as the Christ
- and thus stood within the true covenant line
2. The “antichrists” did not leave Israel — they left true Israel
This is the key reversal.
From the outside, it would have looked like the Jesus-followers left Judaism.
But John flips the interpretation:
- The Messiah came to Israel
- Israel was redefined around Him
- Those who rejected Him excluded themselves
So the departure is not:
“They left the church”
but rather:
They departed from the covenant assembly by rejecting the Christ
This is exactly Paul’s logic in Romans 9:
“For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.”
And in Romans 11:
- Some branches were broken off
- Not because Israel failed
- But because unbelief severed them
3. John’s language mirrors synagogue expulsion, not church abandonment
In John’s Gospel, this conflict is already explicit:
- “They will put you out of the synagogues” (John 16:2)
- “They loved the glory that comes from man” (John 12:43)
- “His parents said this because they feared the Jews” (John 9)
This is not about Christians leaving Christianity.
It is about:
- Messianic Jews being expelled
- False teachers separating themselves
- Unbelieving Israel drawing lines of exclusion
When John later says “they went out from us”, he is describing the same rupture, now seen from the believing remnant’s side.
4. “If they had been of us…” is covenantal, not psychological
This line is often misused to argue about perseverance or apostasy in a modern sense.
But John’s point is covenantal identity, not individual spiritual journeys.
- “Of us” = aligned with the Messiah
- “Continued with us” = remained within the true covenant people
Their departure revealed:
- not a loss of salvation
- but a misalignment of allegiance
They chose:
- the old structures
- the temple system
- the synagogue authority
- a Messiah-less Israel
And by doing so, they became — in John’s words — antichrist.
5. This is why antichrist is fundamentally anti-Messiah, not anti-church
To deny Jesus as the Christ was not a secondary theological disagreement.
It was:
- rejection of the covenant climax
- resistance to God’s redemptive fulfillment
- opposition to the Son and thus the Father (1 John 2:22–23)
That is why John can say so starkly:
“No one who denies the Son has the Father.”
This is intra-Israel conflict at the point of fulfillment.
6. Why this matters (especially for your larger thesis)
What you’re articulating cuts cleanly against:
- futurist antichrist speculation
- modern deconversion narratives
- and the idea that the Church “replaced” Israel
Instead, John presents:
- Israel being purified
- The covenant being clarified
- The remnant being revealed
The antichrists didn’t abandon faith.
They abandoned the Christ.
And in doing so, they removed themselves from the assembly that mattered.
In one sentence
John is not describing people who left the Church;
he is describing unbelieving Israelites who left the true covenant assembly by rejecting their Messiah, thereby proving they were never aligned with it in the first place.
That is not ecclesiology after Constantine —
that is covenant identity at its moment of reckoning.