Hi Attano:
There is a simpler way to look at it:
The Antichrist need not eve. need to be opened, for Sacrafice of the absolute can be read on it’s face, as the negation of Greek ideals. But it is more, of shows a relation of proof between God and Man, a proof pf love: the angel appeared both times, in the case of Abraham it was tappearance to Abraham, who would and could naturally desist from such ultimate proof of love, buy god? He could mot allow himself to be let off, since OT was the test of the literal proof of love toward his very own , a test of which was his own test of a doubt about the intent toward his own creation.
The angel could only appear as a symbol, a metaphor of the whole parable of being as a creation of love! That is what it’s stake.
The Antichrist is a return to a negation of that, a destruction of the Greek elements that the Talmud incorporated into it’self, that bound god, to question the very reasons behind and beneath the whole idea of the test of faith, based on formidable gaps between the creature, the Creation and god. Here, the split between the first and the second covenent, had to ignore the purported effects of god’s denied fear of life, and take on the appearance of a real albeit opposite force to content with, where both, work, ultimately later on, with a new structural heresy involved: the Gnosticism prescription in between working things out, hermetically but without proof through temptation and deliverance through redemption.