The greek behind "Anti-Christ"

[Conductor42]

I had a thought earlier today, but I would need to check back with the original greek to verify whether or not this could be true. Anywho, the greek word christos (that's the word for Christ, right?) is equivalent to the hebrew moshiach, and both mean annointed, right?

Well, what is the meaning of whatever prefix is before christos in anti-christ?
Could the word, as a whole, be translated as unannointed, instead of anti-christ?

[John Reece]

Well, what is the meaning of whatever prefix is before christos in anti-christ?
Could the word, as a whole, be translated as unannointed, instead of anti-christ?

The meaning of the prefix [greek]anti[/greek] in the noun [greek]anticristoV[/greek] may have either of two senses, per BDAG:

• (1) indicating that one person of thing is, or is to be, replaced by another, instead of, in place of

• (2) indicating that one thing is equivalent to another, for, as, in place of

The prefix does not bear the sense of un- in unanointed.

[Conductor42]

So would you say that the translation of 'anti' is not entirely accurate?

[John Reece]

So would you say that the translation of 'anti' is not entirely accurate?

Why would I say that?

[Rdr. Arsenios]

The meaning of the prefix [greek]anti[/greek] in the noun [greek]anticristoV[/greek] may have either of two senses, per BDAG:

• (1) indicating that one person of thing is, or is to be, replaced by another, instead of, in place of

• (2) indicating that one thing is equivalent to another, for, as, in place of

The prefix does not bear the sense of un- in unanointed.

That is correct - I would add that it does not imply [eg necessarily] the idea of being AGAINST Christ...

So it means the "Instead-of-Christ"...

And in the Tradition of the Church, it has one understanding [among many] that may be relevant here, and that is that the anti-Christ will be encountered within the soul of the believer, that as one progresses toward enlightenment and theosis, all that one has operating within oneself that is operating motivationally "instead of" Christ, will be brought out in the open, and defeated... And the fight is unrelenting, and to the end, and is a matter of life and death... And as well, that the only weapon that can defeat it is genuine humility born of obedience within the body of Christ...

Arsenios

[Chytraeus]

That is correct - I would add that it does not imply [eg necessarily] the idea of being AGAINST Christ...

So it means the "Instead-of-Christ"...

And in the Tradition of the Church, it has one understanding [among many] that may be relevant here, and that is that the anti-Christ will be encountered within the soul of the believer, that as one progresses toward enlightenment and theosis, all that one has operating within oneself that is operating motivationally "instead of" Christ, will be brought out in the open, and defeated... And the fight is unrelenting, and to the end, and is a matter of life and death... And as well, that the only weapon that can defeat it is genuine humility born of obedience within the body of Christ...

Arsenios

Wow, and I thought that the Orthodox always had such a solid doctrine of the Church, but here, an enemy of the Church, according to Scripture, is interpreted on an utterly individualistic level. No wonder the OC is making such progress in America, they are individualistic, just like contemporary Americans.

The oldest understanding of the antichrist is that he is one who puts himself in the place of Christ, claiming for himself the worship of the Church that only Christ diserves. Scripture says he will even take a throne in the Church, meaning that he will claim a position of authority in the Church. Then he will claim to have authority that Scripture says only Christ has, that is as judge over who may or may not enter heaven. For this reason Martin Luther said that the Pope of the RC church was antichrist. He had a position of authority in the church, he claimed to exclusively hold the keys to the kingdom and therefore be able to determine who could and could not enter heaven. He even demands that people bow down before him and kiss his ring. Now, he claims to do all these things as the Vicar of Christ, but this word Vicar almost has the same meaning in Latin that Anit has in Greek, so he almost claims the title of anitchrist for himself.

But, before protestants get too arolgant, they too have many anitchrists. Their greatest theologican are often kinds of antichrists, as the claim biblical authority for many doctrines that are really just the logical deductions of man, then they claim that one is not a Christian and therefore not saved if they do not agree with these doctrines they invented.

However, Paul and John seem to say that at the end of the first creation age there will come one man who will take a special position of authority in the midst of the church, who will deceive many, who will use world wide control over religion to manipulate many governments to his purposes, and that when he is destroyed by God, the end will come. I suspect that this will be the Pope who finally brings most of the protestant churches and even many Orthodox groups back under the authority of Rome, but that is just a guess. He may rather be the next president of the World Council of Churches, which also would not suprise me, except that they have very little real power now. All we know for certain is that his influence will be so great that
"even the elect would be deceived, if it were possible."

[John Reece]

That is correct - I would add that it does not imply [eg necessarily] the idea of being AGAINST Christ...

So it means the "Instead-of-Christ"...

And in the Tradition of the Church, it has one understanding [among many] that may be relevant here, and that is that the anti-Christ will be encountered within the soul of the believer, that as one progresses toward enlightenment and theosis, all that one has operating within oneself that is operating motivationally "instead of" Christ, will be brought out in the open, and defeated... And the fight is unrelenting, and to the end, and is a matter of life and death... And as well, that the only weapon that can defeat it is genuine humility born of obedience within the body of Christ...

Arsenios

I'll buy that.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Wow, and I thought that the Orthodox always had such a solid doctrine of the Church, but here, an enemy of the Church, according to Scripture, is interpreted on an utterly individualistic level. No wonder the OC is making such progress in America, they are individualistic, just like contemporary Americans.

Well now, before you go off all high nosed and mighty-dog on me, would you mind remembering that at the beginning of the post I wrote:

...it has one understanding [among many] that may be relevant here...

There are many levels to most Scripture, and I was addressing the discipleship level here, and at that, but one Orthodox theologumenon concerning it...

Goodness!

Arsenios

[Conductor42]

Well, your definition seems to say 'instead of' as a good overall definition. While this entity is also against (anti) christ, the word as you've explained it doesn't mean anti-christ. Do you follow?

[John Reece]

Well, your definition seems to say 'instead of' as a good overall definition. While this entity is also against (anti) christ, the word as you've explained it doesn't mean anti-christ. Do you follow?

What you refer to as "your definition" is, first of all, not my definition (it is that of BDAG); and, secondly, it is the general definition of the prefix rather than the definition of the compound noun [greek]anticristoV[/greek].

I for one do not think [greek]anticristoV[/greek] is well-defined by BDAG, or by most interpretors for that matter.

The noun occurs only in the letters of John, in which it is described in terms unlike either the Beast in Revelation or the Man of Sin/Lawlessness in Thessalonians; yet -- the radical difference not withstanding -- the latter two are equated with the noun ([greek]anticristoV[/greek]) that occurs nowhere in the scriptures other than in the letters of John.

To my mind, that's a triumph of mythology over exegesis.

The description of multiple [greek]anticristoi[/greek] ('antichrists') in 1 John is more akin to the [greek]yeudocristoi[/greek] ('false christs') in Matthew 24:24 than to either the Beast in Revelation or the Man of Sin/Lawlessness in Thessalonians.

[Chytraeus]

What you refer to as "your definition" is, first of all, not my definition (it is that of BDAG); and, secondly, it is the general definition of the prefix rather than the definition of the compound noun [greek]anticristoV[/greek].

I for one do not think [greek]anticristoV[/greek] is well-defined by BDAG, or by most interpretors for that matter.

The noun occurs only in the letters of John, in which it is described in terms unlike either the Beast in Revelation or the Man of Sin/Lawlessness in Thessalonians; yet -- the radical difference not withstanding -- the latter two are equated with the noun ([greek]anticristoV[/greek]) that occurs nowhere in the scriptures other than in the letters of John.

To my mind, that's a triumph of mythology over exegesis.

The description of multiple [greek]anticristoi[/greek] ('antichrists') in 1 John is more akin to the [greek]yeudocristoi[/greek] ('false christs') in Matthew 24:24 than to either the Beast in Revelation or the Man of Sin/Lawlessness in Thessalonians.

Actually you go too far here. The beast in Revelation and the Man of Lawlessness in Thessalonians are the ultimate of all that John expresses with the word antichrist in his epistles. The belief that there is only one antichrist at the end of time, and why spell check on my computer keeps wanting to capitalize the word, is an invention of relatively late times, a brain child of dispensationalism. That there are many antichrists is certain, and they all are like the Beast who is the Man of Lawlessness, who is the ultimate antichrist. Since it is a description, and not a name, I refuse to let spell check capitalize it. Unfortunately, there has been a great deal of mythology built up over the term. But to insist on limiting it to the specific uses in the epistles of John is to fail to recognize what it really means to be anitchrist. "He who is not with me is against me." Or as Bob Dylan put it in one of his few sober moments, "You'll either serve the devil or you'll serve the Lord, but you gotta' serve somebody."

[eschaton]

Did Martin Luther believe in mythology? For the first eighteen hundred years of Christianity it was taken for granted that passages in Revelation, Daniel, and 2nd Thessalonians were about the Antichrist. Many of the early reformers believed the pope was the Antichrist. For a scholarly study of the Antichrist before the reformers see Antichrist in the Early Church by William C. Weinrich, editor of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture.

http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1171

For represenitive views of the early church on the Antichrist read Hippolytus' treatise on Christ and Antichrist or Irenaeus' Book V of Against the Heresies at ccel.org.

I think we need to be careful when we start labeling the faith of the saints and martyrs mythology.

[Chytraeus]

Did Martin Luther believe in mythology? For the first eighteen hundred years of Christianity it was taken for granted that passages in Revelation, Daniel, and 2nd Thessalonians were about the Antichrist. Many of the early reformers believed the pope was the Antichrist. For a scholarly study of the Antichrist before the reformers see Antichrist in the Early Church by William C. Weinrich, editor of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture.

http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1171

For represenitive views of the early church on the Antichrist read Hippolytus' treatise on Christ and Antichrist or Irenaeus' Book V of Against the Heresies at ccel.org.

I think we need to be careful when we start labeling the faith of the saints and martyrs mythology.

I think you read more into what I said than what I meant. When Martin Luther called the pope antichrist, he was referring more to the office than to the specific man in the office. The pope claimed to be able to determine who could and could not be saved, as he claimed to personally hold the "Keys to the Kingdom". He excommunicated and anathematized people, Luther for one, for preaching the gospel, and claimed to be doing so in the name of Christ, as Christ's Vicar. For these things Luther called the pope antichrist. In all of these things, nothing has changed, so the accusation still stands. The mythology I was speaking of was the belief that a single man would alone fulfill the "prophecy" of the antichrist.

I own the William C. Weinrich book, but it is unfortunately packed, as I will be moving in a few weeks. He is a dear friend of mine and I have already found a great deal worth study in that book. Of course, he only edited and translated it. It is certainly worth while that the early church understood the "Man of Lawlessness" and the beast in Revelation as references to antichrist. This kind of puts a plug in the know-it-alls who would limit all discussion of antichrist to those few references in John's epistles. Since many of those early church writers knew the Apostles, especially John, you would think that they knew what they were talking about in this area.

[RanRan]

I think you read more into what I said than what I meant. When Martin Luther called the pope antichrist, he was referring more to the office than to the specific man in the office. The pope claimed to be able to determine who could and could not be saved, as he claimed to personally hold the "Keys to the Kingdom".

Scripture makes it clear that the anitchrist is a man not an office. And was alive at the time of writing about him. Nero fits the bill much better than an 'office.'

Every Sunday Lutheran ministers speak in Christ's stead while declaring absolution. "I forgive you.' not 'He forgives you.' Speaking as or for Christ is not exclusive to the Pope.

As far as the the keys to the kingdom - no Lutheran minister that I know would deny those belong to the church. Now the Pope wears those keys on his belt - but that's about the extent of being 'personally held.' It's all a bit of a trope for both sides, isn't it?

[Chytraeus]

Scripture makes it clear that the anitchrist is a man not an office. And was alive at the time of writing about him. Nero fits the bill much better than an 'office.'

Every Sunday Lutheran ministers speak in Christ's stead while declaring absolution. "I forgive you.' not 'He forgives you.' Speaking as or for Christ is not exclusive to the Pope.

As far as the the keys to the kingdom - no Lutheran minister that I know would deny those belong to the church. Now the Pope wears those keys on his belt - but that's about the extent of being 'personally held.' It's all a bit of a trope for both sides, isn't it?

Nero was not the antichrist. He never sat on a throne of the church, claimed authority over her, or any of the other things the antichrist must do. He was a pagan emperor who thought he mattered more than he did. His image was used by John to threaten the Romans more than as one who attacked the church, as the Romans were much more afraid of his return than the Christians were. He is a horn on one of the beasts in Revelation, not even the beast itself. The beast was the office of the Roman emperor, and signifies any political ruler who sets himself up as an enemy of the Church. Thus, Hitler, Muselini, Stalin, and Husein all fit the bill as well as Nero. John used the images of Nero, who was probably already dead at the time of the writing of the book, because this was someone familiar to people of his day, but the images go beyond Nero.

Lutheran pastors, when the proclaim the absolution, are doing nothing other than speaking the words that Christ has given them to say in his stead. They are not claiming the authority to write new rules and doctrine for the Church in the name of Christ. They speak in a way to show the nearness of Christ, that He is actually the One saying the words that come out of the pastor's mouth. The Pope acts as though Christ has gone away to a far kingdom and he has the power to act in the absence of his King. However, he has proven to be a poor steward, because he has acted like the Pharisees, placing a heavy yoke on the people which even he is unwilling to lift himself. Every Pope has acted this way, even the best of them, like Pope John Paul II. The keys hanging from his belt are not just a decoration, they are there to make a point. Those keys supposedly belong to him and to him alone, and he delegates the authority to use them to bishops and priests, always holding out the possibility to take back that authority when he sees fit. In recent years the Popes have attempted to reduce the impact of this doctrine by basically saying, "Although I could keep a lot of people out of heaven using my keys, instead I am going to let every body in." If you don't believe me, read Lumen Gentium yourself, for that is what it says. There is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic church, but now every sincere believer in any religious or non-religious system who tries his/her best to live a good life according to his/her own creed can go to heaven if they so please, thanks to the good will of the Pope.

The Pope is an antichrist because when he stands in the place of Christ, he pretends to have authority that Christ never gave to anyone. He refuses to enter into the kingdom of heaven, and he is blocking the way for others who want to get in. I do not judge him, but Christ will, and I wouldn't want to be the pope on that day. He will feel the lashes of every soul who missed heaven on account of his teaching and abuse of power.