One Adventist reader, in response to a recent post, attempted to salvage the Adventist view that the papacy is "the antichrist" with the argument: "In 1 John, John makes clear that there is an antichrist that is in the future (coming), but that antichrists have already appeared (have come) in his day, and that the spirit behind antichrist is already at work in certain false teachers." In this light, he contends that one should not confuse the coming antichrist with the contemporary "antichrists" (and their teachings) John condemns.
A Coming Antichrist?
First, I do not believe the text anticipates a "coming" antichrist. In 1 Jn. 2:18, John reminds his readers that they have heard of a "coming" antichrist, and adds, "so now many antichrists have come." That is, their expectations have been realized. The construction "and just as [kathos]. . . so [kai] now. . . " appears elsewhere in Johannine literature to denote states or actions realized according to a pattern: "as the Father has loved me, so I have loved you" [John 15:9]; "as the Father has sent me, so I send you" [20:21].
"The antichrist" is no longer an anticipated figure in John, but one already present: "Every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming; and now it is already in the world" (1 Jn. 4:3; notice the stress on "now" and "already"). The antichrist is manifest in anyone who teaches his doctrines: "those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist!" (2 John. 1:7; notice the application of the definite article; they are not merely "antichrists" but "the antichrist"). "The antichrist" is a movement, not a single figure (and yet, somehow, my last post was criticized for having too "restrictive" a view of antichrist).
It is also important to note that there is no "coming" future in John's epistles. John considers the rise of "antichrist" as confirmation that this is "the last hour" (1 Jn. 2:18):
It has been suggested that these Antichrists are meant by the author as precursors of the great Antichrist still to come. . . . That idea is refuted by the use of the Antichrists as a sign of the last hour, for he is not thinking of them as precursors. (Brown, Raymond E., The Epistles of John, The Anchor Bible 30, ed. W.F. Alrbight and D. N. Freedman (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982), 337.)In light of these details, I believe John's epistles do not anticipate another antichrist.
The Doctrine of Antichrist
Even if the text did anticipate an "antichrist" par excellence to come, however, on what grounds do Adventists identify this figure with an entity that has opposed the teachings by which John defines "the spirit of antichrist" and "the antichrist" (cf. 1 Jn. 4:3; 2 Jn. 1:7)? Jesus' wisdom is so simple and applicable here: "how can Satan cast out Satan?" (Mk. 3:23) On what textual basis could we possibly believe "the antichrist" foretold in these epistles would condemn the teachings of "the antichrist" identified in these epistles? Again, on what textual basis (let alone by what stretch of logic!) could that claim possibly be made? And how can that claim be made without contradicting 1 Jn. 4:3: "every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God"? I am sorry; I simply cannot understand how this can be done. The epistles of John were written so that Christians could identify "the antichrist" deception.
(To be continued; feel free to comment though. . .)
22 comments:
These questions are for ant.
Ant, you said under the first part of this series that "the antichrist to come" is that "little horn" spoken of by Daniel, that "man of lawlessness" spoken of by Paul, and that "beast" spoken of in Revelation.
I take it that you believe this "coming" antichrist is none other than the Papacy? Please correct me if I am wrong.
If the "coming" antichrist is the Papacy, which as you implied is also the "beast" of Revelation, then who is the "whore" that rides the "beast"? They apparently cannot be the same thing, seeing how a thing cannot ride itself.
Also, if the Papacy is the "whore" instead of the "beast", then what do you make of Rev. 17:16? It says that the "ten horns" on the "beast" that the "whore" rides hates her and burns her up with fire. Do not Adventists teach that the Papacy is that "little horn" to which you made reference, and do not three of the ten "horns" get "plucked up" in the "little horn's" presence? Who or what are these "ten horns" mentioned in Rev. 17:16?
Also, do Adventists teach that the Papacy will be burned up with fire by the "ten horns" that are on the "beast" that the "whore" rides?
And if the Papacy is the "whore", then who or what is the "beast" that it rides?
Sorry for all of the questions ant, but I was thinking about the comments you made and they sparked my mind to start thinking about these things.
God's blessings to you!
Thanks Hugo for making us think about our assumptions in linking the horn with the beast with the man of sin with the antichrist, etc. It was thought-provoking…in that I’m trying to determine exactly what level of “wrong” you’ve achieved. Lol j/k
I don’t think Adventist evangelists are trying to overwrite John’s use of the term when we preach about the antichrist. There are very few Adventist evangelists who appeal to 1/2 John to describe the antichrist. We’re just using the word by its definition and not by John’s application. (I think it’s also helpful though to remember that Satan is the ultimate “antichrist.”) The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that “St. John urged against the heretics of his time that those who denied the mystery of the Incarnation were faint images of the future great Antichrist.”
“The antichrist" is no longer an anticipated figure in John, but one already present”
In 1/2 John perhaps. But, as the Catholic Encyclopedia observes, “Nearly all commentators find Antichrist mentioned in the Apocalypse.” The truth is that, towards the end of his life, John anticipates something coming. He may not strictly label it “antichrist” in Revelation, but it fits the definition of the word, even if it doesn’t fit is application of the word in 1 and 2 John.
The fact that is that Adventists aren’t the only ones. Irenaeus linked John 5:43, Daniel 7 and 8, Matthew 24, and 2 Thess. 2 all as descriptions of “antichrist” (see AH, book 5, chs 25-28). (As an aside to the VFD discussion, Irenaeus even suggested that Lateinos, or Latin Man, equaled 666.) Tertullian connects antichrist with 2 Thess. and Hippolytus enjoins the word with Rev. 13. Origen went all over the Bible to describe antichrist while Chrysostom himself said the only description we needed was 2 Thess.
The point is that since the beginning Christians have been basing their understanding of the antichrist from places outside of 1 and 2 John. It may not be how John applies the word, but it’s the best theological word to describe the descriptions of this power (or powers) found throughout the Bible.
Also, I think it’s funny that the Adventist appeals to tradition as the Catholic appeals to the Bible.
P.S., note the weight of authority I apparently give the Catholic Encyclopedia...lol :P
Hi Matthew,
Who or what do you think the "coming" antichrist is or was?
Blessings!
Everything you want to know about the antichrist and armageddon can be found in the book Good Omens: the Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter Witch by Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman.
Hi David,
I am personally in line with Adventism's understanding. But I say this using the broader term of "antichrist" I described above.
Blessings to you as well!
Matthew
Hi Matthew,
And who or what would you say Adventism's understanding of the antichrist is?
Thanks and blessings to you!
David,
That would be the papacy :)
Grace and Peace,
Matthew
Hi Matthew,
Thank you for bearing with me.
According to the Adventist understanding, is the Papacy also the "beast" of Revelation, or the "whore"; or would you say it is both?
Thanks!
Matthew, have you considered the Antichrist movement began with the pharisees?, then we read John 6.66 some disciples turned away from Jesus; then 1John 2:19..not all of us were really ours..
The Jews (Mosaic)who did not follow Christ, were antichrist.
The Church finally put division order to the antichrist in 325 AD, in the Council of Nicaea.
The SDA are still vague on their trinitarian doctrine, therefore they are antichrist,
so are Muslims, and Orthodox jews.
2 Cor 3:14 SDA are under the veil, , because the sabbath is Moses Law,that is antichrist.
Today we have a continuing movement anti-church (apostolic).
Jesus did immunize us his Church, John 15:18. therefore I am Immune to the 'antichrist as the Papacy' garbage(Ph 3:8).
Nature.B
Hi Nature B,
I believe you got a little carried away with your use of the term "antichrist".
Sabbath keepers are not "antichrist" simply for observing the 24 hour period of rest mandated by the commandment for the Israelites. This type of thing was allowed in the early Church, though it was not a wide spread practice among Christians. St. Paul speaks to this issue in Romans 14. I'd suggest that you re-read that chapter to again see the Apostolic teaching on observance of days, and the proper disposition we ought to have toward those who observe such. Also, St. Justin's work entitled Dialogue with Trypho the Jew is excellent to see this very teaching brought out in the second century.
Also I would caution you to be careful who you condemn as "antichrist". Adventists do believe that Jesus is the Christ. They do believe that He became flesh. Therefore, I would be very hesitant to label them as "antichrist", since these two qualities are particularly brought out by St. John regarding his own term. Though a case could be made regarding whether they really accept Jesus as the actual Son of the Father, legitamately I might add, however, it is always wise to err on the side of caution.
Be content with battling their doctrines, and leave the condemnation to the unwise and rash.
Blessings to you brother!
Hi David,Thanks for that guidance; and the info I was expecting from you some threads back.:
Though a case could be made regarding whether they really accept Jesus as the actual Son of the Father, legitamately I might add, however, it is always wise to err on the side of caution.
Could you direct me where SDA states that in print?
Thanks again.
Nature.B
Shepherd,
I refer you to our 28 Fundamental Beliefs (specifically number 4):
4. Son:
God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God's power and was attested as God's promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things. (John 1:1-3, 14; Col. 1:15-19; John 10:30; 14:9; Rom. 6:23; 2 Cor. 5:17-19; John 5:22; Luke 1:35; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 2:9-18; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; Heb. 8:1, 2; John 14:1-3.)
I trust this is clear enough for your liking. Also I take issue with the idea that the Catholic Church is antichrist post-Nicea.
Blessings,
M
Hi Nature B,
I have a quote taken from Seventh-day Adventists Believe...A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines, copyright 1988. I realize it is over 21 years old, but I do not believe the teaching has changed significantly in this area. If anyone has more up to date material, then please feel free to correct me.
This footnote appeared in the chapter "God the Son", and clearly reveals the SDA understanding of Christ's relationship to the Father. It is footnote #7 "explaining" the Greek word "monogenes" (i.e. only-begotten in the KJV) primarily. The boldened parts are the ones of most interest:
"7 That Scripture alludes to Jesus as the "only begotten" and the "first born" and speaks of the day of His begetting does not deny His divine nature and eternal existence. The term "only begotten" (John 1:14; 1:18; 3:16; 1 John 4:9) comes from the Greek word monogenes. The Biblical use of monogenes reveals that its range of meaning extends to "only" or "unique," depicting a special relationship, not an event in time. Isaac, for example is called Abraham's "only begotten son, "although he was not Abraham's only son, or even his firstborn son (Gen. 16:16; 21:1-21; 25:1-6). Isaac was the unique son, the only one of his kind, destined to become Abraham's successor. "Jesus Christ, the pre-existent God, the divine creative Word, at His incarnation became in a unique sense the Son of God—which is why He is designated 'monogenes' the only one of His kind, altogether unique in many aspects of His being and life. No other child of the human race was so compacted in his being, had so unequaled a relation to the Godhead, or did such a work as is true of Him. So 'monogenes' describes a relation between God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son as separate Persons of the Godhead. This is a relation that belongs to Christ's complex, divine-human personality, in connection with the economy of the plan of salvation." (Committee on Problems in Bible Translation, Problems in Bible Translation [Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald, 19541, p. 202). Likewise, when Christ is called the "firstborn" (Heb.1:6; Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15, 18; Rev. 1:5), the term does not refer to a point of time. Rather, it emphasizes importance or priority (cf. Heb.12:23). In Hebrew culture, the firstborn received the family privileges. So Jesus, as the firstborn among men, won back all the privileges man had lost. He became the new Adam, the new "firstborn" or head of the human race. The Biblical reference to the day in which Jesus was begotten is based on a similar concept to those of the only begotten and the firstborn. Depending on its context, the Messianic prediction, "You are My Son, today I have begotten you" (Ps. 2:7), refers to Jesus': incarnation (Heb.1:6), resurrection (Acts 13:33; cf. v. 30), or enthronement (Heb.1:3, 5)." Page 56, online source http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-04.htm.
I quoted this because it reveals the SDA understanding of Christ's Son-ship to the Father as being applicable only in His humanity, and not in His divinity. During my tenure of ten years as an Adventist (1995-2005) I personally found the vast majority of Adventists I came in contact with to hold to this understanding more or less.
cont...
This point of view was most likely fueled by the famous Ellen White statement in The Desire of Ages when she said, "In Him (Christ) is life, original, unborrowed, underived." Page 530. Thus, Mrs. White ruled out any possibility that Christ, as eternal God, derived life from any other source whatsoever. The Adventist denomination, probably in an effort to distance themselves from their anti-trinitarian past, adopted this concept as their official understanding of Christ's divine nature. Hence, this point of view is advocated in their most official teaching apparatus, "Seventh-day Adventists Believe...", which the new one now has 28 "fundamental" doctrines!
This, as you and every other Catholic and Orthodox person knows, is heresy, and a denial of the faith of Nicea which plainly stated:
"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not created, of one essence with the Father through Whom all things were made."
The Church clearly understood that Christ, as eternal God, was born directly from the Father's very own being. Thus they utilized the Greek word homooúsios to express it, meaning literally "same substance/essence/being". It was designed to put an end to the Arian controversy which held that Christ was not divine like the Father. Since Christians had been teaching from the very beginning that Christ is the Son of God by direct birth from the Father, then it is no surprise that the Church condemned Arianism, which effectively denied this truth. Thus, by affirming Christ's true eternal Son-ship to His Father it was necessary that He would be of the exact same substance or being as His Father which would make Him completely, and unequivocally, God!
Adventists have erred in their collective understanding of Christ's divinity, by adhering to a concept put forward by Ellen White, rather than simply listening to the Bible. Though Adventists have done a very good job at "pulling the wool" over the eyes of pretty much all Christian denominations on the Trinity issue, probably because the other denominations do not look very closely at what Adventists mean when they say things; however, because of their understanding of Christ's divinity as being separate from that of the Father's Person, they certainly are not Trinitarians by any stretch of the imagination.
Hope that helped!
Blessings to you!
Nature B,
Here is a quick excerpt of Homoousian from Wikipedia:
"Homoousian (Greek: ὁμοούσιος, from the Greek: ὁμός, homós, "same" and οὐσία, ousía, "essence, being") is a technical theological term used in discussion of the Christian understanding of God as Trinity. The Nicene Creed describes Jesus as being homooúsios with God the Father — that is, they are of the "same substance" and are equally God. This term, adopted by the First Council of Nicaea, was intended to add clarity to the relationship between Christ and God the Father within the Godhead." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoousian
Hi David, Many thanks, for this thorough piece of work on the Trinity. We will cherish it, and make good use of your work, as one of the tools we use to bring back home the lost sheep.
God Bless you!
Nature.B
Still..here are some early Church fathers comments on sunday:
Justin Martyr..
"[W]e too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined [on] you—namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your heart. . . . [H]ow is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us—I speak of fleshly circumcision and Sabbaths and feasts? . . . God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and imposed on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness and that of your fathers . . ." (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 18, 21 [A.D. 155]).
"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead" (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).
Tertullian
"[L]et him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day . . . teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath or practiced circumcision, and were thus rendered ‘friends of God.’ For if circumcision purges a man, since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did he not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? . . . Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering him sacrifices, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, was by him [God] commended [Gen. 4:1–7, Heb. 11:4]. . . . Noah also, uncircumcised—yes, and unobservant of the Sabbath—God freed from the deluge. For Enoch too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and unobservant of the Sabbath, he translated from this world, who did not first taste death in order that, being a candidate for eternal life, he might show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God" (An Answer to the Jews 2 [A.D. 203]).
The Didascalia
"The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the holy scriptures, and the oblation [sacrifice of the Mass], because on the first day of the week [i.e., Sunday] our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven" (Didascalia 2 [A.D. 225]).
I have many More early Church Father's if you are interested. I can show you the Nest.
Nature.B
Nature.B,
I know you intended those quotes for Still, but please pardon me if I comment on them.
The reality is is that those quotes confirm to Adventists what we generally feel regarding most Christians today: that the Sabbath is often misunderstood as being one of hundreds of Mosaic laws that found their fulfillment in Christ. And really that's the heart of all dialog over this topic: we try to prove it's moral and others try to prove it's Mosaic. If it is a moral law it remains eternal. If it is a Mosaic law, it likely perished at the cross (I say likely because there are some Mosaic laws that still remain for some or all Christians, like dietary laws or sleeping with your mother, etc.)
From an Adventist perspective, the fact that Tertullian linked the Sabbath with circumcision is another link in the chain in the process of it being changed. It began, not necessarily with the pope suddenly decreeing Sunday over Saturday, but with a misunderstanding of the day, a desire to distance oneself from the increasingly unpopular Jews, and an influx of Gentile converts who weren't acquainted with the Sabbath.
But I feel we ought to deal with this in another post, right? We're a little off-topic here.
Hi Matthew,
Are you implying that Christians are required to observe the Sabbath?
Thanks, and blessings to you!
Matthew,
Perhaps we are about to make a break through!
What are the moral aspects of the Sabbath observance, as opposed to the ceremonial aspects?
Eagerly yours,
Clement
Post a Comment