What does anathema mean? [moved]

Andrewn · Aug 16, 2019

The Apostle Paul wrote:

Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so I now say again: If anyone preaches to you any gospel other than the one you received, let him be anathema!

The word anathema is usually translated as "accursed" or "under a curse" and has been used extensively by ancient Church Councils to describe "heretics" both who were alive at that time and those who had already passed away as Christians. But this word could not mean "cursed" bec Apostle Paul also wrote:

Rom 12:14 Bless those who persecute you; bless, and do not curse.

So, the following 3 questions need to be answered:

1. What exactly does "anathema" indicate in the context of Gal 1:8-9?

2. For a person to be anathematized, they should be preaching a different gospel. So,
a) What is considered a different gospel?
b) What is considered preaching (does sharing an opinion in a thread or in a small group constitute preaching)?

These questions came to my mind as a followed a thread in this Subforum about "The Anathemas of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen."

P.S. As I usually do with difficult concepts, I checked thought-for-thought translations. There are 2 renderings that do not include cursing:

1) Condemned to hell (GNT & GWT); and
2) Judged guilty (NCV).

Yeshua HaDerekh · Aug 16, 2019

It means separated or apart from the whole in this case.

lambofgod43985889 · Aug 16, 2019

the sensual masters are cursed in the new testament too, but it's god who puts them anathematized.

Hazelelponi · Aug 16, 2019

Andrewn said:
2. For a person to be anathematized, they should be preaching a different gospel. So,
a) What is considered a different gospel?
b) What is considered preaching (does presenting an opinion in a thread or in a small group constitute preaching)?

2 a.) anything not taught by the apostles

2 b.) what is considered preaching?

everyone sees this differently. my husband won't get on any forum and talk about faith because he is afraid of his words being misconstrued or misrepresented and taken out of context, or inappropriately applied through misunderstanding.

He takes these verses so seriously he will only answer questions about faith if they are direct questions to him, in person and absolutely never gives his opinion in a discussion - unless he is teaching me.

I think often we are cavalier with our online discussions and aren't as mindful of the punishment if we mislead people however, i think there is being too afraid also, although I do sometimes think I should take more care of my words.

Der Alte · Aug 16, 2019

Andrewn said:
The Apostle Paul wrote:
Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so I now say again: If anyone preaches to you any gospel other than the one you received, let him be anathema!
The word anathema is usually translated as "accursed" or "under a curse" and has been used extensively by ancient Church Councils to describe "heretics" both who were alive at that time and those who had already passed away as Christians. But this word could not mean "cursed" bec Apostle Paul also wrote:
Rom 12:14 Bless those who persecute you; bless, and do not curse.
So, the following 3 questions need to be answered:
1. What exactly does "anathema" indicate?
2. For a person to be anathematized, they should be preaching a different gospel. So,
a) What is considered a different gospel?
b) What is considered preaching (does presenting an opinion in a thread or in a small group constitute preaching)?
These questions came to my mind as a followed a thread in this Subform about "The Anathemas of the Emperor Justinian Against Origen."
P.S. As I usually do with difficult concepts, I checked thought-for-thought translations. There are 2 renderings that do not include cursing:
1) Condemned to hell (GNT & GWT); and
2) Judged guilty (NCV).

ἀνάθεμα, ατος, τό = ἀνατεθειμένον (ἀνατίθημι) ‘something placed’ or ‘set up’, H. Gk. form for the older (Hom. et al.) ἀνάθημα (Moeris 188; Phryn. 249 Lob.; s. SIG index).
① that which is dedicated as a votive offering, a votive offering set up in a temple (Plut., Pelop. 291 [25, 7]; 2 Macc 2:13; Philo, Mos. 1, 253) Lk 21:5 v.l.
② that which has been cursed, cursed, accursed (LXX as a rule=חֵרֶם: what is ‘devoted to the divinity’ can be either consecrated or accursed. The mng. of the word in the other NT passages moves definitely in the direction of the latter [like Num 21:3; Dt 7:26; Josh 6:17; 7:12; Judg 1:17; Zech 14:11, but also the curse-tablets from Megara, as IDefixWünsch 1, 17]) οὐδεὶς ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ λαλῶν λέγει· ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς no one who speaks by God’s Spirit says ‘Jesus be cursed’ 1 Cor 12:3 (on this subject Laud. Therap. 22 ὅταν ὁ δαίμων ἀλλοιώσας τὸν ἐνεργούμενον, ἐκεῖνος ὅλος λαλεῖ, τὸ στόμα τοῦ πάσχοντος ἴδιον τεχναζόμενος ὄργανον=when the divinity has altered the one it has influenced, then it is altogether the divinity that speaks, for it has skillfully made the victim’s mouth its own instrument; NBrox, BZ n.s. 12, ’68, 103–11). As a formula ἀνάθεμα ἔστω Gal 1:8f. For this ἤτω ἀ. 1 Cor 16:22. Likew. ηὐχόμην ἀνάθεμα εἶναι αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ I could wish that I myself would be accursed (and therefore separated) from Christ Ro 9:3 (CSchneider, D. Volks-u. Heimatgefühl b. Pls: Christentum u. Wissensch. 8, ’32, 1–14; PBratsiotis, Eine Notiz zu Rö 9:3 u. 10:1: NovT 5, ’62, 299f).
③ the content that is expressed in a curse, a curse. The expr. ἀναθέματι ἀνεθεματίσαμεν ἑαυτοὺς μηδενὸς γεύσασθαι Ac 23:14 means that the conspirators bound themselves to the plot with a dreadful oath, so that if they failed the curse would fall upon them (ἀ. ἀναθεματίζειν as Dt 13:15; 20:17). S. Dssm., LO 74 (LAE 92f); Nägeli 49; Schürer II 432f; Billerb. IV 293–333: D. Synagogenbann.—S. also ἀνάθημα, a spelling that oft. alternates w. ἀνάθεμα in the texts, in so far as the fine distinction betw. ἀνάθημα=‘votive offering’ and ἀνάθεμα=‘a thing accursed’ is not observed.—GBornkamm, Das Ende des Gesetzes4 ’63, 123–32; KHofmann, RAC I 427–30.—EDNT I 80f. M-M. TW. Sv.

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 63). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Andrewn · Aug 16, 2019

Yeshua HaDerekh said:
It means separated or apart from the whole in this case.

This would be a reasonable rendering. In the OT as a penalty for many crimes / sins the person was shunned / cut off / separated from the community. Perhaps Bible translators didn't think rendering "anathema" this way wasn't strong enough? Personally, I think this kind of translation would have been a meaningful and straightforward.

Andrewn · Aug 16, 2019

lambofgod43985889 said:
the sensual masters are cursed in the new testament too, but it's god who puts them anathematized.

Actually, I think a good example of a person whom the Apostle Paul anathematized is the Corinthian sinner. The same term is not used there but rather the expression "hand over to satan," which I think means the same thing.

1Co 5:5-7 you are to turn such a fellow over to satan for the destruction of his fleshly nature, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your boasting is no good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast,so you may be a new batch, just as you are unleavened—for Messiah, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed.

It looks like the couple were preaching that their sin was OK and were making it known in the congregation.

Andrewn · Aug 16, 2019

Hazelelponi said:
2 a.) anything not taught by the apostles

Perhaps speculation about issues the apostles did not teach would be OK but contradicting what they clearly taught would not?

Hazelelponi said:
everyone sees this differently. my husband won't get on any forum and talk about faith because he is afraid of his words being misconstrued or misrepresented and taken out of context, or inappropriately applied through misunderstanding.

My own opinion is that speculation in a discussion setting would be OK but in a sermon setting would not be. Perhaps, the exception would be someone identified as a pastor presenting official opinion in a discussion.

Andrewn · Aug 16, 2019

Hazelelponi said:
I think often we are cavalier with our online discussions and aren't as mindful of the punishment if we mislead people however, i think there is being too afraid also, although I do sometimes think I should take more care of my words.

Hopefully, we know the difference between what we actually know and what we speculate about and can make that difference obvious in our conversations.

Andrewn · Aug 16, 2019

Der Alter said:
② that which has been cursed, cursed, accursed (LXX as a rule=חֵרֶם: what is ‘devoted to the divinity’ can be either consecrated or accursed. The mng. of the word in the other NT passages moves definitely in the direction of the latter

I did check usage of "anathema" in the LXX. It mostly described war bounty dedicated to God for total destruction.

I don't think this understanding is applicable to people, though. At least, I didn't find evidence that it is applicable in the NT. In 1Ti 1:20, the Apostle Paul said he handed over Hymenaeus & Alexander to satan "so that they might be taught not to blaspheme." So, he wanted to teach them a lesson. He was seeking their repentance rather than total destruction.

Andrewn · Aug 17, 2019

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith said:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. • 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Homosexuality and the Anglican Communion - Wikipedia

The bible teaches against homosexual behavior. The action of some Anglican bodies was completely uncalled for. IMO, institutional churches have already lost their moral authority because of different mistakes over the centuries.

Surely, Christians have been instrumental in establishing hospitals, schools, orphanages, and food banks all over the world. And missionaries continue to do a wonderful service all over over the globe.

But I'm not sure if there is a reason for a large number of pastors / ministers / priest to continue to have a full-time job.

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith · Aug 18, 2019

This verse might go along with the thread :

If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come!
• 1 Corinthians 16:22

.

Andrewn · Aug 18, 2019

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith said:
This verse might go along with the thread : If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come! • 1 Corinthians 16:22

Yes, it does.

1Co 16:22 If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema. Marana, ta!

I wonder what you think the appropriate action to be done to those who are anathematized should be?

Understanding "anathema" to mean "set for total destruction," heretics were commonly burned at the stake. I think in the east the penalty was exile with torture by several methods including blinding.

Interpreting "anathema" as shunned / cut off / separated from the community (as suggested above) is probably not severe enough for people who prefer some sort of bodily punishment. But what does it mean to anathematize someone who had already passed away?

Andrewn · Aug 18, 2019

Is it possible to move this thread to the Traditional Theology or Christian History subforums?

JCFantasy23 · Aug 19, 2019

MOD HAT ON

This Thread Has Been Moved

We are moving this thread to a section where it is a better fit.

dzheremi · Aug 19, 2019

Andrewn said:
Interpreting "anathema" as shunned / cutoff / separated from the community (as suggested above) is probably not severe enough for people who prefer some sort of bodily punishment. But what does it mean to anathematize someone who had already passed away?

It is usually to underline the Church(es) doing the anathema's rejection of what the person taught or is said to have taught or inspired, as with Arius, Nestorius, Origen, Honorius, etc. I think it was in Antiochian Orthodox priest Fr. Andrew S. Damick's popular Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy series of lectures (as broadcast on Ancient Faith Radio) that I heard it said that perhaps a figure like Origen (who was posthumously condemned by the Chalcedonians) could be in heaven when we get there, as he was condemned for the heresy he inspired (i.e., what his disciples made of his teachings after he died), which I suppose is different than pinning it personally on him, unlike the cases of, say, Eutyches (who personally taught what he was accused of teaching, and died unrepentantly at odds with the Church), Theodore of Mopsuestia, or other people like that.

Andrewn · Aug 19, 2019

dzheremi said:
It is usually to underline the Church(es) doing the anathema's rejection of what the person taught or is said to have taught or inspired, as with Arius, Nestorius, Origen, Honorius, etc.

In the OP, I wrote that one translation of "anathema" was "condemned to hell." From what you wrote, it seems like this is a general understanding. Is it?

dzheremi said:
perhaps a figure like Origen (who was posthumously condemned by the Chalcedonians) could be in heaven when we get there, as he was condemned for the heresy he inspired (i.e., what his disciples made of his teachings after he died), which I suppose is different than pinning it personally on him,

My understanding is that Origen had a scientific mind and was into speculation. And that he made clear his speculations were not to be understood as dogmatic truths. For example, when he considered the Holy Son and the Holy Spirit to be Seraphim.

dzheremi said:
unlike the cases of, say, Eutyches (who personally taught what he was accused of teaching, and died unrepentantly at odds with the Church), Theodore of Mopsuestia, or other people like that.

My understanding is that Eutyches repented and changed his mind. And that Theodore died a respected theologian who fought against Arianism and Apolliniarism. So, he was never told he was wrong or given a chance to repent.

dzheremi · Aug 19, 2019

Andrewn said:
In the OP, I wrote that one translation of "anathema" was "condemned to hell." From what you wrote, it seems like this is a general understanding. Is it?

I don't think so, but this is probably better addressed by a Chalcedonian, as they've done more anathematizing and probably have a more developed understanding of what it is supposed to mean.

My understanding is that Origen had a scientific mind and was into speculation. And that he made clear his speculations were not to be understood as dogmatic truths. For example, when he considered the Holy Son and the Holy Spirit to be Seraphim.

I would suspect this is why Fr. Andrew and others who have spoken about him often do so in such an ambiguous way. Origenism is definitely condemned, as he apparently was as well in one of the Chalcedonian councils, but apparently there are some among them who do not see this as shutting out the possibility that he could be among us in heaven.

My understanding is that Eutyches repented and changed his mind. And that Theodore died a respected theologian who fought against Arianism and Apolliniarism. So, he was never told he was wrong or given a chance to repent.

That is most definitely not part of the received tradition of my own church concerning Eutyches. HH Mor Severus of Antioch compared him to a dog returning to its vomit, and the Council of Dvin (506, at which the Armenians rejected Chacledon after examining it) condemned him by name as an unrepentant heretic. Earlier than that, at the Third Council of Ephesus in 475, the Egyptians and Syrians met and condemned him by name, and his teaching. Regarding Theodore, I know less. I'm not sure that we have any received tradition about him beside the fact that he was a Nestorian heretic, but I have never heard anything about him repenting or anything like that. You'd think if he was widely respected he would be commemorated by more than just the Nestorians, but I don't know how other churches might think of him. As far as I can tell, to us he is a heretic.

And anyway, this really shouldn't be about individual people. Substitute Nestorius for him, if that makes it easier. The point is that these people are condemned by the Church for their teaching, but (if I am understanding people like Fr. Andrew correctly) their final judgment is left up to God.

I've always understood "anathema" as "out of the Church" (like the other poster said; banished, essentially), not "condemned to hell". Maybe that's a Chalcedonian understanding, or maybe I just don't know enough about this topic to be posting about it.

Andrewn · Aug 19, 2019

dzheremi said:
That is most definitely not part of the received tradition of my own church concerning Eutyches. HH Mor Severus of Antioch compared him to a dog returning to its vomit, and the Council of Dvin (506, at which the Armenians rejected Chacledon after examining it) condemned him by name as an unrepentant heretic. Earlier than that, at the Third Council of Ephesus in 475, the Egyptians and Syrians met and condemned him by name, and his teaching.

This is interesting bec, a long time ago, I read a Catholic book saying that Eutyches was acquitted by the Second Council of Ephesus and Wikipedia says, "In 449, however, at the Second Council of Ephesus convened by Dioscorus of Alexandria who was under the impression that Eutyches had renounced Monophysitism, overawed by the presence of a large number of Egyptian monks, not only was Eutyches reinstated to his office, but Eusebius, Domnus and Flavian, his chief opponents, were deposed."

dzheremi said:
I've always understood "anathema" as "out of the Church" (like the other poster said; banished, essentially), not "condemned to hell". Maybe that's a Chalcedonian understanding, or maybe I just don't know enough about this topic to be posting about it.

Yes, they got into anathematizing everyone they disagreed with alive or dead after Chalecedon and then started burning the condemned at the stake.

Thank you very much the information.

hedrick · Aug 19, 2019

Andrewn said:
In the OP, I wrote that one translation of "anathema" was "condemned to hell." From what you wrote, it seems like this is a general understanding. Is it?

As used in Paul, that's a bit too specific. Handed over to God for judgement or destruction. The lexicon doesn't say anything about hell, although that would certainly be a form of divine destruction.

As the Church started taking formal proceeding against what it considered heretics, it's possible the meaning could have shifted slightly. But probably not a lot.

What does anathema mean? [moved]

Well-Known Member

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it

of christian forum

:sighing:

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

In a Kingdom by the Sea.

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Well-Known Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads