2Th. 2:1 Ἐρωτῶμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, ὑπὲρ τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἡμῶν ἐπισυναγωγῆς ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν 2 εἰς τὸ μὴ ταχέως σαλευθῆναι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ νοὸς μηδὲ θροεῖσθαι, μήτε διὰ πνεύματος μήτε διὰ λόγου μήτε δι᾿ ἐπιστολῆς ὡς δι᾿ ἡμῶν, ὡς ὅτι ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου· 3 Μή τις ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατήσῃ κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον. ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ ἡ ἀποστασία πρῶτον καὶ ἀποκαλυφθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, 4 ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός.
ἡ ἀποστασία πρῶτον καὶ ἀποκαλυφθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας
Thanks to Inter-Lib-Loan I have collected several decent commentaries[1] on 1-2 Thessalonians. My intent was to review the exegetical problems in the two letters with a focus on eschatology. This has been in the back of my mind for decades since the resurgence of end times themes in popular culture. I mistakenly told someone in the late 1980s that the end of the world stuff was over with, Hal Lindsey was toast after 1988. And then the Left Behind craze came along and totally upended that idea. Also I found serious people (Greek scholars) in far away places e.g, Finland, who were still advocating something vaguely similar to Walvoord-Pentecost.
I am not going to be talking about Left Behindism in this forum. Just going to do some greek exegesis of the Thessalonian correspondence. Never really done this before.
This morning I was reading the treatments of Thes 2:1-4 in the secondary literature. I found in Bruce1982:166-167 a discussion of ἡ ἀποστασία … ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας. The first time I read it Bruce irritated me, not the first time this has happened. I set Bruce aside and two days later read it again. Bruce contends that ἡ ἀποστασία and ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας represent (among other things) a massive revolt against civil authority. This isn’t a rogue interpretation, others agree. But Bruce puts an edge on it. Hard to explain, just a little two much emphasis. Like it was something he was amendment about. Perhaps In the 1970s while Bruce was writing this commentary in the background was the residual fallout from what happened[2] in North America and Western Europe in the the previous decade. I detect something personal about the way he expressed his views on ἡ ἀποστασία … ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας. My first reaction was to write him off as the kind of person who would have supported Nixon and Kissinger citing Romans 13. This is proof texting of the worst kind.
I am not ruling out that ἡ ἀποστασία … ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας has a political aspect to it. But Bruce expresses his view with a sort of vehemence which makes me suspect a subtext lingering just out of view.
It seems that Paul adequately defines the central feature of rebellion in verse four.
4 ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός. That is assuming that ἡ ἀποστασία and ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας are components of the same rebellion.
[1] FF Bruce 1982 WBC, C. Wanamaker, 1990 NIGTC, G. Fee 2009 NICNT, Weima 2014 BECNT and also a popular treatment G. Shogran 2012 ZEC.
[2]
We are obscene lawless hideous dangerous dirty violent …
We are forces of chaos and anarchy
PAUL L. KANTNER Jefferson Airplane