Why The Pre Trib Rapture Is God's Judgment On His House First

[Wormwood]

But doesn't the book of Ezekiel describe this future third temple? Are you saying that Ezekiel is wrong? Also, in 2 Thess 2:4, don't you need a body in order to (sit down)?

ATP,
Ezekiel was written prior to the building of the second Temple. Why should we skip that temple and assume he is writing about a third? I am not saying Ezekiel is wrong. I am saying he is being prophetic. Many of the prophecies in the OT were predictions of Jesus. Jesus said ALL of the law and prophets point to him. I reject the idea that only a portion of it pointed to him, and the rest points to future promises for physical Israel and the reinstitution of and earthly temple and animal sacrifices.

Isn't God described as being seated on his throne by Isaiah? Does that mean God has a physical body?

StanJ,

No he is not and wasn't then either. As I said, the tense of those words is not the indicative, the tense Paul uses is shown in the words; "that day will not arrive until", which is IN the future.

Again, you are making assumptions that because the man of lawlessness has yet to be revealed, that he is not currently active. Why wouldn't Paul describe his actions as future tense as well as the NIV indicates rather than using present participles? In any event, I understand the idea of an Antichrist is a possibility. I just don't think it is the only possibility. In fact, I don't think the concept fits at all with the context of this section as I have pointed out before.

First, I don't use the NIV1984 anymore since the NIV2011 came out.

That's unfortunate. I think the 84 is a better version. The newer NIV is too consumed with egalitarian language and is not a very good translation to get the sense of how the Greek itself reads.

Second, flesh and sinful nature are the same to me so I won't strive about the word

I think you are missing my original point. The point is that the NIV has implanted an idea to communicate what they thought Paul meant. I am not arguing whether or not they captured Paul's idea or not. I am simply saying that they are trying to express ideas, rather than exact translations of the words. Most often, this is no big deal. However, in 2 Thess. 2, I think they have overstepped a bit and have prohibited the reader from seeing the full scope of the text.

Third, the Greek word connotes flesh, body, the soft tissue of a creature, often in contrast to bone, ligament, or sinew; by extension human, humankind, with a focus on the fallen human nature, which is frail and corrupt in contrast to immaterial (spiritual) things, thus the NIV (1984) translation sinful nature.

Huh? No, actually I think they are communicating the opposite. The point of translating "sinful nature" rather than "flesh" is to guard against Dualism, or the concept that flesh = evil and spirit = good as many Greeks believed in this day. The point is that its not "flesh" that is bad, but the sinful tendencies of our flesh is what Paul is warning about. Regardless, the point is that they are taking some interpretive license. All translators do to a degree, but I find the changing of verb tenses to be a bit much. It is not necessary, as the ESV and other translations show.

Again the rules for Greek tense are dependent on the subject matter which in this case is already depicted as the future. Just because Paul puts himself in the future when describing this event does not mean he is describing it in the current tense of his day. The rule applies the same in Greek or English.

This is simply not true. Sure, we can allow context to determine if something in the present tense is actually a future event. However, there is no reason to change the verb tenses. The rules for Greek tense are NOT dependent upon subject matter. Subject matter has NOTHING to do with verb tense in either Greek or English. It doesn't matter is the subject is Joe, Bob, Harry, or Jesus. What matters is the verb tenses and the overall context. Again, it is possible that these present participles could be seen as future actions based on the context. However, this is not essential. There is NO REASON to change the verb tenses. The subject matter does not mandate a change in tense. Can you quote a Greek or English rule from a grammar book that claims that subject matter determines verb tense? The subject has nothing to do with tense. In Greek, subject matters only determine number, gender, and case (nominative, genitive, dative, or accusative). Tense has nothing to do with the subject.

The ONLY verse in the present is v7, because it is, and Paul makes that clear.

That's odd, because the verbs in verse 4 are the ones that are present participles. Just because you don't want to see it that way does not mean it is not grammatically possible. There are a number of Greek scholars that would agree with my interpretation. Trust me, its not because it isn't grammatically possible. It's fine if you don't agree, just don't paint it as an impossibility. Grammatically, it is quite possible, and I think more likely due to the overall context.

Eph 2:2 is NOT the same despite your attempt to cloud the issue. Most people know the difference between A man and mankind.

Huh? I am making a grammatical point. Take a look for yourself:

ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας
τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς ἀπειθείας

The first phrase is taken out of 2 Thess 2: "The son of destruction" The second is Eph 2:2, "the sons of disobedience." As you can see, the phrases are almost identical, except that one is plural and the differing word apoleias and apeitheias. (destruction/disobedience) My point is that the emphasis is on "destruction/disobedience" and not "son" or the idea that these are males only. The word huios acts as an indefinite pronoun. I think the same is true of anthropos. The focus is not on "man" but on "lawlessness" with anthropos acting more as an indefinite pronoun as we see elsewhere in this context and throughout Paul's writings. I am not clouding anything. I am showing grammatical parallels that substantiate my view. I understand if you do not agree, but lets not act like I am trying to convolute the discussion. I don't know where you are getting "mankind."

First of all we are dealing with "MAN of lawlessness", I see nothing about "mystery" here.

ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας

ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας

μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας

ὁ ἄνομος

These are the four descriptions of this person. The first is the "man of lawlessness/sin", the second is "the son of destruction," the third is "mystery of lawlessness/sin" and the fourth is "the lawless (one)." The point is all these phrases are used to describe the same figure. "Mystery" is one of the descriptive phrases of this figure. As you can see, in the Greek, the phrases are very similar. So, just cause you don't see "mystery" as descriptive of this person, does not mean its not so. The exact same word ἀνομίας is used in both.

V4 depicts who he is and if you don't think that is the antichrist then show us who is in Revelation or any other NT scripture.

Im still waiting for you to show me this wealth of texts that teach about this Antichrist, that makes it so evident that we should insert this concept into the text. You are the one that said the overall teaching of the Bible supported the idea. The burden of proof is on you to show this to be the case. I think this would be much easier than me spending hours going through my understanding of Revelation.

 

[StanJ]

Again, you are making assumptions that because the man of lawlessness has yet to be revealed, that he is not currently active. Why wouldn't Paul describe his actions as future tense as well as the NIV indicates rather than using present participles? In any event, I understand the idea of an Antichrist is a possibility. I just don't think it is the only possibility. In fact, I don't think the concept fits at all with the context of this section as I have pointed out before.

Ignoring my explanation doesn't help to keep this discussion moving WW. I've already explained the above to you.

That's unfortunate. I think the 84 is a better version. The newer NIV is too consumed with egalitarian language and is not a very good translation to get the sense of how the Greek itself reads.

Nothing wrong with egalitarian language WW. The Greek was and is egalitarian much more than the English was up to that point. As many of the scholars that worked on the old NIV worked on the new one I'm pretty sure they felt they did a better job, despite your opinion to the contrary. Comparing the new NIV to all the most current English translations, I find them ALL pretty consistent in rendering the Greek into modern English.

I think you are missing my original point. The point is that the NIV has implanted an idea to communicate what they thought Paul meant. I am not arguing whether or not they captured Paul's idea or not. I am simply saying that they are trying to express ideas, rather than exact translations of the words. Most often, this is no big deal. However, in 2 Thess. 2, I think they have overstepped a bit and have prohibited the reader from seeing the full scope of the text.

The NIV translated the Greek by the theory of "functional equivalence". Sadly many who have a very limited understanding of Greek make accusations, but I find those who have a very solid credential in it do not. I'm not a big fan of 'armchair' critics.
As far as 2 Thess 2 is concerned, I have already shown you that is NOT the case but you refuse to accept it and that is your problem.

Huh? No, actually I think they are communicating the opposite. The point of translating "sinful nature" rather than "flesh" is to guard against Dualism, or the concept that flesh = evil and spirit = good as many Greeks believed in this day. The point is that its not "flesh" that is bad, but the sinful tendencies of our flesh is what Paul is warning about. Regardless, the point is that they are taking some interpretive license. All translators do to a degree, but I find the changing of verb tenses to be a bit much. It is not necessary, as the ESV and other translations show.

Not at all IF you understand the Bible in full. Paul points out on a few occasions how he continues to wrestle with his "flesh/sinful nature". We are warned many times to not give into our sinful nature. That is part and parcel of carnality and none is immune to it. Clearly, the only one that was ever 'good' in the NT was Jesus, and even He was tempted. I personally have no problem with the ESV, nor do I find it conveys anything different than the English translations of it's day.
Many today say the same thing about the ESV vs the KJV, so I have to deduce that being biased about a version is the sole issue when making issues like you're doing now.

This is simply not true. Sure, we can allow context to determine if something in the present tense is actually a future event. However, there is no reason to change the verb tenses. The rules for Greek tense are NOT dependent upon subject matter. Subject matter has NOTHING to do with verb tense in either Greek or English. It doesn't matter is the subject is Joe, Bob, Harry, or Jesus. What matters is the verb tenses and the overall context. Again, it is possible that these present participles could be seen as future actions based on the context. However, this is not essential. There is NO REASON to change the verb tenses. The subject matter does not mandate a change in tense. Can you quote a Greek or English rule from a grammar book that claims that subject matter determines verb tense? The subject has nothing to do with tense. In Greek, subject matters only determine number, gender, and case (nominative, genitive, dative, or accusative). Tense has nothing to do with the subject.

Sorry but this just shows you really don't understand grammar. The Granville Sharp rule is just one rule that refutes your assertion here. If you don't understand active and passive voice verbs, I'm not the one to teach you.
The subject is the basis for properly translating AND understanding the text, and as I've already explained to you why Paul did this, I think twice now, I won't bother doing it again.

That's odd, because the verbs in verse 4 are the ones that are present participles. Just because you don't want to see it that way does not mean it is not grammatically possible. There are a number of Greek scholars that would agree with my interpretation. Trust me, its not because it isn't grammatically possible. It's fine if you don't agree, just don't paint it as an impossibility. Grammatically, it is quite possible, and I think more likely due to the overall context.

Again, I don't know where you get your ideas from, but v4 clearly says; "He WILL". Now if you think this conveys present tense then I have nothing more to say to you. It appears to be possible ONLY in your mind.

Huh? I am making a grammatical point. Take a look for yourself:

ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας
τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς ἀπειθείας

The first phrase is taken out of 2 Thess 2: "The son of destruction" The second is Eph 2:2, "the sons of disobedience." As you can see, the phrases are almost identical, except that one is plural and the differing word apoleias and apeitheias. (destruction/disobedience) My point is that the emphasis is on "destruction/disobedience" and not "son" or the idea that these are males only. The word huios acts as an indefinite pronoun. I think the same is true of anthropos. The focus is not on "man" but on "lawlessness" with anthropos acting more as an indefinite pronoun as we see elsewhere in this context and throughout Paul's writings. I am not clouding anything. I am showing grammatical parallels that substantiate my view. I understand if you do not agree, but lets not act like I am trying to convolute the discussion. I don't know where you are getting "mankind."

If you are it's a bad one. Apples are not oranges...quite simple really.

Sorry you don't get my analogy, but it was the best I could come up with at that point in time. Try reading it in the context of your post.

ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας

ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας

μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας

ὁ ἄνομος

These are the four descriptions of this person. The first is the "man of lawlessness/sin", the second is "the son of destruction," the third is "mystery of lawlessness/sin" and the fourth is "the lawless (one)." The point is all these phrases are used to describe the same figure. "Mystery" is one of the descriptive phrases of this figure. As you can see, in the Greek, the phrases are very similar. So, just cause you don't see "mystery" as descriptive of this person, does not mean its not so. The exact same word ἀνομίας is used in both.

You always seem to get vague in the actual quoting of the verse when you do this. WHERE exactly is "mystery" used?
Oh I see in the KJV...OK but it is NOT describing the MAN, only the sin of lawlessness. You apparently don't differentiate between the sin and the sinner although I feel this is probably just to try and make your point. I won't bite.

 

[Wormwood]

Ignoring my explanation doesn't help to keep this discussion moving WW. I've already explained the above to you.

It sounded more like you were ignoring my points and pointing to Mounce as the final answer without any real explanation at all. I was simply trying to expound on my point about how the Greek reads and why other translations differ with the NIV.

Nothing wrong with egalitarian language WW. The Greek was and is egalitarian much more than the English was up to that point.

No, this is simply not true. The Koine Greek is anything but egalitarian. Do you know Greek? There goal was not to "do a better job" translating. Rather, it was to provide a more culturally acceptable rendering of the text. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but they certainly did not follow the Greek. For instance, "brothers" in is translated as "brothers and sisters." The Greek only says "brothers." While I am sure Paul was not ignoring the women in the letters he wrote and implied them in "brothers," it is simply untrue that the Greek is egalitarian. Paul wrote as other first century writers in his day. I assure you, they were not concerned with egalitarianism. That is our culture's concern, not Paul's.

The NIV translated the Greek by the theory of "functional equivalence". Sadly many who have a very limited understanding of Greek make accusations, but I find those who have a very solid credential in it do not. I'm not a big fan of 'armchair' critics.

Stan, you don't know me or my knowledge base on the original languages. I think you are making some pretty harsh accusations against me when you don't really have any idea of my educational background or knowledge of Greek.

As far as 2 Thess 2 is concerned, I have already shown you that is NOT the case but you refuse to accept it and that is your problem.

Again, I have yet to see you really quote or make any plea to the text other than a brief quote from Mounce and claims that subjects determine tense (which is simply errant).

Again, I don't know where you get your ideas from, but v4 clearly says; "He WILL". Now if you think this conveys present tense then I have nothing more to say to you. It appears to be possible ONLY in your mind.

You clearly aren't following me. I don't know how to explain my position any more clearly. It doesn't say "he will" in the Greek in verse 4. That has been my point. Look at the ESV in verse 4:

“who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:4, ESV)

It doesn't say "he will oppose" or "he will exalt" or "he will proclaim himself to be God" in the Greek. Rather, they are present participles (think words ending in "ing." These are present, ongoing actions. The ESV renders this more closely to the Greek. He "opposes" (present action), "exalts himself" (present action) and is "proclaiming himself to be God." If you cannot understand my point this far along in the discussion, I know of no better way to clarify it.

If you are it's a bad one. Apples are not oranges...quite simple really.

I don't know how its apples and oranges. Look at the Greek phrases I listed. They are practically identical. smh.

You always seem to get vague in the actual quoting of the verse when you do this. WHERE exactly is "mystery" used?
Oh I see in the KJV...OK but it is NOT describing the MAN, only the sin of lawlessness. You apparently don't differentiate between the sin and the sinner although I feel this is probably just to try and make your point. I won't bite.

Im not being vague. Look at verse 7. The Greek word is "mysterion" or mystery. NIV translates it "secret power" and ESV translates it "mystery." In any event, "lawlessness" is the exact same word in Greek in verse 3 as in verse 7. Verse four calls him the anthropos tes anomias (man of lawlessness) and verse 7 calls him the "mysterion...tes anomias." You are trying to say these are different things being described, but "anomias" (lawlessness) in Greek is the exact same word in both places.

In any event, I think the only way we can converse on this Stan, is if you are willing to open your Bible and at least try to understand what I am saying. Im fine with it if you disagree. However, suggesting that I am inserting ideas into the text or that I am just pulling stuff out of the air (when I am actually referring to specific words in the Greek) displays a lack of you really trying to follow me. If you don't want to understand what I am saying, fine, we can just stop talking about it. Just don't skim though my comments and make assumptions about things. I assure you, I am looking at the text itself and trying to draw my understanding from the words and tenses in these verses. Like I said, while my view may not be the predominant one, there are many scholars that see it this way. So I am not off on some wild goose chase here, as you seem to want to imply.

 

[StanJ]

It sounded more like you were ignoring my points and pointing to Mounce as the final answer without any real explanation at all. I was simply trying to expound on my point about how the Greek reads and why other translations differ with the NIV.

No I was responding to them and I trust Mounce and his creds. I don't KNOW you or that you actually have any creds.
I don't see that the Greek reads that way, which is why I quoted Mounce. You'll have to go a long way to show you know better than he does or ANY of his peers.

No, this is simply not true. The Koine Greek is anything but egalitarian. Do you know Greek? There goal was not to "do a better job" translating. Rather, it was to provide a more culturally acceptable rendering of the text. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but they certainly did not follow the Greek. For instance, "brothers" in is translated as "brothers and sisters." The Greek only says "brothers." While I am sure Paul was not ignoring the women in the letters he wrote and implied them in "brothers," it is simply untrue that the Greek is egalitarian. Paul wrote as other first century writers in his day. I assure you, they were not concerned with egalitarianism. That is our culture's concern, not Paul's.

I know what I know and I know what I read. Being egalitarian is NOT a problem except for those who are legalistic.
Paul & Jesus were very egalitarian so I have no problem with that, nor should you.
As ἀδελφός (adelphos) means more than just 'brother' in our current vernacular, I don't have a problem with it. You would do much better to foster credibility IF you didn't just make vague references, like you do a lot, but actually quoted what scripture you are referring to in regards to "brothers".
I have faith that those who translate the Greek to "brothers and sisters", know full well what the Greek is inferring. FYI, the Greek also uses the word ἀδελφή (adelphē), so it is explicit when it needs to be. Are you trying to advocate that we should not translate ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) as humans or that it does not connote male AND female?
Anyway these little rabbit trails of yours are really not getting to the issue are they?

Stan, you don't know me or my knowledge base on the original languages. I think you are making some pretty harsh accusations against me when you don't really have any idea of my educational background or knowledge of Greek.

I know what I see WW and what I have experienced with many who CLAIM to know Greek. I know that what you have said so far makes no sense and as you haven't bothered to qualify yourself, I see no reason, based on what I do see, to accept your assertions as factual.
FYI, I am bilingual and know how languages work.

You clearly aren't following me. I don't know how to explain my position any more clearly. It doesn't say "he will" in the Greek in verse 4. That has been my point. Look at the ESV in verse 4:

It doesn't say "he will oppose" or "he will exalt" or "he will proclaim himself to be God" in the Greek. Rather, they are present participles (think words ending in "ing." These are present, ongoing actions. The ESV renders this more closely to the Greek. He "opposes" (present action), "exalts himself" (present action) and is "proclaiming himself to be God." If you cannot understand my point this far along in the discussion, I know of no better way to clarify it.

No I'm not following you, I am telling you. The ESV may not use the word "will", but other more modern and accurate English versions do. Will as the NIV uses it is not in the Greek on it's own, it is based on the context of that part of scripture.
If you do know Greek then read what Hiebert and Alford have to say. They agree with Mounce and Moo and Wallace.
There is no difference to this rendering as far as time frame is concerned any more than Rev 13:1-6 and the time frame it relates to. They both use the same type of language and they both refer to future events, NOT current events.

I don't know how its apples and oranges. Look at the Greek phrases I listed. They are practically identical. smh.

Sadly, this is true, you don't know that they are not the same.

Im not being vague. Look at verse 7. The Greek word is "mysterion" or mystery. NIV translates it "secret power" and ESV translates it "mystery." In any event, "lawlessness" is the exact same word in Greek in verse 3 as in verse 7. Verse four calls him the anthropos tes anomias (man of lawlessness) and verse 7 calls him the "mysterion...tes anomias." You are trying to say these are different things being described, but "anomias" (lawlessness) in Greek is the exact same word in both places.

In any event, I think the only way we can converse on this Stan, is if you are willing to open your Bible and at least try to understand what I am saying. Im fine with it if you disagree. However, suggesting that I am inserting ideas into the text or that I am just pulling stuff out of the air (when I am actually referring to specific words in the Greek) displays a lack of you really trying to follow me. If you don't want to understand what I am saying, fine, we can just stop talking about it. Just don't skim though my comments and make assumptions about things. I assure you, I am looking at the text itself and trying to draw my understanding from the words and tenses in these verses. Like I said, while my view may not be the predominant one, there are many scholars that see it this way. So I am not off on some wild goose chase here, as you seem to want to imply.

Not that others might notice, but you are. The POINT is that v7 doesn't use the word MAN so it is not referencing the same thing. To equivocate about "mystery" vs "secret power" only muddies the waters, which is intentionally being vague in my books. You simply refuse to accept that v7 is not the same subject as v4.

My Bible is open ALL the time WW...it's called Biblegateway.com, along with a few other sites like Teknia.com.
Again, KNOWING Koine Greek and trying to know Greek are two different things. IMO you DON'T know Koine Greek and that is evidenced by how you present your arguments.
As I have stated many times, assertions mean nothing unless you can support or corroborate them, which obviously you can't and have not been able to, even now, when it would behoove you to do so.

 

[Wormwood]

[SIZE=small]Assuming a future point of reference to the entire context, the NIV inserts “will” twice in this text. On this reading the activity of the man of lawlessness lies in the future from Paul’s perspective. Literally, however, Paul’s words have no explicit reference to the future. “Will oppose” and “will exalt” represent two Greek present participles which have no particular time value but stress that the action named is continuing. Literally this part of the text could be translated, “the one opposing and exalting himself over everything that is called ‘God’ or an object of worship.” The NRSV captures the literal sense clearly: “He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship.” At this point, therefore, it is at least uncertain whether the man of lawlessness is a present or future figure. The language later in this section will resolve this question.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]Jon A. Weatherly, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co., 1996), 2 Th 2:4.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]2:4 The person indicated in v. 3 is described in v. 4 as arrogating to himself divine status. The participles [/SIZE][SIZE=small]ἀ[/SIZE][SIZE=small]ντικείμενος (“opposing”) and [/SIZE][SIZE=small]ὑ[/SIZE][SIZE=small]περαιρόμενος (“exalting [himself]”) are governed by the same article and are used restrictively to spell out the distinctive activity of the person of rebellion. That person opposes and exalts himself [/SIZE][SIZE=small]ἐ[/SIZE][SIZE=small]π[/SIZE][SIZE=small]ὶ[/SIZE][SIZE=small] πάντα λεγόμενον θε[/SIZE][SIZE=small]ὸ[/SIZE][SIZE=small]ν [/SIZE][SIZE=small]ἢ[/SIZE][SIZE=small] σέβασμα (“over every so-called god or object of worship”).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1990), 246.[/SIZE]

There are other scholars other than Mounce out there. Not to mention that Mounce does not deny these are present participles in verse 4.

As ἀδελφός (adelphos) means more than just 'brother' in our current vernacular, I don't have a problem with it. You would do much better to foster credibility IF you didn't just make vague references, like you do a lot, but actually quoted what scripture you are referring to in regards to "brothers".

You are obfuscating the discussion Stan. I am not interested in what you do or do not have a problem with. I am interested in what the Greek says. The Greek is not egalitarian. I agree that Paul and Jesus put all kinds of dignity on women that was unheard of in their day. That does not negate the fact that the NT is NOT written in egalitarian language. Let's just look at 2 Thessalonians alone, since we are there in our discussion anyway.

“But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.” (2 Thessalonians 2:13, ESV)

“But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.” (2 Thessalonians 2:13, NIV)

“Ἡμεῖς δὲ ὀφείλομεν εὐχαριστεῖν τῷ θεῷ πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ κυρίου, ὅτι εἵλατο ὑμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ἀπαρχὴν εἰς σωτηρίαν ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος καὶ πίστει ἀληθείας,” (2 Thessalonians 2:13, NA27)

Ok, Stan. Here is 2 Thessalonians 2:13 in ESV, NIV2011 and Greek. As you can see, in the Greek, there is only adelphoi (brothers). The word adelphai is not there. So, the NIV2011 ADDED "and sisters" to the text to make it gender neutral. Again, I am not saying Paul is omitting women in his term "brothers." I am saying the words are NOT THERE in the Greek. Thus, the NIV2011 is inserting words to make the text more politically correct. The point is NOT whether or not Paul was inclusive of women. The point is what the Greek actually SAYS. It does NOT say "and sisters" and yet it has been inserted for cultural reasons. Again, I don't care if you don't have a problem with it or not. My aim is not to please you. I am looking at what the text actually says and whether or not the NIV2011 follows the Greek very closely. It simply does not on many occasions. (see also 2 Thess 2:1; 3:1, 6, 13) The simple fact is that the original Greek is NOT written in egalitarian language. You are in error.

Are you trying to advocate that we should not translate ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) as humans or that it does not connote male AND female?

Um, no. I am advocating that the Greek often refers to masculine pronouns such as "brothers" and "men of God" etc. It does not use "brother and sisters" or "men and women of God" because it isn't concerned with egalitarianism. Anthropos does connotate humans, but that not the word used when Paul addresses people in the church. He uses masculine pronouns. He was a first century writer and that is how he wrote. I think it is misguided to try to manipulate his writings to appease our sensitivities. Let's allow Paul to speak for himself rather than trying to put words in his mouth about what we think he meant. I do believe he was inspired when he wrote, so we don't need to correct him.

Sadly, this is true, you don't know that they are not the same.

Well, since I know Greek and you do not, I wouldn't be putting your knowledge of the phrases I listed over mine. This is like arguing with one of my kids. How can you say I don't know what I am talking about when you admittedly don't know Greek??? Do you have a commentary somewhere that claims these two phrases are grammatically different or are you just being obtuse and disagreeing for the sake of disagreement?

To equivocate about "mystery" vs "secret power" only muddies the waters, which is intentionally being vague in my books. You simply refuse to accept that v7 is not the same subject as v4.

Good grief, Stan. I was trying to show you were I was getting the term "mystery" since you seemed to think is was foreign to the text. In any event, its not a different subject.

[SIZE=small]Paul’s language is compressed and difficult, but the point emerges clearly when this verse is connected to the verses that precede and follow. “Secret power of lawlessness” translates τ[/SIZE][SIZE=small]ὸ[/SIZE][SIZE=small] μυστήριον … τ[/SIZE][SIZE=small]ῆ[/SIZE][SIZE=small]ς [/SIZE][SIZE=small]ἀ[/SIZE][SIZE=small]νομίας (to mystērion … tēs anomias), literally “the mystery of lawlessness.” Even those who assume that in this text Paul predicts the future appearance in history of an “antichrist” note that he asserts the present activity of the principle of lawlessness here. But the reason that Paul refers to this activity as a “mystery” is clearer when we understand that the future revelation of the man of lawlessness points not to his becoming more active but his being revealed for what he is.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]Jon A. Weatherly, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co., 1996), 2 Th 2:7.[/SIZE]

 

[StanJ]

There are other scholars other than Mounce out there. Not to mention that Mounce does not deny these are present participles in verse 4.

Never heard of them but not surprising you bring them up as they support your POV. Weatherly may have a PhD, but not in Greek or translation. In addition, Ken Ham has pointed out some of his very controversial positions, so I'm loathe to accept Weatherly's conclusions in this matter. As you, he deals with the English rendering. Even without the word 'will', this chapter starts with the subject being in the future. The man of lawlessness has to BE revealed, and he was not then and still hasn't now, despite your eisegesis. The way the words are being used is secondary to who and what Paul was referring to here.
Wanamaker's explanation is fine, as he does not assert that this person is in the present, and deals simple with the subject matter, as it should be.
Mounce made it clear as to where the tense of the subject matter should come from.

You are obfuscating the discussion Stan. I am not interested in what you do or do not have a problem with. I am interested in what the Greek says. The Greek is not egalitarian. I agree that Paul and Jesus put all kinds of dignity on women that was unheard of in their day. That does not negate the fact that the NT is NOT written in egalitarian language. Let's just look at 2 Thessalonians alone, since we are there in our discussion anyway.

Not at all. Your condescension is noted, but ignored. It would be great IF you could actually state what the Greek says, but you simply deny any other position but your own, and ignore the scripture and examples I did supply.
If you want to prove your assertion, then supply relevant examples and corroboration, not just denials.
I'm not the one that continually tries to bring in outside examples, so if you don't want it done then don't do it.

Ok, Stan. Here is 2 Thessalonians 2:13 in ESV, NIV2011 and Greek. As you can see, in the Greek, there is only adelphoi (brothers). The word adelphai is not there. So, the NIV2011 ADDED "and sisters" to the text to make it gender neutral. Again, I am not saying Paul is omitting women in his term "brothers." I am saying the words are NOT THERE in the Greek. Thus, the NIV2011 is inserting words to make the text more politically correct. The point is NOT whether or not Paul was inclusive of women. The point is what the Greek actually SAYS. It does NOT say "and sisters" and yet it has been inserted for cultural reasons. Again, I don't care if you don't have a problem with it or not. My aim is not to please you. I am looking at what the text actually says and whether or not the NIV2011 follows the Greek very closely. It simply does not on many occasions. (see also 2 Thess 2:1; 3:1, 6, 13) The simple fact is that the original Greek is NOT written in egalitarian language. You are in error.

So you are advocating Paul was only speaking to the MEN in this church?
The Greek word has the following connotations;
1) a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother 2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman 3) any fellow or man 4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection 5) an associate in employment or office 6) brethren in Christ 6a) his brothers by blood 6b) all men 6c) apostles 6d) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

Now as Greeks would not have a problem defining the proper connotation used here this would not be a problem for a Koine Greek speaker, however in English, especially for the unchurched or unsaved, brother means brother and the whole purpose of functional equivalence is to make the English relate to the readers as normally and colloquially as possibly. You notice above as brother can mean more than a male person, the NIV translators made sure it conveyed as much. Your petty religious bias aside, that is how it should be done.
The error is in "striving about words", which you seem to do constantly.

Um, no. I am advocating that the Greek often refers to masculine pronouns such as "brothers" and "men of God" etc. It does not use "brother and sisters" or "men and women of God" because it isn't concerned with egalitarianism. Anthropos does connotate humans, but that not the word used when Paul addresses people in the church. He uses masculine pronouns. He was a first century writer and that is how he wrote. I think it is misguided to try to manipulate his writings to appease our sensitivities. Let's allow Paul to speak for himself rather than trying to put words in his mouth about what we think he meant. I do believe he was inspired when he wrote, so we don't need to correct him.

Right, so even though you know this you continue to equivocate on the issue? Here's something you SHOULD know if you real do know Greek;

There are three genders in Greek: masculine, feminine, and neuter. All nouns have a specific gender, but contrary to English, even things (including concrete objects and abstract ideas) can be masculine, feminine, or neuter, and there is no way to predict the gender from the semantics of the noun

a point that causes a lot of frustration to learners of Greek. For example, the wall is masculine, the door feminine, and the floor neuter. Native speakers of English typically make a strong association between the concepts masculine ↔ man and between feminine ↔ woman. Native speakers of Greek learn to associate the gender as something inherent to each specific noun, adjective, article, etc., and do not make such a strong association. So, we say that English has “natural gender”, whereas Greek has “formal gender”. (Many other Indo-European languages, such as French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, etc., also have formal gender.) Gender names in Greek: αρσενικό (masculine), θηλυκό (feminine), ουδέτερο (neuter).

So the Greeks knew what Paul was conveying but English people would NOT if this was translated in formal equivalence. Just as in French, which I know very well, Greek gender is associated with the word, NOT the actual gender. Any student who has Greek 101 should know and understand this.

You only want Paul to speak for himself as it suits you. Why not in 2 Thess 2?

BTW, I'm not correcting Paul, I'm correcting your false assertions about what Paul is saying.

Well, since I know Greek and you do not, I wouldn't be putting your knowledge of the phrases I listed over mine. This is like arguing with one of my kids. How can you say I don't know what I am talking about when you admittedly don't know Greek??? Do you have a commentary somewhere that claims these two phrases are grammatically different or are you just being obtuse and disagreeing for the sake of disagreement?

This has still not been proven, Even my kids when they were growing up figured out I was talking off the top of my head sometimes. You have to actually show and prove you KNOW Greek and not just assert it with bad examples and explanations.
I don't need a commentary to read.

Good grief, Stan. I was trying to show you were I was getting the term "mystery" since you seemed to think is was foreign to the text. In any event, its not a different subject.

Yes good grief is how I feel every time you try to place the same emphasis on v7 as you do on v4 to equate them as referring to the same thing. They DON'T.
The MAN of lawlessness is referred to in v4 and LAWLESSNESS is referred to in v7. Lawlessness may have existed when Paul said what He said in v7 but before that he refers to the MAN as being in the future, before the Day of the Lord. I'm not sure why I have had to say this so many times? Do you not get the difference?
BTW did you not note that even Weatherly says; "“mystery” is clearer when we understand that the future revelation of the man of lawlessness" ?

 

[Wormwood]

Never heard of them but not surprising you bring them up as they support your POV. Weatherly may have a PhD, but not in Greek or translation. In addition, Ken Ham has pointed out some of his very controversial positions, so I'm loathe to accept Weatherly's conclusions in this matter. As you, he deals with the English rendering. Even without the word 'will', this chapter starts with the subject being in the future.

No, he is dealing with the Greek. Its an "NIV" commentary. He isn't getting this from the NIV version because it says the opposite of what he is arguing.

It would be great IF you could actually state what the Greek says, but you simply deny any other position but your own, and ignore the scripture and examples I did supply.

What good would it do if I went word by word through the Greek? You don't know Greek. Im using English translations so you can follow along, Stan.

So you are advocating Paul was only speaking to the MEN in this church?
The Greek word has the following connotations;
1) a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother 2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman 3) any fellow or man 4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection 5) an associate in employment or office 6) brethren in Christ 6a) his brothers by blood 6b) all men 6c) apostles 6d) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

I don't think you are reading my posts very closely. You have me mistaken.

There are three genders in Greek: masculine, feminine, and neuter. All nouns have a specific gender, but contrary to English, even things (including concrete objects and abstract ideas) can be masculine, feminine, or neuter, and there is no way to predict the gender from the semantics of the noun

a point that causes a lot of frustration to learners of Greek. For example, the wall is masculine, the door feminine, and the floor neuter. Native speakers of English typically make a strong association between the concepts masculine ↔ man and between feminine ↔ woman. Native speakers of Greek learn to associate the gender as something inherent to each specific noun, adjective, article, etc., and do not make such a strong association. So, we say that English has “natural gender”, whereas Greek has “formal gender”. (Many other Indo-European languages, such as French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, etc., also have formal gender.) Gender names in Greek: αρσενικό (masculine), θηλυκό (feminine), ουδέτερο (neuter).

Yes, Greek includes gender in its words. I am not understanding your point here.

This has still not been proven, Even my kids when they were growing up figured out I was talking off the top of my head sometimes. You have to actually show and prove you KNOW Greek and not just assert it with bad examples and explanations.

So how am I supposed to prove this to you since you don't know Greek? I pointed out that the verbs in verse 4 are present participles. This is undeniable. I think it changes how these verses could be potentially interpreted. There really isn't any mystery in the Greek here. The tenses are what they are. Now you can disagree that the present participles are present descriptors in Paul's day of the antecedent "son of destruction." You cant disagree that they are present participles that can potentially be understood as present actions of a currently existing figure that will one day be revealed. It's just a fact. Im not saying its the only interpretation, I am just saying its a viable one...and one I think is more likely contextually.

I don't need a commentary to read

Well, you don't trust me that I know anything, so I thought I would quote some nationally published commentaries to show I am not out to lunch. If that doesn't help then I am at a loss of how to communicate with you.

BTW did you not note that even Weatherly says; "“mystery” is clearer when we understand that the future revelation of the man of lawlessness" ?

You clearly have not been reading what I have written to this point. I also believe in the "future revelation" of the man of lawlessness.

Weatherly may have a PhD, but not in Greek or translation.

FYI, pretty much any theological PhD requires a minimum of 6 and more likely 12 graduate hours of Greek...depending on the concentration... and then about 6 hours of concentrated Greek in the PhD program itself...not to mention all the exegetical classes that deal heavily in original languages. Language is language. Mounce is an incredible Greek teacher and scholar. However, its not like he has some secret understanding of Greek that no one else can access or that gives unique insight into the verb tenses in 2 Thess. 2:4.

 

[StanJ]

No, he is dealing with the Greek. Its an "NIV" commentary. He isn't getting this from the NIV version because it says the opposite of what he is arguing.

I have no idea what he is DEALING with, but he is definitely not accurate in his assertions of the MAN of lawlessness being a present personality. Stott and Baker disagree with him in other NIV Commentaries. He does not support his assertion that the word "will" is improperly used here, and you still haven't provided us with an example of where the word WILL is used in the NT. Try not to confuse God's WILL with what God WILL do.

What good would it do if I went word by word through the Greek? You don't know Greek. Im using English translations so you can follow along, Stan.

I don't have a problem following the Greek either WW. I have ALL the tools I need to assess the veracity of anything you assert. It's a pretty simple verse in English so I doubt it is as complex in Greek as you make it out to be.

I don't think you are reading my posts very closely. You have me mistaken.

By continually saying this, all you are doing is avoiding addressing my responses. If I'm mistaken, then show me by responding in the context of my posts.

Yes, Greek includes gender in its words. I am not understanding your point here.

Well you should understand. You make a point of saying the words are masculine, which proves nothing except to maybe divert attention from the real issue in my response.

So how am I supposed to prove this to you since you don't know Greek? I pointed out that the verbs in verse 4 are present participles. This is undeniable. I think it changes how these verses could be potentially interpreted. There really isn't any mystery in the Greek here. The tenses are what they are. Now you can disagree that the present participles are present descriptors in Paul's day of the antecedent "son of destruction." You cant disagree that they are present participles that can potentially be understood as present actions of a currently existing figure that will one day be revealed. It's just a fact. Im not saying its the only interpretation, I am just saying its a viable one...and one I think is more likely contextually.

Again, NOT the issue. Why do I have to continually state what the issue is? If you are not going to debate this honestly, then I honestly can't be bothered repeating myself time and time again.
The issue has nothing to do with the tenses of the words you keep insinuating are relevant. The issue is the MAN of lawlessness being present in Paul's day or Paul is speaking prophetically about a future day. It can't be both. WHAT determines what Paul is speaking about and why do you continue to equivocate about this issue?
Your original premise is NOT viable at all, for ALL the reasons I have given. To be sure, the context of this passage is the future "MAN of lawlessness", not a present one. This wasn't the first time Paul talked to the Thessalonians about this issue as he clearly states in v5. Apparently they were pretty thick in understanding this issue as well.

Well, you don't trust me that I know anything, so I thought I would quote some nationally published commentaries to show I am not out to lunch. If that doesn't help then I am at a loss of how to communicate with you.

Communicate honestly about what we DO see in 2 Thess 2:4, not what you have learned from biased teachers. Exactly what creds do you have in Greek?

You clearly have not been reading what I have written to this point. I also believe in the "future revelation" of the man of lawlessness.

Again not a fact. You can't believe both positions. Either the "MAN of lawlessness" is in the future or he is NOT.

FYI, pretty much any theological PhD requires a minimum of 6 and more likely 12 graduate hours of Greek...depending on the concentration... and then about 6 hours of concentrated Greek in the PhD program itself...not to mention all the exegetical classes that deal heavily in original languages. Language is language. Mounce is an incredible Greek teacher and scholar. However, its not like he has some secret understanding of Greek that no one else can access or that gives unique insight into the verb tenses in 2 Thess. 2:4.

Not the issue. Mounce and his peers translate and they all pretty much agree. If Weatherly was good enough to translate, he would, but instead he picks apart those more educated than himself by dishonest commentary IMO.
The following is a review of his book you quote from;

Dr. Weatherly himself has said this book was hastily written - and frankly, if he had more time he might have more developed the theological and historical implications of the letter to the Thessalonians instead of focusing so heavily on the Greek words contained within the scripture.
It is not a book for someone wanting a quick and practical tool to learn about these epistles - but for the scholar, it is a well researched commentary dissecting word by word and phrase by phrase what Paul intended. (Kirk Sheppard)

The negative aspects of this work are as follows; interaction with secondary commentaries and monographs is kept to a low throughout the work. A quick skim of the (up to date) bibliography reveals a sad lack of any of the major critical works on Thessalonians, i.e, E. Best-(BNTC). Finally and most important, Weatherly's pride on this work, his argument on the 'Man of lawlessness' issue I found unconvincing and rather strained. He does manage to dismantle the argument that views the man of lawlessness as a future oriented (only) figure. Moreover, Weatherly's critique of the NIV' blatant interpretive based translation of the target passages dealing with this issue is justified.
In the end, this work should be relegated to the shelves of Thessalonian scholars who seek to find further insight into the text, only to be dissapointed. The beginning serious student should first consult Leon Morris-(NICNT). For the scholar, there is still the choice between either Wanamaker-(NIGTC),Bruce-(WBC) or Malherbe-(AB). (Rick E Aguirre)

Let's move on shall we?

 

[Wormwood]

I have no idea what he is DEALING with, but he is definitely not accurate in his assertions of the MAN of lawlessness being a present personality. Stott and Baker disagree with him in other NIV Commentaries. He does not support his assertion that the word "will" is improperly used here, and you still haven't provided us with an example of where the word WILL is used in the NT. Try not to confuse God's WILL with what God WILL do.

First, its not unusual for scholars to disagree. Again, my interpretation is not the only one, I am simply arguing that it is a valid one.
As for the Greek:
Verbs determine their tense by their form, endings and sometimes augments. Most future tense verbs are formed by adding a sigma to the end of the future tense stem. For instance, λυω means, "I loose" while λυσω means "I will loose." On the other hand, participles (words generally ending in "ing"), generally have a nu and tau attached to the stem (perfect participles us omnicron and tau) in masculine active form. When they are middle or passive verbs, they use μενο or μενη based on whether they are masculine or feminine. So lets look at verse 4:

“ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἐστὶν θεός.” (2 Thessalonians 2:4, NA27)

The five verbs above are highlighted in red. As you can see we see the first three end with μενος and μενον. There is no sigma here. They are NOT future verbs. They are middle/passive participles. The only reason the third one has "menon" rather than "menos" is because it is accusative rather than nominative. The third verb καθίσαι is an infinitive. Essentially an infinitive is a verbal noun and is generally translated "to _________." These usually end in alpha, iota. This would be generally translated "to sit down." The final verb is a present active participle, so it has the ντ in the ending. Again, no sigma. It is not future tense.

The first two are middle/passive because they represent what the "son of destruction" is receiving or doing to himself...he is the one opposing and exalting himself over everything/all (παντα) that is called (λεγόμενον ) God. The rest of the verse reads:
ὥστε (so that) αὐτὸν (he) εἰς (into/toward) τὸν ναὸν (the temple) τοῦ θεοῦ (of God) καθίσαι (to sit down) ἀποδεικνύντα (proclaiming (active participle)) ἑαυτὸν (himself) ὅτι (that) ἐστὶν (is/to be) θεός (God).”

So again, the "will" comes from a future tense verb such as λυσω, I "will loose." There are no future verbs in verse four, so to translate the verbs as "will oppose" and "will exalt", etc. is not precisely what the Greek says. These are participles, not future tense verbs. The "will" is only supplied to indicate a future activity and that is assumed by the NIV translators, but it is not what the Greek actually says.

I don't have a problem following the Greek either WW. I have ALL the tools I need to assess the veracity of anything you assert. It's a pretty simple verse in English so I doubt it is as complex in Greek as you make it out to be.

It's not complex. Its just a different language. Verbs have all kinds of forms based on what person they are, what tense, whether they are middle/passive, active, etc. Its just not easy to go through all the various variations of how something can be written when there is no knowledge base there of how the endings, stems, augments, etc work in the language. Anyway, there you go.

Well you should understand. You make a point of saying the words are masculine, which proves nothing except to maybe divert attention from the real issue in my response.

Its not just that the words are masculine (as most Greek words carry masculine, feminine or neuter gender). It is that the word "brothers" is used and not "brothers and sisters." There is a Greek word for "sisters" but Paul is content to address the "brothers." This isn't a generic noun that just happens to be masculine like "λογος" or "word." It is referring to males. Again, its not that Paul is omitting females. It's just how things were written back then. So, I am not saying that Paul is not addressing both brothers and sisters as the NIV2011 translates. I am saying that is not what the Greek says. Paul was not concerned with being egalitarian because his culture was not concerned with it. Everyone understood what he meant. I just think it matters because when we start inserting words into the text to make it more reflective of how we would understand what he wrote, you start to walk a fine line of making the Bible say what we understand rather than reflecting what was actually written. I think there are times where this egalitarian language actually impacts the meaning in a negative way and does not accurately communicate the authors intentions. Personally, I want a translation that reflects what the original letters of Paul said, and not what I think a translator thinks he meant based on our current cultural understandings. Let the commentaries provide those explanations and leave the text to say what Paul actually wrote.

If you are not going to debate this honestly, then I honestly can't be bothered repeating myself time and time again.
The issue has nothing to do with the tenses of the words you keep insinuating are relevant. The issue is the MAN of lawlessness being present in Paul's day or Paul is speaking prophetically about a future day. It can't be both. WHAT determines what Paul is speaking about and why do you continue to equivocate about this issue?

Stan, verb tenses have EVERYTHING to do with whether we understand something to be a future event or a present event. If I say, "My brother will come home. He will eat vanilla ice cream when he comes home." the verbs "will come" and "will eat" make it very clear that these are future actions. However, if I say, "My brother will come home. He is the one who is eating vanilla ice cream" this could mean something completely different. It COULD mean that my brother will be identified as the one eating vanilla ice cream when he comes home. Or it COULD mean that he will come home but he is also currently eating vanilla ice cream. I believe the man of lawlessness "will be revealed" (this is future tense in the Greek) but I also believe he is currently opposing and exalting himself over God and proclaiming himself to be God. If the "man of lawlessness" is a description of Satan, he "will be exposed/revealed" in the future and destroyed, but he is also currently opposing and exalting himself and proclaiming himself to be the god of this world. Thus, Paul is saying, "You don't need to worry that you will miss the second coming. The evil one will be revealed and destroyed in that day. The evil one is the one currently causing all the persecution and false worship in the world and so as long as these evils exist, the evil one has not been exposed and destroyed. Thus, as long as evil is around, Christ has not come back to expose and destroy the evil one. That is how I understand it and it is a very viable understanding based on the how the Greek reads. I don't know how else I can communicate this. The verbs matter.

Not the issue. Mounce and his peers translate and they all pretty much agree. If Weatherly was good enough to translate, he would, but instead he picks apart those more educated than himself by dishonest commentary IMO.

No, they don't all agree...otherwise the ESV and NRSV wouldn't disagree with the verb tenses of the NIV in verse 4. Weatherly is not dishonest and Mounce is not "more educated." Both have terminal PhDs and both are academics who spend their lives teaching. Just because you like one scholar more or one is more prominent doesn't mean his is more educated. Scholars disagree all the time (its why we have different translations and different commentaries). Saying their disagreement is based on dishonesty is irresponsible. Its like saying that you disagree with me because you are dishonest. No, we just disagree.

 

[StanJ]

First, its not unusual for scholars to disagree. Again, my interpretation is not the only one, I am simply arguing that it is a valid one.
As for the Greek:
Verbs determine their tense by their form, endings and sometimes augments. Most future tense verbs are formed by adding a sigma to the end of the future tense stem. For instance, λυω means, "I loose" while λυσω means "I will loose." On the other hand, participles (words generally ending in "ing"), generally have a nu and tau attached to the stem (perfect participles us omnicron and tau) in masculine active form. When they are middle or passive verbs, they use μενο or μενη based on whether they are masculine or feminine. So lets look at verse 4:

“ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἐστὶν θεός.” (2 Thessalonians 2:4, NA27)

The five verbs above are highlighted in red. As you can see we see the first three end with μενος and μενον. There is no sigma here. They are NOT future verbs. They are middle/passive participles. The only reason the third one has "menon" rather than "menos" is because it is accusative rather than nominative. The third verb καθίσαι is an infinitive. Essentially an infinitive is a verbal noun and is generally translated "to _________." These usually end in alpha, iota. This would be generally translated "to sit down." The final verb is a present active participle, so it has the ντ in the ending. Again, no sigma. It is not future tense.

The first two are middle/passive because they represent what the "son of destruction" is receiving or doing to himself...he is the one opposing and exalting himself over everything/all (παντα) that is called (λεγόμενον ) God. The rest of the verse reads:
ὥστε (so that) αὐτὸν (he) εἰς (into/toward) τὸν ναὸν (the temple) τοῦ θεοῦ (of God) καθίσαι (to sit down) ἀποδεικνύντα (proclaiming (active participle)) ἑαυτὸν (himself) ὅτι (that) ἐστὶν (is/to be) θεός (God).”

So again, the "will" comes from a future tense verb such as λυσω, I "will loose." There are no future verbs in verse four, so to translate the verbs as "will oppose" and "will exalt", etc. is not precisely what the Greek says. These are participles, not future tense verbs. The "will" is only supplied to indicate a future activity and that is assumed by the NIV translators, but it is not what the Greek actually says.


It's not complex. Its just a different language. Verbs have all kinds of forms based on what person they are, what tense, whether they are middle/passive, active, etc. Its just not easy to go through all the various variations of how something can be written when there is no knowledge base there of how the endings, stems, augments, etc work in the language. Anyway, there you go.


Its not just that the words are masculine (as most Greek words carry masculine, feminine or neuter gender). It is that the word "brothers" is used and not "brothers and sisters." There is a Greek word for "sisters" but Paul is content to address the "brothers." This isn't a generic noun that just happens to be masculine like "λογος" or "word." It is referring to males. Again, its not that Paul is omitting females. It's just how things were written back then. So, I am not saying that Paul is not addressing both brothers and sisters as the NIV2011 translates. I am saying that is not what the Greek says. Paul was not concerned with being egalitarian because his culture was not concerned with it. Everyone understood what he meant. I just think it matters because when we start inserting words into the text to make it more reflective of how we would understand what he wrote, you start to walk a fine line of making the Bible say what we understand rather than reflecting what was actually written. I think there are times where this egalitarian language actually impacts the meaning in a negative way and does not accurately communicate the authors intentions. Personally, I want a translation that reflects what the original letters of Paul said, and not what I think a translator thinks he meant based on our current cultural understandings. Let the commentaries provide those explanations and leave the text to say what Paul actually wrote.

Stan, verb tenses have EVERYTHING to do with whether we understand something to be a future event or a present event. If I say, "My brother will come home. He will eat vanilla ice cream when he comes home." the verbs "will come" and "will eat" make it very clear that these are future actions. However, if I say, "My brother will come home. He is the one who is eating vanilla ice cream" this could mean something completely different. It COULD mean that my brother will be identified as the one eating vanilla ice cream when he comes home. Or it COULD mean that he will come home but he is also currently eating vanilla ice cream. I believe the man of lawlessness "will be revealed" (this is future tense in the Greek) but I also believe he is currently opposing and exalting himself over God and proclaiming himself to be God. If the "man of lawlessness" is a description of Satan, he "will be exposed/revealed" in the future and destroyed, but he is also currently opposing and exalting himself and proclaiming himself to be the god of this world. Thus, Paul is saying, "You don't need to worry that you will miss the second coming. The evil one will be revealed and destroyed in that day. The evil one is the one currently causing all the persecution and false worship in the world and so as long as these evils exist, the evil one has not been exposed and destroyed. Thus, as long as evil is around, Christ has not come back to expose and destroy the evil one. That is how I understand it and it is a very viable understanding based on the how the Greek reads. I don't know how else I can communicate this. The verbs matter.


No, they don't all agree...otherwise the ESV and NRSV wouldn't disagree with the verb tenses of the NIV in verse 4. Weatherly is not dishonest and Mounce is not "more educated." Both have terminal PhDs and both are academics who spend their lives teaching. Just because you like one scholar more or one is more prominent doesn't mean his is more educated. Scholars disagree all the time (its why we have different translations and different commentaries). Saying their disagreement is based on dishonesty is irresponsible. Its like saying that you disagree with me because you are dishonest. No, we just disagree.

Obviously you have your mind made up so I won't bother repeating myself for what seems to be the 100th time. I have demonstrably shown this is not the issue in 2 Thess 2:4, but as you seem to prefer to exist theologically on the periphery of this issue, so be it.

 

[Wormwood]

Just walking through the Greek like you requested. I wasn't anticipating changing your mind. Just giving my rationale.