The Meaning of "apostasia" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3

2 Thessalonians 2:3 – use of “apostasia”

BADG - ἀποστασία, ας, ἡ (s. ἀφίστημι; a form quotable since Diod S outside the Bible [Nägeli 31] for the older ἀπόστασις [Phryn. 528 Lob.]) defiance of established system or authority, rebellion, abandonment, breach of faith (Josh 22:22; 2 Ch 29:19; 1 Macc 2:15; Just., D. 110, 2; Tat. 8:1) ἀπό τινος (Plu., Galb. 1053 [1, 9] Z. v.l. ἀπὸ Νέρωνος ἀ.; Jos., Vi. 43) ἀποστασίαν διδάσκεις ἀπὸ Μωϋσέως you teach (Judeans) to abandon Moses Ac 21:21. Of the rebellion caused by the Lawless One in the last days 2 Th 2:3 (cp. Just., D. 110, 2).—DELG s.v. ἵστημι. M-M. TW. Sv.

MacArthur – The basic meaning of apostasia (apostasy) is “revolt,” or “rebellion.” In its only other New Testament appearance it refers to forsaking the Law of Moses (Acts 21:21). The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, uses it three times to express rebellion against God (Josh. 22:22; 2 Chron. 29:19; Jer. 2:19). Thus, the word marks a deliberate defection from a formerly held religious position.

Paul was not referring here to apostasy (defection from the gospel truth) in the general sense. There have always been apostate churches, like that at Laodicea (Rev 3:14–22), as well as apostate individuals (Heb. 10:25–31; 2 Peter 2:20–22). Such generalized apostasy, because it is always present, cannot signify a particular time period. Therefore, it cannot be the specific event Paul has in mind.

Apostasy will reach its peak in the end times:

But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; avoid such men as these.…But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. (2 Tim. 3:1–5, 13; cf. 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Peter 3:3–4; Jude 17–18)

But the heightened apostasy of the end times, like the apostasy that has plagued the church throughout its history, is not the specific event Paul has in mind.

Nor does Paul have in mind the apostasy during the Tribulation, of which Jesus warned: “Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many. Because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold.…For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect” (Matt. 24:11–12, 24).

Paul’s use of the definite article reveals that he had in mind not a general flow or trend, but a specific, identifiable act of apostasy. The apostasy will be a blasphemous act of unprecedented magnitude. The apostle identified the apostasy by naming the key character connected with it: the man of lawlessness. Understanding who that key person is is a prerequisite to identifying the apostasy event. Anomia (lawlessness) literally means “without law” (cf. 1 John 3:4). This person will be the consummate lawless one; a blasphemous sinner, who will live in open defiance of God’s law. Of all the billions of godless, evil, lawless sinners in human history, his evil influence will be greater than any other’s. Even in the end times, when “lawlessness is increased” (Matt. 24:12), this Satan-energized leader will stand out as the one whose deoraved, wicked, lawless leadership sweeps over the whole world-with influence never before seen.

The aorist tense of the verb translated revealed points to a definite time when this man will appear. It implies that he was previously present and known, but his act of apostasy will unveil his true evil identity; he will drop all pretense and the previously hidden wickedness of his character will be fully disclosed. God and the Lord Jesus will not have appeared as his enemies until the time he is revealed.

The title man of lawlessness has been identified with many different individuals, including Antiochus Epiphanes, Caligula, Nero, and in the last century, Hitler, Stalin, and others. But the close association of the man of lawlessness with the Day of the Lord rules out historical persons; otherwise, the Day of the Lord might have come centuries ago. The man of lawlessness cannot be Satan, for he is distinguished from the devil in verse 9. Nor can this be a reference to a principle of evil, for the text specifically identifies him as a man. He can be none other than the final Antichrist.

Paul further described the man of lawlessness as the son of destruction. The expression son of is a Hebraism indicating a close association, or of the same kind, just as a son shares his father’s nature. The Antichrist will be so completely devoted to the destruction of all that relates to God’s purpose and plan that he can be said to be destruction personified. He, however, belongs to destruction (apoleia; “ruin:” not “annihilation”) as the one to be destroyed. He is fixed for punishment and judgment; he is human trash for the garbage dump of hell.

Only one other individual in Scripture shares the dubious distinction of being named son of destruction: Judas (John 17:12; the nasb  translates the same Greek phrase “son of perdition”). The title is thus reserved for the two vilest people in human history, controlled by Satan (John 13:2; Rev. 13:2) and guilty of the two most heinous acts of apostasy. Judas lived and ministered intimately with the incarnate Son of God for more than three years—a privilege granted to only eleven others. Yet after observing Jesus’ sinless life, hearing His wisdom, and experiencing His divine power and gracious love, Judas betrayed Him. Amazingly, he was so much a son of destruction that the glories of Christ that softened the eleven hardened him.

Monstrous as that apostasy was, it pales in comparison to the act of future apostasy Antichrist will commit. Judas betrayed the Son of God; Antichrist will proclaim himself God. Judas desecrated the temple with the money he received for betraying Christ (Matt. 27:5); Antichrist will desecrate the temple by committing the abomination of desolation (Matt. 24:15)..hidas. annarently without influencing others. went astray, a tragic, solitary disaster (Acts 1:18–19); Antichrist will lead the world astray into destruction (Rev. 13:5–8).

After initially posing as the friend of religion (cf. Rev. 17:13), Antichrist will suddenly reveal his true nature when he commits blasphemy against God and opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship (cf. Rev. 13:15–16). Energized by Satan and aided by the false prophet, Antichrist will have immense power to successfully demand that the world worship him (cf. Rev. 13:1–17). Satan, who has always longed to be worshiped (cf. Isa. 14:13–14), will fulfill that desire vicariously through the worship accorded Antichrist. Antichrist will exalt himself by taking his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. The temple, the symbol of God’s presence, is the most fitting place for Satan to orchestrate the ultimate act of blasphemy—a wicked man displaying himself as being God. This apostasy, to which Paul refers here and which Jesus called the “abomination of desolation” (Matt. 24:15), referring to Daniel’s prophecy, will take place at the midpoint of the Tribulation (Dan. 9:27). It will initiate God’s judgment on the world through Antichrist’s reign of terror during the second half of the Tribulation. At the end of that three-and-a-half-year period, Christ will return in glory to destroy Antichrist’s kingdom and all the ungodly. The Lord Jesus will cast him into the lake of fire along with his false prophet (Rev. 19:11–21).

Paul’s point is clear. The apostasy, Antichrist’s blasphemous self-deification and desecration of the Temple, is a unique, unmistakable event that precedes the Day of the Lord. Since that clearly has not happened, the Day of the Lord cannot have arrived. And it never will for believers.

Woolsey (BCWT): . . . the day cannot come until a necessary pre-condition has been met—the appearance of the man of lawlessness, and the rebellion he will instigate (2:3).

Leon Morris: While the coming of ‘the day of the Lord’ will be unexpected (1 Thess. 5:2–3), certain things will precede it. One is the rebellion. The definite article shows that the rebellion was well known to the readers; evidently it had formed part of Paul’s previous teaching. Our difficulty is that we do not know what he had told them. In classical Greek apostasia meant a political or military rebellion, but in lxx it is used of rebellion against God (e.g. Josh. 22:22), and this became the accepted biblical usage. Paul is saying that in the last times there will be a great uprising of the powers of evil against God (cf. Matt. 24:10ff.; 1 Tim. 4:1–3; 2 Tim. 3:1–9; 4:3–4). It is as though Satan were throwing all his forces into one last despairing effort.

A feature of the rebellion will be the appearance of the man of lawlessness. Some mss read ‘man of sin’ (gnb ‘the Wicked One’); lawlessness seems to be the correct reading, but there is no great difference in meaning, for ‘sin is lawlessness’ (1 John 3:4).

Hendriksen (Baker NTC): The fact that the day of the Lord would be preceded by the apostasy (falling away, rebellion)—an apostasy about which the readers had received previous instruction (see on verse 5)—had been clearly predicted by the Lord while he was still on earth (Matt. 24:10–13). During the old dispensation the predicted final apostasy had been foreshadowed again and again by defection of Israel from the living God. A most striking instance of apostasy occurred during the reign of that cruel and wicked forerunner of the Antichrist, namely, Antiochus Epiphanes (who ruled from 175–164 b.c.). He was determined to wipe out the religion of Israel root and branch:

“In those days there came forth out of Israel transgressors of the law, who persuaded many, saying, Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles that are round about us.… And they made themselves uncircumcised, and forsook the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the Gentiles, and sold themselves to do evil.… And many of Israel consented to his worship, and sacrificed to the idols, and profaned the sabbath.… And the king’s officers, that were enforcing the apostasy, came into the city of Modein to sacrifice” (1 Macc. 1:11, 15, 43; 2:15).

Here at Modein, not far from Jerusalem, there lived at that time an aged priest, Mattathias. When the commissioner of Antiochus requested that he take the lead in offering a pagan sacrifice, he not only refused to do this but slew both the commissioner and an apostate Jew who was about to comply with the request. That deed of courage marked the beginning of the splendid era of Maccabean revolt.

What the apostle Paul is now saying, here in 2 Thess. 2:3, amount to this: Just like the first coming of Christ was preceded by a period of apostasy, so also the second coming will not occur until a similar apostasy has taken place. In this case, however, the apostasy will be a falling away from (yes, and open rebellion against) the God who climaxed his love by a deed of infinite sacrifice in the interest of sinners, namely, the giving of his only-begotten Son.

The passage with reference to the coming apostasy by no means teaches that those who are God’s genuine children will “fall away from grace.” There is no such falling away. The Good Shepherd knows his own sheep, and no one shall ever snatch them out of his hands (see N.T.C. on John 10:28; see also on 1 Thess. 1:4). But it does mean that the faith of the fathers—a faith to which the children adhere for a while in a merely formal way—will finally be abandoned altogether by many of the children. In that sense the apostasy will be very real, indeed.

Elias (BCBC): What must happen first? In the original Greek version of this text, the underlying word is apostasia, so one can translate: unless the apostasy comes first (2:3). The word apostasia, often rendered rebellion (NIV, NRSV), can refer either to a political or a religious phenomenon. The actions of the main instigator (2:4) clearly suggest that this apostasy has both political and religious dimensions. Paul and his associates remind their Christian brothers and sisters in Thessalonica that the time leading up to the dawning of the day of the Lord will include a season of grave peril. Apparently the original readers know what this means (2:5). Living under persecution, perhaps mostly precipitated by their unwillingness to do homage to the emperor within the civic cult, these new believers would readily have visualized such apostasy. They are personally acquainted with the blasphemous claims of divinity made by the emperors themselves or by others in the emperor’s behalf. Apostasy of this kind clearly shows that the worlds of politics and religion intertwine. [Religion in the Greco-Roman World, p. 365.]

The initiator of this period of apostasy has various names, two of which are introduced here. One title not used in Paul’s writings is antichrist, mentioned directly only in the epistles of John: 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7. To simplify our discussion of this end-time personage, we will use the general term antagonist (cf. Holland: 46; “The Antagonist” in TBC below).

First, the man of lawlessness is revealed (2:3; cf. the lawless one, 2:8). Some early manuscripts have man of sin (thus KJV), but the earliest Greek texts read man of lawlessness. [Textual Analysis, p. 346.] The category of lawlessness need not be understood in terms of a Jewish concept of disobedience against God’s laws, but rather as general opposition to God. The one envisioned is not Satan but a historical person (anthrōpos in the Greek can be male or female) through whom Satan works (cf. 2:9–10). This leader of the blatant God-defying apostasy appears on the world stage in a way that mimics the coming of Christ for the final judgment (cf. 1:7): the man of lawlessness is revealed. In 2:9–10 the evangelists elaborate on ways in which the antagonist’s activity will imitate the ministry of Christ. Such mimicry is clearly intended to deceive believers and beguile others into accepting a phony and dangerous substitute for God’s gracious offer of salvation through Christ.

A second name for the antagonist is given: the son of perdition (2:3). Rather than defining the antagonist with reference to activity (lawlessness), this name foreshadows the eventual fate which awaits this end-time figure (cf. 2:8). Even the name sends the signal to believers that ultimately they need not fear the antics of Satan’s deputy, whose doom is assured.

These antics are suggestively recounted: who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or worship object so that he sits in the temple of God proclaiming himself that he is God (2:4). We can be sure that the believers gathered for worship in Thessalonica hear these words with more insight than later readers can ever hope to attain. What might our sisters and brothers in Thessalonica have inferred from this dramatic preview?

A review of some traumatic episodes in Jewish history will help to bring us in touch with what the Thessalonian Christian community may be thinking and feeling while listening to this prediction about the provocative actions of the antagonist. Most Jews and some Gentiles (in particular the God-fearers) would have recalled some troubling stories from the past. [Historical and Political Context, p. 357.]

What the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes did in 167 b.c. impressed itself indelibly on the inner consciousness of the Jewish people, including Jesus himself. This king was eager to integrate the Jews into the culture of his Greek empire and probably also to identify the Greek god Zeus with himself. He erected an altar to Zeus over the altar in the court of the Jerusalem temple and there sacrificed unacceptable offerings (likely pigs; 1 Macc. 1:54–61; 2 Macc. 6:1–6; cf. 6:18–23). This came to be known as “an abomination that makes desolate” (Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11), since such action defiled the temple and rendered it unclean for worship of the God of gods.

In the Gospels, Jesus employs the same language of “desolation” when predicting the desecration and destruction of the temple (Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20). That disastrous event actually occurred in a.d. 70: after a lengthy siege of Jerusalem, the Roman general Titus and his army penetrated the defensive walls, pillaged and destroyed the city, and demolished the temple.

While Paul and his co-workers are writing 2 Thessalonians (about a.d. 50 or 51), the Jerusalem temple is still standing. Memories of Jesus’ dire warnings concerning the future trauma in Jerusalem and his promise of the coming of the Son of Man in power and glory (Mark 13) are likely circulating in sermons and stories or perhaps even in an early written form.

Two other historical episodes from the time following Antiochus IV Epiphanes might have come to the minds of the readers. According to Josephus, in 63 b.c. the Roman general Pompey conquered Jerusalem and deeply offended the temple leaders by entering the holy of holies (War 1.152–153 [1.7.6]). But a more recent deeply upsetting incident might be personally recalled by some people living in Thessalonica. Emperor Gaius Caligula (a.d. 37–41) preceded Claudius, emperor when these letters to Thessalonica are being written. Josephus reports concerning Gaius:

Gaius Caesar displayed such insolence at his accession to power that he wished to be thought of and addressed as a god.… Indeed, he sent Petronius with an army to Jerusalem to install statues of himself in the temple; if the Jews refused them he was to execute the objectors and to reduce the whole nation to slavery. (War 2.184–185 [2.10.1]; cf. Ant. 18.257–309 [18.8.1–9])

Providentially, this order was not implemented. Gaius Caligula was assassinated before he could punish his deputy for disobeying the order. A national Jewish uprising against Rome was narrowly averted. Better said, the Jewish War of a.d. 66–70 almost broke out twenty-five years earlier. News of this close call traveled quickly to Jewish population centers throughout the Mediterranean world.

What relevance do these historical memories have for our attempt to understand what Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy mean in 2 Thessalonians 2:4? By this time, the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 b.c. have come to symbolize the way emperors and kings often put themselves in God’s place. Pompey in 63 b.c. and Gaius Caligula in a.d. 41 used the same blueprint for their acts of blasphemous defiance. During the coming apostasy, Paul and his partners warn, the antagonist will follow the same script. This account detailing the activity of the man of lawlessness, the son of perdition, even echoes what Daniel has to say about king Antiochus, that he claimed to be “greater than any god” (Dan. 11:36–37; “The Antagonist” in TBC below; Lederach: 247–249).

Like Antiochus, the antagonist exalts himself, not only against the one true God but also against every so-called god or worship object. The antagonist’s ultimate arrogant defiance expresses itself in a symbolic action: He sits in the temple of God. This can most naturally be taken as a reference to the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, rather than to the church as God’s temple (cf. 1 Cor. 3:16–17) or to a rebuilt temple (so Thomas: 322). Along with sitting down in the temple, thereby claiming divine authority, the antagonist makes an announcement, proclaiming himself that he is God. What his symbolic action claims, the antagonist also openly proclaims: “I am God!”

BEST (BNTC): What events or conditions require to be fulfilled before the day of the Lord comes? To answer, Paul draws on the oral teaching which he had already given in Thessalonica (v. 5; and see on 1 Th. 5:1), and presumably selects from it those elements which are most relevant; by alluding to them he is able to say enough to show that the day of the Lord has not yet come. Because he selects and because he does not explain the terms he introduces, our understanding of vv. 3f, and later of vv. 6ff, is uncertain. Is there an order in which conditions must be fulfilled or events take place? first might suggest that the apostasy is to be followed by the man of rebellion but it more properly applies to the whole of the protasis over against the unexpressed apodosis (cf. von Dobschütz). first does not always have a temporal connotation and may mean ‘the first matter to be dealt with’; although there is no explicit ‘then’ or ‘secondly’ in what follows, yet the temporal context of v. 2c implies it must have a temporal significance here. (first does not come until the end of its clause but its position is not always a safe guide to its meaning; cf. Lk. 9:59 and 9:61 and Giblin, p. 83, n.3.)

the apostasy (ἀποστασία with the definite article) is clearly a term already known to the Thessalonians. While the root is used regularly of political defection in the LXX, the intertestamental literature and the N.T., it almost always has as well a religious reference (e.g. Josh. 22:22; 2 Chron. 33:19; Jer. 2:19; 1 Macc. 1:15; 2:15; Acts 19:9; 1 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 3:12) and this must be the case here (cf. H. Schlier, T.D.N.T. I, pp. 512–14; Giblin, pp. 81–8; J. Ernst, Die eschatologischen Gegenspieler in den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, Regensburg, 1967, pp. 27–32); this excludes any allusion here to a supposed revolt in the last days by the Jews, or the nations as a whole, against the Roman hegemony. From the time of the Maccabean revolt (1 Macc. 2:15) it was used in relation to attempts by their oppressors to make the Jews forsake their God and certainly some strands of Jewish thought believed that at the End there would be a great apostasy when many of the people of God would defect (cf. Jub. 23.14ff; 4 Ezra 5:1ff; 1 QpHab 2.1ff; cf. 2 Tim. 3:1–9; Jude 17ff; see also Billerbeck, III, p. 637; IV, pp. 977ff). It was also commonly accepted that a period of great evil would precede the End (1 En. 91.5ff; Jub. 23.4ff; 2 Bar. 27; 4 Ezra 14:16ff) and this became the accepted teaching of the early church (Mk. 13; 2 Tim. 3:1–9; Rev. passim). Has the apostasy then been simply transferred by the Christians to themselves, the new people of God? But was an apostasy of the church expected as a prelude to the parousia? This is possible (cf. Mt. 24:11f, 24; 1 Tim. 4:1ff; but the evidence here comes from a much later period than 2 Th.); it is hard to believe that as early as 2 Th. Paul was so pessimistic as to envisage an apostasy of Christians; moreover the N.T. gives the impression that the elect will not fail (cf. also Mt. 16:18); certainly there is nothing in the genuine Pauline letters to suggest that he expected the church to apostatize, and, in particular, he is confident of the ability of the Thessalonians to endure (1 Th. 1:2–10; 3:6–13; 4:15, 17; 5:4f; 2 Th. 1:4, 11f; 2:13). If then the apostasy is not of Christians of whom does Paul expect it? Mankind as a whole (cf. Frame)? But apostasy assumes an original relationship to God, and if v. 10 refers to the same event we have a deliberate rejection of the gospel and therefore some original conception of what it is; Rom. 1:18–32 may imply an original relationship to God (cf. von Dobschütz) but the defection it describes is not a future event but already in existence; moreover it is difficult to see an apostasy in Rom. 1:18–32 in the light of the word’s background. Is it then an apostasy of the Jews (cf. Denney, B. Weiss, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, Edinburgh, 1885, I, pp. 305ff)? Had they not already apostatized in the crucifixion of Jesus? The N.T. never uses the term of them with this latter reference. In Rom. 9–11, though not apparently in 1 Th. 2:16, Paul still hopes for their salvation; he would not do so if he already regarded them as apostate. Perhaps, though God’s punishment has caught up with them (1 Th. 2:16), he believes (contrary to Rom. 9–11) that in some future, to us unidentifiable, action (when Paul presents the tribute of the Gentiles in Jerusalem?) they will decisively reject the Christian faith which it is still a possibility for them to accept; but the break between Judaism and Christianity is not yet complete and Jews regularly became Christians. Although in the strict sense such a rejection by Jews of the gospel would not be apostasy since they never had adhered to it, yet unlike mankind as a whole their position as God’s chosen people was such that they might be accounted apostate (and although a Jew would never claim to be God, v. 4, what might happen could be equivalent to this in the eyes of Paul). Nothing is said about the extent of the apostasy but clearly it will be such as to be easily identified by Christians (Cothenet, art. cit. also refers the apostasy to the Jews, not in relation to the parousia but to a separate prior judgement of them). Giblin’s suggestion (pp. 84–8) that the apostasy relates to a separation of the good from the wicked has nothing to commend it other than its ingenuity; such a separation at the judgement is scriptural but it is not related to the apostasy.

Concomitant with the apostasy is the appearance of a figure who is opposed to the divine plan; he is described in a five-fold way:

(i) He is the man of rebellion (probably a Semitic phrase though it could occur in Hellenistic Greek; cf. Moulton-Turner, p. 208; Moulton-Howard, pp. 23, 441 and see 1 Th. 5:5; in vv. 8f he is called the Rebel), ‘the rebellious one’. The name is obviously well-known to the Thessalonians and denotes a figure in whom rebellion crystallizes, who is characterized by rebellion (ἀνομίας, B א 81; the variant reading ἁμαρτίας, A D G it, while strongly supported probably represents the replacement of a narrower term whose meaning was uncertain by a less specific; from it comes the phrase of the K.J.V. ‘the man of sin’). ἀνομία, strictly ‘lawlessness’, rapidly acquired the sense ‘against the law’, and since the law is the law of God this implies rebellion against God. The term is found in other eschatological contexts (Mt. 24:12; Did. 16.4; Freer MS ending of Mk.; 1 John 3:4; cf. R. Schnackenburg, Die Johannesbriefe, Freiburg, 1963 on 3.4). Who is the Rebel or man of rebellion? In v. 9 he is distinguished from Satan as his tool. The attempt of Bousset, The Anti-Christ Legend, London, 1896, pp. 136ff, to identify him with Belial (Beliar) has been abandoned by more recent scholars. Is he a man who acts in a rebellious way or is he a supernatural figure? The use of man in the term cannot by itself determine the answer in view of the widely prevalent Ur-Mensch or primaeval man myth in which the figure is supra-human. Giblin (pp. 66ff) argues strongly that he is a false prophet: ‘Man (ἄνθρωπος as here and not ἀνήρ) of God’ is used regularly to denote a prophet; apart from this ἄνθρωπος with a defining gentitive does not normally appear in the LXX; therefore our term has been created over against that of ‘prophet’ and means ‘false prophet’; false prophets are common in eschatological contexts (Mt. 24:11, 24; Mk. 13:22; 1 Jn. 4:1; Rev. 16:13; 19:20; 20:10). But is the anti-God figure not normally supernatural? The closest evidence Giblin can produce for a human figure is Or. Sibyl. 3.63–76; but in this passage the ‘humanity’ of Beliar is not clear and elsewhere Beliar (Belial) is not human. Moreover ‘man of God’ and man of rebellion are not direct contrasts; the genitives ‘God’ and ‘rebellion’ do not function in the same way nor are they conceptually similar since one is personal and the other is abstract; it is therefore difficult to see ‘man of rebellion’ as a deliberate creation to balance ‘man of God’. Other characteristics of the figure, as we shall see as the exegesis proceeds, also suggest that Paul has a more than human figure in mind. Since ‘rebellion’ implies rejection of the law and thus also knowledge of it, and since the law is the Jewish law, the title may suggest some figure coming out of Judaism.

The Rebel is revealed (ἀποκαλύπτειν). The word (again at vv. 6, 8) is used in contrast to ‘the revelation of the Lord Jesus’ (1:7). Where is the Rebel before he is revealed? Has he a heavenly pre-existence? Is he in the kingdom of the dead or in the realm of Satan (a Nero redivivus)? Has he an earthly hidden existence? From the evidence Paul supplies it is impossible to say where he is concealed; Paul is not interested in his present existence (and we cannot be even sure that he thought of him as having a present existence) but in his appearance, character, activity, and destruction (vv. 8–12). The term ‘revelation’ does suggest something more than a human figure. Perhaps, however, the rigid distinction we draw between supernatural and human figures was not so clear to Paul for in 1 Cor 2:6, 8 the ‘rulers of this age’ can be both.

(ii) The Rebel is now described as the son of doom; this phrase is again a Semitism (cf. Isa. 57:4; 1 QS 9.16, 22; CD 6.15; 13.14); the precise phrase is not known in Hebrew or Aramaic but it would come naturally to the primitive Palestinian church or to Paul. of doom does not describe the place from which the Rebel comes nor suggest that he goes to or leads others to a place of destruction (contrast Satan, Rev. 17:8) but refers to his ultimate fate, ‘the doomed one’ (cf. Rom. 9:22) or, less probably, to his belonging to the realm of doom (as in 1 Th. 5:5 ‘sons of the light’ belong to the realm of light). In v. 8 the nature of this figure’s doom, in the sense of ultimate fate, is spelt out in more detail. doom (ἀπώλεια; cf. Kennedy, op. cit. pp. 119ff) and ‘salvation’ are direct contrasts; cf. 1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Cor. 2:15; Phil. 1:28; in v. 10 the son of doom is related to those who are doomed (the perishing). In Jn. 17:12 our phrase is used of Judas but it is very improbable that Paul has him in mind; he would have to envisage him as returning from the dead to be revealed. More probably the son of doom was, at least in Christian circles (for there is no evidence outside these), a term used for an opponent of Christ and the use of the term in Jn. 17:12 represents the dreadful nature of Judas’s act in Christian eyes. For Paul he is still future; for John whose eschatology is partially realized he belongs to the past history of the passion. The phrase itself gives us no help in the identification of the figure it represents.

4 The third, fourth and fifth phrases describing the figure take up the first and expand it; the expansion of the second is found in vv. 8ff.

(iii) He opposes and exalts himself, two participles which could possibly be rendered as substantives: ‘the opponent and self-exalter’. They are linked by one article and govern the same phrase against everyone … so that they must be treated in the same way; either both are substantives or both are participles. The first might be taken as a substantive and as a known phrase to denote Satan, for he is ‘the opposer’ (cf. Zech. 3:1) and etymologically ‘Satan’ is the ‘opponent’; yet our figure is distinguished from Satan in v. 9, the second verb is not a known term and the flow of thought in v. 4 lays emphasis on activity rather than on being (cf. Giblin, p. 64); so both are better rendered as participles. They indicate opposition to and self-exaltation over against everyone called God: nothing is said as to the success of this activity and the participles may indeed imply no more than that the figure attempts to oppose and exalt himself. Against whom is this activity directed? Is everyone called God to be interpreted as everything to which men legitimately give the name God or as every so-called God (cf. 1 Cor. 8:5)? The former will include the God acknowledged by the Christians, the latter will not. It is difficult to see how Paul could really envisage opposition to heathen deities alone as evil, indeed he could quite easily view the true God as opposed in this way to heathen Gods regarded as evil by nature (Gal. 4:8; 1 Cor. 10:19f), and so we must choose the other alternative. Whatever men set up as their Gods to worship, and this includes the true God, is opposed by this rebellious figure, i.e. he is utterly evil and opposed to whatever is good in any religion. And so also he is opposed to every (taking πάντα to govern both nouns) sacred object, i.e. every object used in worship (cf. Wisd. 14:20; 15:17; Josephus, Ant., 18.344).

(iv) Of the objects associated with worship the principal is the shrine (ναός, the innermost part of the temple in comparison with the whole temple area, τὸ ἱερόν) in which the God himself is believed to dwell. To sit (aorist, ‘he takes his seat’, and not, ‘he continues sitting’) is to display the minimum of respect and to make the maximum claim to deity, for God sits; it is not to sit alongside other Gods in a pantheon but to take a unique place. ὥστε with the aorist infinitive does not necessarily imply that the purpose was fully accomplished but only that it was intended and set in being. (The variant reading which adds ‘as God’ is poorly attested and unnecessary because this is made clear in what follows.) But what and where is this shrine? In Jerusalem? In heaven? Is it the people of God? Or is the phrase used purely metaphorically to indicate the pretensions of the Rebel? In view of the many difficulties of interpretation the last may seem the easiest solution but without positive evidence in its favour it is difficult to believe that Paul would use such a concrete term, filled with so much meaning, as a mere metaphor. Even though the preceding clause includes a reference to pagan Gods the shrine is certainly not in a heathen temple for the definite article the implies that Paul has a particular shrine in mind. This immediately suggests the Jerusalem temple. Its defilement was an apocalyptic theme (Dan. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; Mk. 13:14), though the defiler is regarded as standing or set up rather than as sitting and may indeed not be a person but an object, e.g. the statue of himself which Caligula attempted to introduce. If the apostasy (v. 3) is that of the Jews then do we have to envisage someone whom the Jews view with high regard as taking divine honours to himself and establishing himself in the temple? The context implies that those in apostasy are linked with the Rebel. It is however difficult to conceive of any Jew seating himself in the shrine with Jewish approval unless he put himself forward and was accepted as their Messiah (cf. Targ. Zech. 6:12f, and perhaps Mal. 3:1; see also L. Gaston, No Stone on Another, Supplements to N.T. XXIII, pp. 147ff). The apostasy would then be the acceptance of a wrong Messiah. If instead we think of the heavenly temple (the writer to the Hebrews envisages such a temple and the idea is found more widely, e.g. Ps. 11:4; T. Levi 5.1f; 1 En. 14.16–18, 20; 2 Baruch 4.2–6; b Hag. 12b; cf. R. J. McKelvey, The New Temple, Oxford, 1969, pp. 25–41) we have the difficulty that this takes the Rebel away from earth and assumes a warfare in heaven; while much mythology supports such an idea it is outside the area of direct human knowledge and in 2 Th. 2 it is assumed men can be aware of it as it happens (it is one of the signs of the parousia). However the heavenly temple is often regarded as coming down from heaven at the End and becoming the new or restored temple on earth (McKelvey, ibid.). The attempt of the Rebel to sit in this might well be appreciated by men, but when it is put in this way there is really not so much difference between this and the view which takes it to be the existing Jerusalem temple. It is not however clear whether the heavenly temple comes down before, during, or only after the end of the holy war. Very different from both these views is Giblin’s revival (pp. 76–80) of the idea that the temple is the church. It is true that Paul calls the church the shrine of God (1 Cor. 3:16f; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21) and may have taught this to the Thessalonians but the attempt of the Rebel to sit in this temple would be equivalent to an apostasy within the church, the kind of situation which earlier Protestant scholars held to be true in relation to the Pope; as we have seen Paul does not conceive in any way of an apostasy within the church.

(v) The final clause proclaiming (ἀποδεικνύντα: the meanings, ‘show, display, prove’, though more common are unacceptable since they indicate success unless we take the participle de conatu ‘attempting to prove’) that he himself is God is an expression of what sitting in the Temple implies, nothing more or less than the claim to be God. Who could make such a claim? It is very difficult to see Giblin’s ‘prophet’ doing so, especially if he comes out of a Judaeo-Christian background in this early period. A pagan might make the claim (cf. Philo, Leg. ad Gaium, 162; Or. Sibyl. 5.33f) but even then hardly the claim to be God but only the claim to be one God among others though even this would have been unacceptable and blasphemous to Jews and Christians. An eschatological opponent of God might also make the claim (Asc. Isa. 4.6) but would one do so who was not the ultimate opponent which Satan is (v. 9) and the Rebel is not? There are then many difficulties in the identification of the Rebel and our lack of information on Paul’s original oral teaching prevents us solving them.

These difficulties are not in any way lessened when we realize that in these verses Paul has also been dependent on O.T. passages which, even if there are no direct quotations, have influenced both his language and his thought. Dan. 11:31, 36 (Theod.); Ezek. 28:2, 6, 9; Isa. 14:13f introduce the ideas of profanation of the temple, of sitting on a throne and of claiming to be God. In all these O.T. passages the original claim related to historical personalities; Dan. 11:36 refers to Antiochus Epiphanes who first entered the temple, plundered it and later placed an altar to Zeus in the sanctuary; this left a strong impression on the apocalyptic tradition and seems to have been revived in a.d. 41 by Caligula’s attempt to set his own effigy within the temple. If such eschatological language could be applied to humans may not Paul also have a human in mind? If he is making a direct reference to some person or event in the history of that period we do not know who or what this was. Caligula was dead, Nero did not become emperor until a.d. 54 and did not reveal himself as the persecutor of Christians until long after that. Unlike Dan. 11:36 the figure of 2 Th. 2:3f shows no ‘royal’ characteristics and there is no reason, if he is historical, to think of him as ‘royal’. More probably then he is supra-human and certainly not an impersonal principle of evil (so Lightfoot) nor a collectivity of persons succeeding one another in history; the use of ‘man’ and son’ cannot be construed in these ways, and Paul does not expect a long period of history but an almost immediate end (cf. J. Schmid, ‘Der Antichrist und die hemmende Macht’, Theologische Quartalschrift, 129 (1949) 323–43. ‘The Anti-Christ’: cf. Guy, The New Testament Doctrine of the ‘Last’ Things, Oxford, 1948, pp. 146–9; Vos, op. cit., pp. 114ff; Billerbeck, III, pp. 637–40; B. Rigaux, L’Antéchrist et l’opposition au royaume messianique dans l’Ancien et le Nouveau Testament (Paris, 1932); Bousset, op. cit., Ernst, op. cit.). The Rebel is often termed the Anti-Christ but Paul does not call him this. It is an appropriate term since he is the eschatological opponent of Christ (not of the historical Jesus). The term itself appears in 1 Jn. 2:18 (cf. 4:3; 2 Jn. 7) but nowhere else in the N.T.; in the Johannine epistles there is a multiplicity of Anti-Christs but Paul’s Rebel is a unique figure. In Mk. 13:21f; Mt. 24:23f we have the similar term ‘false Christ’ which came later to be almost interchangeable with Anti-Christ. The opponent of Christ in Rev. 13:17 is more correctly an Anti-Christ, though he is not so described there, and the term may possibly also be applicable to Mk. 13:14, if this describes a ‘person’. The Anti-Christ was thus a definite figure in Christian thought towards the end of the first century. It does not appear to have been either a term or an idea current among the Jews, though Judaism did envisage eschatological opponents to God. 2 Th. 2 is thus itself one of the steps in the creation of the Anti-Christ concept. Many of the characteristics of the Rebel, e.g. his self-exaltation, his entry into the temple, are also seen in some of those who had oppressed the Jews in the immediate past, e.g. Antiochus Epiphanes, Pompey, Caligula; sometimes these features are also attached to non-historical figures (e.g. the ‘abomination of desolation’ in Daniel) who may represent historical persons but who, once the historical period of their reference was past, might become detached from an anchorage in history and become ‘mythically’ oriented. It has also been suggested that the figure of Beliar (Belial) in the O.T. and in the intertestamental literature is a predecessor of the Rebel but Beliar appears rather to be a prototype of Satan (Paul identifies him with Satan in 2 Cor. 6:15 and this is also true of the Qumran literature). In Asc. Isa. 4 Beliar is certainly Anti-Christ, but this work, or at least this section of it, is not Jewish but Christian and, dating from the end of the first century, reflects thought later than the Thessalonian letters. On the other hand the phrase ‘men (man) of Beliar’ could be part of the background (for the phrase cf. Deut. 13:13; Judg. 19:22; 1 QS 2.4f; 1 QM 4.2). There is undoubtedly some relation between 2 Th. 2 and Mk. 13; the latter is a combination of traditional Jewish apocalyptic ideas and prophetic or apocalyptic sayings of Jesus which have been worked over in the early church. The Anti-Christ figure may well have begun to crystallize into something like its present form around the time of Caligula’s attempt to desecrate the temple. Among the ideas common to Mk. 13 and 2 Th. 2 the so-called ‘abomination of desolation’ is parallel to the Rebel for both appear to be involved in sacrilege and self-exaltation (cf. also Mk. 13:5 and 2 Th. 2:3, 11 in relation to deceit; Mk. 13:22 and 2 Th. 2:9 in relation to signs). This supports the view that in our passage Paul is giving traditional primitive Christian apocalyptic teaching.

5 Paul abruptly breaks off the sentence of vv. 3f (see on v. 3) in order to remind the Thessalonians that he is not really saying something new (told is an imperfect tense implying that during his original visit he must have given repeated apocalyptic instruction). His words, phrased as a question, have almost a touch of impatience as he recalls them to his teaching. Since they themselves know the conditions of the parousia they ought to have been able to answer those who said that the Day had come. He drops into the first person singular but the change from the plural is not nearly so sudden as in 1 Th. 2:18; 3:5, in both of which it is emphasized by the use of ἐγώ; there are no plurals in the immediate vicinity of v. 5 and the singular may well represent a moment of forgetfulness on Paul’s part as he animatedly drives home his point (cf. the anacoluthon of vv. 3f); he was very conscious of what he himself had taught.

Weatherley (CPNIVC): “Rebellion” translates ἀποστασία (apostasia), sometimes rendered “apostasy”; in the LXX this word and its cognates are especially used to refer to sinful departure from the worship of God.

Frame (ICC): ἡ ἀποστασί. The article suggests that “the apostasy” or “the religious revolt” is something well known to the readers; in fact, instruction upon this and cognate points had already been given orally by Paul (vv. 5 ff., I 5:1). The term itself is at least as old as the time of Antiochus Epiphanes who was “enforcing the apostasy” (1 Mac. 2:15), that is, of Judaism to Hellenism; thereafter, as one of the fearful signs of the end (cf. Eth. En. 91:7), it became a fixed element in apocalyptic tradition (cf. Jub. 23:14 ff.; 4 Ezra 5:1 ff.; Mt. 24:10 ff.). Paul, however, is probably thinking not of the apostasy of Jews from Moses, or of the Gentiles from the law in their hearts, or even of an apostasy of Christians from their Lord (for Paul expects not only the Thessalonians (I 5:9, II 2:13 ff.) but all believers (1 Cor. 3:15) to be saved), but of the apostasy of the non-Christians as a whole, of the sons of disobedience in whom the prince of the power of the air, the evil spirit, is now operating (cf. Eph. 2:2). This apostasy or religious revolt is not to be identified with “the mystery of lawlessness” (v. 7), for that mystery, already set in operation by Satan, precedes the apostasy and prepares the way for it; it is therefore something future, sudden, and final, like the revelation of the Anomos with which apparently it is associated essentially and chronologically. Whether this definitive religious revolt on earth synchronises with the revolt of Satan (Rev. 12:7 ff.) in heaven, Paul does not say.

On the term, see Bousset, Antichrist, 76 ff., and Volz. Eschat. 179. That the revolt is not political, whether of all peoples (Iren. V, 25:2) or of Jews (Clericus, et al.) from Rome, and not both political and religious (see Poole, ad loc., and Wohl.), but solely religious, is probable both from the fact that elsewhere in the Gk. Bib. ἀποστασί is used of religious apostasy (Josh. 22:22 (B) 3 Reg. 20:13 (A) 2 Ch. 29:19, 33:19 (A) Jer. 2:19, 1 Mac. 2:15, Acts 21:21), and from the fact that in vv. 3–12, as elsewhere in the apocalyptic utterances of Paul, there is no evident reference to political situations. (It is not evident that τὸ κατέχο and ὁ κατέχων ἄρτ in vv. 6–7 refer to Rome). Furthermore, it is unlikely (1) that heresy is in mind, since “the doomed” here (v. 10) and elsewhere in Paul are outside the Christian group, “the saved” (Hammond and others (see Poole) find the prophecy fulfilled (cf. 1 Tim. 4:1 ff.), while Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. 15:9) sees the fulfilment in the heresies of his own day); or (2) that ἡ ἀποστασί = ὁ ἀποστάτη (cf. Iren. V, 25 apostata, and Augustine, de civ. dei, 20:21, refuga), the abstract for the concrete (so Chrys. and others); or (3) that Belial is meant, on the ground that this word is rendered once in Lxx by ἀποστασί (3 Reg. 20:13 A) and several times in the later Aquila (e. g. Deut. 15:9, Judg. 19:22, 1 Reg. 2:12, 10:27, 25:17, Pr. 16:27, Nah. 1:11).—Whether πρῶτο (without a following ἔπειτ I 4:17 or δεύτερο 1 Cor. 12:28) belongs to both ἔλθῃ and ἀποκαλυφθῇ, indicating that the coming and revelation are contemporaneous,—“the day will not be present until, first of all, these two things happen together” (Schmiedel, Dob.); or whether και at is consecutive (Ell., Find., Mill.), pointing out the result of the coming, is uncertain (cf. Mt.). In any case, the two things are not identical, although they are apparently associated both essentially and chronologically.

Neil – ἡ ἀποστασί. The article suggests that “the apostasy” or “the religious revolt” is something well known to the readers; in fact, instruction upon this and cognate points had already been given orally by Paul (vv. 5 ff., I 5:1). The term itself is at least as old as the time of Antiochus Epiphanes who was “enforcing the apostasy” (1 Mac. 2:15), that is, of Judaism to Hellenism; thereafter, as one of the fearful signs of the end (cf. Eth. En. 91:7), it became a fixed element in apocalyptic tradition (cf. Jub. 23:14 ff.; 4 Ezra 5:1 ff.; Mt. 24:10 ff.). Paul, however, is probably thinking not of the apostasy of Jews from Moses, or of the Gentiles from the law in their hearts, or even of an apostasy of Christians from their Lord (for Paul expects not only the Thessalonians (I 5:9, II 2:13 ff.) but all believers (1 Cor. 3:15) to be saved), but of the apostasy of the non-Christians as a whole, of the sons of disobedience in whom the prince of the power of the air, the evil spirit, is now operating (cf. Eph. 2:2). This apostasy or religious revolt is not to be identified with “the mystery of lawlessness” (v. 7), for that mystery, already set in operation by Satan, precedes the apostasy and prepares the way for it; it is therefore something future, sudden, and final, like the revelation of the Anomos with which apparently it is associated essentially and chronologically. Whether this definitive religious revolt on earth synchronises with the revolt of Satan (Rev. 12:7 ff.) in heaven, Paul does not say.

On the term, see Bousset, Antichrist, 76 ff., and Volz. Eschat. 179. That the revolt is not political, whether of all peoples (Iren. V, 25:2) or of Jews (Clericus, et al.) from Rome, and not both political and religious (see Poole, ad loc., and Wohl.), but solely religious, is probable both from the fact that elsewhere in the Gk. Bib. ἀποστασί is used of religious apostasy (Josh. 22:22 (B) 3 Reg. 20:13 (A) 2 Ch. 29:19, 33:19 (A) Jer. 2:19, 1 Mac. 2:15, Acts 21:21), and from the fact that in vv. 3–12, as elsewhere in the apocalyptic utterances of Paul, there is no evident reference to political situations. (It is not evident that τὸ κατέχο and ὁ κατέχων ἄρτ in vv. 6–7 refer to Rome). Furthermore, it is unlikely (1) that heresy is in mind, since “the doomed” here (v. 10) and elsewhere in Paul are outside the Christian group, “the saved” (Hammond and others (see Poole) find the prophecy fulfilled (cf. 1 Tim. 4:1 ff.), while Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. 15:9) sees the fulfilment in the heresies of his own day); or (2) that ἡ ἀποστασί = ὁ ἀποστάτη (cf. Iren. V, 25 apostata, and Augustine, de civ. dei, 20:21, refuga), the abstract for the concrete (so Chrys. and others); or (3) that Belial is meant, on the ground that this word is rendered once in Lxx by ἀποστασί (3 Reg. 20:13 A) and several times in the later Aquila (e. g. Deut. 15:9, Judg. 19:22, 1 Reg. 2:12, 10:27, 25:17, Pr. 16:27, Nah. 1:11).—Whether πρῶτο (without a following ἔπειτ I 4:17 or δεύτερο 1 Cor. 12:28) belongs to both ἔλθῃ and ἀποκαλυφθῇ, indicating that the coming and revelation are contemporaneous,—“the day will not be present until, first of all, these two things happen together” (Schmiedel, Dob.); or whether και at is consecutive (Ell., Find., Mill.), pointing out the result of the coming, is uncertain (cf. Mt.). In any case, the two things are not identical, although they are apparently associated both essentially and chronologically.

Nicoll (EGNT): Ver. 3. καὶ ἀποκ., the apostasy and the appearance (so of Beliar, Asc. Isa., iv. 18) of the personal anti-Christ or pseudo-Christ form a single phenomenon. From the use of ἡ ἀποστασία as a Greek equivalent for Belial (LXX of 1 Kings 21:13, A, and Aquila), this eschatological application of the term would naturally flow, especially as אישׁ בליעל might well be represented by ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας on the analogy of 2 Sam. 22:5 (LXX) = Ps. 17 (18):4. Lawlessness was a cardinal trait in the Jewish figure of Belial, as was persecution of the righteous (1:4, 2:7, see Asc. Isa., ii. 5, etc.). The very order of the following description (ἀπωλείας set between ἀνομίας and ὁ ἀντικείμενος, etc., unchronologically, but dramatically) suggests that this incarnation of lawlessness was a doomed figure, although he challenged and usurped divine prerogatives. He is another Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan. 11:36, καὶ ὑψωθήσεται ἐπὶ πάντα θεὸν καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν τῶν θεῶν ἔξαλλα λαλήσει, though Paul carefully safeguards himself against misconception by inserting λεγόμενον in his quotation of the words). This conception of a supernatural antagonist to Jesus Christ at the end is the chief element of novelty introduced by Paul, from Jewish traditions, into the primitive Christian eschatology. The recent attempt of Caligula to erect a statue of himself in the Temple at Jerusalem may have furnished a trait for Paul’s delineation of the future Deceiver; the fearful impiety of this outburst had sent a profound shock through Judaism, which would be felt by Jewish Christians as well. But Paul does not identify the final Deception with the Imperial cultus, which was far from a prominent feature when he wrote. His point is that the last pseudo-Messiah or anti-Christ will embody all that is profane and blasphemous, every conceivable element of impiety; and that, instead of being repudiated, he will be welcomed by Jews as well as pagans (cf. Acts 12:21, 22).

Fee – 3a  Paul begins his response to the misinformation to which the Thessalonians have been subject by referring to it as “deceit”: “Let no one deceive you in any way.” Although it is unlikely that the “deceit” is intentional in this case,35 the very fact that they could have been taken in by such “teaching” lends weight to the possibility that its source had been a prophetic word, and thus a “Spirit-utterance”—which at the same time would have appeared to them to be a source of “authority” a step higher than that of the apostle.

Paul’s own consternation becomes evident in two subtle ways. First, he adds the otherwise unnecessary “in any way” to his opening clause, referring specifically to the three options in verse 2, but in any other way as well. In its own way this clause, besides expressing Paul’s dismay, effectually eliminates any teaching opposed to or different from his. Second, and equally telling, what follows ends up as a “broken” sentence—a long “if/unless” clause (vv. 3b–4a) without a corresponding future indicative. Thus Paul’s clause does not have “that day will not come” in it; supplying these words (or something similar)38 is necessary for the sake of the reader in English—and all other Indo-European languages, it should be noted.

3b  Paul’s explanation as to why they should not be deceived begins with a reminder about what must take place “first,” namely, “the rebellion,” which includes “the revelation of the man of lawlessness”40 (= “the Rebel”), who is at the same time “the son of destruction,” where the first descriptor deals with his character and the second with his ultimate destiny. The present clause begins with a “because,”42 which thus introduces the long explanation that follows. The Thessalonians are not to be deceived “because” of what Paul now goes on to remind them about the very visible events that must transpire before the day of the Lord itself, especially the great rebellion that is to precede it. Even though Paul himself does not use the term “Anti-christ,” one of the reasons the Rebel is frequently referred to by that name here is that the language Paul uses, “the revelation” of this figure, is a pickup of what he says of Christ in 1:7.

The Greek word rendered “rebellion” (apostasia) occurs in the New Testament only here and in Acts 21:21. In Acts it clearly means “to turn away from,” thus “to become ‘apostate,’ ” picking up in its English expression the same meaning as in the Greek. Furthermore, the several occurrences of the cognate verb usually refer to a “turning away” that amounts to “apostasy,” a deliberate and antagonistic rejection of Christ. But despite the usual meaning of this noun in Acts 21, it can hardly have that sense here, its earliest usage, since Paul clearly expects perseverance on the part of these believers. After all, nothing in the context indicates that believers will be deceived by the “lawless one.” Therefore, this noun, which was rendered “falling away” in the KJV,45 in more recent English translations has been correctly rendered “rebellion.” In secular Greek, in fact, the word was used to refer to a political or military revolt, not in the sense of “falling away” from a position once held, but of a rebellion against a power or deity to whom one was not committed.

Historically, therefore, this word has been understood to refer to some of God’s own people (either believers or Jews) who have chosen to rebel against God and Christ in one way or another. But that seems to place far more emphasis on the primary meaning of the word as such, and not enough on its usage in the present context. Moreover, one should note further that in verses 10–12 part of “the revelation of the Rebel” involves his powers and deceptions among “the perishing,” not among believers. Therefore, in the present case, just as “the mystery of lawlessness” is already at work (v. 7), to be revealed in all its fullness and intensity with the “parousia” of the Rebel, so the language “rebellion” is used at the outset to describe this great satanic event.

But Paul is not one to leave such a description as his main focus, so he follows the descriptor “the Rebel” with the comforting word (for the Thessalonians) that he is “the man doomed to destruction.” Again, the T/NIV has properly rendered the sense of Paul’s semitism, “the son of destruction,” into appropriate English. As elsewhere in the New Testament, the language “son of” is a Hebraism for one who shares in, or stands in close relationship to, someone or something. So Paul follows the description of the Rebel’s character, “man of lawlessness,” with a phrase that describes his ultimate destiny. He does so by (apparently) picking up language from Isaiah 57:4 LXX,48 language also used by John (in the mouth of Jesus) to describe Judas in John 17:12. Thus Paul designates “the Rebel”—from the divine perspective and in the ancient language of the KJV—as “the son of perdition,” meaning the “man doomed to destruction.” This appositional descriptor, one should note, is typical of Paul, who is loathe to give the last word to the evil one. Thus the one who in his rebellion would play havoc by means of his evil powers is also the one whose ultimate destiny is his own “destruction.”

The rest of the passage (through v. 12) is basically an explication of the Rebel’s activities and of his ultimate overthrow by the coming of the Lord Jesus. First up is his “anti-God” character (v. 4), then his current “hiddenness” (vv. 5–7) and anti-God activities when he does come (v. 9a), which include his success among the wicked (vv. 9b–10a), who themselves will perish along with the Rebel at the coming of Christ (vv. 10b–12). Only the content of verse 8 breaks up this sequence by indicating that the Rebel will ultimately be destroyed by Christ at his coming. But before Paul moves on to these matters, he concludes his present broken sentence with a description of the Rebel’s activities when he “is revealed.”

Ellingworth: Do not let anyone deceive you in any way is equally emphatic in Greek and English. These words sum up the content of verse 2 and make it clear that Paul is thinking, not (or not primarily) that the Christians at Thessalonica might misunderstand something, but that someone might deliberately deceive them. An equivalent of do not let anyone deceive you in any way may be “do not permit anyone to fool you in the least.” In some instances an equivalent may be “do not believe at all the wrong words that people are telling you about this.”

For the Day will not come until makes explicit, as do virtually all translations from KJV onwards, an idea which is implicit in the Greek, and which Paul would have expressed if he had not broken off his sentence at the end of verse 2. The key clause in verse 3 is literally “unless the apostasy comes first.”

The conjunction for would suggest a causal relation between not being deceived by the claims of the Day of the Lord having already come and the certainty of the future event for the Day of the Lord. Therefore it may be essential in some instances to translate “do not let anyone deceive you in any way, for you may be sure that the Day will not come.…” It may also be important to render the Day as “that special Day.”

In some languages there is a problem involved in speaking about” a day coming.” Objects may come, but not time. However, in most instances one may speak of “a day happening” or say “it will be that day.”

From this point until at least verse 10, the translator has the difficult but necessary task of distinguishing between the meaning of the language Paul uses and the theological or other realities to which they are intended to refer. The latter aspect is the task of the biblical theologian. For example, general commentaries and many special studies try to answer the question: who is the one who holds it back in verse 7? (cf. v. 6). The translator should be aware of this and similar problems, but he should avoid any attempt to present a particular solution in his translation.

Final Rebellion translates a single word (cf. RSV “rebellion”) which in secular Greek mean “desertion,” often associated with treason and rebellion against a lawful ruler. In the Greek Old Testament, including the deuterocanonical books (or Apocrypha), the word is used to describe unfaithfulness to God or the denial of God. This is the meaning of the closely related English word “apostasy.” Acts 21:21, the only other place in the New Testament where this term is used, speaks of those who “abandon the Law of Moses” (TEV). The element of rebellion is perhaps implied, and is certainly present in later verses of the present chapter, but the central meaning is that of being unfaithful to, abandoning, or denying something or someone. A previous relationship with the person or belief denied is strongly presupposed. The translation should not, however, specify a denial of faith in Christ, since the context does not refer only to people who have been Christians. GeCL translates “first must many fall away from God.” As TEV makes clear, “first” means “before the day of the Lord.” Paul is not beginning to number a series of points, and the translation should not leave the reader expecting a later sentence beginning “second” or “next.”

In many languages Rebellion can only be expressed as a verb, with some type of indication of those who participate in the rebellion. Until the final Rebellion takes place must thus be rendered in some languages as “until the time when so many people rebel against God,” “… turn against God,” or “… refuse to have anything to do with God.”

Appears is literally “is revealed” (RSV). Passive verbs often indicate the activity of God, but this seems rather far-fetched here. “Reveal” in this verse does not have a technical theological meaning; it simply means that someone who had been hidden now comes out into the open, so the translation appears is satisfactory.

Larson: Before that great day comes, Paul declared, the rebellion must occur. The word used here is apostasia, or apostasy. Before the day of the Lord, there will be a great denial, a deliberate turning away by those who profess to belong to Christ. It will be a rebellion. Having once allied themselves with Christ, they will abandon him. Within the recognized church there will come a time when people will forsake their faith. Throughout history there have been defections from the faith. But the apostasy about which he wrote to the Thessalonians would be of greater magnitude and would signal the coming of the end.

Church Fathers Chrystostom: Here he discourses concerning the Antichrist, and reveals great mysteries. What is “the falling away”?He calls him Apostasy, as being about to destroy many, and make them fall away. So that if it were possible, He says, the very Elect should be offended. (From Matt. 24:24.) And he calls him “the man of sin.” For he shall do numberless mischiefs, and shall cause others to do them. But he calls him “the son of perdition,” because he is also to be destroyed. But who is he? Is it then Satan? By no means; but some man, that admits his fully working in him. For he is a man. “And exalteth himself against all that is called God or is worshiped.” For he will not introduce idolatry, but will be a kind of opponent to God; he will abolish all the gods, and will order men to worship him instead of God, and he will be seated in the temple of God, not that in Jerusalem only, but also in every Church. “Setting himself forth,” he says; he does not say, saying it, but endeavoring to show it. For he will perform great works, and will show wonderful signs.

Utley:

NASB	“the apostasy comes first”
NKJV	“the falling away comes first”
NRSV	“the rebellion comes first”
TEV	“the final Rebellion takes place”
JB	“the Great Revolt has taken place”

This compound term apo + histēmi, literally means “to stand away from.” It can be used in a negative sense (rebellion) or a positive sense (away from sin cf. 2 Tim. 2:19). This word was used in Greek literature (Plutarch and Acts 5:37) of political or military rebellion, but in the Septuagint (cf. Josh. 22:22) and Apocrypha, it often refers to spiritual rebellion. Who is rebelling is uncertain but they are rejecting God. It could be the pagans, the Jews or part of the visible church (cf. Matt. 24:3–12; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1, 8, 13; 1 John 2:18–19).

Weedman: Paul is confident that the Day has not come because two events must precede it. “Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed” (2 Thessalonians 2:3). It is the identification of these events that is the occasion for so much speculation and disagreement. Each is now considered in turn.

The word rebellion is a translation of the Greek word from which the English word apostasy comes (apostasia). Its earliest usage is in the context of a military rebellion. Later, it referred to a religious abandonment or apostasy (as in Acts 21:21, referring to the abandonment of the Law of Moses). Most of the time, the word has a religious connotation in Biblical passages (cf. Joshua 22:22; 2 Chronicles 33:19; Jeremiah 2:19; Hebrews 3:12). There arose in some circles of Judaism a belief that during the last days, there would be great oppression of the people of God and many of them would fall away from Him. It does not seem that Paul would use the term in merely a military sense given the strong religious connotation it has.

In both 1 and 2 Timothy, Paul wrote about apostasy in the “last days,” and may very well have been referring to the same event as here in 2 Thessalonians. First, he wrote,

Green: 3 With deep concern over the error about the day of the Lord that had entered the church through some unknown source, Paul presents his correction with the exhortation, Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way. Whatever the means of communication (v. 2b), they should not be duped by the error. The call not to be deceived was a relatively common exhortation in ancient literature. The warning could be against the teachings of false prophets (Josephus, Antiquitates 10:111 [10.7.3]) or against certain erroneous opinions of philosophers (Epictetus 2.20.7). “Self-deception” also appears as a concern (Lucian, De Mercede Conductis 5). In the case of the Thessalonians, the error had come through some supposedly “reliable” source, and the church had been taken in by the error. In order to rescue them from this false teaching and its consequences, the apostles make an appeal to hold on to what the church had already been taught (vv. 5, 15).

Certain events were going to precede the day of the Lord, and the apostle puts forward the fact that these had not occurred as evidence that they were not on the very verge of its advent. He explains: for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. The first part of the verse is elliptical in the Greek text (an anacoluthon); for that reason the translators have included here ideas taken from the previous verse that, though not expressed, are implicit. The NIV adds that day will not come (cf. v. 2b). Giblin, on the other hand, argues that what is implied should be supplied from the following verses and not the previous context. He would understand the implied idea as something like, “the judgment of God will not have been executed against the power of deception, removing them once and for all” until etc. The other suggestion he makes to supply the missing apodosis is, “The Lord will not have come in judgment to end definitively the deception that is the work of Satan” until etc. But despite the rather detailed nature of Giblin’s argument, the more natural and simple way to understand the anacoluthon is with reference to information the readers already knew and not to thoughts that are yet to be introduced. The matter at hand was the time of the “day of the Lord” (v. 2). In order that their understanding might not be distorted, we must assume that the author would have allowed the omission only if the sense was immediately accessible from the preceding context.

Paul is keen to emphasize the order of future events throughout this section (vv. 3, 6–8). At the head they declare that “first” (prōton, rendered loosely in the NIV as until); that is, before the day of the Lord, two events will occur: the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed. In ancient writings a rebellion (apostasia) could be understood as being against any kind of established authority, be it political (1 Esdr. 2:21; Josephus, Vita 43 [10]) or religious and against God (Josh. 22:22; 2 Chr. 29:19; 33:19; 1 Macc. 2:15). In the NT it frequently appears with this second sense of “apostasy” (Acts 21:21; 1 Tim. 4:1; cf. the verbal form in Heb. 3:12), and this is the most likely thought here. In the present verse, as in 1 Timothy 4:1, Paul explains that some form of “rebellion” is a sign of the last times. Similarly, part of the Jewish eschatological expectation was that before the end there would be apostasy against God (1 Enoch 93:9; 90:26; 4 Ezra 5:1–13; 2 Bar. 41:3; 42:4), a perspective that appears again in the teaching of Jesus (Matt. 24:11–13). It is unlikely that the apostle has in mind the rebellion of the Jewish people against the gospel (cf. 1 Thess. 2:14–16) since the term itself implies that a person was once a participant in something and then separated or apostatized. Both Jesus and Paul indicate that Christians could anticipate deserters from the faith before the end (Matt. 24:11–24; 1 Tim. 4:1).We should recognize that in the face of the great persecution the church endured in the first century and the temptations their former life presented, not a few people abandoned the faith, and their apostasy became a paradigm for what was expected in the last times (see 1 Thess. 3:5 and commentary). The hope of the apostle is that the church in Thessalonica would in no way participate in the apostasy (vv. 13–15).

Milligan: 3. μή τις ὑμ. ἐξαπατήσῃ] A general warning leading up to the statement of the following clause. In their margin WH. suggest placing a comma at κυρίου, and thus connecting the words elliptically with what has gone before—‘(we say this) lest any one should.…’ But the ordinary connexion is simpler, and more in keeping with our Lord’s saying which may well have been in the writers’ minds: βλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς πλανήσῃ· πολλοὶ γὰρ ἐλεύσονται κτλ. (Mt. 24:4f.).

Ἐξαπατάω, a strengthened form of ἀπατάω (1 Tim. 2:14), is confined in the N. T. to the Pauline writings, cf. Rom. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:18. For the rare use of the prohibitory subj. in the 3rd pers. cf. 1 Cor. 16:11 (Burton, § 2).

κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον] i.e. not only not in any of the three ways already specified, but ‘in no way’—evidently a current phrase, cf. P.Amh. 35, 28 (2./b.c.), P.Lond. 111. 951, 4 f. (3./a.d.). Thdt.: πάντα κατὰ ταὐτὸν τὰ τῆς ἀπάτης ἐξέβαλεν εἴδη.

ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ κτλ.] an elliptical sentence, the apodosis being lost sight of in view of the length of the protasis, but too clearly implied in what precedes to occasion any difficulty: ‘because the Parousia of the Lord will not take palace unless there come the Apostasy first.’

It is not so easy, however, to determine in what this Apostasy consists. In late Gk. ἀποστασία is found as an equivalent of ἀπόστασις (Lob. Phryn. p. 528) in the sense of political defection or revolt, e.g. Plut. Galba 1. κάλλιστον ἔργον διαβαλὼν τῷ μισθῷ, τὰν ἀπὸ Νέρωνος ἀποστασίαν προδοσίαν γενομένην, and the same meaning has been attached to it here, as when it has been referred to the revolt of the Jews from the Romans (Schöttgen Hor. Heb. 1. p. 840). But the usage of both LXX. and in N. T. is decisive against any such interpretation. Thus in Josh. 22:22 the word is directly applied to rebellion against the Lord (ἐν ἀποστασίᾳ ἐπλημμελήσαμεν ἔναντι τοῦ κυρίου, and in 1 Macc. 2:15 to the efforts of the officers of Antiochus Epiphanes to compel the people to sacrifice to idols (οἱ καταναγκάζοντες τὴν ἀποστασίαν … ἵνα θυσιάσωσιν), cf. also 2 Chron. 29:19, Jer. 2:19; while in Ac. 21:21, the only other passage in the N. T. where it occurs, we read of ἀποστασίαν … ἀπὸ Μωυσέως, with which may be compared the use of the corresponding verb ἀφίσταμαι in 1 Tim. 4:1, Heb. 3:12; cf. M. Anton. 4:29 ἀπόστημα κόσμου ὁ ἀφιστάμενος καὶ χωρίζων ἑαυτὸν τοῦ τῆς κοινῆς φύσεως λόγου.

Whatever then the exact nature of the apostasy in the present connexion, it must at least be a religious apostasy, and one moreover, as the use of the def. art. proves, regarding which the Apostles’ readers were already fully informed. In this conclusion we are confirmed when we pass to the next words.

BRUCE (WBC): 3. Μή τις ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατήσῃ, “(see to it) that no one deceives you.” This exhortation sums up the contents of vv 1, 2. We might have expected the imperative, μή … ἐξαπατησάτω (“let no one deceive you”), but βλέπετε or ὁρᾶτε may be understood before μή (ὁρᾶτε is expressed in such a construction in 1 Thess 5:15; it is left to be understood, as here, in 1 Cor 16:11; 2 Cor 11:16, μή τίς με δόξῃ ἄφρονα εἶναι “let no one think me foolish”).

ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ ἡ ἀποστασία πρῶτον, “[That day will not arrive] unless the rebellion comes first.” The apodosis on which the conditional clause is dependent is not expressed; it would be introduced by ὅτι but is left to be understood: “because (that day will not arrive) unless the rebellion comes first.”

ἀποστασία, “the rebellion” a Hellenistic formation, corresponding to classical ἀπόστασις, denotes either political rebellion (as in Josephus, Vita 43, of the Jewish revolt against Rome) or religious defection (as in Acts 21:21, of abandonment of Moses’ law). Since the reference here is to a world-wide rebellion against divine authority at the end of the age, the ideas of political revolt and religious apostasy are combined.

Other meanings are attested for ἀποστασία—e.g., the “departure” of the apostles with the Virgin Mary to Jerusalem from Bethlehem in the apocryphal treatise on The Falling Asleep of the Holy Mother of God attributed to St. John (33); cf. C. von Tischendorf (ed.), Apocalypses Apocryphae (Leipzig, 1866) 105; M. R. James, Apocryphal NT; (Oxford, 1924) 206. An attempt has been made to find this meaning here and to identify this “departure” with the translation of believers at the Parousia (1 Thess 4:17); cf. English, Re-thinking, 69–71, with refutation by Gundry, Church and Tribulation, 125. English argues that the article ἡ marks the ἀποστασία out as something about which the readers were already informed; true: they had been informed about it by Paul when he was with them (v 5).

A general revolt by Israel against the law of God was foretold for the end-time by some Jewish schools of thought (e.g. in Jub 23:14–23; cf. b. Sanh. 97). Davies (“Paul and the People of Israel,” 8) identifies the ἀποστασία foretold here with “the refusal by Jews to receive the gospel”; this refusal is “a rejection of God’s will and is the work of Satan.” But if the authenticity of 1 Thess 2:15, 16 be accepted, as it is by Davies (see comment ad loc., above), it is difficult to see how the Jews could make any advance on the great refusal which had already taken place—unless 2 Thessalonians (whether itself authentic or not) represents a rather different perspective from 1 Thess 2:15, 16. In the one place in the Pauline corpus which deals specifically with the future of Israel, there is no word of an end-time rebellion but of a present partial insensitiveness (πώρωσις) to be followed by a future restoration, in which “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:25–27).

It appears more probable from the context that a general abandonment of the basis of civil order is envisaged. This is not only rebellion against the law of Moses; it is a large-scale revolt against public order, and since public order is maintained by the “governing authorities” who “have been instituted by God,” any assault on it is an assault on a divine ordinance (Rom 13:1, 2). It is, in fact, the whole concept of divine authority over the world that is set at defiance in “the rebellion” par excellence.

καὶ ἀποκαλυφθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας, ὁ υίὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, “and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition.” The leader of the great rebellion is described by two phrases each containing an adjectival genitive (a Semitic idiom, common in OT and taken over repeatedly into LXX and NT Greek): he is “the man of lawlessness” (cf. the more idiomatic Greek ὁ ἄνομος of v 8) and “the son of perdition,” i.e. he who is destined for perdition (cf. the application of the same phrase to Judas Iscariot in John 17:12). This person is characterized by his opposition to the divine law and therefore he is doomed to destruction. The verb ἀποκαλυφθῇ (“be revealed”) implies that the “man of lawlessness,” like the Lord Jesus (cf. 1:7), is to have his ἀποκάλυψις (called his παρουσία in v 9). This suggests that he is in some sense a rival Messiah, the ἀντίχριστος of 1 John 2:18 (“you have heard that Antichrist is coming”).

James (“Man of Sin and Antichrist”) argues curiously that the sense here is that first the falling away takes place and “after this, the revealing of the Man of Sin” follows. But πρῶτον, “first,” in reference to the coming of the ἀποστασία (av “falling away”) means that it comes before the Day of the Lord; the coming of the ἀποστασία and the revealing of the man of lawlessness are coincident. In an article (“2 Thess. ii.3”) refuting James on this point, Nestle goes on to argue that “man of lawlessness” is a rendering of the OT phrase “man of Belial” (איש בליעל), pointing out that in LXX both ἀνομία (as in 2 Sam. [LXX 2 Kgdms] 22:5 = Ps 18:4 [LXX 17:5]) and ἀποστασία (as in 1 Kings 21:13 [LXX 3 Kgdms 20:13A]) appear as renderings of Heb. בליעל. This is a pointer to the origin, character and destiny of the person so described, and rules out such an interpretation of ἀνομία as that antinomians were viewed as constituting a greater danger to the church than legalists (so Stürmer, Auferstehung …, 49).

Weima (BEC): 2:3a One of the future events that must precede the coming of the day of the Lord is the “apostasy” (apostasia). Three facts indicate that the Thessalonian readers are familiar with this future event: (1) Paul can simply refer to the apostasy without providing any explanatory comments about what this event involves. (2) Paul uses the definite article to describe this event: “the apostasy,” a specific and defined event about which the readers know (BDAG 686.2.a: the “individualizing use” of the article in which “it focuses attention on a single thing or single concept, as already known”). (3) Paul explicitly states in 2:5 that he has discussed this and other end-time events with them. But while those in Thessalonica know well of what the apostle is speaking, the modern reader does not and so faces difficult questions about the character of this apostasy (is it political or religious?) and its participants (does it involve Jews, Christians, or non-Christians?). Answers to these questions are not made easier by the fact that the noun occurs nowhere else in Paul’s writings (the verbal form, aphistēmi, meaning “to distance oneself from some person or thing,” occurs three times: 2 Cor. 12:8; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 2:19) and is rare elsewhere in the NT (only Acts 21:21, where Jewish Christian leaders report to Paul that he has been accused of being responsible for Jews’ “abandonment” of Moses).

A political or religious apostasy? The noun apostasia in secular Greek writings refers to political or military “rebellion” (see H. Schlier, TDNT 1:513), and it also has this meaning in at least one LXX text (1 Esd. 2:21 [2:27 NRSV]). In the Greek version of the OT, however, the noun occurs more often with a religious sense of “apostasy” from God (Josh. 22:22; 2 Chron. 29:19; 33:19; Jer. 2:19). The same term is used to describe the forsaking of the law by certain Jews at the time of the Maccabean revolt (1 Macc. 2:15). A much greater number of Jewish writings from the Second Temple period also speak of people as abandoning God and his law, but that apostasy is dated in the future, shortly before the appearance of the Messiah (Jub. 23.14–21; 2 Esd. [4 Ezra] 5:1–12; 14:16–18; 1 En. 91.3–10; 93.8–10; 2 Bar. 41.3; 42.4; 1QpHab 1.5, 12–13; 2.1–8; see also Str-B 3:637). Writings from the rest of the NT similarly express a general belief that the end times will be marked by opposition to God, an increase of immorality and wickedness, and the activity of false prophets and religious leaders who seek to direct the elect away from God (1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1–9; Matt. 24:11–24; Mark 13:3–23; 2 Pet. 3:3–4; Jude 17–18).

In light of this background, “the apostasy” mentioned by Paul here in 2:3 likely refers to a rebellion against God, which is primarily religious in nature. It is the failure to receive the gospel of truth, which leads to salvation (v. 10), instead accepting a false gospel (v. 11), which leads to the worship of a pseudo-god (v. 4) and results in condemnation (v. 12). But while the apostasy will be primarily religious in nature, one should not too quickly rule out the possibility that it also has a political aspect involving civil rebellion. Any disobedience against God and his commands would naturally spill over to include a revolt against the general laws and morals of society as a whole. Furthermore, since public order is maintained by governing agencies whose authority has been established by God (Rom. 13:1–2), any rebellion against these institutions and their laws would involve a rebellion against God (Bruce 1982: 167). Finally, in analyzing the ancient world, there is a danger in distinguishing too sharply between the religious and political realms.

An apostasy by Jews, Christians, or non-Christians? Closely connected with the issue over the apostasy’s character is the issue of its participants. A few have seen here a future and decisive rejection of the gospel by Jews (Best 1977: 282–84; see also Kennedy 1904: 218; Davies 1977–78: 8). This view is highly unlikely given that such a significant rejection had already happened in the past, in the Jewish rejection of Christ and involvement in his death—an event that Paul mentions in his previous letter (1 Thess. 2:15–16). In addition to this, the apostle elsewhere describes the Jewish rejection of the gospel not in terms of “apostasy” but of misplaced “zeal” (Rom. 10:2). Another possibility is that the apostasy involves Christians and the community of faith. Support for this interpretation lies in the following three observations: First, apostasy by definition seems to presuppose an original relationship to God. Second, the immediate context of the false claim about the day of the Lord involves deception within the Thessalonian church. Third, Paul elsewhere uses the verbal form of the noun “apostasy” to refer to the sobering reality that “in later times some will depart from the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1; see also 2 Tim. 3:1–9).

Nevertheless, there is nothing here or in the apostle’s other letters suggesting that he expected a large-scale Christian defection. Quite the opposite: throughout both his letters to the Thessalonian church, Paul expresses the great confidence he has in their ability to endure persecution and persevere in the faith to the end (1 Thess. 1:2–3, 6; 2:14; 3:6–8, 13; 5:4, 9; 2 Thess. 1:3–4, 10, 11–12; 2:13–14). Also, the references in the subsequent verses to “those on the way to destruction because they did not accept the love of the truth so that they might be saved” (v. 10) and “all who have not believed the truth but delighted in wickedness” (v. 12) surely do not refer to the Christians in Thessalonica, but to those outside the community of faith. Finally, if we are correct above in identifying the apostasy as involving a rebellion against God that involves not just the religious realm but the political and moral spheres as well, then this too suggests the participation of non-Christians. To the objection that such people do not have an original relationship to God such that they can be guilty of rebelling against him, Paul might well respond by asserting that such an original relationship to God does actually exist via God’s revelation of himself in creation such that all humanity is now without excuse (Rom. 1:18–32). It may be best, therefore, to see in the term apostasia more generally “the rebellion of the creature against the Creator” (Morris 1991: 219n18) and recognize the word as referring to the apostasy of humankind as a whole, including those in the church who are outwardly associated with the people of God but who have not inwardly committed themselves to the Christian faith such that they can withstand the “deceptive signs and wonders” (v. 9) of the man of lawlessness.