The man of lawlessness revealed

2 Thes 2:3a [] 2 Thes 2:3a Mitch,> What is the grammatical principle that accounts for> the NET translators not Englishing “first” (PRWTON) in> their translation?I do not know. In the translation you quote “the day” will come at the sametime as the “rebellion”, whereas with “first” it can also come after therebellion and the man of lawlessness.> What would be the temporal relationship between the> rebellion coming and the man of lawlessness being> revealed? Are they both one and the same thing?KAI can connect two facts that come subsequently. It can also connect a factwith more details about it. So the answer to this question is not a matterof the Greek text, but of connecting this text with other eschatologicaltexts.ArieDr. A. DirkzwagerHoeselt, Belgiume-mail dirkzwager at pandora.be—– Oorspronkelijk bericht —–Van: “Mitch Larramore” <mitchlarramore at yahoo.com>Aan: “B Greek” < at lists.ibiblio.org>Verzonden: donderdag 22 juli 2004 4:21Onderwerp: [] 2 Thes 2:3a> MH TIS hUMAS EXAPATHSHi KATA MHDENA TROPON; hOTI EAN> MH ELQHi hH APOSTASIA PRWTON KAI APOKALUFQHi…> > NET Bible has…> 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day> will not arrive until the rebellion comes6 and the man> of lawlessness is revealed,> > Footnote 6> tn Grk “for unless the rebellion comes first.” The> clause about “the day” is understood from v. 2.> > What is the grammatical principle that accounts for> the NET translators not Englishing “first” (PRWTON) in> their translation?> > What would be the temporal relationship between the> rebellion coming and the man of lawlessness being> revealed? Are they both one and the same thing?>

 

[] 2 Thes 2:3a [] Second aorist passive At 7:21 PM -0700 7/21/04, Mitch Larramore wrote:>MH TIS hUMAS EXAPATHSHi KATA MHDENA TROPON; hOTI EAN>MH ELQHi hH APOSTASIA PRWTON KAI APOKALUFQHi…> >NET Bible has…>2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day>will not arrive until the rebellion comes6 and the man>of lawlessness is revealed,> >Footnote 6>tn Grk “for unless the rebellion comes first.” The>clause about “the day” is understood from v. 2. > >What is the grammatical principle that accounts for>the NET translators not Englishing “first” (PRWTON) in>their translation? There’s no grammatical principle of GREEK accounting for “omission” of PRWTON:the NET formulation is simply stating the content of the Greek statement in morenormal English idiom. >What would be the temporal relationship between the>rebellion coming and the man of lawlessness being>revealed? Are they both one and the same thing?I think that Arie has already given an adequate answer on the second question;it’s not a matter of identity of the two events (coming of the rebellion,revelation of of the man of lawlessness); rather these items, whether or not oneasssumes that they are related, are both events that must take place BEFORE thearrival of ‘that day.

 

[] 2 Thes 2:3a [] 2 Thes 2:3a > > What would be the temporal relationship between> the> > rebellion coming and the man of lawlessness being> > revealed? Are they both one and the same thing?> > > MH TIS hUMAS EXAPATHSHi KATA MHDENA TROPON; hOTI> EAN> > MH ELQHi hH APOSTASIA PRWTON KAI APOKALUFQHi…My understanding is that of the two events that willcome BEFORE the Day begins (the Rebellion/Departureand the revealing of this man), theRebellion/Departure will come BEFORE the revealing ofthis man, hence PRWTON is used to modify the coming ofthe Rebellion/Departure (not the revealing of thisman). The time that will elapse between theRebellion/Departure and the revealing of this man isonly limited to the time of the “beginning” of the Day(by the time the Day begins, BOTH events must haveoccurred). Grammatically, they could occursimultaneously or years apart. Both events must beobservable, but that is understood

[] 2 Thes 2:3a [] 2 Thes 2:3a > MH TIS hUMAS EXAPATHSHi KATA MHDENA TROPON; hOTI EAN> MH ELQHi hH APOSTASIA PRWTON KAI APOKALUFQHi…> > NET Bible has…> 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day> will not arrive until the rebellion comes6 and the man> of lawlessness is revealed,> > Footnote 6> tn Grk “for unless the rebellion comes first.” The> clause about “the day” is understood from v. 2.> > What is the grammatical principle that accounts for> the NET translators not Englishing “first” (PRWTON) in> their translation?It is covered by “until” since the event of the coming of the Lord iscontextually implied, as the note says. Instead of saying “Unless A happensfirst, B will not happen” or “If A does not happen first, B will not happen”one can say “B will not happen until A has happened” or “before B is goingto happen, A must happen.” The meaning is the same. This is an interestingaspect of translation: You can express essentially the same meaning withquite different grammatical constructions. But some constructions are moreclear and natural in the receptor language than others. It is only the mostliteral versions like (N)RSV that keep the unnatural “unless – first”construction. Most modern versions have changed to “until”.It is not a grammatical principle, because translation is much more thangrammar. A proper translation has to take into account semantics andpragmatics, including contextual implications and relevance theory.> What would be the temporal relationship between the> rebellion coming and the man of lawlessness being> revealed? Are they both one and the same thing?Grammar doesn’t tell you, but contextually one would assume that therebellion occurs more or less at the same time as the leader of therebellion comes forth. But the rebellion is not the same thing as itsleader

We have to be careful to distinguish between theological positions andpossibilities of the Greek text.Let me state at first that I do not believe in a rapture before the greattribulation. My father allways said you have to know the theologicalposition of a theologian before you read his book or article. So I want tobe clear.But I still have to see if our text as seen from the Greek text can beinterpretated as teaching a theological position I do not held.I do not think you can interprete hH APOSTASIA as referring to the rapture.APOSTASIA normally means defection, revolt, esp. in religious sense.According to LScJ there is however a Greek text (Olympiodorus, inAristotelis Meteora commentaria 320.2) where it means “departure,disappearance”. I cannot check the text for I do not possess it anduniversity libraries do not exist in the neighbourhood.But the problem in 2 Tm 2 is “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and ourbeing gathered to him” (verse 1) and that verse is referring to the raptureaccording to theologians of all positions who have an opinion about the timeof the rapture.In my opinion Paul cannot have said that “the coming of our Lord JesusChrist and our being gathered to him” (verse 1) occurs *after* hH APOSTASIA,if you see in hH APOSTASIA the same rapture.ArieDr. A. DirkzwagerHoeselt, Belgiume-mail dirkzwager at pandora.be—– Oorspronkelijk bericht —–Van: “Eddie Mishoe” <edmishoe at yahoo.com>Aan: “Arie Dirkzwager” <dirkzwager at pandora.be>; “B Greek”< at lists.ibiblio.org>Verzonden: vrijdag 23 juli 2004 20:16Onderwerp: Re: [] 2 Thes 2:3a> Arie:> > Yes. You are right on the money with your comments.> What I didn’t want to raise was the implications of hH> APOSTASIA, which many translate as “the rebellion.” As> you know, this word covers multiple semantic domains.> Wuest I think taught it, but many others have> followed, and have concluded that hH APOSTASIA must> refer to a previous mentioned event and ties it into> the gathering together (the “departure”) to be with> the Lord (what some call the Rapture). Often times> people say that this hH APOSTASIA cannot refer to the> “Rapture” on grammatical or syntactical grounds, but> on purely grammatical grounds it actually can. As> preposterous as it is that this could refer to a> Rapture, I would not eliminate it on the basis of the> Greek text. As you have suggested, this would better> be eliminated on the basis of other eschatological> passages. Taking hH APOSTASIA as referring to> something completely disjointed from the Day, such as> the Rapture, is permissible on grammatical grounds but> dismissed on eschatological grounds, IMHO.