In 2Thessalonians 2:8 Paul mentions, when that wicked one would be revealed, the Lord would destroy him. He says that the Lord would destroy him with the spirit of his mouth (KJV) and this would be done at the brightness of his coming (KJV), the brightness of **whose** coming? The problem of interpretation is that Paul begins the next verse by referring to the coming (parousia, G3952) of the ‘wicked one’ (cp. 2Thessalonians 2:9). So, is Paul referring to the Lord’s coming (parousia, G3952) in verse-8 or the coming (parousia, G3952) of the wicked one, i.e. the man of sin? In other words, is the man of sin / wicked one destroyed at his own coming or ‘manifestation’ or is he destroyed at the Lord’s coming or manifestation?
In 2Thessalonians 2:5-7 Paul clearly spoke of the time when the man of sin would be revealed (apokalupto; G601). Apokalupto (G601) is the verb form of the noun, apokalupsis (G602), which refers to the Lord in Revelation 1:1. So, Paul may be using a play on words that usually describes the Lord in order to point to the man of sin, who seeks to gather the Lord’s disciples to himself. At this point Paul mentions that the man of sin would be revealed only after the one who was presently holding him back was removed (2Thessalonians 2:6-7). When that would occur, the man of sin would be revealed (G601; apokalupto), and this revelation would be his coming (parousia; G3952), to which Paul clearly refers in 2Thessalonians 2:9. Therefore, the man of sin / the wicked one would be destroyed either at that very time, i.e. at his own parousia (G3952), or at the time of the Lord’s parousia (G3952), depending upon whose coming Paul refers to in 2Thessalonians 2:8.
Bringing up a lot of Greek at this time may be a little difficult to follow, but I believe it is necessary, if we are to understand what actually occurred, and appreciate the Scriptures for their accuracy. Notice that Paul claims the wicked one would be destroyed at the brightness of his coming (KJV). The Greek word is epiphaneia (G2015) and is translated “brightness” in the KJV, but only here. Otherwise it is translated appearing.[1] Most other translations use either appearance or manifestation to translate the word. The point is, I believe brightness is used only because the translator believes Paul is speaking of the Lord’s coming, and the light / brightness of his appearance would destroy the wicked one. So, the translation itself takes on an interpretation, which affects the way we might read the verse. Clearly, Paul could be saying: the wicked one would be destroyed at “the manifestation of his coming, whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan…” It is only because one interprets Paul is speaking of the Lord’s coming in verse-8 that one perceives a different parousia in verse-9. The two verses can be read as though Paul spoke of only one parousia.
Let’s consider the Greek word epiphaneia a little closer. Epiphano (G2014) is the verb; epiphanes (G2016) is the adjective and epiphaneia (G2015) is the noun.
“The verb means “to show,” “to show oneself,” “to appear, “ the adjective means “visible,” magnificent,” and the noun means “appearance” in various senses (e.g., a geometrical “surface,” the “appearance” of an enemy, the “front” of an army…
“Josephus uses epiphaneia for “fame” but mostly for “helpful intervention.” The verb means “to appear” and the adjective “magnificent.” Philo uses the noun for “appearance,” “renown,” “splendor,” and “geometrical surface,” the adjective for “splendid,” “distinguished,” and the verb for “to appear.”” [2]
In other words epiphaneia could refer to the very beginning of the parousia of the man of sin. When he is first hailed as the one who stands in the place of God (2Thessalonians 2:4). Notice that the word is used to represent the “front” of an army. That is, it represents what one is able to see at the very beginning of an opposing force that might be advancing over a hill. It is the first appearance of the wicked one that Paul seems to be describing here. What comes to mind at this point is the Lord’s own words at his trial before the high priest, Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, and the father of each later high priest in whose terms of office the persecution of the elect would be advanced. Taking an oath to God, Annas demanded of Jesus to tell the court if he were the Messiah, the Son of God (Matthew 26:63), and Jesus replied: “You said it. Furthermore, I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of the Man sitting at the Power’s right, and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64). Annas’ parousia was not the coming of good for the nation. His parousia was that of an enemy with all the authority and signs and lying wonders of an enemy. He was a deceiver who called righteousness evil and evil righteousness by rejecting the Gospel, when accepting it would have saved his nation (2Thessalonians 2:9-10).
Why would what Jesus said in Matthew 26:64 come to mind as Paul describes the man of sin in the second chapter of 2Thessalonians? It is because Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, mentions an oddity concerning Annas at the very beginning of the Jew’s war with Rome. The war had begun on or about the 13th day of the fifth month of the Jewish calendar. Trouble from the zealots arose when they began burning records, which were kept by the priests in the Temple, such as loan contracts etc. They also set the high priest’s house on fire, while many of the priests, including Annas, fled underground in one of Jerusalem’s aqueducts. Eventually, he was found and slain on the 6th day of the 6th month of the year 66 AD, after being high priest for 60 years, which began in the year 6 AD.[3] Could Annas have been the man of sin, and why wouldn’t he have been, since every persecution of the Lord’s disciples was begun during the officiate of a high priest from his family? If he were the wicked one, then he was destroyed or slain, at the very beginning of the war. In other words, he was destroyed at the very beginning of the time, when he might have claimed victory over Jesus, whom he had crucified and had caused each of the writers of the New Covenant (i.e. the Lord’s legitimate witness to mankind)[4] to be slain. If Annas wasn’t the wicked one, who was, or who could that future one be who could do more wickedly than he?
_____________________________________________________
[1] See: 1Timothy 6:14; 2Timothy 1:10; 4:1, 8; and Titus 2:13.
[2] Bromiley; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament; page 1246.
[3] See Josephus; Wars of the Jews 2.17.2-9 (408-441; especially 440-441 as it pertains to the death of Annas).
[4] See my earlier study: Who Are the Two Witnesses
Smoodock's Blog 
5 responses to “The Coming of the Wicked One!”
Hi! Perhaps you expound on this next, but I am not sure I know what you mean with your closing statement:
“If he were the wicked one, then he was destroyed or slain, at the very beginning of the war. In other words, he was destroyed at the very beginning of the time, when he might have claimed victory over Jesus, whom he had crucified and had caused each of the writers of the New Covenant to be slain. ”
How was the war between the Jews and Romans a time when Annas might have claimed victory over Jesus and the church? Annas and his family were such buddy buddy with Nero, how would a war with the Romans have been a time when Annas could have achieved victory over the Jewish Sect he had opposed for decades with the help of the Romans? I would have thought even the beginning of such a war would have been the opposite of all his plans and hopes.
From reading your previous post (sorry, I should start at the beginning of your threads, instead of when a title of a post in the middle captures my attention), I see that you mean that just when Annas could have celebrated that he had succeeded in getting the Apostles in being taken out of the way or killed, this war came and destroyed his plans to celebrate his victory in causing the Jesus followers to fall away. But as we don’t know exactly when Paul & Peter or most of the disciples were martyred, how can we know Annas died after them?
Yes, you’ve understood perfectly, as for how we know when Peter and Paul etc. were martyred as that pertains to Annas’ own death, you can read my studies in the Apocalypse: The Seven Trumpets. Simply scroll down to chapter 11 and click on #’s 31, 32 and 33.
Long-story-short, two witnesses are a valid witness. Only one isn’t valid. Ten witnesses is no more valid than two. Two witnesses is the least common denominator for a vaild witness. The Two Witnesses are the seven writers of the New Testament. When they were slain, Christ had no more witnesses. That is when judgment came. Annas took away the Lord’s witnesses. Therefore, the Lord pronounced his judgment upon him (cp. Matthew 26:64).
Comments were turned off on the study you referred to, so I’ll ask here.
The 7 witnesses you believe to be the 7 authors of the New Testament: “Matthew, Peter (his epistles and Mark’s Gospel), Luke (his Gospel and Acts); John (his Gospel and epistles); Paul’s epistles, James’ epistle and Jude’s epistle.” I know you and I both agree that John & the letters were written by Lazarus. But I think one of the arguments for this is that Revelation states the scribe’s name as John, but the gospel & letters he refers to himself only as the disciple Jesus loved. So do you believe Revelations to be written by an 8th author, or to not have been included in the count because John the writer was still in the act of recording the words of Christ in Revelation? Don’t mean to be nit-picky. Just seems like regardless of who the “disciple Jesus loved” is, almost everyone believes the John of Revelation is a different author, which makes 8 authors of the New Testament, and if this John were either one of the 12 or one of the other early disciples who witnessed Jesus’ public ministry, then he would have been an 8th witness.
Thanks!
You have it correct for the most part. I now see the name ‘Lazarus’ as a name like Peter’s was for Simon. I have a study on this: “Barnabas, Whom Jesus Loved” if you care to read it.
Concerning John and the Apocalypse, although it is all about Jesus and his judgment upon Jerusalem, it is not a ‘witness’ per se. It is certainly not a narrative, like the Gospel records, or Acts, nor is it anything like an epistle. It is wrapped in mystery and understood only by folks who already knew Jesus, what he said and did. Moreover, it the strictest sense of the word, it was pretty much dictated to John by either Jesus or an angel, and he wrote about visions he saw: which were of beasts and the Temple of God (what occurred in the Most Holy Place, the Holy Place and the Outer Court).
In other words, I don’t believe any of the Apostles or evangelists used it to preach Christ. It was used afterward to inform believers. In this context, I don’t believe the Apocalypse and its recorder were among the ‘witnesses’ Annas sought to stop / kill. In as much as I can tell, the ‘two witnesses’ refer strictly to the seven who wrote the Gospel narratives, Acts and the epistles.