The Imperial Implications of Paul’s

Pastoral Apocalypse1
Tyler Stewart
Adjunct Professor in Bible
Lincoln Christian University
Tyler.a.stewart@gmail.com

Despite a grow ing trend in N T scholarship toward “anti-im perial* interpre-

tations, it is widely debated whether these interpretations are historically valid.
A n exam ination o f 2 Thess 2:1-17, the most anti-im perial text in the Pauline
corpus, demonstrates P aul’s theology is anti-im perial only insofar as empire is
used as a tool o f Satan to oppose God’s elect. Using apocalyptic metaphors, P aul
invested the Thessalonian believers’ suffering with cosmic significance and
narrated God’s judgm ent on their oppressors.

At the 2007 Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting, N. T. Wright and

John Barclay sparred over anti-imperial readings o f Paul. While Barclay described
Wright as the most “measured,” “comprehensive,” and “theologically developed”
o f the anti-imperial interpreters, he still considered his approach “fundamentally
wrong.”2 The Barclay-Wright dispute is merely a recent example o f the growing
debate. New Testament scholars are increasingly interested in the political implica-
tions of Paul’s theology. Leading the way, Neil Elliot,3John Dominic Crossan,4 and

1This article earned first place in the Student Paper Competition (Graduate Division) that was admin-
istered as part of the SCJ Conference, held April 8-9,2011, at Cincinnati Christian University. I would
like to thank Dr. Anthony Le Donne for his thoughtful comments and critiques as well as encourage-
ment to submit this essay for competition.
2 John Barday, “Why the Roman Empire Was Insignificant to Paul” (paper presented at the SBL
Annual Meeting, 19 November 2007, San Diego) 1. After this article was already written, a reworked
version of Barclay’s essay was released in John M. G. Barclay, Pauline Churches and Diaspora Jews
(WUZNT 275; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) 363-388. Many thanks to Professor Barclay for allow-
ing me access to his essay before publication.
3Neil Elliot, Liberating Paul: TheJustice of God and the Politics of the Apostle (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2006), and more recendy, The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire, Paul in
Critical Contexts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008).
4 J. D. Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, In Search of Paul: How Jesus’Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire
with God’s Kingdom (New York: Harper San Francisco, 2004); J. D. Crossan, God and Empire: Jesus
against Rome, Then and Now (New York: Harper One, 2007) 143-190.

Stone-Campbell Journal 15 (Fall, 2012) 229-245

 S C J15 (Fall, 2012): 229-245

Richard Horsley5 have strongly argued that Paul was opposed to the Roman
Empire.
The most common and forceful objection to anti-imperial readings is that
Paul never explicitly identifies the Roman Empire as his opponent. Wright has sug-
gested using Richard Hays’s criteria for listening to “echoes o f scripture” to hear
“echoes o f Caesar.”6 Barclay objects that these criteria are intended to further elu-
cidate Paul’s use o f Scripture, which is already explicit in the text. So Barclay finds
Wright to be presupposing an anti-imperial Paul and then adopting a method to
find him.
In Barclay’s words, “Wright is working from nothing explicit in the text, from
thin air to even thinner.”7 Overlap between religious language and Roman imper-
ial ideology is somewhat inevitable because both concern power and the sacred.8
The difficulty lies in determining what the shared language between Paul’s letters
and Roman imperial ideology meant for Paul and the early Christians.
The Thessalonian letters have been a key battleground in the debate because
the dominant metaphor for Jesus’ return is an imperial spectacle (1 Thess 4:16-18),
and the slogan “peace and security” (5:3) is likely an allusion to imperial propa-
ganda.9 Seyoon Kim even attributes his most recent book, written in opposition to

5 Horsley has edited three volumes that have been definitive in the anti-imperial approach to Paul:
Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society (Harrisburg: Trinity, 1997); Paul and
Politics: Eccleda, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation (Fest. Krister Stendahl; Harrisburg: Trinity, 2000);
Paul and the Roman Imperial Order (Harrisburg: Trinity, 2004). Numerous others have contributed
substantially as well. The writers in Horsley’s volumes include such notables as Helmut Koester, N. T.
Wright, and Robert Jewett. Also Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia C. Keesmaat, Colossians Remixed: Subverting
the Empire (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004).
6N. T. Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005) 61, borrowing from Richard
B. Hays, Echoes of Scnpure in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989) 29-32.
7Barclay, “Why the Roman Empire Was Insignificant to Paul,” 4.
8 Christopher Bryan, Render to Caesar: Jesus; The Early Church, and the Roman Superpower (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2005) 90, writes, “They all had to use some vocabulary and concepts to
speak of the things they held sacred, and if they were to communicate at all, they all had to draw on
more or less the same vocabulary.” Peter Oakes, “Re-mapping the Universe: Paul and the Emperor in
1 Thessalonians and Philippians,” JSNT27 (2005) 301-322, even suggests four categories for the par-
allels, which may or may not be intentionally anti-imperial.
9 On parousia see below. On ειρήνη καί ασφάλεια as imperial propaganda see Klaus Wengst, Pax
Romana and the Peace ofJesus Christ (trans. J. Bowden; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987) 19-21, 76-79;
Helmut Koester, “Imperial Ideology and Paul’s Eschatology in 1 Thessalonians,” in Paul and Empire,
158-166; Abraham Smith, 4“Unmasking the Powers’: Toward a Postcolonial Analysis of 1 Thessa-
lonians,” in Paul and the Roman Imperial Order, 47-66; Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, 74-75;
Todd D. Still, Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and its Neighbours (JSNTSup 183; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 262-266; James R Harrison, Paul and the Imperial Authorities at
Thessalonica and Rome: A Study in the Conflict of Ideology (WUZNT 273; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck,
2011).

230
Tyler Stewart: The Imperial Implications o f Paul’s Pastoral Apocalypse

anti-imperial interpretations, to be the fruit o f studying 1 and 2 Thessalonians.10As

will become dear below, Paul is at his most anti-imperial in 2 Thessalonians 2. The
passage has been largely ignored, due perhaps to arguments about authorship.11
This essay will bring clarity to Paul’s theology as it relates to empire by appealing
to this neglected passage.12
In 2 Thess 2:1-17, Paul reassures afflicted and confused believers by narrating
apocalyptically God’s final defeat of evil through Jesus. In the process o f pastoral
comfort, Paul gives his most pointed teaching in opposition to empire. He sets the
apocalyptic appearance o f Jesus militantly against the parousia o f the Man o f
Lawlessness, who apocalyptically personifies political oppressors of the elect. So
Paul is simultaneously at his most pastoral and most political in describing God’s
victory over evil.
Because this passage is so overtly political, it provides an important case-study
in Paul’s theology as it relates to empire. This essay will argue that while Paul dis‫־‬
cusses the end o f empire as a comfort to the suffering believers in Thessalonica, his
eschatological focus is not Rome in particular. Paul recognized Rome as Satan’s
most recent effort, soon to be nullified, as had past empires that had opposed the
elect. In this way, Paul’s vision of God’s apocalyptic victory signals the end o f a
more cosmic enemy and only by extension, the Roman Empire.
The argument will unfold in three stages. First, a look at Paul’s response to
the Thessalonian confusion will show he comforts afflicted believers by reminding
them of their hope in an alternative king. Second, an examination o f his description
o f the Man o f Lawlessness will reveal he employs the apocalyptic figure to demon-
strate the rebellious character o f an oppressive ruler, using anti-imperial traditions

10 Seyoon Kim, Christ and Caesar. The Gospel and the Romm Empire in the Writings of Paul and Luke
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008) xi. Initially Kim found the anti-imperial reading quite persuasive, but he
remains ultimately unconvinced. His primary critique is that anti-imperial rhetoric is too subtle (28-33).
111 consider the arguments in favor of authenticity convincing. They are well stated elsewhere and
need not be rehearsed here. See Gene L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (PNTC; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2002) 59-64; classically, I. Howard Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (NCB; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans 1983); Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (AB 32b; New York:
Doubleday, 2000) 349-355, 364-373; Colin R. Nicholl, From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica:
Situating 1 and 2 Thessalonians (SNTSMS 126; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004) 3-16;
Ben Witherington III, 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2006) 9-16. Beverly Roberts Gaventa, First and Second Thessalonians (IBC; Louisville, KY: John Knox,
1998) 97, tellingly concludes her commentary introduction on 2 Thessalonians, “Few would argue that
this letter is pivotal for understanding the New Testament.”
12 Much of my approach in regard to the anti-imperial debate comes from dialog with Shane J. Wood,
who allowed me access to his Ph.D. dissertation in progress, “Engaging the Empire: An Aker-Imperial
Reading of the Book of Revelation.” Undertaken at the University of Edinburgh, Wood’s argument that
John’s Apocalypse is an “alter-imperial” text articulates an approach that incorporates anti-imperial
insights without allowing them to dominate how Revelation ought to be read.

231
 SC J15 (Fall, 2012): 229-245

from the OT that anticipate God’s judgment on those who oppose the elect. Third,
an analysis of Paul’s use o f the restrainer will show he assures believers God is at
work in the midst of suffering to protect his people. Paul’s response comforts the
Thessalonians by refocusing their vision apocalyptically.

P a u l ’s R e s p o n s e t o t h e T h e s s a l o n ia n C o n f u s io n

The Thessalonian believers suffered at the hands of outsiders (1 Thess 1:6;

2:14; 3:3-4; 2 Thess 1:4-6). Though complex in its cause, the affliction was relat-
ed to the sociopolitical realities o f Thessalonica’s place in the Roman Empire (Acts
17:1-10).13 In this context of Roman affliction, Paul addresses a misconception that
the “Day o f the Lord” had arrived.
He already had discussed eschatology with the Thessalonians more than he
does anywhere else in his extant letters ( 1 Thess 4 : 1 3 5 ; 1 8 ‫־‬:l ‫־‬l l ) . He also indicates
he had extensively taught on the issue while among them (2 Thess 2:5,15; also
1 Thess 5:1-2). Fee correctly observes that, “Although this is not blatant, one can
detect a minor degree of frustration on Paul’s part.”14 Paul is somewhat perturbed
to be refuting an idea so baseless; scholars have struggled to reconstruct how the
Thessalonians could have believed such a thing.
The Hebrew prophets use the phrase “Day of the Lord” to describe an impend-
ing terrible day of wrath in which Yahweh punishes his enemies and saves the faith-
fill.15 Based on 1 Thess 4:13-18 and 5:1-11, Colin Nicholl and others rightly take the
“Day of the Lord” as “essentially co-referential with the παρουσία (paroum )}6
That the Thessalonians could have thought this event had “already arrived”
(ένέστηκεν, emstëken; 2 Thess 2:2), is utterly shocking. The shock has led some to

13Still, Conflict at Thessalonica, provides the most comprehensive analysis of the Thessalonian afilie-
tion. Green, Thessalonians, 8-31, provides an excellent overview of the relevant history of Thessalonica,
its imperial connections and the resulting local benefaction. Also Holland Lee Hendrix, “Thessalonicans
Honor Romans,” Th.D. dissertation (Harvard University, 1984). On Acts 17, see C. Kavin Rowe,
World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Gmeco-Romm Age (New York: Oxford University Press,
2009) 91-138; E. A. Judge, “Decrees of Caesar at Thessalonica,” RTR 30 (1971) 1-7.
14Gordon Fee, First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) 277. Fee
observes that this also helps explain the grammatical irregularities of the text with at least two “broken
sentences” verses 3 and 7 as well as Paul’s slip into the first person singular (2:5), which does not occur
again until 3:17. See also Ernest Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (BNTC; Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 2003) 290, suggests Paul has “almost a touch of impatience.”
15The most common theme being judgment on Yahweh’s enemies (Isa 13:6-16; Ezek 30:1-4; Joel
1:13-15; 2:1-11; Obad 15-20; Zeph 1:14-18; Zech 14:1-21; Mai 4:5), which would vindicate the faith-
fill minority (Isa 27:2-13; Jer 30:8-9; Joel 2:31-32; 3:18; Obad 21).
16 Nicholl, Hope to Despair, 51; Barclay, “Conflict,” 527; Green, Thessalonians305 ,‫ ;׳‬Fee,
Thessalonians, 272. Contra Glen S. Holland, The Tradition Ton Receivedfrom Us: 2 Thessalonians in the
Pauline Tradition (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988) 98-99.

232
Tyler Stewart: The Imperial Implications o f Paul’s Pastoral Apocalypse

suggest ένέστηκεν means “about to arrive,”17despite overwhelming evidence to the

contrary. In Paul’s other letters, the perfect tense o f ένίστημι (enistëmi) describes
a present reality (Rom 8:38; 1 Cor 3:22; 7.26; Gal 1:4; also Heb 9:9), a use that is
confirmed elsewhere.18 If Paul intended to imply imminence, why not use the typ-
ical verb of apocalyptic imminence, έγγίζω?19 Furthermore, why would Paul be
opposed to imminent expectation of the parousia> a perspective he affirms earlier in
2 Thessalonians (1:5-10) and elsewhere in his writings (Rom 13:11-12; Phil 3:20;
1 Thess 5:2)? Most likely, he is responding to the mistaken belief that the “Day of
the Lord” had “already arrived,” not seeking to curb apocalyptic imminence.
Many scholars have attempted to explain why the Thessalonians might have
thought the “Day o f the Lord” had already arrived.20 Ernest Best is wise to con-
elude that from our distance, it is probably impossible to determine exactly what
the misinformed Thessalonians believed.21 Indeed, Paul himself seems unaware of
the source o f the misinformation (2 Thess 2:2) and is surprised the Thessalonians
are so confused about an issue he has addressed repeatedly (2:5,15).
What is clear, however, is that the Thessalonian problem was an overrealized
eschatology, probably stemming from a misunderstanding o f Paul’s first letter (1 Thess
2:16; 3:3-13; 5 :4 -ll).22 In response, Paul promptly writes to dispel the confusion.

17Most recently L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, Antecedents ofAntichrist: A Tmditio-Historical Study of the

Earliest Christian Views of Eschatological Opponents (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 73-74; and Green,
Wessalonians, 305-306, following Albrecht Oepke, “ένίστημι” TDNT 2:544; also A. M. G.
Stephenson, “On the Meaning of ένέστηκεν ή ημέρα τού κυρίου in 2 Thessalonians 2.2,” SE 4 (1968)
442-451.
18 Philo (Le¿, AIL 2.3.42; Sac. 6.47; Plant. 12.114; Mi¿. Abr. 43; Praem. Poen. 33.71), Josephus
(Ant 3.24, 224; 7.391; 16.162; 17.185, 354; J.W. 2.280; 4.21) the LXX (Esth 3:13; 1 Macc 12:44;
2 Macc 6:9; 1 Esd 9:6), other early Christian literature (Bam. 1:7; 5:3; 17:2) and Papyri (P.Oxy 1.37.1,
11; 2.245.6; 82.4335.16; 4338.2; 83.4356.2-3; 4384.9; 4390.7; 4394.72; 85.4489.4,11) show that
the perfect tense of ένίστημι indicates something that is in the present state of having already arrived.
19 Observed by Nicholl, Hope to Despair, 117. Also Rom 13:12; Matt 3:2; 4:17; 10:7; Mark 1:15;
11:1; Luke 10:9,11; James 5:8; 1 Pet 4:7.
20 Best, Thessalonians, 276-278, observes three possibilities: The Thessalonians have (1) M en prey to
a Gnostic conception of the resurrection that has already occurred (also 2 Tim 2:18; Iren. Adv. Haer.
1.23.5; 3.32.2; Gos. Thom. 51), or (2) a “spiritualizing” of the resurrection (also 1 Cor 15:12-19), or
(3) they have falsely separated the “Day of the Lord” from the parousia. Maarten J. J. Menken,
2 Thessalonians (New York: Routledge, 1994) 100-101, even suggests that the Thessalonians have been
duped by messianic pretenders and cites an example from Josephus (Ant. 20.169-170,188), but one
has to wonder how this Palestinian pretender would have been relevant to the Thessalonians. Nicholl,
Hope to Despair, 117*131, provides the most detailed analysis of recent answers to this question.
21 Best, Thessalonians; 278.
22F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (WBC 45; Dallas: Word, 1982) 164; Robert Jewett, The Thessa-
Ionian Conespondence: Pauline RhetoHc and Millenarian Piety (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 184-186;
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996) 128;
Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians, 416-417,429; Fee, Thessalonians, 275.

233
 SC J15 (Fall, 2012): 229-245

Paul’s response does not have the confrontational tone of opposing false
teachers but that o f pastoral correction. The Thessalonians were victims (2 Cor
11:3; 1 Tim 2:14), not perpetrators (Rom 16:18), of a great deception. Though
Paul was prone to sharp rebuke (Gal 1:6-9; 1 Cor 3:1-5; 10:17-32; 15:12-19), he
gently reminds the Thessalonians o f previous teaching (2 Thess 2:5,15) and their
sure election in Christ (2:13-14,16-17).
Because o f this election (2:13), evidenced in their response to the gospel
(2 Thess 1:10), they have now obtained glory (2:14) and entrance into God’s king-
dom (2 Thess 1:5; 1 Thess 2:12; Phil 3:20-21). This glory will be evident at the
parousia and simultaneous with both resurrection (2 Thess 2:1; Rom 8:18-21;
1 Cor 15:43) and the judgment o f those who oppose the Thessalonians and refuse
the truth (2 Thess 1:5-10; 2:10-12). It is because of their affiliation with God’s
anointed king that the Thessalonians will be glorified and their oppressors judged.
Likewise, it is because o f this same affiliation that they presently suffer.
Gospel is not a politically neutral word. As is widely acknowledged, “gospel”
in the Greco-Roman world meant “good news” in the context o f political victory
(Plutarch Vit. 654e, 855e; Heliodorus, Aeth. 10.3; Cicero, A tt. 2.3.1; 12.40.1).
The birth o f the emperor is even a gospel.23 For Paul, the gospel is a story from God
about Jesus24 and the means by which God will judge the world (Rom 2:16; 2 Cor
4:3-4; 2 Thess 1:5-10).
In the Thessalonian letters, the gospel is the truth that will vindicate believers
and judge those who oppose them (2 Thess 1:8; 2:14). Paul’s gospel announces
God’s victory through Jesus that will triumph over the forces afflicting the Thessa-
Ionian believers. It is a comfort because it offers vindication o f oppressed believers
and judgment on oppressive powers. Paul’s gospel clashes with Caesar’s in Thessa-
lonica and the Thessalonians are suffering for it. In their suffering, Paul reminds
them their true king will be victorious and vindicate them.
Paul’s apocalyptic comfort is unfortunately difficult to interpret and encounters
three major obstacles. First, Paul is relying on previous teaching to which contem-

23 Gerhard Friedrich, “εύαγγελίζομαι,” TDNT2:72i. Consider especially a letter of the Proconsul

of Asia, Paulus Fabius Maximus, in honor of Caesar Augustus, “A savior who put an end to war and will
restore order everywhere: Caesar, by his appearing has realized the hopes of our ancestors; not only has
he surpassed earlier benefactors of humanity, but he leaves no hope to those of the future that they
might surpass him. The god’s birthday was for the world the beginning of the gospel (εύαγγέλιον) that
he brought.” Cited by Robert Jewett, Romms: A Commentury, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2007) 138. In the LXX, εύαγγέλιον is used only six times; four times simply mean “good news” (2 Sam
18:20,25,27; 2 Kings 7:9) and twice it appears in the sense of “the reward for good news” (2 Sam 4:10;
18:22), notably always in the context of political victory.
24It is described as both “the gospel of Christ” (Rom 15:19; 1 Cor 9:12; 2 Cor 2:12; 9:13; 10:14;
Gal 1:7; PhÜ 1:27; 1 Thess 3:2) and “the gospel of God” (Rom 1:1; 15.16; 2 Cor 11:7; 1 Thess 2:2,8,9)
as well as “Paul’s gospel” (Rom 2:16; 16:25).

234
 Tyler Stewart: The Imperial Implications o f Paulas Pastoral Apocalypse

porary exegetes are not privy (2:5,15). Second, his grammar and syntax are compli-
cated and occasionally broken (2:3,7).25 Third, Paul shifts freely among references to
the past (2:5,10b), present (2:3a,6a,7a,ll), and fixture (2:3b4, 6‫־‬b, 7b10‫־‬a,12).
In addition to these obstacles, Paul’s references to the coming “apostasy”
(2:3), “man of lawlessness” (2:3), “mystery o f lawlessness” (2:7), “temple” (2.4),
and—most vexing o f all—‫“־‬restrainer” (2:6-7) are much debated. Augustine, one of
the greatest Christian minds in history, exclaimed, “I frankly confess that the mean-
ing o f this completely escapes me.”26

T h e A r r o g a n c e o f t h e M a n o f L a w l e ssn e ss

The key to this text lies in recognizing it as a pastoral response to Christians

suffering at the hands o f pagan authorities. Paul emphasizes God’s faithfulness and
sovereignty to invest their suffering with significance and instill in them the hope
o f resurrection. In doing so, he sets the parousia o f Jesus in direct conflict with the
Man o f Lawlessness by drawing from a host o f OT texts describing the apocalyptic
villain. Paul’s description focuses on the character of the Man o f Lawlessness as
usurper o f God’s throne. The focus o f the passage is not Rome per se, but any
king/kingdom attempting to sit in God’s seat.
While the imperial undertones o f other Pauline texts are debatable, here they are
probable. Paul presents an eschatological king in competition with Jesus. The Man of
Lawlessness parodies Jesus with a parousia (2 Thess 2:8-9; compare 1 Thess 4:15;
5:23; 2 Thess 2:1), a “revelation” (2 Thess 2:3,8; compare 1:7), supernatural powers
(2:4,9; compare 2:8,11 ) and by working in tandem with a heavenly being (2:9; com-
pare 1:6-7; Phil 3:21; Col 2:12). Extending the similarities beyond 2 Thessalonians,
both Jesus and the Man of Lawlessness are “seated” in God’s place (2 Thess 2:4;
compare Eph 1:20). These similarities lead Witherington to conclude, “The Lawless
One is some sort of rival savior or ruler figure.”27 The Man of Lawlessness attempts
to compete with Jesus as the rightful sovereign ruler of the world.
Paul expects the Man o f Lawlessness to personify a widespread rebellion of
humanity before the judgment.28 An increase in wickedness was a common theme
o f Jewish apocalyptic (1 En. 91:5-7; lQpHab II, 1-6; Jub. 23:14-23; 4 Ezra 5:1-
13). The same theme of increasing tribulation is apparent in the book o f Revelation

25Fee, Thessalonians; 271, observes that these verses are “full of grammatical and lexical uncertainties.”
26Augustine, City of God 20.19, cited from Jeffery A. D. Weima, “The Slaying of Satan’s Superman
and the Sure Salvation of the Saints: Paul’s Apocalyptic Word of Comfort (2 Thessalonians 2:1-17),”
C2741 (2006) 68.
27Witherington, Thessalonians, 217.
28Fee, Thessalonians, 280, and Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians, 418, consider the apostasy and
the revelation of the “man of Lawlessness” to be one event.

235
 SC J15 (Fall, 2012): 229-245

(1 1 :1 -1 4 ; 12:17; 1 3 :5 -1 0 ; 16:1-2 1; 17:3 -6) an d th e O livet discourse (M att 24:4-

8 ,2 1 -2 4 ; M ark 1 3 :5 -8 ,2 1 -2 2 ; L uke 2 1 :8 -9 ).
Typically, th e theological fu n ctio n o f these increased eschatological w oes was
purification o f th e faithful.29 T h e closest parallel am o n g P aul’s letters is R om 1:18-
32 (also 2 T im 3 :1 -9) in w hich hum anity rejects its creator to w orship creation
(R om 1:25). In response, G od gives th e rebellious over to th eir self-deceiving sin
(1 :2 4 ,2 6 ,2 8 ; also 2 Thess 2: 1130. ( 12‫ ־‬T h e p ictu re o f rebellion, th e n , is th a t o f all
creation against its creator. P aul’s description o f a com ing apostasy w as a co m m o n
apocalyptic th em e th a t fu n ctio n ed to en g en d er faithfulness in tim es o f difficulty.
T h e “ M an o f Law lessness” phrase is u n iq u e in th e N T .31 P aul creates it by
alluding to Ps 8 9:2 2 (LXX 8 8 :2 3 )32 w hich describes a “son o f lawlessness” (υιός
άνομίας; huios m o m ia s ) w ho rises against G o d ’s an o in ted b u t w ill be thw arted.
T his Psalm is a celebration o f G o d ’s an o in ted K ing. By G o d ’s m ighty p ow er, th e
servant, K ing D avid, destroyed his enem ies an d is h o n o red forever (8 9 :1 -3 7 ; esp.
verses 3 -4 ,1 4 ,2 8 -2 9 ,3 4 -3 5 ,3 7 ).33
T h e recollection o f G o d ’s w ork an d prom ises to D avid form a prelu d e to th e
lam en t o f injustice (8 9 :3 8 -5 1 ). N o te th a t in Psalm 8 9 :4 1 -4 3 , G o d ’s absence is sig-
nified by suffering at th e hands o f enem ies. In T hessalonica, C hristians w ere suf-
feting a t th e hands o f th eir enem ies to o an d likely q u estio n ed G o d ’s justice as w ell.
In th e Psalm , recollection o f G o d ’s past faithfulness to th e an o in ted K ing D avid
form s th e basis for th e p resen t p etitio n and h o p e for fu tu re vindication. In 2 T hes-
salonians, th e believers’ p resent suffering creates a b o n d w ith th e already resu rrect­

In Revelation, the reason for God’s delay is to allow for purification of the faithful (6:9-11) and 29
-time for the wicked to repent (11:13). Similar woes are found in 4 Ezra 6:11-28, which serves a purify
-ing function unto salvation (6:25). Then again in 4 Ezra 9:1-14 the dreadful “signs of the end” are enu
merated and there is a purifying function )9:8-9(.
God sends the “energy of deception” ένέργειαν πλάνης to those believing the lies of the Man of 30
Lawlessness (2:11) just as the Man of Lawlessness “appears according to the energy of Satan” ή
παρουσία κατ’ ένέργειαν τού σατανά )2:9 (.
Man of lawlessness” ό άνθρωπος της άνομίας reads “Man of Sin” ό άνθρωπος της άμαρτίας in a“ 31
number of witnesses representing three different text types A D F G Ψ lat sy; Ir111Eus. Still, there is
strong textual support in early tradition pointing toward the “lawlessness” reading )‫ א‬B 0278 6 81 104
Marcion, Tertullian) and “lawlessness” appears again in verse 7 without a variant. The variant 365 326
.reading άμαρτίας is probably an attempt to clarify a word rarely used by Paul
Though less prominent and not found in another Jewish Christian work, the “lawless sons” (mol 32
άνομοι also called “children of destruction” (τέκνα άπώλειας) appear in Isa 57:3-4.
NT writers frequently allude to Psalm 89 (LXX 88) to refer to Jesus’ messianic identity (Rom 33 15:8
)Acts 2.30 and John 7:42 (89:4); Matt 8:26; Mark 4:39 & Luke 21:25 (89:10); Luke ;)89:3 1:51
),Cor 10:26 (89:12); Acts 13:22 (89:21); John 12:34 and Rev 1:5 (89:27). Roger D. Aus 1 ;)89:11
God’s Plan and God’s Power: Isaiah 66 and the Restraining Factors of 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7,” ß L “ 96
)also points to Ps 89:7 (88:8) in 2 Thess 1:10; also Charles A. Wanamaker, TheEpistles ,537-553 )1977
to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990( 230.

236
Tyler Stewart: The Imperial Implications of Paulas Pastoral Apocalypse

ed King Jesus that forms the basis o f their future hope (1:5-8). Paul reminds them
Jesus will appear to set things right and judge the wicked “man o f lawlessness.”
Paul echoes the lament of Ps 89:22 as the lament of the Thessalonians while point-
ing to Jesus’ triumphal return as the divine response to the petition for justice.
Paul has little interest in identifying the rebellious “Man o f Lawlessness” apart
from his character as a usurper o f God’s throne. He draws from three OT texts to
describe the rebel. First, Paul alludes to Dan 11:36. The text describes “the king”
(widely identified as Antiochus IV Epiphanes) who “acts according to his own
desire and will be enraged and exalted (ύψωθησεται) over every god (έπι πάντα
θεόν, epi pant a theon) and over the God o f gods (και έπι τον θεόν των θεών; kai
epi ton theon tön theön)” (Dan 11:30).34
Paul describes the Man of Lawlessness as “opposing (άντικείμενος, antikei-
menos) and exalting himself (ύπεραιρόμενος, hyperairomenos) over everything
called god or object o f worship (έπι πάντα λεγόμενον θεόν ή σέβασμα, epi pant a
Ie£f0 men 0 n theon ê sebasma)” (2 Thess 2:4). “Oppose” (άντίκειμαι) is a NT hapax
legommon that appears in the LXX in the context of armed conflict (Exod 23:22;
2 Sam 8:10; Esther 8:11; 9:2) and Satan’s opposition to God’s anointed (Zech
3:1). In the prophets, God promises to shame those “opposing” his people (Isa
41:11; cf. 2 Macc 10:26; 3 Macc 7:9) or himself (LXX Isa 45:16).35 The “opposi-
tion” to which Paul refers parallels the way in which Antiochus “exalted himself.”
Paul’s deepest desire is for Christ to be “magnified” (Phil 1:20); anyone arrogant-
ly magnifying himself over God is “opposing” Yahweh’s anointed. Similarly, Paul’s
use o f “exalt over” (ύπεραίρω; hupemiro) reflects a conceited arrogance o f “lord-
ing over” (2 Cor 12:7; also Ps 38:4 [37:5]; 2 Macc 5:23) that is synonymous,
though perhaps more intense, than the LXX Daniel’s “exalt” (ύψόω; hupsoo). Paul
also reflects a more radical monotheism by describing other “gods” o f Dan 11:36
as “so called” (1 Cor 8:5) and by referring to them as “objects o f worship.”36Paul’s

34 Theodotion reads, “He will be magnified” μεγαλυνθήσεται rather than “he will be enraged”
παροργισθησεται.
35Isaiah even depicts the Lord’s voice crying out from the temple to give retribution to those “oppos-
ing” him (66:6). Ivor H. Jones, “Once More, Isaiah 66: The Case of 2 Thessalonians,” The Old
Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of /. L. North (ed. Steve Moyise; JSNTSS 189;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000) 235-255, argues that Isaiah 66 permeates 2 Thessalonians.
The echo of Isaiah 66 is certainly likely, but I find the other echoes more relevant to Paul’s description
of the Man of Lawlessness.
36Green, Thessalonians; 310, points out that Octavian’s Latin name, Augustus, was sebastos in Greek
and was “replete with religious and divine associations.” So much so, that the imperial cult overtones of
this text would have been obvious to the Thessalonian believers. The rare word σέβασμα appears in
Wisdom 14:21 recounting the origin of idols. According to Wisdom, idols began with a father honor-
ing the image of his dead child (14:15) and were eventually taken up by kings ( 14:16). People used idols
to honor their rulers from a distance (14:17) and then started worshiping them (14:18-29). The result
of this ruler worship was human slavery to objects of stone (14:21).

237
 SC J15 (Fall, 2012): 229-245

language is even more incensed at the arrogance o f the Man o f Lawlessness than
DaniePs at Antiochus.37
In addition to Dan 11:36, the Man o f Lawlessness also echoes Ezek 28:2 and
Isa 14:13-14. In Ezekiel, the prophet denounces the arrogance o f the Prince of
Tyre whose “heart was exalted,” claiming, “I am a god, I dwell in the dwelling of
God.” Yahweh promises that the prince’s beauty will be brought to “destruction”
(άπώλεια, ap5Uia\ Ezek 28:7). Using the same word, the Man o f Lawlessness is
called a ason o f destruction” (ό υιός της άπωλείας, 2 Thess 2:3). Furthermore, Yahweh
mockingly asks whether the prince o f Tyre will declare his own deity before those
who “kill” (άναιρέω, a m in o ) him (Ezek 28:9). The only time Paul uses this word
is to describe Jesus killing the Man of Lawlessness (2 Thess 2:8).
Isaiah 14 is a taunt against the king o f Babylon who claims, “To heaven I will
ascend, above the stars of heaven I will place my throne, I will sit on the highest
mountain. . . . I will ascend above the clouds, I will be like the most high” (Isa
14:13-14). The king o f Babylon also arrogantly considers his throne to be
Yahweh’s seat. The fate o f this arrogant king’s kingdom is “destruction” (άπώλεια,
apöUia\ Isa 14:23). In light of the OT allusions, Paul’s seemingly obscure reference
to the Man of Lawlessness seated in the temple is a clear apocalyptic metaphor
describing an anti-God ruler.38
Who, then, is the Man o f Lawlessness? Many historical figures seem to fit
Paul’s description. Gaius “Caligula” Caesar declared himself to be divine (Josephus,
A nt. 19.4-5,11 ; Suetonius, Cal. 22.2-4, 33) and infamously sought to erect a stat-
ue o f himself in the temple (Josephus, J.W. 2.184-85; A nt. 18.261-301; Philo,
Embassy 203-346; Tacitus, Hist. 5.9).
The Roman general Pompey was called “the lawless one” (ό άνομος, ho
anomos, Ps. Sol. 17:11) and he marched into the temple (63 BC; J.W. 1.151) with
the intention o f cleansing it (J.W. 1.152) but the result o f defiling it (Ps. Sol. 2:2).
Herod Agrippa I could have played the part for claiming divinity (Acts 12:21-23;

37Antiochus’s role in Israelite history is well known, but it merits noting. He was diabolically
“opposed” to God’s people. He attempted to Hellenize Israel (c. 1747171 BC; 2 Macc 4:7-22) and
attacked the inhabitants of Jerusalem (169 BC; 2 Macc 5:11-23; Josephus, Ant. 12.246-247), which
made him an enemy of the elect in the eyes of many Second Temple Jews. Worse yet, Antiochus
embraced a policy that fiercely enforced Hellenization. Jewish rites were prohibited, the temple was ded-
icated to Zeus and anyone found with a copy of the Torah or a circumcised child was put to death (c.
167 BC; 1 Macc 1:54-64; Ant. 12.248-64). It is not surprising that Antiochus became an archetypal
enemy in Jewish tradition from which Paul draws to describe the archetypal enemy of the Thessalonians.
38Following I. Howard Marshall, 1 and2 Thessalonians(NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1983) 192;
Bruce, Thessalonians, 169; Peerbolte, Antecedents of the Antichrist, 77; cf. Menken, 2 Thess. 107, ‘“Paul’
is only expressing, in the strongest possible way, the arrogant anti-God attitude of the lawless one: he
will be capable of occupying God’s earthly abode, and taking God’s place.” Contra G. K. Beale, 1‫־‬
2 Thessalonians (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003) 208, who suggests that Paul is referring to a
future apostasy in the church.

238
Tyler Stewart: The Imperial Implications o f Paul's Pastoral Apocalypse

Josephus, A nt. 19.343-347). There is even potential for the Roman general Titus
to be the Man o f Lawlessness for destroying Jerusalem in the revolt of 70 A D
(Josephus, J.W. 7.260-266). If Paul intended to identify a single historical figure,
then the interpretive options are numerous and the description, ambiguous.
Other Second Temple texts have similar figures. The Sibylline Oracles describe
final judgment (3:55-56) with Beliar rising from the line of Augustus to perform signs
that will “deceive” the elect and “other lawless men” (Sib Or. 3.63-74; echoing Isaiah
14). In the Ascension of Isaiah the evil angel, Beliar, descends to earth in the form of
a man. This “king of iniquity” usurps God’s authority with powers and miracles,
declaring his own divinity (4:2-9). These parallels show other Jewish writers were tak-
ing up the same imagery as Paul to describe divine usurpers as evil kings.
Antiochus, the prince o f Tyre, the king o f Babylon, Caligula, Pompey, Titus,
and Nero all fit the apocalyptic description. The common thread is political oppres-
sors who exalt themselves and oppose God’s people. Paul’s point is not to identify
one particular ruler, but rather to create a mosaic of OT texts to describe an escha-
tological figure. This figure attempts to compete for God’s throne and looks like
many sinful celebrities but is limited to none. Just as he judged the arrogant kings
o f the past, God will judge those who oppose his elect and bring victory to his peo-
pie through his anointed king.

T h e F u n c t io n o f t h e R e s t r a in e r
UNTIL ESCHATOLOGICAL VICTORY

Paul intends to show that this eschatological opponent is really no competí-

tion at all. God will bring ultimate victory in due time. Since the Thessalonians are
already feeling the adverse effects o f the mystery o f lawlessness, God provides divine
restraint until final judgment.
A restrainer hinders the mystery o f lawlessness but the hindrance will be
removed at the consummation o f history. Paul’s goal is to encourage the Thes-
salonians to trust in their election during this time of affliction. God is at work
restraining evil even during their present suffering. More importantly, the
Thessalonians will undoubtedly recognize their vindication at the appearance of
Jesus because all evil will be destroyed.
Admittedly, the identity o f the restrainer in 2 Thess 2:6-7 is one o f the most
vexing problems in the NT. This passage has long been contested.39 The identity of

39 Peter Gorday, Colosmns> 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon (ACCSNT 9; Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000) 111. Chrysostom lamented the lack of clarity and recognized two possi-
ble interpretations. (1) The restrainer is the “grace of the Spirit” or (2) the Roman Empire. He rejects
the first option “Because if Paul meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely but plain-
ly.. . . But because Paul said this of the Roman Empire, he merely touched the topic, understandably
speaking covertly and darkly. For he had no need to create unnecessary enemies and useless dangers”
(.Homilies on 2 Thessalonians 4). It is interesting that Chrysostom hears echoes of Caesar.

239
 S C J15 (Fall, 2012): 229-245

the restrainer is complicated by a number o f factors. Most immediately the verb

“restrain” appears in two participle forms, one is neuter (τό κατέχον, to ka te chon)
and thus impersonal (2 Thess 2:6) and the other is masculine (ο κατέχων, ho kate-
chön) and is personal (2:7). It is uncertain whether there is both a restraining force
and person, and why die restrainer is removed. The material’s uniqueness further
convolutes the issue. Nothing quite like the restrainer is found anywhere else in
Paul, the rest o f die NT, or other Second Temple texts.
One interpretation identifies the restrainer as Rome, but this is highly unlike-
ly.40 The removal of the restrainer indicates as much. The removal is described with
the unusual phrase έκ μέσου γένηται not used elsewhere in biblical Greek but
found in nonbiblical writings to mean “be removed” or “disappear.”41
Paul is describing the restrainer’s removal from the scene in which the
restrainer serves to inhibit the mystery of lawlessness.42 In a text so concerned to
highlight God’s sovereignty to suffering believers, the restrainer is best read as a
positive force whose removal “reveals” the arrogant Man o f Lawlessness (2 Thess
2.6), thus ushering in the end. Reading “Rome” as the restrainer gives the empire
too great a part in die scene and does not fit the logic o f the passage emphasizing
God’s sovereignty.
A better interpretation is that the restrainer is a force from God, likely an
angel. Nicholl has recently made die case for reading the restrainer as the archangel
Michael, based on the narrative flow of Dan 11:36-12:1.43 Elsewhere in Jewish lit-
erature, apocalyptic angels are found binding evil until the arrival of God’s judg-
ment (1 Enoch 10:4,12; 18:13-16; 21:1-10; Rev 20:1-3; cf. T. Levi 18:12).

40 Tertullian, De Garnis Resurrectione, 24; Hippolytus, Commentary on Daniel IV.21; Chrysostom

Homilies on 2 Thessalonians 4; John o f Damascus, In Ep. Ad Thessalonicenses I I ; Wanamaker,
Thessalonians, 256-257; Bruce, rIhssalonim sA7\-\72, 177. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 718‫־‬
719, is sympathetic to this interpretation but does not commit to it. Collin Nicholl, “Michael, The
Restrainer Removed (2 Thess. 2:6-7),” JTS 51 (2000) 30-35, provides an excellent updated overview
of the various options. Also Best, Thessalonians, 295-301.
41 Plutarch, Timoleon 5.3; Comparatio Niciae et Crassi2.6A; Questiones conviviales618 D l; Achilles
Tatius, Leucippeand Clitophon227 .2; Ps-Aeschines, Ep. 12.6.
42 Nicholl, “Michael, the Restrainer Removed,” 27, reads “to be revealed in his own time” as a pur-
pose clause while Fee, Thessalonians^ 287, argues for result. The εις το + infinitive clauses in 1 Thess 4:9
and 2 Thess 1:5 could also be read either way. Wanamaker, Thessalonians, 160,223, reads each differ-
ently (purpose in 1 Thess 4:9; result in 2 Thess 1:5). In Paul, the Greek construction εις το followed
by an infinitive can indicate either purpose (1 Thess 2:12; 3:2,5,10,13; 2 Thess 3:9; Rom 4:11; cf. Matt
262; Acts 3:19; 7:19; H eb 2:17) or result (1 Thess 2:16; 2 Thess 2:2,10,11). Either reading is possi-
ble and the distinction is probably not substantial.
43 “Michael, the Restrainer Removed,” 27-53. Though not as forcefully argued, many others have
identified the restrainer as an angel including Paul Hanly Furfey, “The Mystery of Lawlessness,” CBQ
8 (1946) 188; Marshall, Themlmiians, 199; Menken, 2 Thessalonians>109-110; Holland, Tradition Ton
Receivedfrom Us, 110-112; Beale, Thessalonians, 216; W itherington, Thessalonians, 211.

240
Tyler Stewart: The Imperial Implications o f Paul’s Pastoral Apocalypse

Whatever the restrainer’s identity, it is certainly from God. The purpose of the
restrainer is to remind the Thessalonians o f God’s sovereignty. The apocalyptic per-
spective commonly recognizes that evil is limited by God even in history (Job 7:12;
Rev 12:13-17; 2 Bar 29:4; 4 Ezra 6:52). This fits the tone o f the entire passage as
comfort to the elect. In Abraham Malherbe’s words, “God is in control o f human
events and what might appear to be a delay in bringing things to an end is in feet
God’s working out o f his mysterious purpose.”44
Though the Man o f Lawlessness is an eschatological figure yet to come, the
Mystery of Lawlessness is already at work (2 Thess 2:7). This may indicate the per-
sonhood o f the restraint is irrelevant to identification and instead is a clue to its
function.45 The role of the restraint is to hinder the mystery of lawlessness and its
personification in the Man of Lawlessness.46
The “mystery” is not an unknown secret lawlessness but, like Paul’s other uses
o f μυστήριον, is something once hidden but now revealed.47 The Thessalonians
know the lawlessness that is currendy at work, which at the removal o f restraint will
give way to the Man o f Lawlessness.48 The function of the restraint is to remind the
Thessalonians that even in die midst o f suffering, God is at work preventing the full
force o f lawlessness.
In satanic parody of Christ, the revelation o f the Man o f Lawlessness has a
parousia (2 Thess 2:8-9).49 This is a technical term for a Greco-Roman spectacle
designed to inaugurate or reinforce uthe place of a ruler within the Hellenistic city
and the city’s place in an imperial order.”50 The pageantry of parousia was such a

44 Malherbe, Letters to the Ttmalonians, 433.

45 The distinction in participles in regard to identity is likely overinterpreted anyway since neuter can
be personal when referring to a person’s character (1 Cor 1:27-28; 11:5; Gal 3:22; also John 3:6; 17:24;
1 John 5:1-4; Matt 12:6).
46This fits with the meaning of the verb κατέχω in Paul (Rom 1:18; 7:6; 1 Cor 7:30; also Luke
4:42).
47The noun appears 21 times in Paul’s letters (Rom 11:25; 16:25; 1 Cor 2:1,7; 4:1; 13:2; 14:2;
15:51; Eph 1:9; 3:3,4,9; 5:32; 6:19; Col 1:26,27; 2:2; 4:3; 2 Thess 2:7; 1 Tim 3:9,16) and only rarely
does it refer to a mystery that is unclear (1 Cor 13:2; 14:2). This fits with the O T prophets who empha-
sized that God does not work in “secret” (Isa 45:19; 48:16; cf. Amos 3:7). Furfey’s “The Mystery of
Lawlessness,” 179-191, provides a very illuminating history of interpretation for the “mystery o f law-
lessness.” Bruce, Thessalonians, 170, aptly describes the mystery as “the hitherto concealed but now dis-
closed purpose of God, with special reference to the fulfillm ent of his purpose” in Christ.
48 Green, Thessalonians; 318, suggests the mystery o f lawlessness is connected with the imperial cult.
Paul is probably intentionally vague to cover a wide range of lawless activity that certainly would have
included the imperial cult but would not have been limited to it.
49 Parousia is practically a technical term for the final apocalyptic arrival of Jesus in judgment (1 Thess
2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess 2:1; also M att 24:37,39; James 5:7,8; 2 Pet 1:16; 3:4,12).
50Trever S. Luke, “The Parousia of Paul at Iconium,‫ ״‬R & T 15 (2008) 226.

241
 S C J15 (Fall, 2012): 229-245

theatrical spectacle that Plutarch opens his account of Antony’s parousia in Ephesus
with a quote from a Sophoclean tragedy (Ant. 24.3).
Customarily these spectacles included a festival with fancy dress, a procession
to a designated meeting place (1 Thess 4:17; Josephus,/. W. 7.100-102) where flat-
tering speeches were given (Menander, Rhetor. 3.368), tributes were offered, and
requests to the new ruler were made.51 The event culminated with the return of the
ruler or representative to the city. The parousia spectacle was a form o f ancient pro-
paganda used to reinforce the divine right of the rulers (Plutarch, Demetr. 12).
Often, the previous ruler was denigrated in the welcoming and deification of the
new king (Tacitus, Ann. 6.42.1-3). It even becomes the rhetorical standard to
describe the arrival o f a new ruler as the resolution of past difficulties (Menander,
Rhetor 378.21-26). The new king would also bestow gifts on whomever he chose,
which could be problematic. It was complained that when Antony entered
Ephesus, he gave the property of awell-born men and bestowed it on flatterers and
scoundrels,” and when he entered Magnesia, he gave another man’s house to a
cook who gained honor with a single meal (Plutarch, A nt. 24.4). Paul employs this
standard spectacle to describe Jesus’ final return as well as the arrival of a ruler
opposed to Christ.
The revelation o f the Man o f Lawlessness is immediately countered by the
“appearance” (επιφάνεια) of Christ (2 Thess 2:8). In 2 Maccabees, God’s “appear-
ance” occurs in battles to protect his people (2:21; 12:22; 15:27) or the temple
(3:24) by inciting terrible fear in the enemy. It is likely that Paul and the author o f
2 Maccabees are echoing LXX 2 Sam 7:23, in which David offers a prayer cele-
brating his progeny’s role in building the temple and the endurance of his kingdom
(2 Sam 7:4-17).
He praises God by recalling his “appearance” in battle to cast out nations and
make way for his redeemed people (2 Sam 7:23). Paul uses the same rare word to
describe the “appearance” o f Jesus, which will slay die enemy o f his people.52 The
echo o f 2 Sam 7:23 describes Jesus as God’s anointed king who fights for his suf-
fering people against the embodiment of evü in die Man of Lawlessness.
If the echo of 2 Sam 7:23 is faint, the allusion to Isaiah 11:4 is clamoring.53
The Davidic king o f Isaiah 11 was prophesied to “strike the earth by the word of
his mouth (τω λόγω τού στόματος αυτού, tö lojjö tou stomatos autou) and with the
breath (πνεύματι, pneumatï) between his lips he will kill (άνελεΐ) the ungodly”
(verse 4). In 2 Thess 2:8, the Lord Jesus “will kill (άνελεΐ, anelei) by the breath o f
his mouth (τφ πνεύματι τού στόματος αύτού),” thus destroying the Man of

51 Albrecht Oepke,“παρουσία, πάρειμι,” T D N T 5:860.

52The same word appears elsewhere in the NT only in the pastoral epistles to describe the apocalyp-
tic judgment o f God in Christ (1 Tim 6:14; 4:1,8; Titus 2:13) or the incarnation (2 Tim 1:10).
53 Job 4:9 could also be echoed in 2 Thess 2:8.

242
 Tyler Stewart: The Imperial Implications o fP a u ft Pastoral Apocalypse

-Lawlessness. In Isaiah 11, the hope o f an afflicted Israel is found. Out o f the deso
lated nation rises the chosen king o f Israel. He will have the Spirit o f the Lord
delight in the Torah, and judge righteously (11:3). The context o f the ,)11:2 (
Isaiah passage is filled with eschatological promise ) 11:6-9 (.
When the root o f Jesse rises, the remnant o f Israel will be gathered from
around the world, and he will reign over the nations (11:10-11; Rom 15:12 ;
Thess 2:1). The response of the elect will be rejoicing in God’s saving work (Isa 2
compare 2 Thess 2:13-15). It is not surprising that this passage became one ;12:1-6
o f the most significant sources for describing the messianic deliverer in Second
Temple Judaism.54 Other NT writers also use the passage to refer to Jesus as the
Messiah.55 Paul uses Isa 11:4 to describe the destruction o f the Man o f Lawlessness
in the eschatological appearance o f Jesus in such a way that incorporates the
.Thessalonians as the elect
The same idea o f God’s word ushering forth judgment appears elsewhere in
Isaiah (30:27-28) and recalls God’s powerful breath parting the Red Sea (Exod
Sam 22:16; Ps 18:15). Other Second Temple texts also echo Isaiah 2 ;15:8 11:4
and the theme o f God’s word as judgment. For example, Wisdom o f Solomon
describes the wicked being scattered by the overwhelming power of God’s breath
In 4 Ezra .)11:20 ( 13.1 ‫־‬the messiah is described as bringing judgment with fire ,13
issuing forth from his lips (13:3,9-10). In Pss. S0L17:24, the rise of the Davidic
King will purify Israel and “destroy the unlawful nations with the word of his
mouth.” The picture o f Jesus as the resurrected Lord in Revelation is one who
judges with a sword from his mouth (Rev 1:16; 2:16; 19:15,21). In 1 Enoch 62 ,
the kings and the mighty are gathered for judgment and the “Son o f Man” kills all
sinners by “the word o f his mouth” (62:2-5). The description of God’s anointed
.king judging evil with a word was a common theme of Jewish apocalyptic
Paul’s echoes o f the OT in 2 Thessalonians 2 are often observed, but his use
.o f images is often overlooked. Each functions as a divine rebuke o f earthly rulers
The OT texts that permeate Paul’s apocalyptic drama o f judgment were written to
oppose empires. Likewise, these texts were used in Second Temple literature to
oppose imperial rule.56 If Paul intended to use these texts without reference to the
political powers of his day, he would be utterly unique. He also would have failed
.to address the source o f the Thessalonians’ suffering

54Craig A. Evans “Messianism,” DNTB, 700. In Qumran literature, Isaiah 11:1-6 refers to the arrival
of the Messiah (lQSb 5.21-26; also 4Q285 5.1-6; 4Q161 3.11-16). Likewise, in other Second Temple
texts Isa 11:1-6 refers to the Messiah (4 Ezra 13:2-10; Γ. Levi 18:7(.
55Matt 2:23 & Rev 5:5; 22.16 (Isa 11:1); Matt 3:16 and John 1:32 (Isa 11:2); Matt 12:21 (Isa
11:10 (.
,Richard Horsley, Revolt of the Scnbes: Redstance and Apocalyptic Origins (Minneapolis: Fortress 56
points out, “No Second Temple Judean text classified as ‘apocalyptic’ has survived that does ,3 )2010
not focus on imperial rule and opposition to it.”

243
 SCJ15 (Fall, 2012): 229-245

The eschatological Man of Lawlessness and the mystery of lawlessness are

merely tools o f Satan. Paul is not anxious about Satan’s defeat, nor does he doubt
the parousia of the Man o f Lawlessness will spell the final destruction o f evil
oppressors. Paul trusts the sovereign God who, through divine restraint, protected
his faithful people in history and will protect them in the eschatological arrival of
the Man o f Lawlessness (2 Thess 3:2-3).
He writes to encourage the Thessalonians to avoid being duped by satanic lies
(2 Thess 2:9-10). Those who reject the truth o f the gospel will be given over to
their sin (Ps 80:12-13; MT 81:12-13 MT; Rom 1:24,26,28; 11:8; 2 Tim 4:4).
Even the rejection o f truth and the judgment o f the wicked occur by God’s sover-
eign will (2 Thess 2:11-12). Those who remain faithful—‫י‬who continue to imitate
Jesus in their suffering for the kingdom—will participate in the triumph o f Jesus’
parousia (2 Thess 1:7,10; 2:1). Paul comforts the Thessalonians by reminding
them o f God’s coming justice and his present work o f restraint. The Empire is
already restrained, and when the eschatological agent o f Empire arrives, he will be
killed at the mere whisper of the divinely anointed king.

C o n c l u s io n

Is Paul’s gospel anti-imperial? The answer is both yes and no. On the one
hand, Paul has no interest in armed revolt against the Roman Empire and refutes
those who do (Rom 13:1-7). More specifically, he does not consider Jesus a rival
to Caesar’s throne. On the other hand, Paul portrays the personification o f evil in
distinctly political terms. In Paul’s mind, saturated with Jewish Scripture, it was
Caesar who foolishly thought o f himself as a rival to Jesus’ throne.
He knew better than to think the Kings of Babylon, the Princes o f Tyre, the
Antiochuses, the Pompeys, or the Caesars posed any real threat to God or his peo-
pie. He writes to show the Thessalonians they have no need to fear. Paul believed
the kingdom of God would triumph, and he urged believers to faithfully endure.
During the 2007 SBL debate, John Barclay suggested understanding Paul as
“deeply political but in a way that makes Rome not a central player in the history
of the world but a bit part, a member o f a largely undifferentiated crowd, in a drama
governed by much greater and more pervasive powers.”57 Indeed, Rome was just
the most recent character to take the historical stage and claim divinity, but it cer-
tainly was not the last. Paul’s apocalypse reminds believers that Empire is not the
point. Investing too much significance in any earthly rule is a theological mistake
that ultimately leads to confusion about the only parousia that matters.
The believers in Thessalonica were suffering at the hands o f local authorities
in collusion with Rome. Their allegiance to the gospel of Jesus put them in conflict

57Barclay, “Why the Roman Empire Was Insignificant to Paul,” 1.

244
Tyler Stewart: The Imperial Implications o f Paul’s Pastoral Apocalypse

with the gospel of Caesar. Furthermore, they were confused about the nature of
their hope. Paul’s letter to these suffering and confused believers focuses on the
paroum o f Jesus as their anticipated vindication. Echoing the OT, Paul places all
arrogant rulers who oppose God’s people under eschatological judgment. Still,
God’s sovereignty is not just manifest in future judgment.
The “restrainer” protects believers until the full and final embodiment o f evil
arrives on the historical stage to be executed by Jesus. When Jesus enacts God’s
judgment, parousia ushers in the end o f all empires because it fully and finally inau-
gurates the reign o f God. 8Cj

245
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.