Gender-Neutral Translations: The Controversy Over the TNIV

By Mike Stallard

[Professor of Systematic Theology, Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania]

Introduction

The recent release of Today’s New International Version (TNIV) of the New Testament, an update of the popular New International Version, has created a firestorm within the evangelical world that has affected both academic and popular discussions about translations.[1] The immediate controversy is centered on the issue of so-called inclusive language, that is, language in our English translations that at times replaces the male nouns and pronouns (man, brother, he, him, etc.) with expressions that include women (person, he or she, they, etc.). Such an approach to translation is sometimes referred to as “gender-neutral” or “gender-inclusive.”[2] It must be noted that at this point no evangelical is questioning whether God himself, especially in passages where he is called Father, should be designated by gender-neutral language such as Parent or He/She. The TNIV uses gender-neutral language only in some cases involving human beings.[3]

Wading into this debate requires quite a bit of careful thought spiced up with a little gumption. Tempers have flared in a way that is not altogether good for the reputation of Bible-believing Christianity:

Both sides, however, have erred in the way this has been handled. As is often the case in such debates, the process has not gone well. Some of those who have complained have done so in tones that do not advance or reflect the complex nature of the discussion at the level of translation theory. I have in mind not those who have honest questions about some of the renderings but some of the media reporting this debate that has unashamedly inflamed the discussion and created an environment in which instant judgment is made and dialogue has become difficult.[4]

One cannot attribute such controversy to simple ignorance. One can find quality scholars by reputation on both sides of the debate. A representative list on the side opposing the TNIV would be Vern Poythress, Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware, J. I. Packer, and John Piper. Organizations such as The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW)[5] and James Dobson’s Focus on the Family have helped to disseminate complaints about the TNIV. Many of the protagonists in this group worked to establish the Colorado Springs Guidelines (CSG) in 1997 to govern gender-related translation.[6]

On the other side supporting the general principles of the TNIV are men like Mark Strauss, Douglas Moo, Bruce Waltke, Darrell Bock, and D. A. Carson.[7] The Committee on Bible Translations (CBT), which contracts with the International Bible Society (IBS) to do the translation of the TNIV, has naturally spearheaded some of the discussion supporting the new translation and reacting to the Colorado Springs Guidelines. In general, the CBT has accepted some of the CSG guidelines but not all.[8]

One should be careful not to focus too much on the TNIV in this debate. Other recent translations contain a measure of gender-neutral language as well. Included in this group could be the New Revised Standard Version (1989); New Century Version (1987, 1991); Good News Bible, 2nd edition (1992); Contemporary English Version (1995); God’s Word (1995); New International Reader’s Version (1995); New Living Translation (1996); and the English Standard Version (2001).[9] The TNIV gets most of the attention probably because it is the update of the most popular modern English translation, the NIV. One must also understand that the differences here may be one of degree and not kind. Many of the translations that would be gender-specific rather than gender-neutral would in a few instances borrow the philosophy of inclusive language for translations. For example, the traditional King James Version occasionally translates the Greek word for sons as “children” when the meaning obviously refers to both men and women (e.g., Matt. 5:9 — μακάριοι οἱ εἰρηνοποιοί, ὅτι αὐτοὶ υἱοι θεοῦ κληθήσονταιͅ / Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God). Consequently, the debate will probably be best understood with respect to a continuum of viewpoints.

Preliminary Issues in the Debate

As in many other controversies, the debate over the TNIV has many different components. Not all of these relate directly to inclusive language concerns. However, one must have a working knowledge of these issues if he is going to comprehend the full import of the discussions.

Communication of God’s Word

It must be stated at the outset that all of the evangelicals involved in this debate have a high view of Scripture (inspiration and inerrancy) and have a desire to communicate the Word of God to the present culture. Contrary to popular opinion, the recent proliferation of Bible translations is not just about money (although one has the right to wonder about overkill in light of the sheer numbers).[10] When God confounded the languages at Babel, he providentially set in motion the need for periodic updates in translation. In short, languages were not only confounded at that moment, but for all time. They in essence became a moving target. A simple example will suffice. In the King James Version (1611), the expression “to let” means “to hinder.” In 2002 English, the expression has come to mean the exact opposite, “to allow.” This dynamic or fluid nature of language mandates the periodic update of Bible translations.

Formal Versus Functional Equivalence

In light of the confusion that exists between languages, one must consider the fact that there is no such thing as a one-to-one correspondence between any two languages. The destination language may not have adequate terms to express a certain word or words in the source language. It may, in fact, take a full paragraph in the destination language to give the full meaning of a word from the source language.[11] However, one cannot naturally translate a single word with a paragraph of explanation everywhere it occurs in the destination language. Consequently, one must opt for the best choice within the target language, which provides minimal loss of detail.[12] This is another way of saying that there is no such thing as a perfect translation. This is also the reason that all church leaders should treasure knowledge of the original biblical languages. In a sermon, the pastor may give the paragraph explanation that is required while a translation does not have the luxury of doing so. But the pastor must have adequate knowledge of the original languages to be able to do this important and necessary task.[13]

Such a lack of correspondence between languages has forced modern translation theory to consider and refine the idea of functional equivalence. Originally called dynamic equivalence, this concept arose primarily as a response to the need for translating the Bible into many non-English and non-European languages throughout the world. It has come to be used, however, in translation theory for most translations of the Bible into any and all languages. Its basic principle is that the main element to be translated is meaning, not form. It is often set over against formal equivalence, which attempts to retain more of the form or structure of the wording of the original text as well as the meaning. Hence, those translations that attempt to be word-for-word literal (as it is sometimes described) tend toward formal equivalence, although no translation can be perfect in this attempt.

Those who more strongly prefer functional equivalence sometimes point out that formal equivalence can actually obscure meaning in some cases usually by downplaying clarity. For example, one can examine the divine name “I am” that is used by Christ for himself in John 8:58 (ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί).[14] However, one cannot argue that the strict formal equivalence of the translation is what makes the connection to the “I AM” of Exodus. In other words, “I am he” might be an acceptable translation for the Greek expression under consideration. This can be demonstrated from the appearance of the same phrase in John 9:9. But there it is stated by the man born blind, whom Christ had healed, and has no divine connotations (ἄλλοι ἔλεγον ὅτι οὗτος ἐστιν, ἄλλοι ἔλεγον· οὐχί, ἀλλὰ ὅμοιος αὐτῷ ἐστιν. ἐκεῖνος ἔλεγεν ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι). The NIV appropriately translates the expression in John 9:9 as “I am the man.” Thus, it is the context and not the formal equivalence of the translation that yields the theological conclusion in John 8:58. It would be foolish to think otherwise.

Those who hold more strongly to formal equivalence return the favor with examples of how functional equivalence has led to the loss of too much meaning in an effort at clarity. For example, the NIV, in an effort to bring clearness via functional equivalence, often breaks up long sentences (such as those obtuse ones written by the Apostle Paul!) into several shorter ones. Sometimes, as in the case of Ephesians 5:18–21, this is done by turning a string of participles into finite verbs with their own sentences. In that particular example, several participles modify the main verb “be filled” in the command to be filled with the Spirit (v. 18). In the NIV, it is not readily apparent that the main verbs in verses 19–21 (the participles) actually relate in a direct way to the verb in verse 18. While the wording of the text is easier for an English reader, it is impossible for him to readily capture the connection between all the verbal forms. The KJV and NASB, because they retain the structure of the passage to a larger extent, allow the English reader via formal equivalence to see more quickly how the various verb forms relate.[15] Consequently, the proponents of formal equivalence sometimes argue for accuracy above clarity and see the zeal for clarity in functional equivalence as sometimes downgrading the richness of the Bible for the intended audience.[16]

In reality, there is a continuum and not simply two views with black and white differences. One must not oversimplify the definition of either formal or functional equivalence. Meaning is partly tied up with the form of the original text and cannot be ignored. Yet, in translation strict adherence to form sometimes leads one astray. Grudem and Poythress aptly describe the tension:

No one simple recipe will always work. “Preserve the form” will not always work because it sometimes obscures the meaning. “Preserve the meaning while ignoring the form” will not work either, because form and meaning are not neatly separable, and the form often affects the meaning. Speech and writing operate in too many dimensions for a rough paraphrase to get everything right.[17]

Thus, one must be careful not to generalize in this area of the debate. However, it does seem that those who reject the direction of gender-neutral translations emphasize the formal equivalence side of the continuum while those who favor them are on the functional equivalence side of the continuum in the way that the debate is expressed.

Translations and Political Agendas: Complementarians and Egalitarians

The controversy over the TNIV cannot simplistically be relegated to a debate between complementarians, those who see divinely established distinctions in gender roles for family and church, and egalitarians (evangelical feminists) who see no distinctions. Virtually all of those on both sides of this debate are complementarians or conservatives on the role of women in the church.[18] As D. A. Carson has noted, “Whatever my errors and blind spots, I cannot fairly be accused of adopting the stances I do in translation because I am driven by some feminist agenda.”[19] On this point, most scholars on both sides agree. What is not accepted by both sides, however, is the extent to which the TNIV (and its translation philosophy) has succumbed, perhaps inadvertently, to the egalitarian spirit of the times:

The elimination of any significant role difference between males and females represents the essence of evangelical egalitarianism. No one in the evangelical camp would deny that the Bible is all-inclusive. However, the Bible, since its inception, in spite of male-generic language, has successfully managed to include all—men and women, boys and girls. It is this biblical notion of inclusion through differentiation, enshrined in male-generic biblical language everywhere, that the TNIV eliminates. Though claiming that the removal is “gender accurate,” there is reason to wonder whether the TNIV committee has imposed onto the inspired text, wittingly or unwittingly, an essential egalitarian principle, without debate or discussion. Future readers of this Bible will never be faced with the issue, because the Bible—that is, this Bible—by its omission, tells me so. In this subtle way, a theological opinion about the inappropriateness of male representation in language (or at least the theological conviction of its unimportance) is given the status of “biblical” authority.[20]

The subtitle to the Grudem-Poythress book, The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy, summarizes this position quite well when it appears to accuse gender-neutral translations like the TNIV of “muting the masculinity of God’s words.”

The testimony of the proponents of the TNIV that they do not have any personal motives aligned with egalitarianism and gender-neutral translations must be taken seriously. Those who oppose the TNIV must speak in a way that honors and respects this claim. However, there are a couple of factors that make the charge that the TNIV proponents have been unduly influenced by current culture one to be considered thoughtfully. The first is the nature of discussions about Bible translation that come from outside of evangelicalism and form at least part of the milieu of biblical studies at the present time. Grudem and Poythress assess this with respect to the gender-neutral changes made to the New Revised Standard Version (1989), the first major translation to incorporate gender-neutral language:

Why make these changes? There have been no new archaeological discoveries, no changes in our knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, no ancient texts discovered that would suggest that we put plural pronouns instead of singular in these places, or first and second person in place of third person. There have been no linguistic discoveries showing that the words previously translated “father,” “son,” and “brother” (singular) have lost their distinctive male meanings. No, the changes have been made in the NRSV because the NRSV translators were required by a division of the National Council of Churches of Christ to remove “masculine oriented language” from the Bible. And similar changes were made in the NIVI, CEV, NCV, and NLT because of policy decisions to eliminate much male-oriented language in the Bible.[21]

Grudem and Poythress are claiming that the liberals behind the NRSV had a politically correct agenda driving their translation rather than legitimate translation theory. Notice the statement on this issue from the preface of the New Revised Standard Version:

During the almost half a century since the publication of the RSV, many in the churches have become sensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the Bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text.[22]

Furthermore, Grudem and Poythress seem to be saying that the liberals started the ball rolling and now evangelicals are playing catch up, not necessarily by deliberately opting for the methodology, but by breathing the cultural air of the times. At the very least, the timing of the translations, the TNIV coming later in time on the heels of the NRSV, can be construed or misconstrued as a suspicious shadow.

The second factor that forces one to consider the claim that the TNIV has capitulated to an egalitarian mindset, albeit inadvertently, is the systematic nature of the changes that have been made. They are not isolated, but appear to be quite numerous. Various numbers have been given. Grudem has cataloged around 700 such changes[23] while others have cited around 900 changes or inaccuracies in the TNIV in these areas.[24] One interesting list by Grudem shows that the King James Version has only three gender-neutral translations when compared to the list of almost 700 changes made in the NIV to produce the TNIV.[25]

On the other side, to be fair, the pro-TNIV faction has also accused the anti-TNIV group of having a political agenda.[26] After all, it is just as wrong to stand in the way of changes if the changes are linguistically valid if one’s only reason for doing so is to preserve a view of male leadership in the home and family. Such a theological view should not be read into any of the passages any more than egalitarian feminism. A case in point is the translation of “brothers” in James 3:1—(Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness / Μὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε, ἀδελφοί μου, εἰδότες ὅτι μεῖζον κρίμα λημψόμεθα). Grudem objects to the TNIV’s use of the phrase “brothers and sisters” rather than simply “brothers” here largely because of his view that women should not have leadership roles in the church. However, all other occurrences of the term ἀδελφοὶ in the book of James appear to be generic. That is, they include women as well as men based upon the context. So, due to a theological conviction, Grudem has objected here contrary to what the context might tell him. By the way, even if the translation should properly be “brothers and sisters,” church leadership for women is not necessarily in view. Women can be teachers under the complementarian view, just not pastors or doctrinal teachers of men. Grudem, in his zeal for his theological position, may have overstepped in his criticism on this point.

Where is the English Language Going?

Another component of the gender-neutral translation debate involves the direction that the English language is developing. Those who favor more inclusive language often affirm that the English language is becoming more gender-inclusive rather than gender-specific. For example, they assert that the male pronoun he is being used less and less as representative for all human beings including women. To be sure, academic publications often appear, on the surface at least, to support that claim. What seminary student has not read a journal article or book where the scholar uses either “he or she” or “she” in a representative way for all human beings? In the past one usually saw the male representative use of “he.”

However, those opposed to gender-inclusive translations argue that English has not really changed that much and that what changes have been making their mark in this area are driven by politically-correct pressure from modern feminism. A representative opinion comes from Peter Jones: “Language usage is not so much changing as being purposely and calculatedly changed! What are we changing, I ask, for what reason, and on what basis? Who defines what constitutes ‘mistakes’? Who is doing the changing? The answers to these questions are merely assumed by assuming the correctness of today’s academic agenda.”[27] Grudem and Poythress track the development of feminism’s attempt to advance its agenda by changing the English language:

Some feminist writers are explicit in stating their goal of engineering a change in the English language in order to bring about desired changes in society: Ann Pauwels advocates feminist language reform (LR) and language planning (LP) through pressure on governmental agencies, educators, publishers of educational materials, journalists, editors, legislative bodies, labor unions, and professional societies, and tells us that much of this kind of pressure has already succeeded.[28]

Jones notes that “I do not believe I am exaggerating when I say that we are witnessing a social revolution that is determined to erase from the cultural memory of the ‘Christian’ West both the normativity of heterosexual gender and role distinctions and the patriarchal God of the Bible. Essential to the revolution is the control and manipulation of language.”[29] One is reminded of the famous statement attributed to the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche: “I fear we are not getting rid of God because we still believe in grammar.” Jones then concludes:

We evangelicals are not translating the Bible in a cultural vacuum or in any old, “normal” time frame. We do it in the white heat of ideological and spiritual warfare. Thus, while it is absolutely paramount to let the word of God say everything it wants to say, including gender inclusive language if that is what the Bible has to say, it would be a pity—no, a disaster—to translate the Bible according to the very contemporary “norms” that have as their goal the ultimate silencing of the Bible.[30]

Grudem and others have pointed out that various English style books and much popular literature such as newspapers and magazines prove that the use of generic “he” and such masculine representative language is still widely used in spite of the feminist attempt to change culture. The application is then made that modern English readers will normally not misunderstand gender-specific translations and so there is no need to remove such language from our English translations of the Bible.

Of course, those who favor gender-inclusive translations marshal their own arguments, including the reference to various sources on English style.[31] Nonetheless, their strongest arguments, in the judgment of this writer, have come in the form of powerful, personal anecdotes. For example, John Kohlenberger tells of an encounter he had with his daughter:

“Daddy, why does God only like boys?” Caught off guard by this startling question, I didn’t know how to answer my eight-year-old daughter. “Where did you get that idea?” I asked. “From the Bible,” she replied. “When we memorize verses in Sunday School or for AWANA or at school, they always say ‘Blessed is the man’ and ‘How can a young man keep his way pure’ and “I will make you fishers of men.’ Why isn’t there anything about girls being blessed or girls getting saved?”[32]

There are certainly problems with such anecdotes. Even granting the young girl’s dilemma as real, one would have to rewrite the entire Bible to eliminate its patriarchal flavor. The retranslation of Matthew 4:19 in the TNIV, “Come, follow me… and I will send you out to catch people,” will simply not be enough. Of course, there are examples of women being saved which the little girl had not yet seen (e.g., Lydia in Acts 16), but certainly the plot line of the Bible is top-heavy with male examples whose names cannot fairly be feminized. Nonetheless, such anecdotes show that where gender-neutral language makes sense, it may be appropriate to translate the Bible in terms that may better communicate specific passages.

In addition, D. A. Carson, a TNIV advocate, reminds us “regardless of the source of the pressure for linguistic change, it is important to recognize that alternative grammatical gender systems are not intrinsically evil.”[33] Moreover, the fact of the matter is that discussions about the use of more gender-inclusive English pre-date the rise of the modern feminist movement, although the intensity of the discussions has increased dramatically since that rise.[34] Furthermore, Carson correctly warns against an unwise “monocausational analyses of the changes taking place.”[35] There are many pressures upon the development of the English language, including but not limited to modern feminism. One must take into account all such influences in understanding where we are today in the English language. Carson does, however, show some sensitivity to the concerns of the other side when he notes, “We cannot deny, I think, that some of the pressure for change springs from a profound abandonment of the Bible’s worldview, the Bible’s culture, the Bible’s story line, as that has been mediated to us by various English Bibles. I mourn the loss.”[36]

Viewings the Issues on a Continuum

The above discussions have shown that there are solid evangelical scholars on both sides of the debate over gender-neutral translations like the TNIV.[37] It has also shown that the issues are not black and white. There is a continuum of beliefs that represents many, if not all, of the issues involved. Both sides will recognize the validity of gender-neutral translations in certain passages and the rejection of gender-neutral translations in others. The difference is the matter of frequency and emphasis. In the end, each passage must be handled on a case-by-case basis. A few sample texts will now be supplied to give a taste of how that study would go.

Textual Examples [38]

Pluralizing [39] (Turning third-person singulars to third-person plurals)

Revelation 2:26–28

NIV: To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations—‘He will rule them with an iron scepter; he will dash them to pieces like pottery’—just as I have received authority from my Father. I will also give him the morning star.

TNIV: To those who are victorious and do my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations they ‘will rule them with an iron scepter and will dash them to pieces like pottery’—just as I have received authority from my Father. I will also give them the morning star.

Comment: The plurals of the TNIV give a similar meaning and certainly do not damage the idea that everyone who is victorious will participate in the wonderful promises of this verse. However, the TNIV may have removed an individualistic emphasis in the passage. It is possible but not necessary to take the TNIV wording as corporate when the original passage in Greek does not appear to have that in mind. Notice the singular “scepter” and “morning star.” Does each believer get his own scepter and star or do all believers share one scepter and one star?[40]

Change from third person (he) to second person (you)

Matthew 16:26

NIV: What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?

TNIV: What good will it be for you to gain the whole world, yet forfeit your soul? Or what can you give in exchange for your soul?

Comment: The TNIV again gives the basic idea with no problem. However, the TNIV has inserted an applicatory translation here. It may be a valid application, but it is not at all certain that the passage is any clearer because of it. An aversion to male-specific language is the most likely way to account for the translation.

Change from third person (he) to first person (we)

1 John 4:20

NIV: If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.

TNIV: If we say we love God yet hate a fellow believer, we are liars. For if we do not love a brother or sister whom we have seen, we cannot love God, whom we have not seen.

Comment: There is a danger in the TNIV of missing the individualistic intention of the passage by converting to the plural “we” throughout. While doing so makes it sound like other parts of 1 John (e.g., 1:8–10, 2:3), the Greek is different and similar to other parts of 1 John (e.g., 2:4, 15). The translation of “fellow believer” instead of “brother” may be adequate in this context. However, antagonists of the TNIV often suggest that the singular “brother” should never be translated by “brothers and sisters,” although most on both sides allow for “brothers” to mean “brothers and sisters” in some contexts. Here the TNIV avoids that contentious move, but may leave itself open to the charge of an unwarranted applicatory translation. However, the meaning appears clear for this word.

Change from “man” to “human being”

1 Corinthians 15:21

NIV: For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.

TNIV: For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a human being.

Comment: Here the change from “man” to “human being” is problematic. It is technically correct in one respect since men are human beings. However, the two people who are in view here are mentioned in the next verse, Adam and Christ. Both of them are males. Why not simply acknowledge that historical fact? The TNIV is not consistent here since in passages like Romans 5:12, 15, 16, 17, 19 the word “man” is retained in a similar theological context. Thus, the TNIV translation in 1 Corinthians 15:21 seems somewhat arbitrary.[41]

Change from singular antecedent “he” to third person plural “them”

John 14:23

NIV: If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

TNIV: Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.

Comment: Grammatically there is no problem with dropping out the first “he” in the verse. However, the conversion to “they” instead of the singular “him” in spite of a singular antecedent may be problematic. Both sides admit that in English the “they” with singular antecedent has some usage. However, here there may be a question as to the content of the antecedent. Who makes up the “them”? Will the English reader look in the context for a plural antecedent and get confused? Or will the reader naturally make the connection?

Change from male wording to generic wording

1 Corinthians 3:12

NIV: If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw

TNIV: If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw

Comment: There is no need to reject the TNIV rendering of the Greek word τις or other similar terms. The change from the masculine-specific translation in this case appears to be justified.

Note: These sparse examples only serve to whet the appetite for more study of the individual passages involved and are not designed to lead to final conclusions across the board.

Final Concerns and Recommendations

The debate over gender-inclusive language in Bible translations like the TNIV will continue during the next several years. It is doubtful that the strident tone of the controversy will be changed any time soon. In the meantime, several concerns and recommendations can be made that will hopefully guide the Bible student as he encounters this discussion.

First, it is prudent to make sure that Bible translation policies do not lead the way in promoting language changes. They must truly reflect the overwhelming norms of the English language that prevail in the culture at any given time. Translations should not reflect any political agendas of any kind. A few observations are important in relation to this understanding. It has only been three or four decades since the sexual revolution of the 1960s and the rise of the modern feminist movement which has impacted male-female understandings including language usage. It is not at all clear that such a short time is adequate to justify sweeping changes in gender-specific language. Furthermore, there has been a tremendous volume of study in the area of translation and language theory during that same time that is unrelated to gender questions directly. It is also not clear that there has been enough time, in this writer’s judgment, for such studies to “settle down” and provide firm footing for real progress. It may be that the dizzying proliferation of English translations in the 1990s is proof of such “unsettledness.” Caution is urged. We should not move ahead quickly. Moreover, the rise of modern feminism and the coincident development of language theory overlap the rise of postmodernism. It is the tendency toward language deconstruction in that philosophical backdrop that lurks as a danger for every translator. We live in an age when a presidential candidate during a national debate can refer to the U. S. Constitution as a living, breathing document that changes meaning over time. Many in our present culture treat the Bible the same way. Consequently, we must bend over backwards to ensure that our translation changes do not, in fact, change the meaning of a historical document that God gave in space and time. This may mean that, if we err, we should do so on the side of a conservative approach to functional equivalence.

Second, we must ensure that our translation changes do not tamper with the historicity of the Bible. The earlier discussions of this article show that translation is a tricky business with a continuum on almost all sides of all issues. What is being argued for here is not a simplistic “stick to the past” approach to translation. However, “how” Jesus said things is often important as well as “what” he said. The form-meaning dichotomy should not be forced to artificial levels. Language theory is not necessarily a theologically neutral enterprise. We should not smuggle into our modern translations current ways of looking at issues that in the end do not match how God gave his Word in the originals. Furthermore, we should not apologize for the fact that the Bible is a patriarchal document. God raised up a patriarchal society (Israel) through which he gave his Word and his Messiah to the world. Male leadership of the home and the church is still taught in the Bible for the present dispensation. God has even chosen to describe himself in male-dominated language. Such historical elements should be maintained throughout the legitimate exercise of translation. The tendencies to treat God as our holy Parent instead of Father should be resisted as unworthy of consideration.[42]

Third, related to both points above to some extent, we must double our efforts to resist the world spirit of the present hour, which is attempting to feminize the culture, the church, and its Bible. It is no exaggeration that this writer found, upon attending the Society of Biblical Literature, 70% of the books on display by non-evangelical publishers dealt with feminist issues. This is the cultural air we all breathe. This concern is at the heart of the matter for those that oppose gender-neutral translations. It is a valid concern overall, even if we disagree with some of the scholars in the particulars in various passages of the Bible.

Fourth, it is more important than ever that evangelicals develop a complete biblical anthropology. The discussions about gender-inclusive language versus gender-specific language point us to the fact that we need to be solid in this area so that the TNIV and other gender-neutral translations produced by evangelicals will not be on the slippery slope on the way to the politically correct translations of those on the liberal side of the spectrum. Such translations are being driven by an unbiblical view of men and women. Such thinking must not be allowed to creep into our own translations.

In spite of all of these concerns and recommendations, it must be pointed out that the goals of all translation are accuracy (the strength of formal equivalence) and clarity (the strength of functional equivalence). To the extent that the translators of the TNIV are attempting to meet these goals for the present culture, their efforts must be respected, even if their conclusions many times are not accepted. In spite of such respect, however, this author cannot recommend the TNIV for use for personal Bible study or public ministry. It seems to step into the fray in a way that helps foster the support of a feminist approach to language. Furthermore, this places it in the context of being led by the world spirit and not by Scripture itself. As such the door is open, although no one may have passed through as yet, to a watered down view of biblical anthropology, thereby compounding the confusion between the roles of men and women. In addition, it probably wanders too much from formal equivalence thereby diminishing the significance of “how” God’s words have been said. Caution is always urged when the handling of God’s Word, the most important factor in the Christian life, is at stake.

Notes

1. The purpose of this paper is to provide students and others with an overview of the issues involved. It is not intended as a detailed analysis of various passages, although a few samples will be provided.
2. D. A. Carson, The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 16–17.
3. Peter Jones, “The TNIV: Gender Accurate or Ideologically Egalitarian,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 7 (Fall 2002): 15. Jones’s article is one of the more strongly worded ones accusing the pro-TNIV faction of capitulating to the egalitarian ideology. He thanks the TNIV translators, however, for not going to the extreme of making God gender neutral.
4. Darrell L. Bock, Purpose-Directed Theology: Getting Our Priorities Right in Evangelical Controversies (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), 106.
5. The CBMW, in order to advance its view, has established the TNIV Resource Center which can be found at its website at http://www.cbmw.org/tniv/; Internet; accessed 29 November 2002.
6. An appendix to this paper has been provided giving the Colorado Springs Guidelines as found at the CBMW website; available from http://www.cbmw.org/resources/articles/niv/guidelines.html; Internet; accessed 29 November 2002.
7. This present writer recently attended the national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Toronto (November 20-22, 2002), where Darrell Bock moderated a panel discussion and debate on this issue with Wayne Grudem and John Piper representing the view opposing the TNIV and Mark Strauss with Douglas Moo defending the TNIV. Hall Harris, who works on the Net Bible, generally considered a gender-specific translation, was also included on the panel.
8. “Peter Bradley and the Truth About the NIV: An Interview with the President of International Bible Society,” in Shedding Light on the TNIV (Colorado Springs: International Bible Society, 2002), 7.
9. Excluding the ESV, this list is taken from the Abbreviations Page in Wayne A. Grudem and Vern S. Poythress, The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God’s Words (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2000), xxvii. Of special interest is the authors’ chapter entitled “The Rise of Gender-Neutral Bible Translations,” 9–36. Grudem and Poythress label translations that normally do not follow the gender-neutral translation philosophy as “gender-specific” translations.
10. This writer once had the privilege of having breakfast with the man who headed up the Bible division of one of the major evangelical publishers. Far from the business stereotype that some have seen, his love for God’s Word and communicating it came through as well as his overall dedication to Jesus Christ.
11. One classic example here is the often-mentioned hesed from the Hebrew, which is variously translated as loyalty, lovingkindness, love, mercy, steadfast love, etc.
12. D. A. Carson is probably correct when he asserts, “Because no two languages share exactly the same structure and vocabulary (and a lot of other things), it is impossible not to lose something when you translate an extended text from one language to another” (Inclusive Language Debate, 58). Such thinking is also acknowledged by those on the other side of the debate. See Grudem and Poythress, Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy, 58–62.
13. This should not be taken to disparage the vast majority of pastors in two thousand years of church history who did not have knowledge of the biblical languages. God uses men, even apart from knowledge of the biblical languages, to do great things for him. However, since Christ teaches “to whom much is given, much is required” (see Luke 12:48), those who have access to knowledge of the biblical languages would be amiss in refusing to use that great gift that God has given to them.
14. This example is cited by D. A. Carson in Inclusive Language Debate, 58–60.
15. Compare the translations of Ephesians 5:18–21. In the NIV, we see “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Notice that the words “giving thanks” appear in English to be related to “sing and make music” when in Greek they most likely go back to the verb “filled” in verse 18. Notice how the NASB handles the same text: “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father; and be subject one to another in the fear of Christ.” The KJV further rejects the finite nature of the translation of the final verb “be subject” (NASB) with the words “ submitting yourselves.”
16. Notice the opinion of Grudem and Poythress in this matter: “A translator needs to respect this rich wisdom. Of course a translator needs to present the basic message, but in dealing with the Bible in all its richness and wisdom, no translator should be content with a minimum. Translators of the Bible should present as much as possible of the full richness of meanings, instructions, exhortations, and examples found in the Bible in the original languages” (Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy, 73).
17. Ibid., 77-78. It is interesting that at the recent ETS meeting mentioned in an earlier note, there was some debate over the actual information in the lexicons. Both sides interpreted the lexical information in the various lexicons differently. There also appeared to be some later changes in the lexicons that came up in the debate. The presentation was analogous to a courtroom scene where both the defense and the prosecutor marshaled psychiatric experts to affirm and deny the sanity of the defendant! It might also be a fascinating study to see if any modern cultural influence with regard to gender-neutral language has impacted the lexicographers. This present writer does not have enough information to validate or invalidate cultural influences in this way.
18. There are no doubt evangelical and non-evangelical feminists on the other side of the debate about Bible translation. However, the current debate within evangelicalism appears to be mostly within the complementarian camp.
19. D. A. Carson, Inclusive Language Debate, 11.
20. Peter Jones, “The TNIV,” 16.
21. Grudem and Poythress, Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy, 278. See also 150–52.
22. Preface to the NRSV (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993), x. Grudem and Poythress interact with this statement (ibid., 151).
23. Wayne Grudem, “Are the Criticisms of the TNIV Bible Really Justified?” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 7 (Fall 2002): 33. Grudem cites here 686 examples. At the recent ETS meeting he cited over 700 examples. As more study is done, more refinement in the numbers will be made. However, there will always be some examples where there will no agreement over the fact of gender-neutral translations.
24. “Translation Inaccuracies in the TNIV: A Categorized List of 901 Examples,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 7 (Fall 2002): 9-14. No author is cited for this article. Some passages in the list appear to be unrelated to gender questions. For example, the change of translation of “the Jews” to “Jewish leaders” or “they,” or omitted altogether, is viewed here as a politically correct translation in the same spirit of the gender-based changes.
25. Wayne Grudem, “Criticisms of the TNIV Bible,” 33.
26. Both Mark Strauss and Douglas Moo made this charge at the recent ETS convention. Much of the discussion here has been taken from the notes of this present writer who was in attendance. Hall Harris also contributed to the discussion.
27. Jones, “The TNIV,” 17.
28. Grudem and Poythress, Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy, 136, n. 4. The writers cite Ann Pauwels’s work Women Changing Language (London and New York: Longman, 1988) through a secondary source, E. Ray Clendenen’s paper at ETS in 1998 entitled “Inclusive Language in Bible Translation: A Reply to Mark Strauss.” This present writer was unable to secure Pauwels prior to writing this article.
29. Jones, “The TNIV,” 18.
30. Ibid.
31. The debate over formal reference works on English style was part of the recent ETS discussion group mentioned earlier.
32. John R. Kohlenberger III, “Why Translations Need to Change,” in Shedding Light on the TNIV, 30. For a second example, see Phil Ginsburg, “Great Cities, Great Moments in Church History,” in Shedding Light on the TNIV, 16.
33. D. A. Carson, Inclusive Language Debate, 187.
34. Ibid., 185-87.
35. Ibid., 186-187. Grudem and Poythress interact briefly with Carson’s statement in Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy, 166, n. 3.
36. Ibid., 189.
37. One ther preliminary issue that could be discussed but which is beyond the scope of this article is the charge that the TNIV gives translations that are too applicatory or theological in nature. Of course, such charges are not new with respect to translations including the NIV. In this debate, however, they are associated with gender-neutral language. For example, note Peter Jones’s theological complaint that the TNIV translation of 1 Corinthians 15:21 (For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a human being) undermines the male covenantal headship ideas inherent in the passage (Jones, “The TNIV,” 16). At least the context identifies the two human beings in this verse as men (Adam and Jesus). Why the need to be gender-neutral? It is interesting that the TNIV is not consistent on this point since it does not use gender-neutral translations in Romans 5:12ff, which teaches the same point. In a similar vein, John Piper, at the recent ETS convention, criticized both the NIV and the TNIV for using translation wording to make application. In Piper’s understanding this removed the pastor’s and church member’s ability to wrestle with the text for themselves.
38. Most of the present discussion involves the New Testament since the TNIV Old Testament has not been released. Here only New Testament examples will be considered although the reader must be aware that for other gender-neutral translations (e.g., NRSV), similar debate has raged over the Old Testament as well. For some sample Old Testament passages in the debate, see Grudem and Poythress, Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy, 281–89.
39. Many of the categories and examples here come from the various sources written by Grudem and Poythress cited in this paper. See especially Vern Poythress, “Avoiding Generic ‘He’ in the TNIV,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 7 (Fall 2002): 21-30.
40. Ibid., 21.
41. See earlier note on this passage.
42. We should be balanced and applaud the translators of the TNIV for apparently, at this point, resisting such dramatic and anti-historical changes in God’s Word. However, one translation that has apparently gone to this extreme is the Inclusive Version published by Oxford University Press (1995). For example, its version of Romans 8:15 is “We cry, Abba! Father-Mother.” See Jones, “The TNIV,” 19.

The Post-Trib and Amillennial Use Of 2 Thessalonians 1

By Mike Stallard

[Professor of Systematic Theology, Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania]

The letters of the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians are frequently discussed in the debate between pretribulational rapturists and those of the post-trib persuasion.[1] Often appearing in eschatological discourse is the rapture passage of 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 which is followed by the day of the Lord section in 5:1–11. Of special note also is 2 Thessalonians chapter two with its array of interpretive issues: the meaning of the “gathering together to Him” (v. 1), the nature and timing of the day of the Lord (v. 2ff), the nature of the apostasy that precedes the day of the Lord (v. 3), the identification of the lawless one who comes before the day of the Lord (v. 3–4), and the identification of the restrainer (v. 6–7). Many pre-trib apologists have written responses to the post-trib understanding of these important sections and have given the appropriate biblical exposition. Unfortunately, debates about these passages have overshadowed 2 Thessalonians 1 so that it has not received the attention it deserves.[2] The intention of this paper is to revisit the post-trib use of 2 Thessalonians 1:3–12 and provide a solid pre-trib understanding of the issues raised. Along the way we will also look at one amillennial exposition of the same chapter. Because both the post-trib view and amillennialism generally share the feature of a one-phase second coming as opposed to the two-phase approach, post-trib rapturists could make use of such amillennial arguments contra the pre-tribulational position.

Below is the passage in question from 2 Thessalonians 1. The discussion to follow will not be an exposition of the passage but will deal with some of the specific exegetical and theological arguments used in the debate against pretribulationalism.

We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is fitting, because your faith grows exceedingly, and the love of every one of you all abounds toward each other, so that we ourselves boast of you among the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure, which is manifest evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer; since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed. Therefore we also pray always for you that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfill all the good pleasure of His goodness and the work of faith with power, that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and you in Him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Thess 1:3–12, NKJV)

The difficulty in interpreting this passage is made clear by Dunham who has studied the variations among translations and commentaries as to the sentence structure of the passage.[3] He observed that in a study of eighteen different English translations (including some paraphrases), the passage was viewed as having anywhere from one to nine different sentences within it. Other commentators have also noticed that linguistically and structurally it is more difficult and certainly different than the rest of this little epistle.[4] What is inescapable, however, is that the passage is an extremely important one with respect to the timing of the rapture of the church because of the way it is used by those who oppose a two-phase second coming. In the discussion below, we will describe the debate among various authors as well as highlight the major factors in the text which help to harmonize 2 Thessalonians 1:3–12 with a pre-trib rapture position.

The Post-Trib Use Of 2 Thessalonians 1

In this section, we will begin by using the approach of Douglas Moo to describe the handling of 2 Thessalonians 1:3–12 by one holding the post-trib view.[5] Moo argues assertively:

In 2 Thessalonians 1:5–7 Paul appears to provide strong support for the view that believers will not be raptured until the Parousia of Christ at the end of the Tribulation. For there can be no doubt that in verses 7–8 Paul depicts this coming in glory, which he characterizes as “the revelation of the Lord Jesus from Heaven in blazing fire with His powerful angels.” Yet it is at (ἐν) this time that the believers who are suffering tribulation are given “rest.” In other words, it is only at the posttribulational Advent that believers experience deliverance from the sufferings of this age.[6]

This argument stems from a simplistic but understandable reading of the verses. Later we will concede that the relief given in the passage occurs at the same time as the punishment of the wicked. However, there are a few assumptions brought to the text in this approach that must be analyzed. First, Moo seems to believe that the word for relief or rest refers only to the deliverance from or absence of suffering. There can really be nothing more involved in the passage. Later we will challenge this conclusion. Second, he actually assumes that it would be contradictory for there to be a rapture prior to the tribulation period since such a rapture would fulfill the giving of relief to the waiting Christians. What would be contradicted is the clear description of the time of the granting of their relief that coincides quite nicely with a description of the second advent itself and not a pre-trib rapture. Again, even if the pre-trib proponent agrees with the description here as second advent and not rapture (this writer is inclined to agree), Moo’s second assumption rests upon his prior simplistic understanding of the content of relief. If the absence of present persecution is all that is meant by Paul in his understanding of the word, Moo’s argument could be considered to carry more weight. However, if Moo is wrong on this point, the way is opened up for harmonizing the concept with a pre-trib rapture as will be shown below.

Other posttribulationalists have generally followed the same approach to understanding the passage. Gundry concurs with Moo when he says, “The resultant difficulty for pretribulationalism is that Paul places the release of Christians from persecution at the posttribulational return of Christ to judge unbelievers, whereas according to pretribulationalism this release will occur seven years earlier.”[7] William Bell, a longtime foe of the pre-trib rapture also argues in the same vein:

This passage would seem to be fatal to any view of a pretribulational rapture. Paul explicitly states that the hope of the Thessalonian believers is the glorious second advent of Christ, at which time they will receive rest from their afflictions. If the rapture, as a separate event, is indeed the “blessed hope” (Titus 2:13) of the Christian, rather than the second advent, this passage becomes inexplicable.[8]

Again, there is the assumption that the content of the relief is merely the removal of the sufferings that the Thessalonians were then going through and nothing more.

Moo senses this potential objection to some degree when he discusses the possible pre-trib strategy of noting the fact that the Thessalonians did not live to see even a post-trib rapture as fulfillment of the removal of their immediate persecution.[9] All of the Thessalonians obtained their relief through death. Therefore, a pre-trib rapturist might conclude reasonably that the post-trib fulfillment that is being talked about in the passage, i.e., the relief mentioned, is referring to the fact that “God in His own time will destroy their persecutors.”[10] Moo’s response is to assert that the pre-trib rapturist here is simply ignoring the teaching in 2 Thessalonians 1 that the timing of the relief of the saints and the punishment of the wicked coincide. However, the proponent of the pre-trib view need not disagree that both of these things mentioned in the passage are taken care of simultaneously. In fact, one might argue that the relief from the present persecution of the Thessalonians is seen in the larger context of God’s overall plan to begin the removal of all suffering starting at the second coming and continuing until the end of the millennium. In other words, the idea of relief is not simply the removal of their immediate persecution. This idea must be explored more fully as we go along. It is sufficient to say at this point that Moo in dealing with the potential objection here, at least for sake of argument, apparently assumes that the pre-trib rapturist must tie the relief, understood as the removal of persecution, to the pre-trib rapture. He has not demonstrated in any detail the contextual reason for limiting the concept of relief or the necessity for forcing the pre-trib adherent to associate the concept of this passage with his pre-trib rapture.

This leads to Moo’s anticipation of a second response by pre-trib proponents. He acknowledges that there are those among pretribulationalists who insist that the rest or relief in the passage does not have to occur at the rapture of the church. In other words, many hold that the rapture is not in 2 Thessalonians at all.[11] While appreciating this attempt, he responds by asserting once again that the timing of the relief of the saints and the punishment of the wicked (which occurs at the second advent) must happen together: “the clear temporal link between the rest and the ‘revelation’ of Christ cannot be severed. The only satisfactory way of explaining this text is to assume that Paul addresses the Thessalonians as if they would be alive at the Parousia—and he states that they experience ‘rest’ only at the posttribulational revelation of Christ.”[12] The reader might again notice that the same assumption is brought in at this point. The relief in the passage must be defined only with respect to the removal of the temporal experience of persecution of the Thessalonians. If this is not true, then Moo’s argumentation on almost every point must be altered.

Paul Feinberg’s response to Moo presents two possible strategies for the pre-trib advocate.[13] The first one is to take the entire passage as a rapture passage. Since the word “revelation” is not a technical term, a pre-trib rapture could be in view rather than the return of Christ to earth. Furthermore, the mention of the angels does not have to relate to the second coming, since angels are associated with both the rapture and the second coming within a pre-trib scheme. Nevertheless, the nature of the language associated with the angels in 2 Thessalonians 1:7–8 (“shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know the God …”) seems to fit better with the event of the visible appearing of Christ rather than the secret rapture, although it could be argued that the language is describing the entire seven-year tribulation period and what it leads to. In that sense, the rapture begins a time of fiery judgment that does involve angelic beings (see Revelation).

However, a better approach may be Feinberg’s second offered strategy for the pre-trib supporter. He suggests that the idea of revelation in 2 Thessalonians 1:7 could refer to a complex of events, which encompasses the rapture, the tribulation, and the events associated with the second advent.[14] He notes that such prophetic associations or groupings are common in the Bible. He even cites Moo doing the same thing with regard to millennial issues. He then asks why he cannot do the same with respect to tribulation issues. While both strategies mentioned by Feinberg need to be considered, there may still be other more fruitful exegetical and theological options. His main point is that, if either of these views is correct, the post-trib advocate will not be able to make his case. For now, however, we will assert only that these two strategies prove that there are reasonable alternatives to the post-trib use of 2 Thessalonians 1.

The Amillennial Use Of 2 Thessalonians 1

The irenic amillennialist, Vern Poythress, argues that 2 Thessalonians 1 best supports the amillennial position.[15] In an interesting article, he attempts to show that there is irreconcilable tension between this chapter and pretribulational and midtribulational premillennialism (i.e., those who hold to a two-phase second coming), historical premillennialism, and postmillennialism.[16] To his credit he explores the full gamut of possibilities credibly even if his overall conclusion must be rejected. For the purposes of this discussion we will limit ourselves to his analysis of the view of a two-phase second coming with respect to the chapter under consideration. Interestingly, he uses some of the same arguments and assumptions as the posttribulational view of the chapter although he provides more detail and expansion for the debate.

Poythress’s argument that the pretribulational view of the rapture cannot be harmonized with 2 Thessalonians 1 can be structured with the following premises and final conclusion:

1. Relief comes at the revelation of Christ (v. 6–7).
2. Relief is clearly from the trouble the Thessalonians were then experiencing (v. 6–7).
3. Relief comes for believers at the rapture (1 Thess. 4:13–18).
4. The time of the relief is the open appearing of Christ, i.e., the “revelation” is the visible second coming.
5. Verses 9–10 indicate “when” Christ comes, there will be both relief for saints and hell for opponents.
6. Therefore, the two events, rapture and revelation are the same.

Pre-trib advocates can handle the first premise in one of three ways based upon various understandings of the text. Feinberg mentions two approaches, that is, either the possibility that the pre-trib rapture is in view by the term revelation or that there is a complex series of events implied by the term that covers the entire two-phase second coming and associated events. Thus, either of these two pre-trib positions with their own definitions of the word revelation would agree with the first premise, but would deny the fourth premise, which equates the revelation with the visible second coming. The third and perhaps better alternative is to agree with Poythress that the revelation, understood as the visible post-trib appearing, is when the relief mentioned in the passage comes to Christian believers, thereby accepting both the first and fourth premises that Poythress makes. In addition, we will concede the truth of the fifth premise. The second advent is a time when, according to verses 9–10, there will be both punishment for the wicked and a measure of relief for the saints.

However, the second premise is a point of contention for the pre-trib position held in this article. Poythress simplistically says that relief is “clearly” from the trouble the Thessalonians were then experiencing. This is in harmony with Moo’s assertion that the best way to take the passage is to assume the possibility that the Thessalonians would live to see the rapture, which is when their persecutors would be destroyed. While there is no necessary quarrel here with the possibility that the Thessalonians could have lived to see the rapture, the context of the passage suggests that there is much more to the time of relief and all that it entails. The positive presentation of this evidence will be given below when we discuss Charles Ryrie’s position on the passage. For now, we can point to a few counter-examples, even among those who do not hold the pre-trib position, to show that there is not such an easy consensus on the nature of the relief.

No one denies that relief from persecution is in view in the passage. After all, relief is given to those (the Thessalonians) who are currently afflicted (v. 7). That is not the issue. However, there is a larger context, which suggests that even if the Thessalonians did not live until the rapture, there is a special relief for them awaiting the second coming of Christ (even within a pre-trib scheme). Martin begins to capture the essence of this in his commentary on the meaning of relief.

The exact implications of “rest” (anesis) are uncertain since it is used of eschatological reward only here in Paul’s writings. But clearly it involves more than just the cessation of persecution. “And to us as well” indicates that this “rest” is a state that both the Thessalonians and the evangelists would share. Linked temporally to the parousia (v. 7b), it connotes the ultimate reward, the promised rest that represents the goodness of the realized kingdom of God ….[17]

Thus, Martin understands the larger eschatological significance of the passage as opposed to Poythress’s simplistic reading of the temporal sufferings of the Thessalonians. This is true because of the eschatological context of the passage and the inclusion of more than the Thessalonians into the statement itself.

F. F. Bruce hints of this broader context for relief when he acknowledges that the word itself simply refers to “the lifting of the pressure caused by their persecution,” but that it is attached to the “positive blessing” of God’s kingdom.[18] God’s kingdom is a time of role reversals. Bassler, partly on the basis of parallels to extra-biblical rabbinical materials, more strongly argues that “the eschatological future will see an inversion of the present circumstances, and God’s justice is revealed first in the afflictions of the elect, but also, and most importantly, in their ultimate reward (1:7, 10) as well as in the ultimate punishment of the godless (1:6, 8–9), who are presently free from any obvious affliction.”[19] These statements by Bruce and Bassler are not necessarily contrary to the theology of Poythress.

However, they do point out something Poythress seems to overlook in his presentation of premise two. That is, the concept of relief in 2 Thessalonians 1 probably carries with it some theological connections that take it beyond the mere removal of persecution from the afflicted parties. It is not at all inconsistent for the pre-trib rapturist to assert that the ultimate role reversal implied in this chapter happens at the post-trib second advent and not at the pre-trib rapture of the church. While the rapture of the church is the blessed hope of the believer, there is much more to come, including the ultimate eschatological release from all oppression, which will be manifested in God’s destruction of the believer’s enemies beginning at the second coming. After all, it is only at the end of the millennium itself when God will wipe away all tears from our eyes (Rev 21:4). Why should it be surprising to believe that the rapture (as in a pre-trib scheme) is not the ultimate removal of negative pressure for the believer?

This discussion leads naturally to an evaluation of the third premise: relief comes for believers at the rapture. Even though the pre-trib rapture is the blessed hope when the Lord will provide comfort and his forever presence to Christians, it is also a time when Christian believers will stand before the Lord at the judgment seat of Christ. During this judgment there is the real chance of meaningful loss (1 Cor 3:12–15). Furthermore, there is a potential negative element for the believer if he enters the kingdom with a diminished administrative role due to lack of achievement for the Lord during his earthly life (Luke 19:11–27). However, in comparison to unbelievers, many who have persecuted the church, the second advent will be a time of earthly manifestation of all those who are indeed the genuine sons of God as the role reversal takes place with God’s punishing the wicked. Poythress has not done justice to this biblical sophistication of the pre-trib position. This larger context, which surrounds the meaning of relief in 2 Thessalonians 1, does not unravel the pre-trib position. If the above analysis is correct, then both the second and third premises cannot be held in the way that Poythress seems to suggest. Consequently, the conclusion that he draws, namely that the rapture and visible appearing are the same event, is not required by the evidence. He has at best given partial truths, which in the end do not leave the pre-trib advocate devoid of any way to harmonize his position with 2 Thessalonians 1.

Two other issues are raised by Poythress in his analysis of the pre-trib position. First, he reacts to Feinberg’s proposed strategy that the word “revelation” implies a complex of events from rapture to visible second coming by remarking that it is the best answer to the pre-trib dilemma in the passage. However, he continues to note that the view is an admission that the passage weaves all of the events together, something that more easily fits into a post-trib combination.[20] Since we have not challenged Poythress on this point, his criticism does not address the position of this paper that the events in view in the passage all take place at the second advent and that they are in harmony with a pre-trib view. The only other pre-trib position he seems to be aware of is the pre-trib view that the events of 2 Thessalonians 1 all take place at the pre-trib rapture. Most of his argumentation goes in that direction. This means that he is probably unaware of Charles Ryrie’s position, which we will defend below.

Second, Poythress interacts extensively with the problem that the Thessalonians themselves did not live to get their relief at the second advent.[21] He responds by saying “death is but a partial and ambiguous ‘relief.’ The real relief comes with the resurrection of the body.”[22] As an amillennialist, he sees all resurrections occurring at the second advent. This meshes well with his interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 1.

However, this approach seems to go against his constant insistence elsewhere that the relief is “clearly” from the persecution.[23] At best he can only say that the relief from persecution for the Thessalonians came in stages (phase one at death, phase two at resurrection). If he can do this, why not a two-phase second coming accommodating these end time events as well? Poythress’s handling of this issue seems to draw an unnecessary box around “relief” as “resurrection.” Is resurrection all there is to relief? While not wanting to diminish the great miracle of resurrection and the role it plays, one must say that God is doing more than the resurrection of individuals at the second advent. The restoration that takes place at the second advent includes many ramifications including earthly ones Poythress might reject. If he is willing to see a larger context of relief as resurrection, he needs to examine the passage more carefully to see the positive kingdom elements that speak of other experiences for believers, which we will explore later. Going this route, he may actually dismiss the second premise, one of his earlier statements. It may be that resurrection is not a broad enough category to cover the concept of relief.

What may drive Poythress to some of his conclusions may be the amillennial penchant for oversimplification. Amillennialism certainly has the simplest eschatology chart of all possible views! Amillennialists no doubt look with a certain amount of consternation and bewilderment at dispensationalists with all of the diversity and the detailed charts and chronologies. However, the amillennial approach simply does not do justice to the sweeping nature of the sequences that the Scriptures spell out. For example, one sequence that could be highlighted is the following: church age, rapture of the church, tribulation period, second coming, restoration of Israel, judgment of the nations, the millennial kingdom, great white throne judgment of the lost, and the eternal state. While pre-trib advocates debate the details of the sequence, all would agree that there are changes that take place throughout. The ultimate fulfillment of the Christian believer’s hope is not the rapture of the church and the resurrection of church saints (1 Thess 4:13–18). That is only a beginning. The role of the church saint in the coming kingdom expands upon the joyous and rewarding experience, which comes later at the second coming. Such eschatological details could be worked out in detail such as the various judgments and resurrections. Amillennialists fail to handle such details within their oversimplified system. This is especially true when passages touch upon Israel. Craig Blaising is right when he asserts that supersessionism, the view that Israel has been replaced by the church, “lives only in Christian theology today purely on the momentum of its own tradition.”[24] It may be that one reason there is any debate at all in 2 Thessalonians 1 is that there is a distinction between Israel and the church.

A Harmonization Of 2 Thessalonians 1 With The Pre-Trib View

In this section, we will try to make a positive case for harmonizing 2 Thessalonians 1 with the pre-trib view. We will use for this analysis primarily the presentation of Charles Ryrie, although others will be consulted. In addition, we will investigate the structure of the passage itself to validate some of the issues that Ryrie raises.[25] Ryrie maintains three major points relative to 2 Thessalonians 1:

1. The post-trib position on the chapter, especially its focus on release from persecution as the main point, limits the scope of the people who will experience relief to a very small group of people in comparison to all the saints.[26]
2. The rapture is not in 2 Thessalonians 1.[27]
3. The subject of the passage is not release for Christians from persecution but the vindication of Christians who have suffered.[28]

We will examine each of these points in turn.

First, Ryrie makes the point that according to the usual post-trib handling of relief in the passage, there are only a relative handful of believers who will actually experience this release directly: those would be the church saints living at the end of the tribulation who are released from their tribulation persecution (according to the post-trib view). All other church saints would not participate in this so-called release. We have already alluded to Poythress’s attempt to deal with the partial relief at the death of the Thessalonians (and other Christians) with the full relief for them coming at the resurrection associated with the second advent. What is certain in the passage is the universal flavor of what is being discussed. Paul uses the expression in verse 10 “when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day.” Such a statement encompasses at least all Christians and cannot be limited to the Thessalonians or a smaller group. To Ryrie this helps the Bible student to see that the passage is about something larger than release from persecution. If this is the case, then harmonization of the section with the pre-trib position is on sound footing.[29]

Second, Ryrie agrees with post-trib advocates that a pre-trib rapture is not in 2 Thessalonians 1. Of course, all post-trib adherents would agree that there is no pre-trib rapture in the passage![30] However, they believe there is a post-trib rapture expressed. This is where Ryrie turns the agreement on the unity of the passage into a problem for the theology of the post-trib advocate. He highlights the terminology that exists in the passage: righteous judgment (v. 5), just (v. 6), repay (v. 6), affliction (v. 6), flaming fire (v. 7), and retribution (v. 8). These are all words related to the judgment of God upon His enemies. Nowhere in the passage is a rapture described. Ryrie claims that the mention of rest or relief in the passage is not enough to compare it to the descriptions of meeting the Lord, forever being with Him, or of resurrection for those who have died. The description of the passage is inconsistent with the language of other known rapture passages (John 14:1–3; 1 Cor 15:51–58; 1 Thess 4:13–18). Thus, Ryrie comes to the conclusion that the pre-trib view harmonizes better with the idea that a rapture is not found in the passage than does the post-trib view which must have one.[31] The post-trib proponent might argue that this is an argument from silence and that Ryrie assumes too much when he says that the language of rest and relief is not enough to justify the presence of a rapture. However, the pre-trib advocate can respond by noting that this is no different in kind than the post-trib assumption, which limits the concept of relief to release from persecution.

The first two points above can be debated. However, on the face of it, they seem to indicate that there is at least a plausible way of harmonizing 2 Thessalonians 1 with the pre-trib position. This is all that the pre-trib advocate needs to show. If post-trib or amillennial adherents can also make a plausible case, the ultimate proof of the various positions must be dealt with in other passages.

However, the third point that Ryrie raises may be the Achilles heel for the post-trib viewpoint in this passage. It is a point that has surfaced in this article a number of times already. Now is the time to make a positive case for it. The idea is simply that the subject in view in the passage is the vindication of the Thessalonians and all other believers at the second advent and not merely the removal of persecution. In Ryrie’s words, “the posttrib view has the passage jumbled because it gets the apostle’s subject wrong.”[32]

The discussion begins in verse seven with the meaning of the word relief (ἄνεσιν). The word generally carries the idea of rest, relaxation, freedom, liberty, or relief.[33] Hiebert notes “the word carries the picture of the loosening or relaxing of a taut bowstring, hence suggests the thought of relief through the relaxing of tension or pressure. It thus suggests rest, not from toil and fatigue, but from tension and suffering.”[34] With this characterization virtually all would agree. However, the post-trib advocate often stops at that point and sees the content of the relaxing as merely the absence of the suffering. As shown before, this allows the generation of a so-called problem for the pre-trib view since such release would happen at least seven years earlier. However, structural analysis and an examination of contextual developments in the passage suggest that the relaxation is filled with much more content, which allows the pre-trib advocate to make his case more strongly.

Second Thessalonians 1:3–12 yields a telescopic structure wherein later verses encompass and expand upon earlier ideas. This ties the relief or relaxation of verse seven to the larger idea of vindication, which Ryrie has suggested. The structure could be demonstrated as below:

v. 3	Paul gives thanks for the example of the Thessalonians
v. 4	Paul shares the example of the Thessalonians with other churches, especially concerning their faithful perseverance under persecution
v. 5	The persecution of the Thessalonians and/or the way they were handling the persecution is a “sign” of the following:	God’s righteous judgment so that the Thessalonians can be considered worthy of the kingdom of God for which they are suffering
v. 6–7a	God will …	1. Repay those who persecute you (v. 6)	2. Give relief, rest to you, the Thessalonians, and us, the apostles (v. 7a)
v. 7b–12		1. Jesus with His mighty angels in flaming fire deals out retribution to unbelievers who will be punished with eternal destruction (v. 7b–9)	2. Jesus will be glorified in His saints (v. 10–12)

There is a parallelism that exists within the passage as Paul expands his meaning throughout. After the introductory verses (3 & 4), verse 5 gives the summary statement of encouragement for the Thessalonians. This summary declaration includes an affirmation of God’s future righteous judgment, which is going to be applied later in the passage in two different ways, negatively and positively. Verses 6–7a apply the statement in a more personal way to the Thessalonians. Negatively, God will repay their persecutors. Positively, they will experience relief. Verses 7b–12 is parallel to verses 6–7a and gives an expansion of what Paul means by his earlier statements, thus giving the passage its telescopic nature. Negatively, when Jesus comes He will punish all unbelievers (vv. 7b–9). Positively, Jesus will be glorified in His saints (vv. 10–12). In this expansion by Paul, the subject is not limited to the Thessalonians and their persecutors or even to a first-century group of people. All unbelievers and all saints are in view. This points the interpreter in the direction of seeing the passage in a broad eschatological sense.

It is important to remember that these two tracks, positive and negative, help to frame the entire passage, including the implications of the relief or rest promised to the Thessalonians. In a general way, the two tracks deal with the retributive justice of God and the compensatory justice of God, respectively.[35] The reference to “God’s righteous judgment” (v. 5) encompasses both tracks. One day God will make all things right. The destruction of the persecutors of the Thessalonians is only implicit in verse 5 but made explicit in the next verse. What is explicit in verse 5 is that the Thessalonians could consider themselves worthy of God’s coming kingdom, which, according to the rest of the passage, will begin at the second advent. Thus, the entire passage begins with at least a hint of kingdom promise and not merely the absence of temporal suffering on the part of the Thessalonians as the major point.

This leads to a more specific examination of the parallelism of the relief mentioned in verse 7a and the glorification that is mentioned in verse 10. Hendrickson argues that there is a connection between relief and glorification in the passage in such a way that Paul’s discussion of the latter is a continuation of his discussion of the former: “this rest which they will enjoy means glory for him.”[36] The Greek expression for “to be glorified in His saints” (v. 10) is quite emphatic. Morris comments:

The verb “glorified” is an unusual compound (only here and v. 12 in the New Testament), the preposition “in” being prefixed. Then it is repeated before “saints.” The meaning probably is that He will not only be glorified “among” them, but “in” them. On the great day it is not only the Lord Himself who will be glorious, but His glory will also be seen in the saints. The thought may be that they have been redeemed and indwelt by the Lord, and that this will cause the angels to ascribe glory to the Lord …. But it seems more likely that the idea is that of the Lord’s glory being shared with or mirrored in His people. They are one with Him and they will share His glory.[37]

This statement reflects what Ryrie means when he maintains that the main subject of the entire passage is the vindication of the saints.[38] In other words, Paul’s message is not that the Thessalonians should take heart in the midst of their present suffering because the rapture of the church is going to remove immediately the experience of suffering. It is that the Thessalonians should be encouraged because they have a divinely sanctioned and special place in His coming kingdom when all in the universe will know who they really are in Christ. The resulting experience of all believers, not just the Thessalonians, will be the removal of all persecution and the institution of kingdom hope. Paul had suggested such an outcome when twice in the passage he reminds the Thessalonians of the issue of their worthiness with respect to God’s coming kingdom (vv. 5, 11).[39]

What really is the significance of this idea that the structure of the passage suggests a larger framework and meaning for the concept of relief given in verse 7? It means that the post-trib advocate cannot appeal quite so strongly to the simultaneous removal of persecution and the revelation of Christ to suggest a post-trib rapture (v. 7). Paul’s concept of relief as framed by the entire passage apparently includes more than the simple removal of persecution. It is the positive track of the passage, which in the end helps the pre-trib adherent to explain the passage more carefully within his pre-trib system.[40]

Conclusion

One major post-trib strategy is to argue that the pre-trib position cannot effectively handle the specific teaching in 2 Thessalonians 1 that the relief given to the Thessalonians occurs at the same time as the visible appearing of Christ at the second advent. It would maintain that the pre-trib advocate must argue that such relief occurs at least seven years earlier. This leaves the pre-trib viewpoint in the throes of a contradiction within its theological system. Amillennial interpreters of the passage have argued in a similar way contra the pre-trib position.

Three various pre-trib responses to such arguments have been mentioned. First, the revelation spoken of in the passage refers to the pre-trib rapture itself. Following this understanding all of the events described in the passage are unified in a pre-trib rapture. This approach avoids the pitfall of seven years separating the giving of relief and the coming of the Lord as understood in this passage. One disadvantage of this view is that the judgment language throughout 2 Thessalonians 1 does not really fit other descriptions of the rapture, including those given by the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians themselves (1 Thess 4:13–18). The only recourse is to see the revelation/rapture in the passage as marking the beginning of the tribulation period with its judgments upon the lost world and to see the flaming fire described in the passage as referring metaphorically to those events.

A second interpretation is that the revelation refers to a complex of events covering the time period from the rapture to the visible second coming. This viewpoint has the advantage that the term revelation need not be a technical term and thus can possibly have such meaning. Furthermore, there is still a kind of unity in the view, which would be necessary in light of the tenor of the passage. Moreover, even those who are not pre-trib admit that other eschatological truths such as events framed by the millennium require an understanding of a complex of events. Nonetheless, the simplest reading of the passage seems to suggest that the relief and revelation involve a singular moment rather than a complex of events. These first two pre-trib schemes were introduced by Feinberg’s response to Moo’s post-trib use of 2 Thessalonians 1. While there are issues to be grappled with for each view, there is a plausible way of constructing the position in these ways.

A third way that was proposed and accepted was that of Charles Ryrie. It is the often overlooked view that believes (from within the framework of the pre-trib position) that the pre-trib rapture is simply not in view in the passage at all. All of the events are at the visible appearing of Christ. Furthermore, the idea of relief must be understood as more than the removal of temporal suffering on the part of the Thessalonians and must include the ultimate removal of all oppression and the positive vindication and manifestation of the sons of God to the world. This view has the advantage that it preserves the unity of the two events, the giving of relief and the visible appearing of Christ. In addition, it does justice to the entire structure and eschatological context of the passage and harmonizes well with the absence of rapture language in the chapter.

In the end, this paper does not prove the pre-trib rapture. However, it does show that 2 Thessalonians 1:3–12 can be harmonized plausibly with the doctrine of the pre-trib rapture of the church and that posttribulational and amillennial arguments to the contrary cannot be maintained with any forcefulness. Consequently, the ultimate debate over rapture positions must be settled in other passages. The post-trib or amillennial interpreter will find no smoking gun here.

Notes

1. Throughout this article the common shorthand notation of “pre-trib” for a pretribulational view of the rapture and “post-trib” for a posttribulational view of the rapture will be widely used.
2. A typical presentation is Todd D. Still, “Eschatology in the Thessalonian Letters” RevExp 96 (1999): 195-210. Still mentions in passing the eschatology of 2 Thessalonians 1 but reserves his valuable article space to the discussion of 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18, 5:1–11, and 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12. Even within articles produced by the Pre-Trib Study Group, little or no attention has been paid to 2 Thessalonians 1 (see Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy, eds., When the Trumpet Sounds [Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1995]). My point is not to fault those who focus on the other important passages. These sections contain weighty matters and are arguably the most important in the Thessalonian correspondence. However, I want to raise the bar somewhat for discussion of the eschatology of 2 Thessalonians 1:3–12. D. Michael Martin notices the same disparity voiced in this paper (1, 2 Thessalonians, NAC [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995], 208). Jouette M. Bassler likewise acknowledges the seeming neglect of the first chapter of 2 Thessalonians (“The Enigmatic Sign: 2 Thessalonians 1:5” CBQ 46 [1984]: 496).
3. Duane A. Dunham, “2 Thessalonians 1:3–10: A Study in Sentence Structure” JETS 24 (March 1981): 39-46.
4. For example, see Frank W. Hughes, “The Social Situations Implied by Rhetoric” in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis, ed. Johannes Beutler and Karl P. Donfried (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 252.
5. Douglas Moo, “The Case for the Posttribulation Rapture Position” in The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulational? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984): 169-211.
6. Ibid., 187.
7. Robert H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 113.
8. William E. Bell Jr., “A Critical Evaluation of the Pretribulation Rapture Doctrine in Christian Eschatology” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1967), 275.
9. Moo, “Posttribulation Rapture,” 187.
10. John Walvoord, The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation: A Biblical and Historical Study of Posttribulationism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 123–24. Moo cites this remark of Walvoord (“Posttribulation Rapture,” 187).
11. Moo, “Posttribulation Rapture,” 187–88.
12. Ibid.
13. Paul D. Feinberg, “Response” in The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulational? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984): 227.
14. Ibid.
15. I refer to Poythress as irenic because he appears to be among the few covenant theologians (it seems) to take dispensationalists seriously even though he disagrees with them. See his older work Understanding Dispensationalists (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), which should be required reading for all dispensationalists.
16. Vern S. Poythress, “2 Thessalonians 1 Supports Amillennialism” JETS 37 (December 1994): 529-38. The discussion to follow will trace and interact with the arguments he presents on pages 529–32.
17. Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians, 208. It appears that Martin holds to a post-trib view of the rapture (154).
18. F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, WBC (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 150.
19. Bassler, “The Enigmatic Sign,” 505.
20. Poythress, “2 Thessalonians 1, ” 532.
21. Ibid., 530.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid., 529.
24. Craig Blaising, “The Future of Israel as a Theological Question” JETS 44 (September 2001): 436.
25. It is remarkable that there has been little or no response to Charles Ryrie’s presentation of the 2 Thessalonians 1 as far as I can tell. Poythress certainly does not interact with him at all. One recent commentary that appears to be consistent with Ryrie’s approach is Mal Couch, The Hope of Christ’s Return (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 2001), 179–97.
26. Charles Ryrie, Come Quickly Lord Jesus: What You Need to Know About the Rapture (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1996), 56–57. This work was originally published under the title What You Should Know About the Rapture (Chicago: Moody, 1981).
27. Ibid., 57-58. See also Arno C. Gaebelein, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (New York: Our Hope Publication Office, n.d.), 130-31.
28. Ryrie, Come Quickly, 58–62.
29. As a corollary to the distinction being discussed between the Thessalonians and other Christians and tribulation saints (who are also Christians according to the post-trib model), J. Dwight Pentecost raises an interesting question. He wonders why several epistolary passages, like 2 Thessalonians 1:4–10, make no distinction between everyday persecutions and the terrible time of the tribulation period. The latter is fully described in Old Testament and New Testament texts alike as the worst time to come upon the world (e.g., Dan 12:1; Matt 24:21). This silence according to Pentecost argues for a pre-trib rapture: “Evidently the writers of the epistles had no knowledge that the church would endure the seventieth week, for they certainly would have given help and guidance to meet the most severe persecution men will ever have known, since they were concerned with giving help for the persecutions common to all and neglect the outpouring of wrath in which the believer would need special help and assistance …. Inasmuch as persecutions of this age and the wrath of the seventieth week vary in kind and character, not just in intensity, it is not sufficient to say that if one is prepared for the lesser he will be also for the greater. The silence in the Epistles which would leave the church unprepared for the tribulation argues for her absence from that period altogether” (Things to Come [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958], 211). While not wanting to engage fully the prospect of Pentecost’s argument, it is valuable in reminding us that there is quite a distinction between the tribulations of the Thessalonians and those of the formal tribulation period. The post-trib position does not easily take into account this qualitative difference.
30. For example, see Gundry, Church and Tribulation, 112–13.
31. Gerald Stanton follows Ryrie in this argumentation (Kept From the Hour [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1956; reprint, Miami Springs, FL: Schoettle Publishing, 1991], 352).
32. Ryrie, Come Quickly, 58.
33. Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2d ed., s.v. “ἄνεσιν.”
34. Hiebert, The Thessalonian Epistles (Chicago: Moody P, 1971), 287.
35. This language is borrowed from Charles A. Wanamaker, Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 223.
36. William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of I and II Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1955), 161.
37. Leon Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 207.
38. It is important to note that Ryrie’s understanding of this vindication expressed earlier includes both the positive and negative tracks inherent in the passage’s structure. Others correctly see vindication as the main theme of the passage but come short of Ryrie’s conclusion. For example, Polhill does not go far enough when he says “the emphasis is on God’s vindicating the Thessalonians by punishing their persecutors” (John B. Polhill, “Hope in the Lord: Introduction to 1-2 Thessalonians,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 3 [Fall 1999]: 38).
39. It is important to note that Paul’s emphasis on their worthiness does not contradict the Pauline idea of grace as 2 Thessalonians 1:12 attests.
40. Acts 3:19–21 describes the second advent as bringing in times of refreshing and restitution.