2. The man of lawlessness’s followers (2:10b–12)
3. The parousia (2:1–12)
As in the first epistle, the main part of the letter begins in the second chapter, after the introductory prayer. Some of the converts had evidently taken up with enthusiasm erroneous ideas about the second coming. Paul writes to supplement what he had already told them by word of mouth (v. 5). It is unfortunate for us that we do not know what he had said to them, for what he writes contains many allusions to his oral teaching. This passage is probably the most obscure and difficult in the whole of the Pauline writings and the many gaps in our knowledge have given rise to extravagant speculations. We do not possess the key to everything said here, and it is well accordingly to maintain some reserve in our interpretations.3
a. The day of the Lord not yet present (2:1–2)
1. Paul begins with the language of entreaty (cf. 1 Thess. 4:1; 5:12). His hyper combines the ideas of concerning (NIV) and ‘on behalf of’; it is something like ‘in the interests of the truth concerning …’. The solemnity is heightened by the use of the full, formal title, our Lord Jesus Christ. Coming (parousia, see comment on 1 Thess. 2:19) and being gathered (episynagōgē; elsewhere in the New Testament only in Heb. 10:25, of the gathering of Christians for worship) are combined under one article; the two are closely connected and are parts of one great whole (cf. 1 Thess. 4:16–17).
2. Paul looks for his friends to be settled in mind (cf. Eph. 4:14). His verb saleuthēnai (become … unsettled) may be used of the motion produced by wind and wave; it indicates a restless tossing, as of a ship not securely moored or even shaken loose from its moorings. Paul does not want the converts to be shaken ‘from the mind’ (omitted in NIV; this passage is cited in BDF 211 as one where apo is ‘used to designate separation, alienation’). The mind (nous) stands for the mental aspect of man, but the mind considered as the reason, the whole mental balance, rather than as the mechanism of thought. The aorist infinitive points to a sudden shock that throws them off balance. Or alarmed (throeisthai) is a change to the present infinitive and denotes a continuing state of agitation (cf. Mark 13:7); it points to an ongoing anxiety. Paul warns against both a sudden jolt and a continuing state of remaining upset.
He lists three things that might bring this about. Prophecy (or ‘spirit’, pneuma) means a supernatural revelation, and report (or ‘word’, logos) an oral communication of some sort, perhaps a sermon. The letter may refer to 1 Thessalonians (which in that case has been misunderstood), to some other letter Paul had written, or to a forgery put out in his name. Some commentators take supposed to have come from us to apply only to letter (e.g. EGT), but it is more likely that it applies to all three. The meaning will then be, ‘Perhaps it is thought that we said this while prophesying or preaching, or that we wrote it in a letter’ (GNB). The expression supposed to have come from us (hōs di’ hēmōn) is rather vague; perhaps Paul was not quite sure what had happened or did not care to define it too closely. What is beyond dispute is that he vehemently denies that he has done anything to give currency to the report in question.
That report is that the day of the Lord has already come. The verb is enestēken, which is often used of present activities such as ‘the current month’, ‘the present day’ (see MM); Paul employs it in distinguishing the present from the future (Rom. 8:38; 1 Cor. 3:22). Obviously the Lord had not returned visibly (as outlined in 1 Thess. 4:16–17). But the day of the Lord was a complex that included many events. The report would mean that this series of events had already begun to unfold (perhaps the sufferings of the Thessalonians were said to show this). If so, the ‘Day’ was already present; the exciting culmination was very close.4 Jesus had warned against a somewhat similar expectation (Mark 13:7).
b. The great rebellion (2:3–12)
1. The man of lawlessness (2:3–10a)
Paul speaks of the great opposition to God and God’s people that will precede the day of the Lord.
3. The Thessalonians must not be deceived in any way, whether by the things listed in verse 2 or by anything else whatever. The construction is broken in the following clause, but NIV is surely right in supplying the words that day will not come. While the coming of ‘the day of the Lord’ will be unexpected (1 Thess. 5:2–3), certain things will precede it. One is the rebellion. The definite article shows that the rebellion was well known to the readers; evidently it had formed part of Paul’s previous teaching. Our difficulty is that we do not know what he had told them. In classical Greek apostasia meant a political or military rebellion, but in LXX it is used of rebellion against God (e.g. Josh. 22:22), and this became the accepted biblical usage. Paul is saying that in the last times there will be a great uprising of the powers of evil against God (cf. Matt. 24:10ff.; 1 Tim. 4:1–3; 2 Tim. 3:1–9; 4:3–4). It is as though Satan were throwing all his forces into one last despairing effort.
A feature of the rebellion will be the appearance of the man of lawlessness. Some MSS read ‘man of sin’ (GNB ‘the Wicked One’); lawlessness seems to be the correct reading, but there is no great difference in meaning, for ‘sin is lawlessness’ (1 John 3:4). In the Bible the essence of sin is not its ethical quality, but the fact that it is rebellion against God; it is the assertion of the will of man against that of God. The man of lawlessness will be revealed, which points to his existence before his manifestation (cf. the revelation of Christ, 1:7). But this does not necessarily mean, as some commentators hold, that he must have been in existence at the time Paul was writing, only that his beginning does not coincide with his manifestation. An evil power is at work (v. 7), but this is not necessarily the man of lawlessness.
It is difficult to say who this man of lawlessness is, and there have been many suggestions, usually some outstandingly evil person at the time of the suggestion. Throughout history there have been many who have done Satan’s evil work (cf. the ‘many antichrists’, 1 John 2:18), and this is a warning against over-hasty identification of the man of this chapter with any historical personage. Paul’s concern is not with the evil ones who appear from time to time, but with the most infamous of all, one who will appear in the last days. He never uses the term ‘Antichrist’, but plainly he has in mind the being John calls by this name. He is not Satan, for he is distinguished from him (v. 9); but he is Satan’s instrument, imbued with Satan’s spirit.
He is also called the man doomed to destruction (‘the Lost One’, JB), an expression used also of Judas Iscariot (John 17:12), of whom it is said that he ‘left to go where he belongs’ (Acts 1:25).
4. The language here is like that in a number of passages in Daniel (see Dan. 7:25; 8:9–12; 11:36–37), but Paul is not simply reproducing the thought of Daniel. His mind was steeped in the language of the Old Testament and he naturally made use of it on such an occasion as this. But he is describing a different figure, the leader of the forces of evil in the last time. He opposes renders a participle which might well be translated ‘the opposer’ or ‘the adversary’, a term sometimes applied to Satan (e.g. 1 Tim. 5:14; NIV ‘the enemy’); indeed, the Hebrew word śātān means ‘adversary’ (cf. Zech. 3:1). The use of the term emphasizes the kinship of the ‘man of lawlessness’ with his master. Closely joined with this is a second participle (there is but one article in the Greek), ‘the exalter of himself’. The verb (hyperairomai) is found elsewhere in the New Testament only in 2 Corinthians 12:7 (where AV twice translates it ‘exalted above measure’). Everything that is called God seems wide enough, for it includes the true God and any so-called god, but it is further extended by or is worshipped (sebasma includes all kinds of objects of veneration, such as shrines, images, altars, etc.).
The ‘man of lawlessness’ even sets himself up in God’s temple, claiming divine honours. Some understand this to mean the setting up of an image within the shrine, like the Emperor Caligula’s attempt to set up an image of himself in the temple at Jerusalem (only his death stopped the project). But the language rather indicates that the man will sit in the holy place in person; cf. Jesus’ words about the abomination that causes desolation’ (Mark 13:14; the masculine participle shows that a person is meant). An important feature of the rebellion in the last days will be the attempt to dethrone God. The evil person will proclaim that he is God (cf. Ezek. 28:2; Acts 12:21–23). Some think that God’s temple means ‘the church’ (cf. 1 Cor. 3:16), but it is more likely that something like the temple in Jerusalem is meant.
5. None of this was new to the Thessalonians, for it had formed part of the original preaching; the imperfect tense (elegon) may mean I used to tell you, or, as Rutherford puts it, ‘I often spoke of this’. Paul had evidently spoken much about the second coming in his original preaching, and he expected the Thessalonians to recognize his allusions accordingly. He uses the first person singular, instinctively recalling his personal contribution to the preaching.
6. And now may be logical (BDF 442 (15)), simply marking a transition (as in Acts 3:17, etc.); or it may be strictly temporal, ‘and as concerns the present’, forming a contrast with at the proper time. Probably the second alternative is to be preferred. There is the further question of whether we should take now with know or with holding him back. The Greek could mean either, but it seems better to take it with know (Bruce calls RSV’s ‘you know what is restraining him now’ a solecism). Because they knew, Paul could content himself with an allusion, and because he did, we can only guess at his meaning. The words what is holding … back render the neuter participle of the verb katechō (the masculine participle occurs in the next verse, ‘the one who … holds … back’). The verb can mean (a) ‘to hold fast’ (as in 1 Thess. 5:21), (b) ‘to hold back’ (as in Phlm. 13), (c) ‘to hold sway’ (if intransitive).
D. W. B. Robinson argues for this third meaning,5 but the verb does not have this meaning elsewhere in the New Testament and not many have been convinced. Most commentators accept the sense ‘to hold back’; Paul is saying that the appearance of ‘the man of lawlessness’ is impossible at the present, for there is a restraining power (and in v. 7 a restraining person).
An easy identification of the restrainer is the Roman Empire, which might be referred to in terms of itself, or in terms or the emperor who personified it (the masculine may be used of a class as well as of an individual, e.g. Eph. 4:28). But the Roman Empire has long since passed away and the lawless one has not appeared. These days many think of an allusion to some angelic being familiar in contemporary eschatological speculations; if so, we have no way of knowing, for we no longer have those eschatological speculations. An interesting suggestion is that the neuter refers to the preaching of the gospel (the end cannot come until the gospel is preached to all), and the masculine to Paul, who preached it. B. B. Warfield thought of the Jewish state,6 though it is hard to reconcile this with Paul’s attitude to the Jews (1 Thess. 2:14–16). Some have suggested the Father, or the Holy Spirit, but it is difficult to see in what sense either could be ‘taken out of the way (v. 7). Another suggestion is Satan, but this is surely excluded by verse 7, where the removal of the restraining power is the signal for the appearance of ‘the man of lawlessness’. Dibelius thought it was something somewhere—Paul was not quite sure what—and he thus shifted from the neuter to the masculine.7
But the plain fact is that we do not know. It is best honestly to admit this and not to try to force the passage into conformity with some theory we have evolved on the basis of imperfect knowledge. If we must make a choice, the best suggestion seems to be that it is the rule of law restraining the operation of evil in a well-ordered state. This can be thought of in itself or as personified in the ruler. It was illustrated in the Roman Empire and continues in other states; indeed, Roman law is to a large extent perpetuated in the legal systems of the states that succeeded the Empire. The Jewish law is another illustration of the principle, restraining the operation of sin (Gal. 3:19, 24). Perhaps we should bear in mind that John refers to ‘the spirit of the antichrist’ as well as ‘the antichrist’ (thus using both neuter and masculine); indeed, he refers to ‘many antichrists’ in whom that spirit finds expression (1 John 4:3; 2:18). But he does not appear to be saying what Paul is saying, and, as we noted above, we really do not have the clue to Paul’s complete meaning.
The reference to his being revealed at the proper time shows that God is in complete charge. When God’s time has come, and not till then, ‘the man of lawlessness’ will make his appearance. Paul clearly thinks of the time as being in the hand of God.
7. The characteristic work of ‘the man of lawlessness’ is to oppose the things of God, and Paul sees this evil as already at work in the world (cf. 1 John 2:18). But it cannot reach its consummation until the restraining power is removed. Secret power translates mystērion (‘mystery’, RSV). It does not mean a mystery in the sense of something hard to work out, but a secret we can never work out. In the New Testament the secret is usually one that has now been revealed (Mark 4:11; Rom. 16:25; Col. 1:26). There are interesting phrases such as ‘the mystery of the faith’ (1 Tim. 3:9, RSV), and ‘the mystery of godliness’ (1 Tim. 3:16). Here the word is in an emphatic position, with the meaning, ‘Revealed, I say, rather than called into existence; for in fact the evil is already working, though in secret’ (Lightfoot).
8. And then (tote) indicates that these further events will follow more or less immediately after the removal of the restraining power. The lawless one is, of course, identical with ‘the man of lawlessness’, and now for the third time he is said to be revealed, which puts a certain emphasis on the supernatural aspect of his appearing.
Paul’s primary aim is not to gratify curiosity about this being and he gives no details of his activity; he goes straight from his appearance to his destruction. Throughout this whole section there is the underlying note of God’s unchallenged sovereignty; thus the revelation of the lawless one is naturally followed by his destruction (described in words reminiscent of Isa. 11:4). The better MSS read ‘slay’ (anelei, cf. RSV) for ‘consume’ (analōsei, cf. AV), but the difference is not great. The breath of his mouth (here only in the New Testament; cf. Ps. 33:6) shows that, terrible though the lawless one will be, he cannot stand before the Lord for a moment. There will not even be a contest—the breath (or ‘the word’, Calvin) of God is sufficient (cf. Rev. 19:21).
There is a parallel thought: and destroy by the splendour of his coming. For the Lord even to show himself is to destroy the enemy. Destroy translates katargēsei (this verb is in Paul in 25 of its 27 occurrences), which has the basic meaning ‘to make idle’ and thus ‘to render null and void’. It does not mean that the lawless one will be annihilated, but that he will be made completely powerless. Splendour translates epiphaneia, which means much the same as coming (parousia). Indeed, in all the other five places where it occurs in the New Testament it refers to our Lord’s coming, once to his first advent (2 Tim. 1:10), and four times to his second advent (1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13). It often appears to include the idea of splendour, which is the reason for NIV’s rendering (cf. Rutherford, ‘the glory of his Presence’; Phillips, ‘the radiance of the coming’).
9. Just as the Lord has his coming, so the lawless one has his. Many commentators from the earliest times have pointed out that ‘the man of lawlessness’ at many points counterfeits the Christ. He will be working in the power of Satan as Christ was of God, and he will perform miracles of various kinds as did the Lord. The work (energeia) means more than power; it is power in action. The lawless one then will embody the power of Satan.
There is some difficulty about the second part of the verse. NIV takes counterfeit (pseudous, ‘of a lie’) with all three of the marvels; RSV ‘all power and with pretended signs and wonders’ takes it with the latter two; NASB ‘with all power and signs and false wonders’ links it with the last only. It seems that both all and counterfeit should be taken with all three. They all point to miracles, the first referring to the power at work in them, the second to their characteristic as being meaningful (they point to something beyond themselves), and the third to the effect they have on spectators as portents, things that cannot be explained. And all three, Paul says, are saturated with falsehood, RSV misinterprets with ‘pretended’. For Paul the miracles are real enough; it is their origin and end that make the lie.
10a. The thought of the previous verse is continued. The ‘lawless one’ will work by the method of wicked deceit (literally, ‘in all deceit of unrighteousness’, adikia), an unrighteousness that is characteristic of him (adikia is unrighteousness in its widest aspect; it includes all forms of evil). But this deceit is effective only in those who are perishing (cf. 1 Cor. 1:18). The use of the present tense makes it vivid. Paul sees the process going on before his eyes.
2. The man of lawlessness’s followers (2:10b–12)
Paul turns from ‘the lawless one’ to those so misguided as to follow him.
10b. These people perish. The reason is that they refused to love the truth, more exactly, ‘they did not receive the love of the truth’. The verb implies welcome (see comment on 1 Thess. 2:13), but people like this give the gospel no welcome. ‘The love of the truth’ is unusual (found only here in the Greek Bible), and it is placed in an emphatic position. We should not understand truth as an abstract moral quality, but as ‘the truth of the gospel’ (Gal. 2:14), ‘the word of truth, the gospel’ (Col. 1:5), truth that is closely connected with Jesus (John 14:6; Eph. 4:21), and which is revealed by God and comes from God (cf. Rom. 1:25). Acceptance of this truth leads to salvation (as the end of the verse shows). These people received some knowledge of God’s way, but they would have none of it. They gave it no welcome; they gave it no love. And this in spite of the fact that the truth was the only way whereby they might have been saved. Calvin points out that those who perished ‘were deserving of it, nay more, did of their own accord choose death’.
11. The ascription of the delusion to God, not Satan, is startling to modern Westerners. But in the Bible the sovereignty of God is clear and this takes unexpected forms. Thus God is said to have put a lying spirit into the mouths of the false prophets (1 Kgs 22:23; cf. Ezek. 14:9); again, one and the same action can be ascribed both to Satan (1 Chr. 21:1) and to God (2 Sam. 24:1). In Hebrew thought the powers of evil have no independent existence, but always depend on God. He makes the wrath of man to praise him (Ps. 76:10, see RSV), and he works his purposes out even in the evil that people (or Satan) do. In particular, God uses the evil consequences of sin in his punishment of the sinner. These consequences are not simply the result of the operation of an impersonal process; Paul can say that God gave people up to the consequences of their sin (Rom. 1:24, 26, 28; cf. 11:8). God’s hand is in the process whereby the sinner receives the fitting recompense of sin. But we should not miss the point that even in dealing with disobedience God’s purpose is mercy (Rom. 11:32).
Paul sees God’s hand in the process whereby those who reject the gospel come to believe a lie. For this reason refers us back to the statement that certain sinners refused to receive the love of the truth. It is the law of life that those who take this step go further and further into error. Paul puts some emphasis on the word God; what follows is not the result of mere chance or the working of natural law, but of divine action. The present tense (sends) referring to future action is the prophetic present, giving a note of greater certainty. It is not easy to translate energeian planēs (a powerful delusion). As we saw on verse 9, energeia means power in action, so that the expression signifies not merely a passive acquiescence in wrong-doing, but an active forwarding of evil. When people begin by rejecting the good, they end by forwarding the evil.
The upshot of this is that they will believe the lie. This lie stands over against the truth of verse 10; it stands for what Satan would have people believe, more particularly with regard to ‘the lawless one’. That is the lie (cf. Rom. 1:25). But those who reject the gospel of God are bound to end by accepting the evil as true. Thereby God uses Satan as his means of punishing them. This is not a contest between God and Satan in which God turns out to be a little stronger than Satan. God is sovereign over all, and uses even evil (in Satan and in people) to set forward his purpose.
12. This is further explained in a second clause of purpose: so that (hina) all will be condemned (NASB ‘judged’ reminds us that justice is involved). God brings them to their condemnation by their acceptance of the lie. They think this acceptance is the end of the story (sinners do not see beyond the sin they are enjoying). But it is not. In the purposes of God it necessarily leads to condemnation.
Those condemned have not believed the truth. Paul often uses the verb ‘to believe’, but the construction here (with the dative of person) is found in the Pauline writings elsewhere only twice apart from quotations (2 Tim. 1:12; Titus 3:8). Paul prefers a construction that conveys the meaning, ‘put one’s trust in’, whereas that used here simply means to give credence. Far from welcoming the gospel, these people did not even accept as true (‘believe’) the truth of God.
More than that: they delighted in wickedness. The picture is one of people who have rejected the light God has given them and turned their backs on the love of the truth. This cannot be done without consequences; they become immersed in their lower pursuits and come to the position where they take their delight in them. So far have they become perverted from their true end (defined for us in The Shorter Catechism as ‘to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever’) that, instead of enjoying God, they enjoy sin. For them evil has become good.