2. The Man of Lawlessness 'c Followers (2:10b-12) 233
3 Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessnessa is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He opposes and exalts himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, and even sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
5 Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, to and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing.
This is an extraordinarily difficult passage, not made any easier by the fact that its subject matter is not dealt with elsewhere. We thus have no comparable passage with which we may compare it or that we may use to supplement it. But some things are clear. In opposing those in Thessalonica who were claiming that "the day of the Lord" had already come Paul makes it clear that that day would be marked by such outstanding happenings that there would be no danger of mistaking or disregarding its presence. Specifically he says that it will be preceded by a great rebellion of the forces of evil against God and by the appearance of a being traditionally called "the man of sin."
3 Paul is desperately anxious that his friends do not fall into error. "Don't let anyone deceive you in any way" is not only an exhortation,'6 but a reminder of the folly of being led astray in this way. The verb is a compound, the thought being that to be taken in by the kind of thing he has outlined is not only to be deceived, but to be badly deceived. The addition of "in any way" extends the possible ways of bringing about the deception. Paul objects to the conclusion. He therefore excludes all ways of reaching it.
Now we come to the great fact that proves conclusively that the day of the Lord has not yet arrived. The words "the day will not come" have no equivalent in the Greek, but they are implied. Paul's impetuous style often leaves out words that the readers may well understand for themselves, and that is the case here. There is no uncertainty about his meaning. That day will not come about until the "rebellion" takes place, and a certain evil figure, "the man of sin," has made his appearance. Since neither is yet in evidence, the argument runs, the day of the Lord cannot possibly have come. There is some difficulty with our understanding of both these expressions. What is beyond doubt is that Paul expected his allusion to be so clear to the Thessalonians that they would see the folly of their error and return to sanity. The term rendered "rebellion" is sometimes used of political or military rebellions. The characteristic thought of the Bible is that God rules. Thus the word is appropriate for a rebellion against his rule. In part "rebellion" points to this sort of thing; it includes the idea of forsaking one's former allegiance. But it is not so much forsaking one's first love and drifting into apathy that is meant, as setting oneself actively in opposition to God. Neil speaks of "a widespread and violent defiance of the authority of God." It is the supreme effort of Satan and his minions to which the word directs us.17 Paul does not speak of "a" rebellion, as though introducing the topic for the first time, but of "the" rebellion, that is, the well-known rebellion, that one about which he had already instructed them.18
He speaks of the rebellion coming "first" (which NIV omits), but he does not say what it is to precede. There can be no doubt that NIV is correct in supplying "that day will not come," with "that day" referring to the day of the Lord. The omission of the words shows that the writer is excited and is not paying much attention to the strict rules of gram- mar,19 which adds to our difficulties. This phenomenon helps us to understand something of the importance Paul attached to the subject. It was desperately important that the Thessalonians get the thing straight. He cannot keep calm about the matter.
Associated with20 the rebellion is the person who is traditionally known as "the man of sin."21 The title is so universally used that it is perhaps impossible to substitute another. But "man of lawlessness" is a better reading than "man of sin,"22 and fits in with the words used in verses 7 and 8, whereas the traditional rendering obscures the connection of thought. However, the difference in meaning is not great; lawlessness must be understood as failure to conform to the law of God, and this is what sin is (1 John 3:4). In the last resort sin is the refusal to be ruled by God. It is the assertion of the creature against the Creator, the self against the God of grace (Best renders "man of rebellion," which well brings out this aspect; but we should bear in mind that the word is not from the same root as that which speaks of the revolt against God in v. 3). All of this fits in with the great rebellion that has just been mentioned. The individual in mind is seen against the background of the rising of Satan against the power of God.
Who is this Man of Lawlessness? A common identification is with the Roman Emperor, either as an individual or as the line of emperors. In favor of this can be urged the claim that the emperors were divine and the demand that they be worshipped. The attitude of the persecuting emperors such as Nero must have led many Christians to see in them some of the attributes of the Man of Lawlessness. But against all such identifications is the fact that Paul seems to be speaking of the last and supreme embodiment of evil, one who will make his appearance only in the last days. There seems to be no evidence that he really thought that either a present or a future Roman emperor, or the whole line of emperors, was this supreme representative of Satan.
From the Reformation onward there have been those who have identified the papacy with the Man of Lawlessness (the Preface to the King James Version calls the pope "that Man of Sin"). But it is difficult to think of a line of popes as constituting the Man of Lawlessness, for he seems rather to be an individual. No one would gather from reading the words of Paul that he was referring to a line of ecclesiastics. This view seems to have arisen more from hostility to the papacy than from exegetical considerations.
All attempts to equate the Man of Lawlessness with historical personages break down on the fact that Paul was writing of someone who would appear only at the end of the age; the Man of Lawlessness is an eschatological figure. Paul wrote that he will appear just before the Lord comes again, and therefore it seems futile to try to identify him. Scripture tells us that there are many Antichrists (1 John 2:18),24 and it does not surprise us accordingly that through the ages of history many have appeared whose evil lives remind us of this or that trait of the Man of Lawlessness. But that does not give us grounds for identifying the supreme embodiment of evil with any of Satan's lesser lights along the way.25
Paul speaks of this figure as being "revealed," just as in 1:7 he has spoken of the revelation of the Lord Jesus. The position of the verb in the Greek gives it a certain emphasis, as does its repetition in verses 6 and 8. It indicates that the Man of Lawlessness will exist before his manifestation to the world. It may also point us to something supernatural about him, which would be natural enough, considering his close association with Satan. It seems unlikely, however, that Paul means us to understand that the Man of Lawlessness was in existence at the time he was writing (as Frame, for example, holds).
The Man of Lawlessness is further described as "the man doomed to destruction," or more literally, "the son of perdition,"26 a description that Jesus applied to Judas Iscariot (John 17:12; see KJV). This type of genitive has a Hebraic twist. It denotes "characterized by" the quality in the genitive (cf. Isa. 57:4). So here it means that the Man of Lawlessness will certainly be lost. As Moffatt puts it, he is "the doomed One."
4 The description of the evil personage is continued.27 "He opposes and exalts himself' is the translation of two participles united under a single article, which thus form a third way of describing this being. The former of the two participles might be rendered "the adversary." It is often used of Satan. In this place it does not, of course, mean Satan, but the associations of the term are evil, and it stresses the evil character of the man to whom it refers. He sets himself against God; the present participle indicates a continuing attitude: it is no passing phase. The second participle (also present continuous) deals with the exalted position the Man of Lawlessness arrogates to himself. He sets himself above "everything that is called God or is worshiped," and he can lay claim to no higher place than that. He is not content with supreme political position, but insists on having the place reserved among all mankind for the supreme object of worship. He demands religious veneration. More exactly, he insists that no god, nor anything bearing the name of God, nor any object of worship whatever28 should be allowed pride of place. The Man of Lawlessness must be first of all.
The climax to all this is the explicit claim to deity.29 He is to sit in the temple30 proclaiming himself to be God. There are some interesting touches here. "So that" (for which NIV has "and even") is a conjunction indicating result.31 This action is not unconnected with the preceding. It grows out of it. "He sits" (NIV, "sets himself up") is the aorist infinitive pointing to the single act of taking the seat rather than the continuous action of sitting. It is in accordance with this that the preposition "in" is that naturally used of motion toward. The "temple" is the inmost shrine, and not the temple as a whole. It is not that he enters the temple precincts: he invades the most sacred place and there takes his seat. His action is itself a claim to deity,32 and the verb "proclaiming33 himself' seems to imply an explicit claim in so many words.
Most commentators draw attention to the attempt by Caligula to set up an image of himself in the temple at Jerusalem, an attempt that was frustrated only by his death. This took place in A.D. 40. The attempt aroused widespread horror among the Jews. It may well be that Paul has this incident in mind in writing these words, but we should bear in mind that what he says goes beyond anything Caligula attempted. The Man of Lawlessness is not pictured as setting up a statue of himself but as taking his seat in person (cf. Ezek. 28:2).
The question arises of what should be understood by "God's temple." There are passages where such an expression means the Christian church (1 Cor. 3:16-17), and some interpreters have understood this sense here. The meaning then would be that the Man of Lawlessness makes the church his base of operations. He establishes himself there, claiming to be divine. This is a rather difficult concept (would not the church by that very fact cease to be the Christian church?). While the New Testament speaks of many falling away in the last days, it does not appear to envisage the church as such becoming apostate. There is, moreover, the vivid language already noted. This seems to mean that he will actually take his seat in a formal way in a sanctuary. Some commentators suggest that it is heaven that is meant (cf. Ps. 11:4). Frame, for example, sees the possibility of a reference to the ancient tradition of the Dragon that stormed the heavens. The difficulty is that Paul pictures the Man of Lawlessness as actually taking his seat in the shrine and not merely as attempting to do so. It is like our Lord's "When you see `the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong" (Mark 13:14; the masculine participle shows that a person is in mind). Paul is certainly not saying that this evil being will conquer heaven. While the temple is not easy to identify, the best way to understand the passage seems to be that some material building will serve as the setting for the blasphemous claim to deity that the Man of Lawlessness will make as the climax of his activities 34
5 Paul races on with the reminder that there is nothing new in what he is saying: he had told them all this before! Frame and others speak of "a trace of impatience" here, while Findlay by contrast says that Paul "gently reproves" his readers. It is probable that neither suggestion exactly meets the case. As we have had occasion to notice before, this section is extremely lively, and throughout we get the impression that Paul was dictating animatedly with scant regard for grammatical niceties and exact balance of phrase. The previous sentence is not really finished, and his thought rushes on as he vividly recalls what he had said when he was among the Thessalonians. Although throughout most of the letter the plural is used, here Paul replaces it with the singular as he recalls what he had done in their city. What he has just written is by way of reiteration of his oral teaching. His question is framed in such a way as to expect an affirmative answer: of course, they will remember! The tense of the verb seems to imply that he had dealt with the subject often.35 Thus he is able to content himself with the barest of outlines. Now his question obviates the need for a fuller explanation. Paul simply jogs their memory. He says, in effect, "It is as I told you before."
6 With "and now" Paul passes from a consideration of the future to the present state of affairs.36 It is as though he were saying, "You had it all explained to you and you accepted it. Do not let some new-fangled theory alter your convictions." Once again he directs attention to a fact that was well known to the Thessalonians and on which, therefore, he has no need to enlarge. Since they knew what he was writing about, he had no need to be specific. He has accordingly left his allusion so general that commentators through the centuries have been baffled as to exactly what he did mean and many conjectures have been put forward, sometimes supported by ingenious arguments. But we cannot feel at all sure that we have the clue to the situation, and it is best to face that fact. We should take notice of the conjectures that have been made by earnest and scholarly souls, for one of them may conceivably be correct. But we should maintain a reserve in what we claim for our own particular interpretation.
"What is holding him back" represents the neuter participle of a verb whose masculine participle is found in the next verse,37 where it is rendered "the one who now holds it back." Our first problem is the meaning of the verb NIV renders "holding back." It is usually accepted that it means "hold back" or "restrain," but it can also signify "hold fast," as it does, for example, in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 ("restrain" is an impossible meaning for it there). Sometimes the verb is intransitive, when it means "hold sway"38 (though it does not appear to have this meaning anywhere in the New Testament). While the probabilities are that the meaning assigned to it by NIV is the right one, we must not overlook the fact that our ignorance of the circumstances precludes us from ruling out the other meanings entirely.39
At the time the letter was written, then, some person or thing was holding something fast, or exercising sway, or restraining (presumably restraining the Man of Lawlessness). Many commentators have seen a reference to the Roman Empire, which might be referred to as neuter, or in the person of the emperor as masculine.40 It would be dangerous to talk openly about the state or its ruler, and this oblique method is seen as the result. Those who hold such views commonly think of one of the emperors (usually Nero) as the Man of Lawlessness, whose appearance was held back by the existence of his predecessor. When the predecessor was removed the Man of Lawlessness would appear. It is difficult to carry this understanding through. There is no reason for thinking that Paul saw in any Roman emperor (Nero or any other) the Man of Lawlessness. Moreover, the Roman Empire in due course passed away without the events that Paul here associates with the End.
B. B. Warfield identified the restraining power as the Jewish state 41 The masculine "restrainer" he thought might be James of Jerusalem. Warfield was a great exegete and all his opinions must be carefully weighed, but this is one in which few have been able to follow him. It is hard to understand how the Jewish state could restrain the Man of Lawlessness (even if we accept Warfield's other idea that this was the line of Roman emperors). It is even more difficult to see the apostle James fulfilling this role.
A favorite view among many modern scholars is that Paul is here referring to some contemporary eschatological speculation. Babylonian and other myths are cited to show that many people thought that there would be a gigantic conflict between good and evil at the end of the age. Various reasons were urged for the postponement of this conflict. The suggestion is that Paul was alluding to some such idea, known to and held by the Christians at Thessalonica. This is not impossible. There is every reason for thinking that a great deal of early eschatological literature has perished, and we do not know what was in it. But that is just the point. We do not know. If Paul was alluding to some such idea, we have now no means of knowing what it was or that this is what he was doing. Under the circumstances there seems to be no point in postulating this as the solution to our problem.
Cullmann strongly opposes the view that the restrainer is the Roman Empire. He suggests that "there is a reference to the missionary preaching as a sign pointing to the end."42 The gospel must first be preached to the Gentiles. This sounds attractive while Cullmann is dealing with the neuter "that which restraineth." But when he moves on to the masculine participle he regards it as "a self-designation of the apos- tle."43 This seems most improbable. It would be an extraordinary way for Paul to refer to himself. Nothing in the passage gives countenance to the idea that he felt that he himself was holding back such a being as the Man of Lawlessness.
While not agreeing with Cullmann, others think that there must be a reference to a force for good in opposition to the evil about which Paul writes. Marshall argues that "it is ultimately God who will allow the rebel to be manifested only when the present opportunity of preaching and hearing the gospel is brought to an end by the removal of the angelic figure who is now in charge" (p. 199). Surely no Christian will want to quarrel with the idea that God is in charge of the whole process and that in the end it is he who will allow "lawless one" to be revealed. But the question is: Who or what is the restrainer? There is no evidence that Paul meant "the angelic figure" of whom Marshall writes.
Going to the other extreme, a number of students have identified the restrainer as some force of evil, perhaps Satan or some other evil being. Charles H. Giblin, who has a lengthy discussion of the problems of this chapter, makes some incisive criticisms of a number of suggested solutions to those problems 44 He understands the restraining power not as opposed to the Man of Lawlessness but as a force for evil, "a present and persistent threat to faith."45 He argues his point learnedly, but it is difficult to see in what Paul wrote a reference to a force for evil. Best "somewhat hesitatingly" takes the restraining power as evil: "That the force of evil `possesses' or `occupies' the present world fits suitably into apocalyptic thought" (p. 301). But he does not make clear how the removal of the force of evil now present in the world prepares for the coming of the Man of Lawlessness.
But this, too, is speculation. The plain fact is that Paul and his readers knew what he was talking about, and we do not. We have not the means at our disposal to recover this part of his meaning. It is best that we frankly acknowledge our ignorance.
The important thing is that some power was in operation, and that the Man of Lawlessness could not possibly put in his appearance until this power was removed. The Thessalonians knew this. Therefore they should have known that speculations about the presence of the day of the Lord were necessarily false. Necessary preconditions had yet to be fulfilled.
An important aspect of the teaching of this whole passage is pinpointed in the expression "at the proper time." Paul is not describing some great series of events that take place in violation of the will of God, while God, so to speak, has to work out some plan as a counter. Paul thinks of God as being in control of the whole process.47 While there are mysteries here, as there must be whenever we contemplate the workings of evil in a universe created by a God who is perfectly good, yet what is abundantly plain is that God is over all. No wicked person, be he Satan, be he the Man of Lawlessness, be he anyone else whatever, can overstep the bounds God has appointed him. The Man of Lawlessness will be revealed only as and when God permits. He is not to be thought of as acting in complete independence. Throughout this whole passage the thought of God's sovereignty is dominant. Evil is strong, and will wax stronger in the last times, but God's hand is in the process. Evil will not pass beyond its limits. God's purpose, not that of Satan or his henchmen, will finally be effected.
7 "The secret power of lawlessness" is an unusual expression 48 The word translated "secret power" (and more usually "mystery") in the New Testament has nothing of the mysterious in our sense of the term about it (nor, for that matter, of power). It denotes rather that which is secret, which is hidden from people, and which people, for all their searching, will never find by their own efforts. Usually there is the added thought that the mystery has now been made known. It is not surprising that it is normally employed of the purposes of God in salvation and the like. The mystery involved in the gospel was not known and could not be known until God pleased to reveal it in Christ (e.g., Rom. 16:25-26). But the use of the term here reminds us that there are secrets as well in sin. We can never, by our own reasoning, plumb the depths of iniquity, the reason for its existence, or the manner of its working. Paul points out that even as he writes there is a secret activity of lawlessness at work. The explanation of it all is not open to us, but the fact of its being in operation is clear enough. The use of the term "lawlessness" connects it with the Man of Lawlessness. Though that individual has not yet been revealed, the principle that governs his operations is already at work on this earth (cf. 1 John 2:18). It is probable that Paul does not mean simply that evil is at work. That has always been true. It is rather "the spirit of the antichrist" (1 John 4:3) that is in mind, a special form of evil that is hostile to all that Christ stands for. We can scarcely be more specific in view of the reserve with which Paul writes. The verb rendered "is ... at work" usually denotes some supernatural force (see the note on 1 Thess. 2:13). Here it is Satan who sets "the mystery of lawlessness" in motion.
The animated style we noted in verse 3 continues. Once again Paul rushes on without completing his sentence.49 His point is that although the lawless principle is at work already it cannot reach its climax at present because of the restrainer. That climax will be reached only when the restrainer is "taken out of the way." This phrase is not explained. Even so it seems definite enough to exclude some suggestions as to the identity of the restrainer, for example, that which views him as the Holy Spirit (so the Scofield Reference Bible).50 While it would be easy to think of the Spirit as restraining the forces of evil, it is impossible to envisage him as being "taken out of the way." Such an idea does not appear in Scripture.
8 It is only then, after the restrainer has been removed, that the "lawless one" will be revealed. This is the high point in the unfolding of wickedness. It takes place only in its due order. The "lawless one" is another way of referring to the personage who has already been called the Man of Lawlessness. The language is more terse, but it scarcely differs in significance. This is the third time that Paul has said that he will be revealed, and the repetition gives emphasis. This is no ordinary being making an appearance in the normal course of human events. He has supernatural associations. In the providence of God his appearance is withheld as yet. But in due course he will be "revealed" to the inhabitants of earth. It is likely that the Man of Lawlessness will have something of a career. The general impression given by the passages in Scripture that speak of the last days is that he will have a large following. But Paul's interest is not in the course of the rebellion, nor in the Man of Lawlessness as such. He puts his emphasis on the overriding sovereignty of God. He is convinced that all people and all events are in the hand of God.51 As he contemplates the happenings of the end time, it is not with the eager eye of one who seeks to trace out in detail the course of events and follow the progress of the Man of Lawlessness. Rather, he looks with joy on the revelation of the mighty hand of God. His purpose is to meet the need of his friends, not to satisfy their (or our) curiosity. His unfolding of the picture is not with a view to providing them with a timetable of events at the end so that they will be in a position to anticipate the course of events step by step. He writes to assure them that whatever happens God is over all: God is working his purposes out and will continue to do so to the very end. The Man of Lawlessness and the great rebellion must be mentioned, but Paul's interest is not in them. His interest is in God and in the working out of God's purposes. So no sooner has he come to the appearance of the Lawless One than he proceeds to his destruction.
This destruction is to be brought about by the Lord Jesus.52 The term "Lord" is significant and appropriate in this context, with its emphasis on the glory of him who first came in lowliness. Though he had once been despised and rejected, at the supreme moment of history he will be seen in all his glorious majesty. His splendor is brought out by the use of words reminiscent of the sacred Scripture to indicate the manner in which he will deal with the Lawless One (the passage recalls Isa. 11:4, where similar words are used of Yahweh himself). The picture is further strengthened by the ease with which the Lord will destroy this terrible being. "The breath of his mouth" will be sufficient (cf. Luther's hymn, "One little word shall fell him").
Not even an action on his part is necessary. It is enough for him to manifest himself to render the Man of Lawlessness powerless.53 "The splendor of his coming" combines two words associated with Jesus' second advent. The former refers on one occasion to the first coming of the Lord (2 Tim. 1:10), but everywhere else in the New Testament to the second coming. It usually has some idea of striking splendor (its root meaning has to do with conspicuousness). It is a technical term for "a visible manifestation of a hidden divinity, either in the form of a personal appearance, or by some deed of power by which its presence is made known" (BAGD).54 The latter is the usual word for Jesus' "coming" (see on 1 Thess. 2:19). The combination heightens the idea of the splendor and majesty of the Lord at that day. This has point in the present context. The Thessalonians need not fear, however illustrious evil people may seem to be. Even the most outstanding of them all will be far outshone by the Lord of these lowly believers when he returns.
9 Paul does not underestimate the Man of Lawlessness. His confident assertions of the last couple of verses spring from his recognition of the splendor and the power of the Lord Jesus, not from any failure to appreciate the power of the opposition. He concludes his words on the Man of Lawlessness by showing that he fully recognizes his stature and the majesty he will manifest when he comes on his evil mission.
He speaks of this man as having a "coming." The word is that which has just been used of the second advent of the Lord Jesus; indeed, it is the characteristic word for that advent. This "coming" of the Man of Lawlessness is to be55 with splendor and with power. That power is associated with Satan, whose representative he is. The verse strongly suggests that we are confronted with a parody of the incarnation. The Man of Lawlessness is not simply a man with evil ideas. He is empowered by Satan to do Satan's work. Thus it is that he comes "with all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders." All three of these words are used of the miracles of Christ. They are probably used here for that reason. They help us to see that the Man of Lawlessness has no originality; he does no more than try to imitate what Jesus has done. The first term points to the supernatural force that actuates the miracles; indeed, in the plural it often means "mighty works" or miracles. The second indicates their character as "signs" directing attention to something beyond themselves. The third, "wonders," reminds us that miracles are inexplicable for ordinary people; they can only marvel at them. But "counterfeit" is the wrong word; the Greek means "of the Lie" (NEB), and it should probably be taken with all three words. The thought is not that the miracles, signs, and wonders are pretense (cf. RSV, "pretended signs and wonders"), so that there is no real miracle at all. Their reality is conceded (would Satan do less?). What Paul is contending is that they are done in a spirit of falsehood. They are the miracles that befit one who seeks to deceive people, just as Christ's miracles befitted him who came to save people.
10 The melancholy catalogue of this man's wickedness continues. Whereas before Paul has been concerned with his outward, objective show, now he turns to the effect of all this on people. The Man of Lawlessness will come expressly to deceive, and he will be well equipped to do this: he will have great powers of deception. "With evil's undiluted power to deceive" (Phillips) is hardly a translation, but it conveys Paul's thought. The Lawless One will be out to lure people to their destruction. To that end he will be armed with every weapon of Satan.
The evil "deceives those who are perishing." There may be the thought here that those in Christ have nothing to fear. But the primary emphasis is on the fate of those who are deceived. The Man of Lawlessness will gain a following and be welcomed by many. But his dupes will find in the end that they have followed him to their own irreparable loss.