“The temple of God,” where the lawless one is to enthrone himself, could refer to the temple in Jerusalem, which was still standing during Paul’s life, though since antiquity some have suggested that it refers not to a particular building but to the Church, which Paul refers to as God’s temple (1 Cor 6:19).17 The identification of the temple with the Church eventually led early Protestants to identify the pope as the antichrist, one who enthrones himself in the Church as divine. Most modern commentators, however, conclude that this passage refers to the Jerusalem temple.18 The historical analogues listed above all concern the Jerusalem temple, as do the parallel prophecies in Daniel and the Gospels (see Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14), and the description of this figure sitting down lends itself more naturally to the physical temple in Jerusalem. Moreover, the threat to worship in Jerusalem from Caligula was a very recent memory for Paul.
This description of the lawless one opposing God in the last days by entering “the temple of God” raises a number of questions. Did Paul still think of the structure in Jerusalem as God’s place of residence, even after coming to believe that those in Christ are the temple of God? Readers of Paul after the temple was destroyed faced another question: How could the lawless one fulfill Paul’s end-time scenario if there was no temple left to desecrate? While interesting to ponder, these questions may attach too much literal, predictive weight to Paul’s description. The image of a supremely wicked person opposing God in this way is the traditional image, and it need not possess strict predictive accuracy (see Reflection and Application on 2 Thess 2:3–12).
[2:5]
Just when we would expect Paul to finish his sentence by describing the return of the Lord (“For the apostasy comes first . . . then the Lord will return”), he interrupts himself to chide the Thessalonians for so quickly forgetting what he had taught them: do you not recall that while I was still with you I told you these things? This is a rhetorical question: the Greek grammar assumes a positive answer. He knows that they must remember his previous instruction on this matter. He is therefore frustrated that they have been rattled by the claim that the day of the Lord is already present. The tense of the verb translated as “I told you” (legō) suggests that he repeatedly spoke on this matter when he was in Thessalonica. This fact may also help to explain the somewhat disjointed and elliptical nature of this passage. Paul is reminding them of the implications of things they have already been taught. He is not sketching this †eschatological scenario for the first time.
[2:6–7]
In the present time, something—or someone—is keeping the revelation of the lawless one at bay.19 The Thessalonians know what it is because Paul has already told them. This leaves it to us to try to work out what he means. Paul describes this restraining activity using both a neuter participle, to katechon (what is restraining), and then a masculine participle, ho katechōn (the one who restrains). This thing or person (or both) has the task of restraining the lawless one until it/he is removed from the scene, and then the lawless one will be revealed. The idea that †eschatological scenarios play out according to a mysterious preordained schedule is well attested in the New Testament (e.g., Mark 13:32; Titus 1:3; 1 Tim 2:6). The million-dollar question is the identity of the restraining force. Tantalizingly vague biblical passages tend to encourage speculation, and this one is no exception. Modern commentators can hardly hope to improve on Augustine’s approach to this passage:
Since the Thessalonians know the reason for Antichrist’s delay in coming, St. Paul had no need to mention it. But, of course, we do not know what they knew; and, much as we would like, and hard as we strive, to catch his meaning, we are unable to do so. The trouble is that the subsequent words only make the meaning more obscure: “For the mystery of iniquity is already at work; provided only that he who is at present restraining it, does still restrain until he is gotten out of the way. And then the wicked one will be revealed.” What is to be made of those words? For myself, I confess, I have no idea what is meant. The best I can do is to mention the interpretations that have come to my attention.20
Augustine wrote this sixteen hundred years ago, and today we are no closer to a definitive identification of the restraining power. All the commentator can do is, like Augustine, “mention the interpretations that have come to my attention.” Here are four of the best interpretations of the restrainer, in ascending order of plausibility.21
The Roman Empire and the Roman emperor are “what is restraining” and “the one who restrains,” respectively.22 This view assumes that Paul had a positive view of the empire and its authority as a divinely instituted means of restraining evil. Though this view had some patristic support and Paul does tell the Roman Christians to respect the governing authorities (Rom 13:1–7), it would be odd, to say the least, just a few years after an emperor attempted to install an idol of himself in the temple, to identify the Roman emperor as the one who holds such behavior in check. Similar passages in early Jewish and Christian literature tend to cast Rome as a tool of evil (e.g., Rev 13).
The preaching of the gospel and Paul prevent the coming of the lawless one. Citing Matt 24:14 (“This gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the world as a witness to all nations, and then the end will come”), some since antiquity have argued that the gospel must be preached to all nations before this event can occur. This suggestion is on thin ice in taking a line from the Gospels and using it to solve an obscure statement from Paul without any support in Paul’s Letters. Also, at this point in his life Paul probably believed that he would live to see the Lord’s return (see commentary on 1 Thess 4:17) and would therefore not expect to be “removed from the scene.”
Citing Augustine’s agnosticism with approval, Eugene Boring argues that “the restrainer” refers to nothing in particular: “The author of 2 Thessalonians himself probably did not have in mind a specific power, principle, or person that was presently restraining the advent of the Lawless One. He likely intended his depiction to be provocatively obscure.”23 In support of this view is the fact that after two millennia of trying we still don’t know what Paul meant. Boring’s suggestion is much more persuasive if one takes the view that Paul is not the author and that the reference to teaching the Thessalonians about this matter (2:5) is fiction for the sake of verisimilitude. If Paul is the author, however, he probably taught the Thessalonians about the restraining power and expected them to remember what it was.
Others argue that the restraining force is probably supernatural and that there is only one figure that fits: an angel, probably the archangel Michael. God could not be “removed from the scene,” and the devil would not be expected to restrain the power of evil. Angels, however, are often assigned important tasks in eschatological scenarios, including opposing Satan and defending God’s people. The archangel Michael is mentioned more than others (see commentary on 1 Thess 4:16). In the book of Daniel, Michael opposes evil forces, keeping them from amassing too much power (10:13, 21; 12:1), and in the †Septuagint version of Dan 12:1, Michael is said to “pass by” or “disappear” just before the final tribulation: “At that hour, Michael, the great angel who stands over the sons of your people, will disappear [parerchomai]” (my translation).24 In 2 Thess 2:6–7, the neuter participle (“what is restraining”) would refer to Michael’s restraining activity, and the masculine participle (“the one who restrains”) to Michael himself. I suggest that this is the best proposal available, but, since we were not there when Paul instructed the Thessalonians face-to-face, we cannot know for certain.
Though the final onslaught of evil is currently held at bay, even now the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. The Latin translation of “mystery of lawlessness,” mysterium iniquitatis, has come to refer to the mystery of the existence of evil in God’s good creation.25 The original meaning of the phrase is related but has important differences. In this passage, lawlessness is not said to be a mystery in the sense of a truth beyond human comprehension. Instead, lawlessness is currently a myster
y in the sense that it is currently hidden but will be revealed. For Paul, “mystery” typically signifies a reality that has been revealed to the faithful by the Spirit, but not to the rest of humanity.26 In this passage, this means that with the eyes of faith, the Church recognizes its current sufferings as “labor pains” (Mark 13:8) of the final tribulation. The Thessalonians know—or they ought to know—that the evil they currently experience is not a sign that the end has come but rather a sign that forces opposed to God are moving in the world.
[2:8]
And then—that is, after the present period during which the lawless one is held back—the lawless one will be revealed (apokalytpō), only to be destroyed by Jesus. This verse compresses events, failing to mention for the moment the period during which the lawless one masquerades as God and deceives many. In verse 9, which is part of the same sentence in Greek, Paul goes on to describe the lawless one’s activity. But here his appearance is described in terms of his inevitable doom: he appears only to be destroyed. This is one reason why he is the “son of perdition” (see 2:3): the victory has already been won. The †eschatological events will play out as preordained, but the powers of evil will fall to divine omnipotence.
Jesus’s appearance is described as the manifestation (epiphaneia) of his coming (parousia).27 The word “epiphany” is best known today from the Feast of the Epiphany, which celebrates the manifestation of Jesus to the world, including the adoration of the magi (Matt 2:9–11), his baptism (Matt 3:13–17 and parallels), and his first sign at the wedding in Cana (John 2:1–11). In the ancient world, epiphaneia often described the conspicuous and powerful appearance of God or gods.28 It is language that would have already been very familiar to recent Gentile converts. For instance, Paul’s younger contemporary Plutarch speaks of the goddess Rhea saving a man by appearing to him in a dream, which is described as the “epiphany of the goddess.”29 Stronger than parousia, epiphaneia was often associated with the display of extraordinary power. The addition of this word stresses the visibility of the event.30 Jesus will be made visible to the world, unmasking the lie of the lawless one. By stressing the splendid conspicuousness of Jesus’s coming, Paul soothes the Thessalonians’ worry that the event has already occurred.
Jesus will rout the lawless one effortlessly, with the breath of his mouth, not because of the weakness of evil, but because of Jesus’s incomparable might (see Rev 19:11–16). This description echoes Isa 11’s prophecy of a coming king from the line of Jesse, King David’s father:
But a shoot shall sprout from the stump of Jesse,
and from his roots a bud shall blossom.
The spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him:
a spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
A spirit of counsel and of strength,
a spirit of knowledge and of fear of the LORD,
and his delight shall be the fear of the LORD.
Not by appearance shall he judge,
nor by hearsay shall he decide,
But he shall judge the poor with justice,
and decide fairly for the land’s afflicted.
He shall strike the ruthless with the rod of his mouth,
and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked. (11:1–4 [italics added])
Though the Messiah had already come, Paul still searched the Scripture to understand his future coming, finding in this passage a description of Jesus’s future, public triumph.
[2:9–10]
After rushing to describe the destruction of the lawless one, Paul backs up to say more about the deceit that will precede ultimate victory. At his appearance or coming (parousia), the lawless one wields diabolical power. More precisely, Satan works in him to enable him to do mighty deeds, signs, and wonders. Paul was proud of his own mighty deeds, signs, and wonders (Rom 15:19; 2 Cor 12:12—the same three Greek words) because he saw them as markers of apostolic ministry, and of course Jesus’s ministry was distinguished by the performance of miracles. Yet the New Testament also describes miracles as part of the deceptive strategy of end-time impostors. Jesus warns that in the last days false christs and false prophets will perform deceptive wonders (Mark 13:22; Matt 24:24; see also Rev. 13:11–13). The purpose of the lawless one’s wonders is to lie and seduce people to their ruin. This does not mean that the signs will be mere parlor tricks—those do not require diabolical assistance. They will target those who are perishing (apollymi), drawing them to the son of perdition (apōleia). These people are vulnerable because they have not accepted the love of truth. The phrase “have not accepted” or “have not received” implies that “the love of truth” was offered but turned down. By rejecting the divine offer, those who are perishing condition themselves to accept lies that will destroy them. What was offered was not merely “the truth” in the sense of a few facts or a bit of information but “the love of truth”—that is, a commitment to the truth that orders one’s life and also shields one against deleterious lies.
[2:11–12]
In response to people’s love of falsehood, God sends them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie and so be condemned. The present tense God is sending them could indicate that Paul has shifted focus from the future coming of the lawless one to the present, but it is more likely that he is speaking from the perspective of the event itself. These people accept “the lie”—that is, the deception of the lawless one. There is individual choice—people opt for “the lie” rather than the truth—but God also seems to work to confirm this choice in order to bring these people to judgment. This description does not fit the “free will” versus “determinism” dichotomy often discussed today, but it follows a familiar biblical pattern: people turn away from God, and in return God causes them to suffer the full weight of their decision. For instance, in Rom 1:18–27 Paul says that God hands idolaters over to be enslaved by their sexual passions. In Ps 81 God says, “My people did not listen to my words; / Israel would not submit to me. / So I thrust them away to the hardness of their heart” (vv. 12–13).31
How could God, who is Truth itself (John 14:6), be an agent of deceit?32 Wouldn’t we expect Paul to say that God wants to rescue those who believe the lie (1 Tim 2:4)? Throughout his letters Paul assumes that people are responsible for their actions, that evil is at loose in the world and is capable of seducing people to their ruin, and that God is sovereign over all things. Paul never reflects in a philosophical-theological mode on how to hold these things together. Holding to divine sovereignty does require him to see every diabolical deception as taking place with divine permission. The Catholic tradition maintains that God never forces people to sin but only allows it. As Augustine puts it while commenting on this passage, “‘God will send’ [mittet] means that God will allow [permittet] the devil to do these things.”33
Reflection and Application (2:3–12)
Two main paradigms have dominated interpretation of this passage since antiquity.34 The first, favored by many in the ancient Church, reads this passage as a straightforward prediction of a distinct historical event that will occur in the days shortly before the Lord’s return, including a single historical lawless one or antichrist. Some who follow this approach have sought to identify the lawless one with particular figures in history such as the emperor Nero and various other emperors, or various ancient heretics. Martin Luther and John Calvin accused the pope of being the antichrist.35 Some Catholics returned the favor by alleging that Luther was himself the leader of the great apostasy and therefore a good candidate for being the antichrist.
The second paradigm of interpretation, associated most of all with Augustine, focuses on the existence of antichrists in the present day: everyone who opposes Christ by inciting apostasy and demanding from others the loyalty owed only to God is a lawless one.36 Augustine accepted that there will be trials in the last days, but he avoided attempts to predict what the last days will be like, noting that there is hostility toward God throughout history. These two streams of interpretation reflect two aspect
s already present in 2 Thessalonians and related biblical passages. Paul speaks of a future lawless one, but he also says the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. First John says the antichrist is coming, but also that many antichrists have already appeared (2:18). After two thousand years of mistaken attempts to identify the antichrist with particular individuals, one could certainly argue that it is safer to stick to the Augustinian approach, regardless of what is revealed in days to come.
Recent magisterial teaching maintains that “before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers (cf. Lk 18:8; Mt 24:12),” but also stresses the presence of antichrist today: “The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment.”37 In other words, whenever human powers, whether secular or religious, claim to bring to fruition the final ends of humankind, they are setting themselves up in God’s place, in effect “claiming to be God.” One example of this identified by the Catechism is political ideologies that claim to fulfill every need of humankind, offering, as it were, “salvation.”
First and Second Thessalonians Page 22
