Unpacking the text
1. Paul tells the Thessalonians that Jesus will not return “until the rebellion occurs, and the man of lawlessness is revealed” (2:3). So, we have two things to work with—the rebellion and the revealing of the man of lawlessness who is also referred to as “the man doomed to destruction” (v. 3). The rebellion is not just a general rebellion (as in the days of Noah), it’s an apostasy (actually the apostasy)—a departing from the truth. It’s not initially clear what the relationship of this is to the man of lawlessness. Is the man of lawlessness produced by the apostasy or does his appearance coincide with it?
2. Verses 6-8 supplies us with the answer as Paul says, “The secret power of lawlessness is already at work” (v. 7). He is referring to the apostasy rather than the man of lawlessness because v. 5 tells us the Thessalonians knew there was something “holding him back” (i.e., the man of lawlessness). When this is “taken out of the way” (v. 7), “the lawless one will be revealed” (v. 8). But something was already at work and that was the apostasy. The fact that Paul refers to it as the secret power would suggest that it was in an embryonic stage.
3. It also suggests that the man of lawlessness is produced by the apostasy. Think about a tornado watch. We know that means that a tornado isn’t present—but conditions are conducive for one developing. That’s exactly what Paul is saying here. The lawless one (who must come on the scene before Jesus returns), had not been revealed. Whatever it was that was retraining him (that Paul and the Thessalonians knew about), was still at work. When that was taken out of the way, the tornado would come.
4. Now that we’ve dealt with the relationship of the man of lawlessness to the apostasy, we need to address the man of lawlessness relationship to the return of Jesus.
While there appears to be an imminency to the man of lawlessness’ appearance (it’s connected to something that was already happening), there’s nothing to suggest that Jesus’ appearance was close. Read the text again and see if this isn’t true. The return of Christ would destroy the man of lawlessness, but there’s nothing that says the return of Christ was near when Paul wrote. It’s just not there! It’s an assumption we make.
5. We do this because we assume the man of lawlessness refers to a person. And, if that person was imminent in Paul’s time, then the return of Jesus would have to be as well since it would bring about the destruction of the man of sin—either that or the man of sin would be about two thousand years old. It’s a case where the conclusion is sound, but the premise (that the man of lawlessness is a person) is flawed.
6. Our western minds naturally gravitate toward the idea of the man of lawlessness being a literal person—but the phrase doesn’t have to have that meaning! It can mean whatever the Spirit through Paul choose for it to mean. Writers of the biblical witness are under no obligation to say things the way we think they should! We need to settle that in our minds once and for all.
7. Could the man of lawlessness be a personification of sin? I think it is. Following McGuiggan, I believe Paul’s “the man of lawlessness” runs parallel to John’s “the antichrist” (I John 2:18). As with the Thessalonians, John’s readers had heard about his coming (v. 18, 4:3). As with the man of lawlessness, the coming of the antichrist was also connected with lawlessness (3:4, 4:1-6). Since John writes much later than Paul (~40 years), so things have developed from the time of Paul’s writing to the Thessalonians (4:3).
After John introduces the antichrist in 2:18, he later says in 4:3-4 that “every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is in the world.” Notice he moves from antichrist to the spirit of the antichrist. I think this shows us that he’s not using the term “the antichrist” for a literal person but to represent an apostasy (2:19) where in fact, there are many “antichrists” (2:18).
8. McGuiggan points to examples in the Old Testament that provide us with a precedent for what Paul does in 2 Thessalonians 2: the abomination that causes desolation (Daniel 9:27,11:31, 12:11), the king of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12ff), and the prince of Tyre (Ezekiel 28). None of these are literal, historical figures—rather they are a representation of arrogance, rebellion, and evil. That’s the same thing Paul is doing with the “man of lawlessness” in 2 Thessalonians 2. He wants to stress the heightening of apostasy and sinfulness and he chooses to do it by speaking of a man of lawlessness who sets himself up in the temple of God and proclaims to be God. None of this is literal (see Matthew 23:2 where Jesus speaks of the Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting in the seat of Moses when they were literally doing no such thing).
9. Returning to our tornado illustration, Paul tells us that when whatever it is that restrains the man of lawlessness is taken away, he will appear. When the conditions of a tornado watch don’t always produce a funnel cloud but when they do, the watch becomes a warning, and they begin tracking the tornado. Paul says that conditions were such when he wrote that they could produce the man of lawlessness and eventually they would. He is the destructive tornado.
A Taste of Grace with Bruce Green 