2 Thessalonians CH 2
To be sure, both kinds of challenge can be beneficial, like the refining of precious metals in the fire. But both can also be painful and cause havoc. So Paul first identified the nature of the error (2:1–3), then contradicted it by a full exposition of appropriate truth (2:4–12) and thirdly expressed his confidence in the Thessalonians’ stability (13–17).
The particular false teaching which had been making headway in Thessalonica related to the coming [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him
At that time, the Thessalonians were troubled that the Parousia had not come quickly enough, since some of their friends had died before it had taken place; now their problem was that it had come too quickly, for some teachers were saying that the day of the Lord has already come (2), or is already here (REB)
A modern version of the belief that Christ has already come is found among Jehovah’s Witnesses. Their founder, Pastor Charles T. Russell, first taught that the world would end in 1874, and then revised his calculations to 1914. After this year had passed, his successor judge J. F. Rutherford asserted that Christ did in fact come on 1 October 1914, but invisibly. On that day he exchanged an ordinary seat at the Father’s right hand for the throne of his kingdom. So no parousia of Christ is to be expected; it has already taken place.
2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed
that is, from your conviction or composure
The verb “shaken” (saleuthēnai) is an aorist infinitive, referring to their initial upset, and was used of ‘ships being forced from their moorings by the pressure of a storm’. The second verb, “alarmed” (throeisthai) is a present imperative and seems therefore to describe their continuing state of anxiety. They were ‘in a constant state of nervous excitement’
either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us,
The mention of a letter might refer to a forgery, and would explain why Paul adopted the custom of signing his letters personally (e.g.
The day of the Lord (2b) cannot be here already, Paul says, because that day will not come until two other things have happened. A certain event must take place, and a certain person must appear. The event he calls the rebellion (apostasia, ‘the Great Revolt’ JB; ‘the final rebellion against God’ REB) and the person the man of lawlessness, the rebel.
But only when the rebel is revealed (3b) will the rebellion break out. Paul had told them this, and more, about the man of lawlessness, when he was with them. He chides them for their forgetfulness. Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? (5). The safeguard against deception and the remedy against false teaching were to hold on to the original teaching of the apostle. The Thessalonians must neither imagine that he had changed his mind, nor swallow ideas that were incompatible with what he had taught them, even if it was claimed that these ideas emanated from him.
Paul’s essential point was that the rebellion will precede the Parousia. He does not deny that the Parousia will still be sudden and, to those unprepared for it, unexpected. But, as he argued in his first letter, it will not take believers by surprise. For one thing they already belong to the day; for another they know that the rebellion will herald its arrival.
In verses 3b and 4 the apostle introduces the chief rebel, the leader of the rebellion, by four names or titles
the
It seems to be the first and the last of these which Paul emphasizes. They characterize Antichrist in relation to God and the law, and declare him to be implacably opposed to both.
First, there will be his opposition to law. Paul calls him both ‘the man of lawlessness’ (3) and ‘the lawless one’ (8). Presumably this means that he will be defiant of all law, both the moral law (asserting that there are no such things as moral absolutes) and the civil law (advocating anarchy in the name of freedom).
Here, then, are the two principal targets of Antichrist’s venom. Yet God and law, religion and ethics, are the two essential ingredients of culture, which act as a glue to bond a community together, and are therefore two authorities which humankind have normally recognized. To oppose them is to undermine the foundations of society. More than that, Antichrist’s godlessness and lawlessness will go beyond a denial of these basic authorities to a demand that worship and obedience be given to him alone. Not anarchy, but totalitarianism is his goal.
18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come.
Paul’s preoccupation here is with the time of the rebellion. He uses a series of time references, in order that the Thessalonians may grasp the order of events:
6 And you know what is restraining him
Two processes are now already going on simultaneously. On the one hand the secret power of lawlessness is … at work surreptitiously and subversively. On the other hand, the restraining influence is also at work, preventing the secret rebelliousness from breaking out into open rebellion. Only when this control is lifted will first the revolt and then the Parousia take place.
The nature of what is holding him back (6), which is later personalized as the one who now holds it back (7), has caused commentators many headaches. Once again we stand at an initial disadvantage, because Paul’s Thessalonian readers knew what the restraining influence was (6), since he had regularly taught them about these things (5), whereas we have not had the benefit of the apostle’s initial instruction. It is not altogether surprising, then, that even the great Augustine, reacting against unprofitable conjectures, declared, ‘I frankly confess I do not know what he means.’
Before we are in a position to weigh the possible interpretations, it may be helpful to bring together the four facts about the ‘restraint’ which Paul clarifies. First, it is at work now and is effectively stopping the outbreak of the rebellion. Secondly, ‘it’ may also be referred to as ‘he’ (7). The restraint is both neuter and masculine, something and someone, a pressure and a person. Thirdly, at the right time this ‘it’ or ‘he’ will be removed, and the removal will trigger the final timetable, namely the revelation first of Antichrist and then of Christ. Fourthly, there must be some reason, in addition to the Thessalonians’ knowledge, which prompts Paul to write about the restraint and its removal in such guarded, roundabout and even cryptic terms.
The third and most widely held view is that the restraining influence is Rome and the power of the state. Not that the reference need be limited to the Roman Empire; every state, being the guardian of law and order, public peace and justice, meets the case equally well.
In fact, there are four main arguments in favour of this interpretation:
1. It makes good sense. As Plummer wrote, ‘the natural restrainer of lawlessness is the law, and in the first century the great organizer and executor of the law was the Roman Empire’.
13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
2. It tallies with Paul’s known view and experience of the state. He and Silas as Roman citizens had recently experienced Roman justice in Philippi.
3. The combination of the neuter and the masculine is easily explained. ‘Think’, wrote Hendriksen, ‘of the empire and the emperor, of justice and the judge, of law and the one who enforces it.’
4. The enigmatic reference would be explicable, since there were obvious prudential reasons for not openly and explicitly predicting that the state would be ‘taken out of the way’ or ‘removed from the scene’ (REB).
