Now we beg you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him,
Paul opens this chapter with a plea, and he bases it on hope — the return of the Lord Jesus and the gathering of His people to Him. Everything that follows about the man of sin and the day of the Lord rests on that hope, which raises two questions: is Paul naming a topic or pleading by that hope, and are the coming and the gathering one event or two?
Some translations open the verse with "Now concerning," as if Paul were naming a topic. Others read "we beg you by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." Commentators here argue for the second sense: Paul pleads with his readers by reason of that hope.
Paul presents here, as a foundation upon which to base their certainty, the two phases of the second coming of the Lord. The little word "by" has the meaning, "by reason of." What he means is this: "By reason of the Lord's coming, please don't be disturbed about false teaching concerning the day of the Lord." ... In 1 Thessalonians 4 he had shown how Christians will come to be in the Lord's presence — an event commonly called the "rapture," our gathering together to Him.
Another writer tests the Greek word, then draws two conclusions from Paul's plea.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:1 the true force of the word is certainly "we beseech you by" and not "as concerning." ... When the word is used with words of prayer and request, its regular meaning in Greek is "by," "for the sake of." ... So the apostle gives two reasons why they should not believe that the day of the Lord had come. First, the rapture of the saints has not happened yet. Second, the object of the judgment has not been revealed.
Older English versions insert a second "by" before "our gathering together." The Greek does not allow it.
Christ's coming and our gathering together to Him are bound together, as closely linked events of the deepest importance to the saints... The older translation has instead inserted a word which, however small, separates two things that the form of the original could only mean to be in the closest union.
Because the two are joined, His movement decides ours. He cannot arrive without His people being drawn to Him.
Impossible that He should come, and we not be gathered to Him! His place always decides ours. If He is "outside the camp," we must go forth unto Him. If He comes, we must be gathered to Him. When He moves, we move. When He moves from the throne on which He sits, to the air, we move from the earth to the air — our new gathering point, where He is coming to take us back with Him to the Father's house.
Paul names the One believers are gathered to. Even the archangel is not the centre of that scene.
This word tells us of that great gathering, when all true believers, living or asleep, will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. What a gathering together that will be, and all to Him! Not one saint, from the thief on the cross to the last one brought to the Saviour before He comes again, will be missing then... The archangel will be there, and will utter his voice: but he is not the Centre or Object, the One to whom that vast throng is gathered! No! It is unto the Lord Himself, the Lord alone.
The Greek word for "gathering together" is rare. It appears again in the call not to neglect meeting together.
The Spirit points to the dangers of these closing days in the two Scriptures that speak of our "assembling together" (Episunagōgē): 2 Thessalonians 2:1 and Hebrews 10:25. The coming of our Lord Jesus Christ is in view in both. The word means literally "the complete collection." The first speaks of the gathering of the saints to the Lord Himself when He returns. The second speaks of the gathering together of those who believe now, as the day of His coming draws near.
Someone had told the Thessalonians the day of the Lord had already come. Paul answers with the hope itself.
Satan had tried to terrify them by telling them that the day of the Lord was already present... No, says the apostle, I beg you, by the coming (in the Greek, the presence) of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to Him — which will come before that day — that you should not be quickly shaken in mind. This day will come upon the lawless one, and not upon you; you will already have been caught up to Him, and you will accompany Him personally in that great day when He will appear.
Verse 1 speaks of His coming. Verse 8 speaks of the appearing of His coming. Why the change?
When the destruction of the man of sin is in question, Paul speaks not of His coming only, but of the appearing, the shining out, of His coming. If His coming to gather His saints were a public display, why is "the appearing" of it mentioned only in verse 8?
- By, not about. Paul is not opening a topic; he is pleading with them on the strength of a hope they already hold.
- Bound. The Greek ties His coming and our gathering into one idea — no translator may split them.
- To Him. The gathering has one Centre. Not the archangel — the Lord Himself, with not one believer missing.
- Now and then. The same rare word covers believers meeting together today and the whole company assembled to Him at His return.
- Therefore, calm. That day falls on the lawless one, not on you; you will already be with Him — so refuse to be shaken.
that ye be not soon shaken in mind, nor troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as [if it were] by us, as that the day of the Lord is present.
The believers in Thessalonica were under heavy persecution. Then a report reached them that the day of the Lord had already begun. Paul writes to steady them — and the way he does it tells us both how the lie spread and why it could never be true.
The two words Paul uses describe people knocked off balance by fear. They were not impatient for Christ's return. They were afraid of a judgment they thought had already begun.
By then some people had stirred up the Thessalonians. They told them that their persecutions and other trials were the start of the day of the Lord. They were passing through severe trouble. So the claim was not that the day was close, as people often say, but that it had arrived. This troubled and shook them badly. Paul writes this new letter to drive out their fears and settle them again in the confidence of their hope... It was certainly not the excitement of hope but of anxiety and terror.
Older English versions read "the day of Christ is at hand." That suggests something still future. But the sense is stronger. The claim was that the day was already here, and the ESV reflects this: "has come."
Beyond all argument it should read, "as though the day of the Lord were present." The word is the one translated present elsewhere, as the opposite of things still to come. They were troubled and upset because they thought the day of the Lord, that great and terrible day, had arrived.
Their suffering seemed to confirm the rumour. That day means darkness and trouble for the world. Trouble was what they were living through. The conclusion looked obvious.
The Thessalonians were suffering great trouble and persecution for the truth's sake. The false teachers turned this into that day, claiming that the day of the Lord had come... So the believers who were watching for that day, as the first letter shows, were troubled by this cry and shaken in mind. As we have seen, false teachers shake the righteous instead of comforting and steadying them.
What they feared is real enough — but it is not the believer's portion.
This idea that the day of the Lord had come brings nothing but trouble. Paul is not holding back the excitement of an empty hope. He is answering the gloom that comes from dread... That day is a time of judgment for sin. Yet God's mercy also makes it a time of new birth for Israel, and for many other nations too. But it is "a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time" (Daniel 12:1).
Paul names three routes the error took. One of them was deliberate fraud.
The attack was three-pronged: by spirit, by word and by letter. "By spirit" would mean someone claiming a supernatural revelation. John warns about this when he says, "test the spirits" (1 John 4:1). A fake revelation has an evil spirit behind it. "By word" would mean oral teaching. "By letter" would be, of course, a written message. About this he adds a specific detail — "as if it were by us."
Commentators point out that Paul does not say our letter. He says a letter claiming to be from us. So this was not a misreading of his first letter. It was a forgery.
He does not say it was his letter. If he had referred to the First Epistle, he would have said, the letter from us... Claiming that something false came from God is the worst kind of dishonesty. Forgery is a great sin... How often men stop being truthful once they lose the truth!
He does not begin by arguing. He appeals to what they already loved — the Lord's coming and their gathering to Him — and uses that hope as the answer to the fear.
They pretended in various ways that they had a revelation for it. They even claimed Paul himself as the author of their error. He utterly denies it... "Don't you know," he suggests, "that the Lord is coming to gather you all to Himself?" With this he appeals to the heart. With this he stirs their spiritual feelings against the lie. When the Lord does come, the first thing He will do is to gather those He loves to Himself.
The whole tangle unravels once two things are kept apart.
They did think that His "day" was not merely "at hand," which is true, but "present," which is false. Identify "the coming" with "the day" of the Lord, and all is confusion; keep them apart, and light comes at once.
- Pressure — real suffering made a false report believable. Hardship is when the enemy twists the meaning of what God is doing.
- Panic — "shaken" and "alarmed" describe fear, not eagerness. They thought the day of judgment had already begun.
- Present, not near — the claim was that the day had already arrived, and that single word is where the error sat.
- Three doors — a claimed revelation, spoken teaching, and a forged letter. Lose the truth, and truthfulness goes with it.
- Anchor — Paul steadies them with their hope, not with argument alone. The Lord comes to gather His own before that day breaks.
Let not any one deceive you in any manner, because [it will not be] unless the apostasy have first come, and the man of sin have been revealed, the son of perdition;
Paul writes to steady a church shaken by a report that the day of the Lord had already arrived. His answer is not reassurance but a timetable: two things must happen first, and neither has. (The writers below use older wording. They say "the falling away" for "the rebellion," "the man of sin" for "the man of lawlessness," and "son of perdition" for "son of destruction.")
The verse opens with a command. One writer says believers already hold all they need to obey it.
With the Word of God in our hands, the saints have no excuse for being deceived. Honest self-judgment and a real desire to do the will of God will keep the soul from falsehood, with the Word of God open before us… This passage tells us of Satan's masterpiece of deception. It will be shown publicly only after the Church is taken to glory, though its false teaching has gone before him into the world.
The words "that day will not come" were added by the translators. And "that day" is not the same event as the gathering of the saints.
The coming of the Lord is bound up closely with the gathering of the saints. The day of the Lord is bound up with the carrying out of judgment on His enemies here below… "That day shall not come" was put in by our translators, and so it is printed in italics, though I believe it is substantially correct. The "day" will come after the apostasy — the public abandonment of Christianity throughout the Christian world.
Much hangs on one small word: "the." It points to a definite event, not a general drift into sin.
The Authorised Version translators completely weakened the sense by rendering it "a" falling away. Beyond doubt it is "the apostasy." There is no ground at all for stripping the phrase of its deliberately definite force… It means abandonment, not corruption — just as in politics the word means revolt against authority.
The scale sets it apart, and so does how far it goes.
In 2 Thessalonians 2 it is no such partial turning away. It is the extreme and widespread desertion of the gospel. It will boldly end in the throwing off of all revealed truth. It will also throw off what may be called natural religion — the witness to God's divine nature in creation and in man's conscience.
The apostasy and the man of sin are two different things, and they come in order.
The first thing is the apostasy — not of the Jews (we have seen that in Daniel), but of the Christian world. It must happen before the judgment falls, before the day of Christ. So must the appearance of the "man of sin." He is clearly not the apostasy itself, but, I judge, follows it and brings it to its finish… He is the son of perdition, a name that belongs to him by his nature, his character, and his acts.
His title marks a deliberate opposite.
The abandonment of the Christian faith leads to another and worse development of evil: the revelation of "the man of sin, the son of perdition." He is to be the clear and personal contrast of Christ, the Man of righteousness, the Saviour of the lost. He will concentrate in himself the wickedness of man and the destructive power which Satan wields.
One writer explains what sin is at its root:
Now sin is lawlessness — the creature breaking loose from the control of the Creator, to assert and carry out its own will.
The second title links him to Judas.
He is called the "man of sin," because in this man we will see what happens when a man is left to do his own will, with no restraint from God or man. As in the case of Judas, he is called the "son of perdition," for just as Judas was a traitor among the favoured band of disciples who went about with the Lord, so this man will arise from the ranks of professing Christians. Both men are doomed to perdition, or utter destruction (John 17:12).
Commentators differ over naming this figure. Many have applied him to the Pope; Kelly refuses, and points instead to what really produces the apostasy.
I am aware that many people apply this to the Pope of Rome. I do not for a moment agree with them, though I regard that system as a frightful delusion… No, the apostasy is the result of despising the gospel, of playing with the truth, of keeping up forms that are not real, and then throwing them off with shame.
- Deceive — the verse begins with a warning. An open Bible and honest self-judgment guard the soul against Satan's masterpiece of deception.
- Abandon — "the apostasy" is definite. It is not slow corruption but open revolt: truth once professed and then thrown off.
- Reveal — the apostasy comes first. The man of sin follows it and brings it to its finish.
- Contrast — he is the opposite of Christ, the Man of righteousness. He is a man doing his own will, with no restraint from God or man.
- Perish — "son of perdition" was Judas' name too. Like Judas, this traitor rises from inside the circle of professed faith, and like Judas he is doomed to utter destruction.
who opposes and exalts himself on high against all called God, or object of veneration; so that he himself sits down in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Paul has just named the coming figure: "the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction." This verse tells us what he does. He sets himself against every object of worship and takes God's own seat. Two questions press: which temple is meant, and how could anyone accept such a claim?
The man refuses every god, then takes God's seat. One writer shows how the two acts belong together.
He "opposes and exalts himself above (or 'against') all that is called God." Every denial of God is in itself self-exaltation. Pride and self-will are behind it. Yet notice he opposes "all that is called God or that is worshipped." We know that alongside a true idea of God there are many false ideas. People call their many idols "God." But the man of sin will refuse all of these together, true or false, and make himself the object of veneration. "Sitting in the temple of God, he shows himself that he is God." The temple was not a place to sit, even for the high priest: "every priest stands daily at his service" (Heb. 10:11). But this man, who is not even a priest, will take the throne that belongs to God.
The passage is often read as a description of tyranny in government. One writer insists the emphasis falls elsewhere.
The character of the wicked one is religious here, or rather anti-religious. The apostle does not speak of a secular power of the world, whatever its wickedness may be. The man of sin takes on a religious character. He exalts himself against the true God, but he shows himself as God in the temple of God. Notice here that the sphere is on earth. He is not a god for faith. He shows himself as a god for the earth. The profession of Christianity has been abandoned. Sin then marks out an individual, a man. He fills up the measure of human nature's turning away from God. As a man, he proclaims his independence of God.
Some have taken "the temple of God" to mean the church. One writer gives two reasons for reading it as the building in Jerusalem instead.
Here we might think of the Church as the temple of God, except for two things. (1) He is an apostate. He does not profess Christianity at all, as we have seen the antichrist does not. (2) The connection with an abomination of desolation standing in the holy place is so simple, and it fits the conditions so well, that it is hard to suppose any temple other than the Jewish one is meant.
Others have applied the verse to the papacy. One commentator argues that the claim here goes far beyond it:
The lawless one is to be a sinner beyond sinners, the man of sin, who wants to be God. He claims the honour of the Supreme One on earth, in His temple. It is not a matter of mere earthly things or personal vain glory, like Herod in Acts 12… It is a mere imposture for the Pope to call himself vicar of Christ and head of the church on earth, while formally acknowledging the Lord in heaven. But for this reason he does not match the arrogant self-exaltation of this future enemy. That enemy raises himself above all that is called God, or any object of religious veneration.
Older English versions add two words here: "he as God sits in the temple of God." One writer explains what those words change.
There is not enough support for the words "as God"… They soften the force, where the true text leaves the claim in its full arrogance.
Line by line, this man inverts the life of Jesus.
On the page of Scripture and of eternal history, two men stand out as exact opposites. One is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Man of righteousness. The other is the man of sin, in whom the wickedness of the race comes to its peak. Jesus, being God, emptied Himself to become a servant. The other, only a man, shows himself in the temple that he is God… When they wanted to make Jesus king, He refused, for He had come to suffer, not to reign. The other takes the place of king and will exalt and magnify himself… Jesus was rejected and crucified. The man of sin will be accepted and worshipped.
Why would anyone welcome such a man? One writer says it is a further step beyond rejecting the true Messiah.
By and by the Jews will take the further step of receiving one who comes in his own name, and this as their Messiah. This will no doubt be the depth of moral darkness, for Scripture is not silent about the righteous and holy character of the LORD's Anointed.
- Opposes — he refuses every object of worship, true or false. He clears the field so that he can stand in it alone.
- Sits — priests stood and served. He takes the seat, claiming the throne that belongs to God.
- Where — commentators point to a temple in Jerusalem, not the church. This man gives up the Christian profession completely.
- Claims — the stronger reading drops "as God" and leaves the boast bare: he shows himself that he is God.
- Inverts — Christ, being God, emptied Himself and was rejected. This man, only a man, exalts himself and is welcomed.
Do ye not remember that, being yet with you, I said these things to you?
Paul has just described the apostasy and the man of sin, and then he stops mid-argument to ask a question. It is a reminder, not new information: he had said all of this out loud in Thessalonica, in a visit of only weeks.
The phrase does not mean other facts that would help them work out the answer. One writer says it points to the very truths Paul had just written. He also draws a lesson from their forgetting.
The apostle had already told them — not some other things which would enable them to understand these (as many take it), but these very things. The Thessalonians had already forgotten teaching they had received. That is a strong reminder of how much we need the written Word. God provided it for us, knowing this would happen. It is right for us to make sure, in every detail, that we have the exact words of Scripture to build our souls on.
The ground he covered in those few weeks is striking.
His time in Thessalonica was short. Even so, while he was there he had taught the disciples about the coming of the Lord. Reading the Epistle makes this completely clear. The disciples had learned that Jesus had delivered them from the wrath to come. They had learned about the resurrection, and about waiting for the Son of God from heaven. They knew they were called to suffer with Christ and to walk in holiness. They knew the Lord would come with fire for judgment, and come with all His saints. They knew that they would be caught up to meet the Lord, that the man of sin would be revealed, and that the mystery of lawlessness was already at work.
The people who received this teaching were not seasoned believers. They were recent converts, and the subject Paul chose for them is one many would call too advanced or too dark.
In the Second Epistle we find that Paul taught the newly converted Thessalonians about "the man of sin" who would be revealed. He is the great sinister figure of the last days, also known as the Antichrist. The Apostle did not think the subject unsuitable to put before recent converts.
Another writer goes further. Prophecy belongs to the youngest believers, he says, because of what it does in them:
We must not push prophetic truth into a place of "advanced teaching" kept for mature believers alone. It is to be taught and known and understood among new believers. It shapes the mind and forms Christian character. It guides the walk, warns of dangers and pitfalls, and guards against many doctrinal errors.
The question carries a mild reproach. A claim that the day of Christ had already come shook them, and they already held the answer.
The Thessalonians were not free of blame in the matter themselves. Neither are we, if we too get deceived. The apostle had already taught them what must come before the day of Christ. Evil must first come to a head in a movement — a "falling away" or an "apostasy." That movement would find its head in a man, the "man of sin," the "son of perdition." Neither of these had happened, so the day of Christ could not be present. He could appeal to them: "Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?" Careful attention to the instructions he had already given would have kept them from deception.
The Thessalonians had heard an apostle in person, and it still slipped away from them. That failure becomes an argument for something more durable than memory.
If only the Thessalonians had kept the spoken testimony in mind, they would have resisted the inroad of error better. But they, like us, should learn even from that failure how great the value of the written word is. Even the earliest tradition is unreliable. It needs the correcting hand of the Holy Spirit, and it receives it… How easy it is to let slip the words of the Lord, or what the apostle used to say!
The difference between them and us decides how we treat those writings:
The Thessalonian believers had these instructions in two ways — by word of mouth and by the written epistle. We have them in one way only. Let us therefore take the more earnest heed to the apostolic writings.
- Told — "These things" are not hints or background; They are the very truths Paul had just written, spoken aloud in Thessalonica long before they were written down.
- Taught — Paul stayed only a few weeks. In that time he covered the Lord's coming, the resurrection, the catching up of believers, the man of sin, and the lawlessness already at work.
- Trusted to beginners — Paul judged prophecy fit for brand-new converts. Commentators here treat it as teaching that shapes character and guards against error, not as advanced material.
- Forgotten — They were shaken by a lie they already had the answer to. Attention to what they had been given would have kept them steady.
- Written — Their lapse shows why God gave a written Word. Spoken teaching and even early tradition fade. We hold the apostle's instruction in one form only, so we heed it all the more.
And now ye know that which restrains, that he should be revealed in his own time.
Paul has just written about a coming man of sin. Now he tells the Thessalonians they already know why that figure has not yet appeared: something is holding him back until his appointed time. Two questions follow. What is this restraint, and why does Paul say so little about it?
Paul does not explain the restraint; he assumes it. He had taught these young believers in person, and commentators say the vagueness is on purpose.
It seems to me that the Spirit here speaks of the restraining influence and person with a studied vagueness. If we are wise, we will not rush to form conclusions. It must be remembered that the letter was an early one, written to young converts who had enjoyed the apostle's spoken teaching on this very matter.
Even so, the silence itself teaches something about the believer's future.
If the saints are not to know now what hinders the revelation of the man of sin, they may learn even from that one thing: they do not have to wait here for such a revelation. That is all I am pressing.
The restraint goes unnamed, but its size and character can still be worked out.
It is clear that what withholds or restrains must be a power greater than man or Satan, and completely opposite in nature to the man of sin. He is evil in bodily form — or rather, its head. So it makes sense that what restrains his revelation is the power of good, holding back the full showing of the lawless one for as long as God pleases.
Verse 6 speaks of a thing; verse 7 speaks of a person. Commentators differ on how to fill in each side.
The lawless one will only be revealed when the Lord comes for the saints of God and removes them from the scene of conflict. At present the forces of evil are under restraint — restraint is the meaning of the two words withholds and lets in verses 6 and 7. There is "He who restrains" and also "what restrains." The former, without doubt, refers to the Holy Spirit of God. He is on earth in person at this time, as He never was before and never will be again. The latter, we believe, refers to the presence of the church on earth. The church is the house of God, where the Holy Spirit lives.
Others read the "what" as human government, not the church.
The "what" in verse 6, unnamed by the apostle, is probably government. It is still true that "the authorities that exist have been instituted by God" (Rom. 13:1); and while this is so there is at least a measure of check on human will. But before long that will no longer be true. The supreme power in Christendom will receive his throne and authority straight from the dragon.
One reason for the vague wording is that the restraint has not always worn the same form.
"That which restrains" — the Greek means a thing. What is it? God has not told us what it is. No doubt this is because the thing that restrained then is not what restrains now. Then it was, in one sense, the Roman empire, as the early writers thought. They saw the power of that empire as a hindrance to the revelation of the man of sin, so they prayed that the empire would prosper. At present the hindrance is still the existence of the governments God has established in the world. He will keep them there as long as the gathering of His church is here below.
This restraint changes how believers face the evil around them.
The forces of evil are not allowed to proceed unchecked... In His government God will not allow evil to go beyond the limits He has set. That government continues while the saints are on earth. So we should never be alarmed by the drift away from the truths of God, or by the different kinds of evil that rear their heads in these days.
The restraint will not last for ever.
People do not know how much they owe to this restraint of Satan from doing his worst. But the time will come when God will cease to hinder; and then Satan will for a season carry all before him on the earth.
- Restraint assumed. Paul takes it that the Thessalonians already know the hindrance from his spoken teaching. The wording stays vague on purpose.
- Restraint measured. It must be a power greater than man and Satan, and opposite in nature to the man of sin.
- Restraint described. Verse 6 calls it a thing, verse 7 a person. Commentators differ: is the "what" the church on earth, or God-given government?
- Restraint shifting. Its form has changed. Once it was the Roman empire; now it is the governments God maintains while His church is here.
- Restraint removed. When it goes, the lawless one is revealed at his appointed time. Until then, evil stays inside limits God has set.
For the mystery of lawlessness already works; only [there is] he who restrains now until he be gone,
Paul has just told the Thessalonians that the day of the Lord cannot come before the falling away and the appearing of the man of sin. Here he explains why that man has not yet come. The evil is already running underground. Someone is holding back the moment it breaks the surface.
The word behind "lawlessness" links this verse to the person described a verse later. One writer says the two differ only as a thing differs from a person.
Here it is a question of this mystery of lawlessness; the apostasy or falling away is not a mystery. There is no need of a revelation to inform us that a man who denies Jesus Christ is not a Christian; he says it. But here it is an evil that has begun working inside the Christian world, in connection with Christianity. The lawless one will be the full revelation of that mystery. In most versions the words are translated "iniquity" and "wicked one." In the original they are the same word. One points to the thing, the other to the person.
The last words of the verse matter too. One writer compares the older English versions and finds "taken" too strong.
The Geneva Bible set the pattern in substance for the Authorised Version, but in both "taken" goes too far. "Till he withdraws" is perhaps acceptable, or "be out of the way."
In Scripture a mystery is something you could never guess. Someone has to tell you. That is why this evil can work for centuries and escape notice.
The mystery of iniquity is evil at work in a hidden way inside the church. It is like a seed meant to grow until the revolt. That revolt will run its course until it rises up openly against Christ shown in glory. While men were sleeping, the enemy sowed the weeds. God does not judge what is still only in the state of a mystery. A mystery is known only when it is revealed. Without that it stays hidden from all human understanding.
Paul does not put this in the future. Other New Testament writers say the same of their own day.
John tells us that the last time has already come. Paul says that the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Peter says the hour has arrived to judge the house of God. Jude says that those who would be judged at the end had already crept in unnoticed.
Paul does not name the restrainer. An early view pointed to the Roman Empire. One writer treats it as an outward hindrance that could be replaced, while the restrainer stays.
While the Roman empire lasted, it might be — and was — an outward hindrance. When it fell, other rulers appointed by God stood in the way. To have named only the Roman Empire would have been a mistake which divine wisdom avoided. The particular barrier might vary, and it did. But the restrainer remains, using "the powers that be" in providence.
Another writer argues from the size of the task.
Clearly the one who restrains must be a power greater than man and Satan. This power is completely different in nature from the man of sin. The restraining one is a power and a person. It is the Holy Spirit of God.
His removal does not bring the end at once. One writer sees a gap between the church's departure and the lawless one in full view.
I have no doubt at all that the hinderer is the power of the Spirit of God. He does not only live in the church; He acts to control the world. Suppose it were only the Holy Spirit living in the church. Then the man of sin would appear the moment the church was taken away. But it seems the lawless one will not reach his full growth and open display as soon as the saints are caught up. There will be an interval and a testimony which God will give. When this testimony disappears, or is put down by violence, the man of sin comes out fully.
The verse that shows evil at work also shows evil held back. That steadies the believer who feels its pressure.
We are aware of the growing power of evil in man's world, and of his complete inability to deal with it. How thankful we are to know that one result of the Holy Spirit's presence is His ability to restrain evil. However great the power of violence and corruption, all is under divine control. This truth brings comfort and assurance to the believer.
- Hidden — the evil is a mystery. It works inside the Christian profession, and only revelation exposes it.
- Present — it was already running in Paul's day, and John, Peter and Jude all say the same of theirs.
- Restrained — someone greater than man and Satan holds the man of sin back. The outward barrier has changed over the centuries. The restrainer has not.
- Released — when He withdraws, the restraint ends. After an interval of testimony, the lawless one stands out in the open.
- Reassuring — until then every outbreak of violence and corruption stays under divine control. That is why Paul tells us this.
and then the lawless one shall be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall consume with the breath of his mouth, and shall annul by the appearing of his coming;
The verse names the moment when hidden evil finally takes a face and a name, and then, in the same breath, names its end. Who is this figure? What does it mean to be killed "with the breath of His mouth"? And why does Paul say the appearing of His coming, not just His coming?
Paul has just spoken of lawlessness working secretly. The verse marks where that secret work surfaces in one man.
Here we see the link between the mystery, or secret, of lawlessness already at work and that result. It was going on when the apostle wrote. The hidden leaven of evil, the mystery of lawlessness, will keep working until it comes out in this person, the lawless one. Then it will be secret no longer. It will be out in the open, defying God and trampling on all truth in the world — a complete abandonment of all revelation, and a rising up in personal pride and hostility against the Lord Himself. This is the lawless one or the Antichrist of John.
Some translations read "that wicked one" here. That word is too weak, and the difference matters.
I fully agree with those who find the word "wicked" far too weak. It should be "that lawless one." All lawlessness is wickedness. But not all wickedness takes the shape of lawlessness. An unfaithful person may behave badly and still acknowledge a real authority above him. Lawlessness means not only evil, but the complete rejection of every authority above him.
The first half of the sentence describes the character of the judgment, not a weapon the Lord picks up.
The first of these two means — the breath of His mouth — marks the character of the judgment. It is the word of truth applied in judgment according to the power of God. In the Revelation, it says that the sword proceeds out of His mouth. Here He is not spoken of as a man of war, as in Revelation 19. The breath of His mouth is that inward and divine power which kindles and executes the judgment. It is not an instrument, it is the divine source of power which carries out its purpose by a word (compare Isaiah 30:33).
Some have read "the breath of His mouth" as the gospel gradually wearing the evil power down. The wording itself rules that out.
To consume is not to weaken. Analisko, the word here translated "consume," strictly means to take away, to destroy. It is the word used in Luke 9:54. There the disciples ask our Lord if they may call fire down from heaven to consume the Samaritans. Surely that means no slow weakening, but utter and sudden destruction. Nor does the phrase "breath of his mouth" mean the gospel, or the gracious influences of the Spirit… Look at Job 4:9 and 15:30; Isaiah 30:28 and 33; also Isaiah 11:4. They show that this phrase expresses judgment on the wicked, not the saving work of the Spirit of God.
Verse 1 of this same chapter speaks of the Lord's coming and the gathering of His people to Him. Verse 8 adds a word that verse 1 never uses.
The apostle does not say "the appearing of His coming" when Christ gathers the saints… Here the subject is the destruction of the man of sin. So he speaks not just of His coming, but of the appearing — the brightness — of His coming. If the Lord appears when He comes to gather His saints, why is His appearing not brought in there? He might come and be seen only as far as He pleased. But here we have the open showing of His arrival… When He comes to take up His saints, what has the world to do with it? They belonged to Him, not to the world. He does not make the world a spectator before He appears in glory to destroy the antichrist.
This verse settles what an older prophecy meant, and it marks off the age that follows from the one we live in now.
There is no dispute here: Paul gives Isaiah 11:4 its authoritative meaning. The Lord Jesus destroys the lawless one with the breath of His mouth, and annuls him by the shining forth of His presence or coming. The Lord's appearing will bring in and keep up a wholly new age of triumphant power in righteous government. That age stands apart from this day of grace, when Satan reigns, and those who are Christ's suffer, yet overcome by faith.
Two men meet here, and their histories run in opposite directions.
One Man once obeyed and humbled Himself on the earth. God has exalted Him and made Him Lord of all. He is the one who destroys the lawless man — the man who lifted himself above everything and made himself as God, instead of obeying God.
- Then — what has worked in secret since the apostle's day comes out in the open, in one man.
- Lawless — his sin is not just bad behaviour. It is the total refusal of any authority above himself.
- Breath — no weapon, no war, no campaign: the inward divine power that carries out its purpose by a word.
- Appearing — he falls not at the coming that gathers believers, but at its public shining out, which the world will see.
- After — his end is the door into a new age of righteous government, the one Isaiah promised.