Introduction: 2 Thess. 2:1-12

This text is one of the most difficult in Scripture. Paul admits that he does not repeat all that he told them in person; therefore, we do not know what else he might have explained to them. We also recall that Peter wrote that Paul wrote some things that are "hard to be understood." (2 Peter 3:16.) Nevertheless, it is still profitable to study what is written in this text. There are some things that we can be certain about.

In our study on Wednesday nights, we noted that one of the prominent themes of these two letters to the saints at Thessalonica is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. It is mentioned in all of the eight chapters. In this chapter, Paul tries to calm the Christians about the Second Coming, especially that they should not be shaken or troubled. This indicates that some there were troubled by it and had many questions related to it. Some of those questions might be these. When will he come? Should we keep on working? What will happen? What about those who have died? Will they miss out on whatever is going on when Jesus returns?

Paul responds in this text to say that the day of his coming would not occur until something else happened first. This something else is the subject of our study tonight. It includes a general apostasy from the truth, the revelation of the man of sin, and something that withholds this revelation of the son of perdition for now. These are rather weighty things that Paul named---the man of sin, the son of perdition, an apostasy, the mystery of iniquity already at work, lying wonders after the working of Satan, a strong delusion sent from God, etc. It is one thing to be a sinner among others, but something or someone is here called "the man of sin." He is one who is lost, meaning of son of perdition, ruined and destined to destruction. The apostasy is directly linked to the man of sin. Whatever we decide about his identity will also define the nature of the apostasy. With so much time having elapsed since Paul wrote this, we have a more difficult task before us because we have so many possibilities to consider. The Christians at Thessalonica had the difficulty of trying to figure out what was in the future to them; we most often try to identify something in past between the first century and now. We should also consider the possibility that it might be also in the future to us as well.

We can say with certainty that he is someone that is very evil and the opposite of the Lord who is coming. He stands in bold contrast to the Righteous One. Sin cannot be attributed to the Lord because he was without sin. (Heb. 4:15.) We know that Judas was called "the son of perdition" by Jesus. "Those that thou gavest me I have kept and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled." (John 17:12.) The psalmist used some bold words similar to Paul’s in describing Judas.

"Set thou a wicked man over him and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned, and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few and let another take his office." (Psalm 109:6-8.) As in Paul’s words, we have Satan involved, the words "son of perdition," and his prayer becoming sin. Obviously, Judas belongs in the company of those used by Satan against the Lord. His sin was grievous. Even his prayer became sin or an abomination against the Lord. Even with all these things being similar, we should not conclude that Judas is the man of sin referred to in 2 Thess. 2:3. Judas had already completed his evil act of betrayal before Paul wrote these words. However, this might be included in the final decision about the identity of the son of perdition. I will show how in a moment.

Some interpreters identify the man of sin with historical characters such as Nero, Caligula, Mohammed or Napoleon. The Roman rulers were known for their carnality and brutality. Others did oppose Christianity with great fervor. But the obvious objection is that the man of sin was to continue in power until he is destroyed by the coming of Jesus Christ.

For centuries, the Protestants held the position that the Pope in Rome, or the papacy, was the man of sin and that the restraining power was the Roman Empire. Writers showed that the Pope sits in the temple exalting himself as God, or sitting in the place of the Lord. (2:4.) Catholics do not respect the authority of Scripture for the church to follow. They place the traditions of the church over the authority of Scripture. They forbid what the Lord allows (marriage, eating of meats, right to partake both elements of the communion, etc.). Celibacy has the cause of much sin, harming many innocent young lives by priests. Many of the Popes were evil---committing murder, worshipping idols, waging war, forbidding the common man the right to study the Scriptures, etc. See the lengthy list of given by Albert Barnes on 2 Thessalonians, pages 80-84. Barnes concludes, "How can it be doubted that the reference here is to the papacy?"

Some put all these expressions together and call this one evil being "the Antichrist." Augustine wrote, "No one can doubt that Paul is here speaking of Antichrist." (Ancient Christian Commentary, Vol. 9, 109.) This expression has been made popular from commentaries on the book of Revelation. There are several problems with such a view. Anti-Christ is a word not found in Revelation at all, though the meaning is accurate. There are those who oppose Jesus and Christians in Revelation. The word is found in four New Testament texts; all of them are found in John’s epistles of first and second John. (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7.) The word is not found in 2 Thessalonians 2. When John first referred to those who oppose Jesus, he called them antichrists (plural). When the singular is used, it does not mean that there is only one. Anyone who denies Christ is antichrist.

(1 John 2:22.) In the second epistle, John wrote, "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." (2 John 7.)

Another possible view is that the man of sin is the principle of lawlessness that opposes God. This evil principle has been embodied in many institutions and systems that oppose the faith of God. Lawlessness is encouraged and incited by the mystery of iniquity. Satan is behind all evil and all that seeks to destroy the work of God. Judas was only one son of perdition. There are many others. For those who desire wrong instead of right, God will send to them a strong delusion so that they will believe the lies of Satan and be condemned.

The only power that restrained the apostasy in the first century was the presence of Jesus and his apostles. After their deaths, many opposed the Gospel and challenged the will of God. Jesus and the apostles may have been the restraining force that held back the apostasy.

One explanation of the apostasy from the Papacy is the falling away from the Catholic Church by the Reformers. From among their own priests and preachers, men challenged the basic positions of the Catholic authority. I doubt that Paul had something in mind that would occur in the fifteenth century AD. Paul wrote that the mystery of iniquity was already at work. It seems too convenient to argue that the Reformation is the falling away, though from the viewpoint of followers of the Pope it seems to fit.

Similarly, the Restoration Movement is based upon a similar explanation. We have been taught that both the Catholic and the Reformation Movements constitute the apostasy. (Our emphasis has been more on the Protestant errors than the Catholics.) Therefore, there is a need to go back to the Scriptures to re-establish the truth of God and the original church. This gives justification for another religious movement establishing yet another religious body. The restorers tried diligently to keep this from happening. Thomas Campbell saw it coming and did not want to be in the lead if that was the result. Alexander also wanted all followers of Christ to be united in one body, but was not as afraid of what might happen if the idea was rejected.

Whether we are right or not concerning what constitutes the apostasy, it is obviously true that many false religious traditions have arisen over the past centuries that need to be removed. Like peeling an onion, layer after layer must be peeled back to find the core of the Gospel. Human traditions and laws must be rejected. We must always respect the will of God as stated in Scripture and ask, What does the Bible teach about this?

Since the Second Coming has not yet occurred, it is possible that the apostasy and the man of sin are yet to come. We assume that it must be something that has already occurred. This points out the difficulty of knowing for sure what Paul had in mind in this text. The difficulty is clearly identifying the man of sin and the apostasy, however, the general truths stated are easy enough to grasp. Here they are: 1) The second coming was not imminent. Some other things would happen before Jesus returned. 2) A great apostasy would happen before Jesus returned. 3) The man of sin would be revealed and destroyed by the coming of Jesus.

I believe in the general principle of restoration. Jesus said, "Now the parable is this: the seed is the Word of God." (Luke 8:11.) This means that the Kingdom on earth was established in the first place by the planting of the Word of God. If apostasies carry the people of God away into captivity or into error, the Kingdom can be re-established by planting the simple Word of God again.

Following the restoration principle involves a risk. The risk is simply this: Going back to the Bible may challenge us to change something that we believe or practice. But change is a fearful thing, especially in religion. We are prone to think that any change is due to liberalism. But if we faithful to the restoration principle we will accept change in what we believe if it is shown that we are following only human traditions. We must be just as willing to change as we demand and expect others to change. The restoration principle is not valid if it cannot function as a living and viable principle. It is not valid unless we are willing to take the risk that goes with an honest attempt to understand and be guided by the teaching of the New Testament. It is blindness for us to see the errors of others and see none in ourselves. (Roy Bowen Ward, Pepperdine Lectures, 1964-65, 61-62.)

We should learn from other efforts at restoration, like the one in Josiah’s day. Outwardly, Josiah’s reforms looked very successful, but it was a spiritual failure. In the end, Judah was carried into captivity just like the ten northern tribes. The failure of Josiah’s restoration teaches us the danger of criticizing false ways instead of practicing right ways. The Pharisees were another attempt at restoration. They failed because they fell into the trap of mote hunting in others, but could not see the beam in their own eyes.

The failure of Josiah’s reform reminds us of the personal nature of the God-man relationship. It reminds us that no one becomes a Christian by legislating it. No one becomes a Christian by trying to Christianize society. The world cannot become the church. A nation is not Christian; individuals are. The failure of Josiah’s reforms and the Pharisee’s exclusive claims teaches us the danger of concentrating on externals rather than on the heart. Our restoration plea must involve some externals like proper organization of the church, but pre-eminently it must be internal change.

Jeremiah wrote, "Faithless Israel has shown herself less guilty than false Judah." (Jer. 3:11.) May the day come again when a captive people will be judged better than the children of the restoration. (Thayer Salisbury, "Restoration Dangers," Restoration Quarterly, 103-104.)

We should live by faith because the Lord is coming again.