Man Of Sin

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

( 2 Thessalonians 2:3; Revised Version margin ‘man of lawlessness,’ substituting the better reading ἀνομίας for ἁμαρτίας of Textus Receptus)

Apart from such apparent references to the subject as  2 Corinthians 6:15,  Colossians 2:15, St. Paul’s doctrine of the Antichrist is found in the passage  2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, in which he associates ‘the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ’ with a previous ‘falling away’ or apostasy (ἀποστασία) and the revelation of ‘the man of lawlessness,’ whom he also designates ‘the son of perdition’ ( 2 Thessalonians 2:3), ‘the opponent’ (ἀντικείμενος) of God ( 2 Thessalonians 2:4), ‘the lawless one’ (ὁ ἄνομος,  2 Thessalonians 2:3), whose future revelation in his own time, however, is anticipated even now by a working of ‘the mystery of lawlessness’ ( 2 Thessalonians 2:7). The revelation of the man of lawlessness, he further says, is delayed by a restraining power which he refers to in  2 Thessalonians 2:6 as an impersonal influence (τὸ κατέχον) and in  2 Thessalonians 2:7 as an actual person (ὁ κατέχων). From the days of the early Fathers the interpretations of this passage have been exceedingly various. A good summary of the history of previous opinion is given by H. Alford ( Gr. Test. 5, iii. [1871], Proleg., p. 55 ff.), but modern scholars are agreed in holding that the Apostle was speaking of an apocalypse of evil which was only a crowning manifestation of contemporary influences hostile to God and His Kingdom ( 2 Thessalonians 2:7), and of a restraining power within the knowledge of the Thessalonians themselves ( 2 Thessalonians 2:6). They are also generally agreed in the view that the two magnitudes which underlay the Apostle’s cryptic language in regard to the man of lawlessness and the restrainer are to be found in Judaism and the Roman Empire as represented by its ruler. But at this point opinion divides into two exactly contradictory theories, each of which is able to point to some favouring considerations in the language used by the Apostle.

(1) According to one theory the man of lawlessness is Roman Imperialism with the Emperor at its head, while the restraining power is Judaism (for a clear and able exposition of this view see B. B. Warfield in Expositor , 3rd ser. iv. [1886] 40 ff.). The deification of the Emperors, and especially Caligula’s attempt to set up his statue in the Temple of Jerusalem (cf. E. Schürer, HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People (Eng. tr. of GJV).]I. ii. [1890] 98 ff.), certainly afford a very direct explanation of the language of v. 4 as to the blasphemous pretensions of the man of lawlessness. Moreover, the early history of Christianity suggests that it was part of the Divine plan that the new religion should be developed for a time under the protecting shadow of Judaism as a religio licita . The failure of the Roman authorities at first to distinguish the Church from the Synagogue (cf.  Acts 18:14-16) did shelter the former in its days of weakness from the persecuting rage of pagan Imperialism that burst upon it as soon as its separateness and its absolute claims were clearly recognized. But the objection to this theory is that it attributes to St. Paul, whose authorship of 2 Thess. may now be assumed with some confidence, an attitude to Judaism and to Rome respectively which finds no counterpart either in the Thessalonian Epistles or in any other of his writings. It was from Judaism, not from the Empire, that the opposition and persecution he had to encounter as the Apostle of Christianity invariably came ( 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16; cf. Acts, passim ). The philosophic historian may see in Judaism the protective sheath of the opening bud of Christianity; but it was not so that St. Paul regarded it. On the contrary, the language in which he describes its treatment of Christ and the gospel, and his denunciation of the wrath of God upon it ( 1 Thessalonians 2:15 f.), suggest that the ‘mystery of iniquity’ already at work ( 2 Thessalonians 2:7) was nothing else than the secret ferment of its own anti-Christian spirit. And Rome with its Emperor could hardly be the man of lawlessness to St. Paul, not only because it had not yet begun to persecute the Church, but because he sincerely respected its authority as a power ordained of God ( Romans 13:1-7), and did not hesitate to appeal to Caesar himself against his Jewish enemies ( Acts 25:10 f.).

(2) The other and more probable theory, accordingly, takes the man of lawlessness to be anti-Christian Judaism coming to a head in the person of a pseudo-Messiah, and the restraining power to be the Roman Empire personified in the Caesar himself. It is sometimes objected that under this theory an insuperable difficulty is presented by  2 Thessalonians 2:4, as it would be contrary to the rôle of a Jewish Messiah to sit in the Temple of God and set himself forth as God. But this is to overlook the fact that we have to do here with an apocalyptic picture coloured with the language of an OT apocalypse (cf.  Daniel 11:36) and influenced by the Antichrist tradition which had been developing in Judaism ever since the days of Antiochus Epiphanes (see articleAntichrist, 1). To St. Paul as a Rabbinical scholar the portentous figure of the Jewish Antichrist, Satanic, blasphemous, and God-defying, must have been very familiar. His familiarity with it may be traced not only in the language of  Daniel 11:4, but in the references to the Beliar-Satan conception which are present in the passage. In  Daniel 11:9 the coming of the man of lawlessness is said to be ‘according to the working of Satan.’ And E. Nestle has pointed out ( Expository Times xvi. [1904-05] 472) that on the evidence of the Septuagintand Aquila ἡ ἀποστασία ( Daniel 11:3) is a rendering of Heb. בְּלִיַעַל, ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας ( Daniel 11:3) of אִישׁ בְּלִיַעַל (‘man of Belial’), and ὁ ἀντικείμενος ( Daniel 11:4) of שָׂטָן. The Jewish conception of the Antichrist, not as a mere political figure but as an eschatological monstrosity in the shape of a diabolic opponent of God, St. Paul boldly transfers from the sphere of paganism in which Jewish apocalyptic had placed it, and sets down in the sphere of Judaism itself. Out of Judaism he pictured the Antichrist as coming, though there are features in his representation which imply that the sway of the man of lawlessness would extend far beyond the confines of Judaism-that he would cause an apostasy in the Church ( Daniel 11:3), that he would break down the restraining power of the Empire ( Daniel 11:7), that he would draw after him a deluded and perishing world ( Daniel 11:10-12). In the persistent malevolence of his own race against Christ and the gospel, the Apostle saw the mystery of iniquity working; but he conceived of that malevolence as culminating at length in the appearance of an Antichrist endowed with Satanic and superhuman qualities, who would deceive men by ‘power and signs and lying wonders’ (v. 9ff.; cf.  Mark 13:21-23), and whose hostility to the truth of God which brings salvation would reach its climax in the blasphemous claim to be himself Divine. Then Christ would return to a world now ripe for judgment, slaying the lawless one with the breath of His mouth, and bringing him to nought by the manifestation of His coming (v. 8).

Literature.-Besides the references given in the article, and the Literature appended to articleAntichrist, see A. Sabatier, The Apostle Paul , Eng. translation, 1891, p. 117 ff.; B. Weiss, Biblical Theology of the NT , Eng. translation, i. [1882] 305 ff.; J. Moffatt, The Historical NT , 1901, p. 142 ff., Introd. to Literature of the New Testament (Moffatt). , 1911, p. 76 ff.

J. C. Lambert.

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible

MAN OF SIN (or ‘ lawlessness ’). Probably the equivalent in   2 Thessalonians 2:3-10 of Antichrist (wh. see). According to the Pauline view, the Parousia would be preceded by an apostasy of believers and the appearance of the ‘man of lawlessness,’ ‘who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God’ (  2 Thessalonians 2:3 f.). The appearance of this evil one and his oppression of the believers were prevented by some force or person. In course of time, however, this restraint was to be removed. The wicked one would exercise his power until the Christ should come to destroy him (  2 Thessalonians 2:6-8 ).

The precise references of this statement are beyond final discovery. It is, however, commonly believed that the reference is to some historical person, possibly the god-emperor of Rome. Such a reference is, however, very difficult if 2 Thess. was written by St. Paul, for at the time of its composition the Roman State had not become a persecutor. The ‘one who restrains’ is also difficult to identify if the ‘man of lawlessness’ be the Roman emperor. For that reason it may be best to refer the ‘man of lawlessness’ to the Jewish people or their expected Messiah, and ‘he that restraineth’ to the Roman power. This interpretation is supported by the fact that in his letters to the Thessalonians, St. Paul regards the Jews as persecutors, while throughout Acts the Roman State is presented as a protector of the Christians. This identification, however, does not satisfactorily explain the reference to ‘sitting in the temple.’ It is, therefore, probably better not to attempt a precise historical interpretation of either the ‘man of lawlessness’ or ‘him that restraineth,’ but to regard the former as a reference to the expected Antichrist, and the latter to some unidentified personal influence that led to the postponement of his appearance.

Shailer Mathews.

Holman Bible Dictionary

 2 Thessalonians 2:3Antichrist

Easton's Bible Dictionary

 2 Thessalonians 2:3-10

American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

See Antichrist .

Morrish Bible Dictionary

See ANTICHRIST.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

( ὁ ἄνθρωτος τῆς ἁμαρτίας , ho anthrōpos tḗs hamartı́as  ; many ancient authorities read, "man of lawlessness," ἀνομίας , anomı́as ):

1. The Pauline Description:

The name occurs in Paul's remarkable announcement in  2 Thessalonians 2:3-10 of the manifestation of a colossal anti-Christian power prior to the advent, which some of the Thessalonians had been misled into thinking of as immediately impending (  2 Thessalonians 2:2 ). That "day of the Lord," the apostle declares, will not come till, as he had previously taught them ( 2 Thessalonians 2:5 ), there has first been a great apostasy and the revelation of "the man of sin" (or "of lawlessness"; compare  2 Thessalonians 2:8 ), named also "the son of perdition" ( 2 Thessalonians 2:3 ). This "lawless one" ( 2 Thessalonians 2:8 ) would exalt himself above all that is called God, or is an object of worship; he would sit in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God ( 2 Thessalonians 2:4 ). For the time another power restrained his manifestation; when that was removed, he would be revealed ( 2 Thessalonians 2:6 ,  2 Thessalonians 2:7 ). Then "the mystery of lawlessness," which was already working, would attain its full development ( 2 Thessalonians 2:7 ,  2 Thessalonians 2:8 ). The coming of this "man of sin," in the power of Satan, would be with lying wonders and all deceit of unrighteousness, whereby many would be deceived to their destruction ( 2 Thessalonians 2:9 ,  2 Thessalonians 2:10 ). But only for a season ( 2 Thessalonians 2:6 ). Jesus would slay (or consume) him with the breath of His mouth (compare  Isaiah 11:4 ), and bring him to nought by the manifestation of His coming ( 2 Thessalonians 2:8 ).

2. The Varying Interpretations:

Innumerable are theories and speculations to which this Pauline passage has given rise a very full account of these may be seen in the essay on "The Man of Sin" appended to Dr. J. Eadie's posthumous Commentary on Thessalonians , and in Lunemann's Commentary , 222 ff, English translation). (1) There is the view, favored by "moderns," that the passage contains no genuine prediction (Paul "could not know" the future), but represents a speculation of the apostle's own, based on   Daniel 8:23 ff;   Daniel 11:36 ff, and on current ideas of Antichrist (see Antichrist; Belial; compare Bousset, Der Antichrist , 93 ff, etc.). This view will not satisfy those who believe in the reality of Paul's apostleship and inspiration. (2) Some connect the description with Caligula, Nero, or other of the Roman emperors. Caligula, indeed, ordered supplication to be made to himself as the supreme god and wished to set up his statue in the temple of Jerusalem (Suet. Calig . xxii. 33; Josephus, Ant. , Xviii , viii). But this was long before Paul's visit to Thessalonica, and the acts of such a madman could not furnish the basis of a prediction so elaborate and important as the present (compare Lunemann and Bousset). (3) The favorite Protestant interpretation refers the prediction to the papacy, in whom, it is contended, many of the blasphemous features of Paul's representation are unmistakably realized. The "temple of God" is here understood to be the church; the restraining power the Roman empire; "the man of sin" not an individual, but the personification of an institution or system. It is cult, however, to resist the impression that the apostle regards "the mystery of lawlessness" as culminating in an individual - a personal Antichrist - and in any case the representation outstrips everything that can be conceived of as even nominally Christian. (4) There remains the view held by most of the Fathers, and in recent times widely adopted, that "the man of sin" of this passage is an individual in whom, previous to the advent, sin will embody itself in its most lawless and God-denying form. The attempts to identify this individual with historical characters may be set aside; but the idea is not thereby invalidated. The difficulty is that the apostle evidently conceives of the manifestation of the "man of sin" as taking place, certainly not immediately, but at no very remote period - not 2,000 years later - and as connected directly with the final advent of Christ, and the judgment on the wicked (compare  2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 ), without apparently any reference to a "millennial" period, either before or after.

It seems safest, in view of the difficulties of the passage, to confine one's self to the general idea it embodies, leaving details to be interpreted by the actual fulfillment.

3. The Essential Idea:

There is much support in Scripture - not least in Christ's own teaching (compare  Matthew 13:30 ,  Matthew 13:37-43;  Matthew 24:11-14;  Luke 18:8 ) - for the belief that before the final triumph of Christ's kingdom there will be a period of great tribulation, of decay of faith, of apostasy, of culmination of both good and evil ("Let both grow together until the harvest,"  Matthew 13:30 ), with the seeming triumph for the time of the evil over the good. There will be a crisis-time - sharp, severe, and terminated by a decisive interposition of the Son of Man ("the manifestation of his coming," the Revised Version margin "Gr presence"), in what precise form may be left undetermined. Civil law and government - the existing bulwark against anarchy (in Paul's time represented by the Roman power) - will be swept away by the rising tide of evil, and lawlessness will prevail. It may be that impiety will concentrate itself, as the passage says, in some individual head; or this may belong to the form of the apostle's apprehension in a case where "times and seasons" were not yet fully revealed: an apprehension to be enlarged by subsequent revelations (see Revelation , Book Of ), or left to be corrected by the actual course of God's providence. The kernel of the prediction is not, any more than in the Old Testament prophecies, dependent on its literal realization in every detail. Neither does the final manifestation of evil exclude partial and anticipatory realizations, embodying many of the features of the prophecy. See Thessalonians , Second Epistle To , III.

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

( Ὁ Ἃνθρωπος Τῆς Ἁμαρτίας ) , an impersonation of the sinful principle spoken of by the apostle Paul in an emphatic manner ( 2 Thessalonians 2:3). The context ( 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4) gives the following attributes or synonymous titles:

(1.) Apostasy ( Ἡ Ἀποστασία , "a [rather The] falling away"), which precedes ( Πρῶτον ) the appearance ( Ἀπακαλυφθῇ );

(2.) Son Of Perdition ( Ὁ Υἱὸς Τῆς Ἀπωλείας , i.e. one sprung from the fall (compare "that wicked"), and doomed to its penalty (comp.  2 Thessalonians 2:8);

(3.) a Persecutor ( Ὁ Ἁντικείμενος ) , especially of God's cause and government;

(4.) a Blasphemer ( Ὑπεραιρόμενος , etc.), i.e. one arrogating divine honors, and claiming to work miracles ( 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10). This is evidently an assemblage of the most striking characteristics of former Antichrists in Scripture, especially the "little horn" of Daniel. As that prophecy referred particularly to Antiochus Epiphanes, this passage must be understood as employing the conventional Scriptural language symbolically to indicate a then (and perhaps still) future effort on the part of some hostile power to overthrow Christianity, and induce its professors to renounce it. Such a peril is clearly intimated in several other passages of the N.T. (e.g.  Mark 13:22;  2 Timothy 3:1;  2 Timothy 3:13;  Revelation 20:8). But we are not to confine the prophecy to any one type of Antichrist; "in whomsoever these distinctive features are found — whoever wields temporal or spiritual power in any degree similar to that in which the Man of Sin is here described as wielding it-he, be he pope or potentate, is beyond all doubt a distinct type of Antichrist" (Ellicott, note, ad loc.). For a history of opinion on this passage, see Alford, Gr. Test. 3, proleg. p. 55 sq. (See Antichrist).

The Nuttall Encyclopedia

Name given in 2Thess. ii. 3 to the incarnation at the height of its pride of the spirit of Antichrist, synchronous with the day of its fall.