Contributed by Vox Ratio.
According to Paul, the characteristics of the Man of Lawlessness (herein M-O-L) originate with the Devil and are almost exclusively concerned with lying, deceit, and error. It would seem that it is the Man’s mendacity that allows for his rise to power, and so in a very literal sense then, the Devil is in the details. Although any number of people, kings, regimes, or governments could make possible candidates for the role, it is the use of portents (τερασ) in Paul’s description which leads me to believe that it is credibly a religious entity. For which king, regime, or government is in the business of performing mystical wonders for their people?
In addition, there could be a link between the prophetic utterances of Paul at 1 Timothy. 4:1-3 and 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12. Consider:
• Both accounts relate a future time to that of Paul (2 Thessalonians. 2:1; 1 Timothy. 4:1)
• Both accounts relate that the time will be one of spiritual deception.
• Both accounts relate that the deception arises from the spirit realm.
• Both accounts relate that the deception will be wrought through lies (2 Thessalonians. 2:9; 1 Timothy. 4:2)
Given that Paul’s address to Timothy is undoubtedly a concern against counterfeit religious authority, then if these parallels are manifestations of the same influence it is difficult to dismiss the notion that the M-O-L is, in fact, some type of religious entity as well.
Furthermore, Paul also gives another striking clue as to the M-O-L’s identity when he reveals how one can be saved from him; in particular, by having a “love of the truth” -2 Thessalonians. 2:10) Why this clue narrows the focus is because it is difficult to see how loving the truth is able to save someone from carnal terrestrial power, or from the effects of civil strife or political fiat. Yet, a love of the truth is capable of shielding someone against deception writ large and thus being saved from the M-O-L’s influence.
What, though, of the restraint (κατεχον) that Paul stated was detaining the work of the M-O-L even in his day?
Some commentators have thought that the restraining one was in fact imperial Rome. It is thought that following the dissolution of Rome in 476 C.E. the Church itself amassed great political clout and thus solidified its breach from early Christianity. While it is certainly true that the Church did amass great political authority during and after this time, the identification of the restraining one to a political entity seems contrary to Paul’s initial disclosure about both the traits that would characterise the M-O-L as well as the timing of his arrival. Regarding the latter, the Church was not immediately corrupted following Rome’s demise, but had already been involved in trying to quell not a few ecclesiastical rebellions up to and including the time of its political ascension. For the purposes of identification, however, it is more important to recognise the strategies employed by the M-O-L than the duration of his tenure. Recall that the operation of the M-O-L is instigated by Satan and accords with all kinds of deception, lying and wonders (2 Thessalonians. 2:9) Yet, are we really to think that a political entity at the helm of Satan’s kingdom is actually the restraint against the very operation of Satan himself? Did not Jesus remind us that if Satan were to expel Satan then his kingdom surely could not stand? -Matthew 12:26.)
As a result, the natural question that thus arises is this: if Rome, or any specific Roman emperor, was likely not the restraint that Paul spoke of then who, or what, was? Furthermore, are contemporary Christians even able to speak of such a restraint in the past tense?
In seeking to resolve these questions, I find it useful to think about the single greatest defeater for any deception. Also, what can possibly restrain a lie and what sort of thing is capable of exposing a deceitful work? I can think of nothing more significant than the truth of a matter. It is truth that exposes a lie for what it is and it is truth that cannot reflect duplicity. Indeed, from truth only truth comes; and there is no greater monitor to the truth of a matter than the spirit of truth itself – God’s holy spirit (compare. John. 14:17; 16:3) So is God’s spirit the restraining one spoken about in Paul’s warning? One could certainly be forgiven for thinking so, but there are good reasons to doubt this interpretation as well. For instance, the spirit of truth was promised by Christ to be present with his disciples forever and yet Paul informs us that the restraining one was present in his time but will be removed (compare. John. 14:16). In light of Jesus’ promise, can it rightly be argued that God’s spirit would be removed from the Church? It is difficult to see how this would be the case, especially in lieu of the later promise that Christ would be with his disciples until the end of the age (αιων); implying, at the very least, that faithful followers would exist up to and including this time (compare. Matthew. 28:20.)
So if it is not the Spirit in toto that is this restraint, then what other candidate would have been capable of preventing the M-O-L from flourishing when Paul wrote to the Thessalonians?
Although most translations have Paul describing the restraint as a person, the Greek (both the Majority Text and the Alexandrian traditions) have ο κατεχον (the restraint) with the subject being only implied. Nevertheless, for the κατεχον to hold fast it must be working actively against deception and therefore be an influence for truth. My current opinion is that Paul was referring to his own spirit filled influence and authority – and by extension that of his apostolic brethren – when referring to the κατεχον .
For evidence in support of this, consider that Paul was ostensibly not averse to speaking about himself in the third person, since elsewhere he relates familiarly about a blissful vision with details peculiar to a first person experience without referring to himself explicitly (2 Corinthians. 12:1) Moreover, he also described to those in Ephesus that following his departure corruption and oppression would set in amongst them, thus lending credence to the notion that it was Paul’s own influence that was keeping such exploitation restrained (Acts. 20:29.)
Ultimately, the question of the M-O-L ’s identity will likely intrigue laymen and exegetes alike for as long as there is ink to spill. For a certainty, though, his influence will also beguile the disinterested and dismissive until the return of Christ – unless, of course, they also learn to “love the truth”.