Revealing the Man of Lawlessness

Thus far in our discussion of the Man of Lawlessness we have considered the difficulty of the passage, the vagueness of the description, the importance to the Dispensational model and the contextual and historical data. We saw that the coming and gathering together do not necessarily have to relate to the literal, physical Second Coming of Christ and, in fact, the fact that Thessalonians would send a letter to Paul to ask him if the Rapture had already taken place is ridiculous when considered.

So, we now will conclude this section of the Man of lawlessness by considering the several different options that have been proposed in history.

THE ANTICHRIST

The proposal most popular among Dispensationalist and most modern evangelicals is that this Man of Lawlessness is the Antichrist and the Beast of Revelation. As mentioned several times previously it is quite a popular concept to combine the descriptions of the Beast, the Antichrist and the Man of Lawlessness into one central character.

This is most popular among Dispensational proponents, but is also considered by many in Reformed circles as well, including the Reformers and the framers of the Westminster Confession of Faith. But, as we have stated before, there is nothing in Scripture that makes the connection. They may very well be connected but to bring the presuppositions of one character and use those presuppositions to be determinative of a different, possibly unrelated character, is dangerous exegesis.

But below are the bullet points in favor and against the idea that the Antichrist is the Man of Lawlessness

• This is the primary view of the Futurist / Dispensationalist and would be the popular evangelical view by default.

• This comes as a result of the difficulty in find historical options to fit the descriptions included.

• Makes claims of godhood like Antichrist is supposed to do. They problem here, of course, is that it is presupposed that the Antichrist will make claims of Godhood since, as we discovered, there is no such claims made in any passages that involve the Antichrist

• Apparently is revealed near Second Coming as the first first appears to claim

• Restrainer is Holy Spirit. This is the crux of the argument. The Holy Spirit is removed with the Church at the Rapture. This is the only place in all of Scripture that Dispensationalist can reach for this exposition.

BUT…

• Paul said the Thessalonians knew who was restraining the Man of Lawlessness. This dictates a first century fulfillment

• He was alive at Paul’s time but Paul argues that he currently being restrained

• The argument that the restrainer is the Holy Spirit is pure conjecture pulled from whole cloth. No where else does the Bible state anything close to the idea that the Holy Spirit would be removed from the earth. And consider this: This would mean that there will be world wide revival during the Tribulation (144,000) without the aid of the Holy Spirit! So during the Tribulation, the Dispensationalist must argue, man is brought to faith without the working of the Spirit.

• New Testament makes no mention of future temple. Again, this is just assumed and brought to the text without any other Scriptural corroboration. It is a necessary component of the system but has no Biblical data to support it. Plus this passage does not mention some future Temple, but the Temple currently in existence at the time.

• Context leads to first century fulfillment. As previously discussed, if the Thessalonians considered the coming, gathering together and Day of the Lord as references to the Rapture or Resurrection ti would do them no good to write to Paul and ask if they missed it? The obvious nature of the presupposed event would be so plain and the Apostle would have taken art as well and would be around to answer.

THE POPE

• This was the view of the Reformers and is stated so in the Westminster Confession of Faith

• The Pope, it is argued, symbolically seats himself in the Temple, which is now the Church (Hebrews). He claims to speak for God

• He promotes lawlessness with the use of indulgences, papal bulls and immoral and sinful activities

• The rebellion is a rebellion against God as leader of an apostate church.

BUT…

• This proposition contains very figurative views of lawlessness, apostasy and the Temple. It takes the passage too symbolically for Paul’s first century readers to ever get anything from it

• Paul said the Thessalonians knew who was restraining him, which also hurts the argument and furthers the problems of the first point of refutation directly above

• He was alive at Paul’s time - the one who was restraining him was doing so presently

• No explanation of the restrainer at all in this view

• Ulterior motive - The Reformers were men of their time and as those “rebelling” against the established Church it would serve a very positive purpose if they could align the Pope with this Man of Lawlessness

NERO

If the Beast and the Man of Lawlessness are one and the same it would be easy to make the case that the character in question in this passage in none other than Nero. He appears to be a very strong candidate and must be seriously considered.

• This is the view of Kenneth Gentry, Greg Bahnsen, RC Sproul, BB Warfield and many more incredible theologians. Anytime men of this caliber support a specific view it is at least worthy of our consideration

• Paul uses “code” out of fear of Roman repercussion in much the same way John would do in Revelation

• Lawless abounded in the actions of Nero both in the political and religious realm

• Nero sets himself up in the Temple with his claims to godhood and his desire to have his image located in all places of worship

• Restrained by either Claudius (claudere - which can mean “to restrain”) or Seneca, his trusted adviser he would later have killed. It is known that the early rule of Nero was rather calm as the result of Seneca’s influence. But, it should be noted the Nero’s lawless lifestyle predated his ascendancy to the throne. In that case it would have been Claudius who restrained Nero until Claudius was “removed” by suspicious manner with claims that Nero had him killed.

BUT

• Paul plainly claims he is to sit in the Temple and one would need to take this point figuratively for Nero to qualify. It is possible and this should not be considered a major critique

• The character appears more religious than political. This man is accompanied by “signs and wonders”

• The talk of the Temple would lead the reader to place the setting of these events in Jerusalem and Nero stayed primarily in Rome though his power spread throughout the entire kingdom

• Paul said the Thessalonians knew who was restraining him

• Nero is revealed in advance of the rebellion which is said to occur first. It should be stated, though, that his more evil inclinations would be more readily apparent after the rebellion in Jerusalem begins.

RELIGIOUS LEADER IN JERUSALEM

This argument is laid out well by Gary DeMar and is worthy of consideration. Though not a very famous character bu historical standards, the false High priest Phannius is a strong possibility. He was placed into his role by the Jewish zealots during the “rebellion” of Roman rule in Jerusalem. He performed lawless acts of worship and placed a chair in the “inner section” of the Temple where no furniture for sitting was allowed. The zealots were restrained by the Roman government, specifically the Judean governor at the time. This would be both a “he” and a “what.”

• View of Gary DeMar, David Chilton, Jay Adams, Hank Hanegraaff

• The Thessalonians were familiar with the man and the restrainer who would be seen both as a person and a thing as the passage shows

• The High Priest was murdered in the Temple by the zealots and replaced with a puppet High Priest named Phannius

• Phannius mocked the High Priestly rules by sitting in the Temple

• Lawless - performed lawless rituals / sacrifices

• The Roman authority (who and what) restrained the zealots until the Roman army retreat

• This took place right after the Jewish rebellion was noticed by Rome

• Was killed during the siege of Jerusalem which would tie this passage in with the Olivet discourse, which we showed in a previous post as a distinct probability.

BUT…

• Phannius was not a major historical character as many believe this man of Lawlessness need be

• He possessed to power of this own and was only placed into power by the zealots during the rebellion

I would personally favor the last two and I find, despite the lack of historical recognition, that the last candidate appears to meet the qualifications listed in the passage. Suffice it to say, though, that the passage can clearly be interpreted to be related to events surrounding the first century and does not need to have it taken out of it’s historical context and force it into some future event.