Monthly Archives: January 2023

Who is the Man of Lawlessness?

Posted on by

Gary DeMar – original source: https://americanvision.org/posts/paul-s-man-of-lawlessness/

In his description of the man of lawlessness, Paul makes it clear that he had a contemporary figure in mind. First, he tells the Thessalonians that “the mystery of lawlessness is already at work” (2 Thess. 2:7).

Second, the Thessalonians knew what was presently restraining the man of lawlessness: “And you know what restrains him now” (2:6). Paul does not write, “You know what will restrain him.” In addition, Paul affirms that “only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way” (2:7). While there is a great deal of speculation on the identity of the restrainer, from these time-text passages we know that he was restraining in Paul’s day. Without ever being able to identify the man of lawlessness we can conclude that he appeared and disappeared in the first century.

It is highly unlikely, if we take the futurist position, that the restrainer could have been active in Paul’s day and throughout history, since the restraint was only necessary when the man of lawlessness was alive. If the man of lawlessness was not alive when Paul wrote, then why did he clearly state that the Thessalonians knew what and who was restraining the man of lawlessness? Benjamin B. Warfield summarizes this section of 2 Thessalonians 2 for us:

The withholding power is already present. Although the Man of Sin is not yet revealed, as a mystery his essential “lawlessness” is already working—“only until the present restrainer be removed from the midst.” He expects him to sit in the “temple of God,” which perhaps most naturally refers to the literal temple in Jerusalem, although the Apostle knew that the out-pouring of God’s wrath on the Jews was close at hand (I Thess. ii. 16). And if we compare the description which the Apostle gives of him with our Lord’s address on the Mount of Olives (Mt. xxiv), to which, as we have already hinted, Paul makes obvious allusion, it becomes at once in the highest degree probable that in the words, “he exalteth himself against all that is called God, or is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the sanctuary of God showing himself that he is God,” Paul can have nothing else in view than what our Lord described as “the abomination of desolation which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (Mt. xxiv. 15); and this our Lord connects immediately with the beleaguering of Jerusalem (cf. Luke xxi. 20).[1]

Third, the Thessalonians thought that the day of the Lord had come. Paul exhorts his readers: Do not be “quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come” (2 Thess. 2:2).

Paul was not correcting a belief of the Thessalonians that the day of the Lord was “near” or “at hand,” as some translations have it (e.g., KJV and ASV). If so, Paul would have been contradicting himself and the rest of the New Testament since they state that the day of the Lord was near (e.g., Rom. 13:12; James 5:8; Rev. 1:1, 3). “All the Apostles believed that the day was near (1 Cor. xv. 51; James v. 8, 9; 1 Pet. iv. 7; 1 John ii. 18; Rev. xxii. 20), and their watchword was ‘Maranatha,’ ‘the Lord is near.’”[2] 

Those who hold a futurist perspective understand the implications of what Paul writes concerning the nearness of the day of the Lord. This is why a number of them force the text to read “is near” instead of the more accurate “is present.” The Greek word translated “is present” is found in six places in the New Testament in addition to 2 Thessalonians 2:2. In each case, “present” and not “near” is the best translation (Rom. 8:38; 1 Cor. 3:22; 7:26; Gal. 1:4; 2 Tim. 3:1; Heb. 9:9. “Is near,” therefore, is not in keeping with the meaning of the word.

[1] Benjamin B. Warfield, “The Prophecies of St. Paul,” Biblical and Theological Studies, ed. Samuel G. Craig (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968), 472.

[2] F. W. Farrar, Texts Explained or Helps to Understand the New Testament (Cleveland, OH: F.M. Barton, 1899), 178.

Facebook comments – Gary Demar:

From Kim Burgess:

Three quick points on II Thess 2 (and I John 2):

1) In the word “antichrist”, the prefix “anti” in the Greek carries the meaning of “instead of” or “in the place of”, so anyone seeking to usurp, eclipse, or take the place of Christ per His person and work can be said to be “antichrist”.

2) “….by the appearance of His coming” in the Greek is actually “by the epiphany of His parousia” (two of the three more or less official terms used in the NT for what is said in the creeds to be Christ “second coming” — epiphaneia, parousia, and apocalypsis. It was all first-century to be sure!!

3) You are on the right track to associate this “Man of sin/of lawlessness” with the Judaizers. I do not believe that it necessarily refers to one single person, though it could be, such as the apostate/unbelieving “high priest” seated in the temple post-Christ. I believe the identity here, whether singular or plural, is definitely Jewish and Paul wanted us to see this identity as a Judas-type apostate person by the very fact that Paul called “him” “the son of perdition”, the VERY same language that was used of Judas himself in John 17:12!

I could add an all-important 4th point here too:

4) It is quite clear that the construction in vs 8 is a parallelism such that, then, the first part can be used to interpret/hermeneutically define the second part — 1) “will destroy by the Spirit [NOT merely “breath!!] of His mouth ” and 2) “will bring to nothing by the epiphany of His parousia”. The point here, then? Back to my thesis hermeneutic: The “epiphany/ parousia” of Christ is in, by, and through the Holy Spirit!! So back, once again, to my thesis anchor in John 4:23-24 as supported also by Jesus in John 6:63 and by Paul in I Cor 2:13. I’m firm on this interpretation myself: Father > Son > Spirit. The eschaton was not only fully Christological; it was also fully Pneumatological!! Thus, Jesus in John 14:16-18 (don’t overlook “forever in vs 16!!) and 16:7. As I like to put it, the Holy Spirit is NOT some sort of Divine Nanny, as per the creeds, sent to hold our hands until Big Brother comes back again. No, the Holy Spirit Himself IS the parousia/presence — internallyl!! (cf II Pet 1:19 and Luke 17:21 (“within you”) — of the Father and of the Son (John 14:20,23)!!!

Gary DeMar: I chose Claudius for the restrainer since the Romans did protect the church from the Judaizers as we read in Acts.

Forgiveness – Two Quotes

Posted on by

Albert Martin:

“The one who forgives makes a solemn four-pronged promise. When you say to someone who has asked your forgiveness for a specific sin, ‘I forgive you,’ you are making this promise:

1. I will not knowingly remember this thing against you.

2. I will not speak of this thing to any others.

3. I will not raise it with you again.

4. I will not allow it to be a barrier in the restoration of our relationship.”

Mike Riccardi:

“Otherwise sound Bible teachers disagree on this point, namely, whether mutual forgiveness (sinner to sinner) is to be conditional (as is God’s forgiveness of us, conditioned upon genuine repentance) or unconditional (unlike God’s forgiveness of us).

I am one who takes the former position: that the Bible makes a distinction between the disposition or readiness to forgive (e.g., Ps 86:5) and forgiveness itself, and instructs us to always cultivate that disposition or readiness to forgive, such that there is never any bitterness or vengeance in the heart, and such that the moment that forgiveness is genuinely sought from us we grant it eagerly from the heart.

But at the same time, I believe the Bible teaches that the actual conferral of forgiveness, by definition, only happens when an offending party confesses and seeks forgiveness from an offended party. I base that on a couple of strands of biblical teaching.

1. The distinction between the readiness to forgive and forgiveness, as above.

2. The consistent teaching that God’s forgiveness of sinners (which is conditioned upon the sinner’s confession and repentance) is to be the pattern of our forgiveness of one another—not only explicitly in passages like Eph 4:32 and Col 3:13, but also indicated by the fact that the very same terms are used for God’s forgiveness of us and our forgiveness of one another. If God does not confer forgiveness upon any except those “who call upon” Him, but rather stands “ready to forgive” them (Ps 86:5), then this ought to be our practice as well.

3. Luke 17:3-4 seems to me to be the clearest passage in which this topic is dealt with, and Jesus’ instruction is explicitly conditional: Be on your guard! “If your brother sins, rebuke him; and *if he repents*, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, *and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent*,’ forgive him.” Here, forgiveness is explicitly conditioned upon repentance. I simply cannot square the teaching of unconditional forgiveness with the “if-then” conditional statements in this passage.

But again, let me repeat: this does not mean I think we should cherish an unforgiving spirit or nurse resentment against someone who has sinned against us but who hasn’t come to seek our forgiveness. Both I (who think forgiveness is conditional) and the one who thinks forgiveness is unconditional believe that the Christian’s behavior should look exactly the same in this scenario—cultivating a cheerful disposition and readiness to forgive, eliminating any vengefulness or bitterness in their spirit against the other person, behaving happily and without rancor toward him even before he asks forgiveness. The only difference is in what we call that behavior (readiness to forgive vs. forgiveness itself); there’s no distinction in any behavior itself.”

Further Teaching on the theme of Forgiveness by Mike Riccardi:

https://www.sermonaudio.com/solo/gracelifepulpit/sermons/1215221814186635/

https://www.sermonaudio.com/solo/gracelifepulpit/sermons/122322199297507/