Paul's second letter to the Thessalonian church was written only a short time after the first[2]. The time frame is limited to when Silvanus and Timothy were with Paul. Several scholars argue that the letter wasn't actually written by Paul. Some cite theological differences with the first letter making it unlikely the same author wrote both. Others cite similarities between the letters as evidence a forger is using the first to emulate Paul's style. Skeptics will see what they want to see. This essay will focus on the eschatological issues raised (or alleged to be raised) by this letter and how they relate to the first letter (especially when apologetically important).
This passage is not eschatological itself, but it does segue into one that is. It is significant apologetically however. This passage speaks of current suffering for the kingdom of God. 1 Th 1:6, 2:2, 14 speak only of opposition in the past. Some scholars argue that this inconsistency is proof that Paul did not write both letters. There are others who think this is evidence that the letters order in the wrong order chronologically. However, the first letter was making mention of opposition during Paul's preaching in Thessalonica. It doesn't actually say anything about ongoing persecution during Paul's absence one way or the other. And even if it did, persecution can come in waves. So, drawing such conclusions over-reaches the evidence quite significantly.
Paul rarely speaks in detail about the ultimate fate of the unrighteous. Here Paul speaks of "eternal destruction, separated from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might". While evocative, the language in isolation is ambiguous. Is Paul speaking of final annihilation or is destruction a process that lasts for eternity?[4] Philippians 3:18-19 doesn't clarify his meaning any. Nor does Paul here indicate whether their continued existence (assuming he means there is one) is physical or spiritual.
However, Luke records a speech of Paul's where he clearly indicates a physical resurrection for both the righteous and the unrighteous. "I have a hope in God (a hope that these men themselves accept too) that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous." (Acts 24:15)
Other scriptures also indicate a continued existence for those in Hell. We would assume that Paul knew and believed anything Jesus taught on the subject. Jesus refers to the unrighteous being cast into "the eternal fire that has been prepared for the devil and his angels" Mt 25:41-46). Elsewhere he describes Hell as ''an unquenchable fire .. where their worm never dies" (Mk 9:42-48). Jesus conceived of Hell as a place where the body was eternally being consumed by fire & worm, but where conscious existence continued (see the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Lk 16:19-31). It is this that Paul must have had in mind by his phrase "eternal destruction".
Revelation further confirms the lake of fire as a place of "eternal torment" (Rev 20:10-15, 21:8). It is impossible to argue for universalism from scripture. It clearly teaches that people will go to Hell.
Most commentaries make far too many presumptions about this passage. They tend to presume that Paul is reacting to a problem already present and even originating in the Thessalonian community. They often then go on to imagine that this heresy originates as a misunderstanding of the first letter. Some skeptical scholars have even proposed that 1 Thessalonians is the heretical letter opposed in this passage[8] or that Paul has changed his mind between the two letters!
The false teaching that Paul is opposing is not a simple misunderstanding of Paul's earlier teaching. Verse 3 refers to it as a deception. Verse 2 makes it clear that some heretic was even going so far as to forge letters from Paul. The heretic has not misunderstood Paul: he is actively creating a lie that he is knowingly attributing falsely to Paul. There is no indication that the heresy had ever reached the Thessalonians yet. Rather, the most natural way to read this passage is to see Paul as preemptively warning them. Verse 5 indicates that Paul had already taught them these things. He is reiterating then So that the Thessalonians will be prepared to defend against the deception.
Paul says little about what the heresy actually is, just that it claimed "that the day of the Lord is already here". The commentaries are full of speculation. Some speculations can be dismissed out of hand, such as suggestions that the heresy was gnosticism. While it is possible that this heresy was incorporated into gnosticism, it isn't until a half century later that we can really speak of gnosticism per se[3]. Speculations range from thinking the end-times tribulation had already started (see KJV. "the day of the Lord is at hand'') to over-spiritualizing the concept so that the event doesn't have any direct effect in the physical world.
In a later letter Paul must defend the concept of a physical resurrection to the Corinthians (1 Co 15). Then, in a letter to Timothy, Paul condemns Hymenaeus and Philetus who taught ''that the resurrection had already occurred" (2 Ti 2:16-18)[7]. But if that were the case here, one might expect Paul to have focused on the physicality of the event, appealing to Jesus' resurrection as he did to the Corinthians. Instead, he focuses on the physical events that lead up to the final events. This strongly suggests that the heretic who was impersonating Paul was leading some sort of doomsday cult not unlike the many we see from time-to-time even in the modern world, and was preaching that God's first judgment on the world (i.e. ''Rome'') was already underway.
Paul's reference to "the rebellion" is enigmatic. He is relying on the fact that he had already taught the Thessalonians about it (v. 5) to make his reference clear to them. It is not explicit who is doing the rebelling nor what they are rebelling against. The traditional understanding is that it is the actions of the man of lawlessness we read of in the following verses. This seems very likely, but caution should be exercised when deriving further conclusions from this interpretation[1].
The commentaries are varied in the identity of the man of lawlessness[6]. Dispensationalism sees him as a singular figure of the seven year tribulation before the millennial reign. Traditionally, reformed Protestant theology saw him as the institution of the papacy. 1 John 2:18-22 refers to many antichrists having already appeared[5]. Since in apocalyptic literature, such as Daniel, an individual may stand for a whole empire or dynasty, it is very prudent to avoid dogmatism and be tentative in identifying the man of lawlessness.
In the first century world, there is nothing remarkable about such a claim. Caligula had the audacity to claim divine honors for himself while still alive. Other emperors had been proclaimed gods upon their deaths. The idea seems foreign to us today, but even atheistic despots of the modern world, such as Stalin, proclaim themselves to be gods by their actions, if not by their words.
The reference to God's temple is more difficult. If the temple in Jerusalem is meant, it was destroyed in 70 A.D. An extreme preterist interpretation would allow for this, but it puts at least nearly two millennia between the man of lawlessness and the day of judgment. A future temple, as figures prominently in dispensational thought would bypass this problem, but scripture nowhere clearly claims there will be a rebuilt temple. On the other hand, everywhere else that Paul refers to a temple he does so in a metaphorical sense, meaning the church or the individual believer. One only need look at today's liberal denominations to imagine how this might play out.
This verse explains why this letter is so difficult to understand. Paul is not writing a systematic theology. He has already taught them a more systematic explanation in person. Now he is reminding them of select points that are relevant to refute the false teaching that some nefarious cult leader is spreading in Paul's name. Two millennia later, we are listening in one one side of the middle of a conversation effectively.
Verse 3 has already mentioned that the man of lawlessness is yet to be revealed. Verse 6 indicates that there is some thing, emphasis on the impersonal thing, holding him back. Verse 7 then indicates it is a person holding him back with the use of a personal pronoun. This has led to many interpretations being proposed. Recall that in apocalyptic literature, such as Daniel, an individual King, his dynasty, and his kingdom are referred to interchangeably in the symbols. The restrainer has been variously seen as the Roman emperor, the Roman empire, civil order, an angel, Paul himself, Jesus, God, etc.
Despite the restraint, whatever or whoever is its agent, the hidden power of lawlessness (like the restrainer, the man of lawlessness is also referred to impersonally) still active already however restrained that activity might be. This is not unlike how John describes the antichrist(s) in 1 John 2:18-22. The relationship to Revelation 20 is not so clear. In that passage, the dragon is bound in chains and locked away in the abyss for a thousand years. During that time, he no longer deceives the nations. This contrasts with the restrained man of lawlessness who is none the less, still active (v. 7).
The man of lawlessness' ''15 minutes'' of fame will be short-lived. He will be destroyed by the arrival of Jesus.
The Olivet Discourse (Mk 13:5-6, 21-22) of Jesus warns of deceivers, false prophets and deceptive miracles in the context of what the Apostles would face in the events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Again we also see Paul's belief that some people will be condemned reiterated. (Issues about predestination that this passage raises are beyond the scope of this essay).
The commentaries frequently link this passage to the eschatological issues. The situation imagined is that because some people thought the end of the world was immanent, they saw no need to be industrious.[9] It is not unlike modern Dispensationalists' attitude toward environmentalism: "why polish the brass on a sinking ship?", as one is alleged to have said[10].
The fault with this interpretation is that that text neither makes nor implies any such thing. As we've already seen, the eschatological error that Paul dealt with in chapter 2 isn't even a problem internal to the Thessalonian community, but a threat from without that he is warning them about. And even if the heresy did exist within the Thessalonian church, no connection between the idleness and the heresy is even hinted at! Later, when Paul deals with the idleness issue in Romans 3:8, the context was not eschatology but a misunderstanding of grace. Personal experience suggests that we might imagine less than scrupulous individuals taking advantage of the love and forgiveness of the Christian community as well.
Because this study looked at a whole letter, it touched briefly on a number of apologetic and eschatological issues with limited interrelationships. The salient points made are:
The identity of the man of lawlessness and his restrainer evokes human curiosity greatly. The temptation to take an interpretation and run with it is overwhelming. But caution is greatly advised. Perhaps we can correlate Paul's teaching with the book of Revelation, though its ubiquitous use of symbolism means that even such a correlation might not tell us anything with certainty.
Whoever these two figures are, the important point is God knows who they are and will take care of the situation in his sovereignty when the time comes. Nothing will take him by surprise. This is the important lesson to take away from Paul's mention of these two figures. Had God wanted us to know more, he would have told us.
[1] Wesley loc cit said "This began even in the apostolic age".
[2] Milligan, p. xxxvi.
[3] Martin, p. 141.
[4] Clarke, loc cit, argues that their being continues since the destruction is everlasting, which is certainly what Paul intended, but the language in isolation is not so cut-and-dried.
[5] Clarke, loc cit, sites Judas Iscariot being called by the same epithet in John 17:12.
[6] Weatherly, loc cit, lists some.
[7] Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, p. 257 also sites 1 Cor 4:8.
[8] Word Biblical Commentary Vol 45, p. 164 sites Lindemann.
[9] 2 Th 3:11, Baker NT Commentary: Thessalonians. 2 Th 3:6, New American Commentary: 1, 2 Thessalonians.
[10] Many variations are often cited unattributed. Sometimes attributed to D. L. Moody. I've not been able to find a primary reference.
Barclay, William. 1975. The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians.
Bruce, F. F. 2002. Word Biblical Commentary: 1 and 2 Thessalonians.
Clarke, Adam. Clarke's Commentary: Second Thessalonians.
Hendricksen, W. & Kistemaker, S. J. Baker New Testament Commentary: Thessalonians.
Kreitzer, L. J. "Eschatology" in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters.
Martin, D. M. 1995. Vol. 33: 1, 2 Thessalonians. New American Commentary.
Milligan, G., ed. 1908. St. Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians.
Mills, Montague Stephan. 1998. Letters to Thessalonica.
Weatherly, J. A. 1996. 1 & 2 Thessalonians.
Wesley, J. . Wesley's Notes: Second Thessalonians.