The Apostasy and the Man of Lawlessness (2 Thessalonians 2:3–5)

2 Thess. 2:3-5. Let no one deceive you in any way: for that day will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?

“Let no one”—either expresses his wish for them, or gives a warning: take heed, be on your guard—or directly commands that they listen to no one. — “Deceive.” They had already yielded to deception. Now, having corrected their way of thinking, he tells them to hold themselves firm in the right way of thinking from now on, not yielding to deception. “In any way.” By none of the means that have been shown and censured, or by any other means whatsoever. “In this way he guarded them against error from every side” (Chrysostom). With this single expression “he rejected at once all forms of delusion” (Theodoret).

“For unless…” For if “the apostasy does not come first…” What must follow from this is not stated. The reader must supply it himself, and it supplies itself: that is, if the apostasy does not come first, neither will the Day of the Lord come. Oecumenius writes: “After these words one must understand: ‘neither will the coming of the Lord occur.’” Why did the Apostle omit such words? — Not because, becoming absorbed in describing the qualities of Antichrist, he forgot; but because he judged it fitting to employ the customary figure of aposiopesis, as is evident from verse five. “Do you not remember?…” the Apostle said: if the apostasy does not come first, and the man of lawlessness, of such and such a character… And perhaps something further in this vein ought to have been added; but he cuts short the speech and says as it were: but why write so much about this? Remember what was said… And in remembering what was said, they ought to have brought to mind also the fact that, until this man of lawlessness appears, the Lord will not come. “Here he discloses to them, and through them to us, the greatest sign of the Lord’s coming” (Theodoret).

“The apostasy does not come first.” The word “apostasy,” standing alone, without explanation of what kind or from what, does not yield a definite concept. Thus the question naturally arises: what does the Apostle mean here? — The ancient commentators all hold that “the apostasy” is used here in place of “the apostate” and designates Antichrist himself. St. Chrysostom writes: “Here he speaks of Antichrist and discloses great mysteries. What is the apostasy? — He calls Antichrist himself the apostasy, for he is destined to destroy many and bring them to apostasy: ‘so as to deceive,’ as it is written, ‘if possible, even the elect’ (Mt. 24:24).” Theodoret says the same: “The Apostle called Antichrist himself the apostasy, giving him this name on account of his deeds, because he will attempt to bring everyone to apostasy from the truth.” So do all the others; only Oecumenius afterward adds conjecturally: “Or by ‘the apostasy’ he means the departure from God—the act itself (and not the person).”

Heterodox Western commentators understand here not a person but a particular phenomenon in the life of humanity—though not all the same phenomenon. Closer to the truth, of course, are those who, like Oecumenius, understand it as an apostasy from God, from faith and truth, which is mentioned in other passages of Scripture as well. Since this word is not clarified here by any additional qualifying word, its meaning must be determined from the flow of the discourse. The words that follow it—“the man of lawlessness who exalts himself above every god” and so on—suggest that the apostasy, too, will be of the same character, that is, it will take place in the religious and moral sphere. To see in this apostasy anything political—for example, a Jewish revolt or the fall of the Western Roman Empire—means to deviate from what St. Paul intended to say. The defection of the Pope with his followers from the true Church, and then of Luther and Calvin in an even deeper fall from the truth through their defection from the already-defected Papal Church, although these took place in the religious sphere, cannot be understood here, because in the Apostle’s text the apostasy is closely connected with the appearing of Antichrist—and Antichrist has not come.

The Apostle evidently speaks of that apostasy which will take place in the last days, before the Second Coming of the Lord. He mentions this in other epistles. In the first epistle to St. Timothy he writes: “Now the Spirit expressly says that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1). Something similar appears in him (2 Tim. 3:1); and in St. Peter (2 Pet. 3:3). St. Jude testifies that all the Apostles spoke of this alike: “Remember the words spoken beforehand by the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ: for they told you that in the last time there would be mockers, following their own ungodly passions. These are they who cause divisions…” (Jude 1:17-19). And the Lord Himself foretold that at the end of the age “many false prophets will arise and will deceive many; and” that “because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold” (Mt. 24:11, 12), so that when He comes, “will He find faith on the earth?” (Lk. 18:8).

From these testimonies, a most disquieting picture of the moral and religious state of people in the last days takes shape in the mind. The Gospel will be known to all. But one part will remain in unbelief; another—and the larger part—will lapse into heresy, following not the teaching handed down by God, but constructing a faith of their own devising, though on the basis of the words of Scripture. These self-devised faiths will be without number. The Pope laid the foundation for them, Luther and Calvin continued his work; and the principle they laid down—of each individual’s personal apprehension of faith from Scripture alone—gave a powerful impetus to the invention of faiths. There are already very many of these now, and there will be still more. One faith per kingdom, then one per region, then one per city, and at the end, perhaps, one per head. Where people construct their own faith rather than receiving the one delivered by God, it cannot be otherwise. And all such will appropriate to themselves the name of Christians. There will be a portion that holds the true faith as it was delivered by the holy Apostles and is preserved in the Orthodox Church; but even among these, a considerable part will be Orthodox in name only, without in their hearts possessing that disposition which faith requires, having come to love the present age. Such is the wide domain of apostasy that is to be expected. Although the Christian name will be heard everywhere, and churches and ecclesiastical orders will be visible everywhere, all of this will be only outward appearance, while within there will be true apostasy. On this soil Antichrist will be born and will grow up in the same spirit of appearance without substance. Then, having given himself over to Satan, he will openly apostatize from the faith and, armed with Satan’s seductive machinations, will draw all those who do not hold Christianity in truth into open apostasy from Christ the Lord, compelling them to venerate himself as god. The elect will not be drawn away, but he will attempt to deceive even them, if possible. In order that this not come to pass, those evil days will be cut short. The Lord will appear and will destroy Antichrist and all his work by the manifestation of His coming.

Such, one must suppose, is the apostasy the Apostle has in mind! It is indeed an event, a fact, and not a person—but such as stands in close connection with a person, with the man of lawlessness and the son of perdition. This will be the apostasy into which the chief apostate—Antichrist—will draw people. The apostasy of people into false faiths and into unchristian dispositions of heart will prepare the soil for the emergence of Antichrist and the arena for his activity. But it is not this apostasy that is meant here, but rather that which Antichrist himself will produce. He, having appeared and grown powerful, will consummate the inner apostasy by means of that visible apostasy. This will be a manifest and resounding apostasy, the one fully worthy of such a name—which is why it stands in the Apostle’s text with the definite article. For the same reason it is perhaps not further clarified by any additional qualifying word—just as Julian was later called “the apostate” without any explanation of from what. Thus, in the Apostle’s words “unless the apostasy comes first and” the “man of lawlessness appears,” two distinct periods are not signified, but one and the same last time, in which both will come to pass together. The holy Fathers expressed this by understanding under “the apostasy” the apostate—Antichrist—who is destined to bring about the general apostasy. The Apostle Paul himself places the apostasy in dependence upon Antichrist, as is evident from verse 9 and following, and so does St. John the Theologian in the Apocalypse (Rev. 13:4) and following. The heterodox Western commentators departed from the thought of St. Paul, understanding here that preparatory apostasy.

“The man of lawlessness”—utterly lawless, steeped in lawlessness, whose very essence is lawlessness. He will be born in lawlessness, will live in lawlessness, himself committing lawlessness and spreading it in every direction, and will perish in lawlessness. He will be the full embodiment of lawlessness, and there will be nothing in him except lawlessness. Not only godlessness will mark him—though that will be the most obvious feature—but every sin. “He is called the man of lawlessness because he will commit a thousand lawless acts and will bring others to commit them” (Chrysostom). “He himself will sin greatly, and will lead many others into many sins” (Oecumenius).

Yet he will be a human being like any other, composed of soul and body, only the perfect instrument of Satan. Not Satan in the form of a man, and not an incarnation of Satan, but a man in whom Satan will dwell and act through him as his wholly obedient instrument. St. Chrysostom asks: “Who then will he be? Surely not Satan himself?” And answers: “No, but a certain man who will take into himself all his power (energy).” Oecumenius says the same: “Antichrist will not be Satan but a man, possessed and actuated by Satan (satanized). He will be some Jew, skilled in magic and the compounding of potions.”

“The son of perdition”—one destined for destruction, who has given himself over to ruin of his own free will and walks toward it with full knowledge that he will perish. We have similar phrases: a lost man, or a desperate one. Such was Judas (Jn. 17:12); such also is this beast from the abyss, who after warring against God will go to destruction (Rev. 17:8–11). The phrase “the son of perdition” can also signify extreme depravity, but in relation to Antichrist this is already stated in the words “the man of lawlessness”; here his wretched end is indicated. Yet not only will he himself perish—he will lead many others to ruin as well. He will entice them to follow his will and teaching, and thereby destroy them, as is said below (verse 12). He will take pleasure in drawing others along his ruinous path; his entire concern will be how to destroy as many people as possible. “He is called the son of perdition because he himself will perish” (Chrysostom); “he will both perish himself and plunge others into ruin” (Oecumenius); or “he will serve as the cause of their destruction” (Theodoret).

“The adversary.” It is not specified to whom or what he will be an adversary. The following words and the whole course of the discourse make this clear. From them it is evident that he will be an adversary to God and to Christ the Lord. One may say: an adversary of every truth, and especially of Christian truth, and consequently of the salvation of the human race—but this is one and the same thing. St. Chrysostom calls him αντιθεος — the adversary of God; in St. John the Theologian he is called Antichrist (1 Jn. 2:18, 22, 4:3; 2 Jn. 1:7). Αντιθεος can also mean one who sets himself in place of God, just as Antichrist can also mean one who puts himself forward in place of Christ. The subsequent words of the Apostle confirm this. He will be an adversary to God and Christ in every respect, to everything divine and Christian, in order to place himself in their stead, or to compel people to regard him as god and christ. Here are the words of St. Chrysostom: “He will be a kind of adversary of God — αντιθεος τις — he will reject all gods and command that he himself be worshipped in place of God.” Theodoret speaks at greater length: “The destroyer of men (Satan) imitates the incarnation of our God and Saviour; and just as the Lord, having taken on human nature, accomplished our salvation, so he, having chosen a man capable of receiving the full force of his power, will attempt to deceive all people through him, calling himself Christ and God, exposing the falsity of those so-called gods whom he himself had sustained throughout the ages past.”

“Who exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship.” Writing to the Corinthians, Paul used the phrase “so-called gods,” in the sense that they are called gods but are not gods. There his purpose was to set forth the truth that “there is no other God but one”—that “for us there is one God the Father, from whom are all things and we for Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through Him” (1 Cor. 8:4–6). Here the Apostle has a different aim. He wishes to show not the truth of the one God over against all false gods, but the spirit of exaltation of the anti-god and Antichrist above everything that is counted as god. Therefore “so-called god” here signifies every being that people at that time will count as god. Since at that time there will be true worshippers of the one God worshipped in Trinity, He too is comprehended under the same concept. Over all of this Antichrist will exalt himself, making it plain, of course, that every god who is worshipped is as nothing compared with him, and that he alone is to be honored as God. The Apostle may have borrowed these expressions from the prophet Daniel, who writes: “he will exalt and magnify himself above every god, and will speak monstrous things against the God of gods… He will pay no heed to the gods of his fathers” (he will give them no attention)… “and he will not heed any god” (he will not wish to know him), “for he will exalt himself above them all” (Dan. 11:36, 37). An “object of worship” is the object of reverent religious veneration—an object that is either worshipped as divine, or venerated for the sake of God; that is, either a deity, or a temple, sacred objects and rites, everything that falls within the order of external divine worship. In the first sense, “object of worship” is the same as “so-called god.” The Apostle speaks as if to say: “exalting himself above every so-called god,” or, which is the same, above every “object of worship.” In the second sense a new trait of exaltation is given: that the anti-god and Antichrist will count unworthy of himself every form of divine worship that he finds among people, will despise and reject it all, and will finally introduce his own new order—for he will set himself up as god, and a god without divine worship does not exist. The first meaning is more fitting here, yet the second need not be set aside; for that he will sit in the temple as god is already a part of the order of divine worship—apparently the chief, though not in all respects complete, part, by which all else will be ordered; and by which all other forms of worship will be replaced.

“So that he sits in the temple of God, as God.” “Temple” here means a building, a sanctuary. But which temple? Here are the answers of the ancient commentators. St. Chrysostom: “He will be enthroned in the temple of God—not the Jerusalem temple alone, but in churches everywhere.” Theodoret: “By the temple of God” the Apostle means the temple in which Antichrist will seize the seat of preeminence, attempting to pass himself off as god. Theophylact: “He will sit in a temple—not the Jerusalem one specifically, but simply in the churches of God and in every temple of God.” There will be some central place where Antichrist operates, and there will of course be a definite moment when he will reveal himself as such. It is the chief temple of that place that the Apostle has in mind. In that temple he will be enthroned as god; and then will seat himself in the same capacity in every other temple he personally visits. Or perhaps he will be personally enthroned in one temple, and in others will attest his enthronement by some other means. In the Apocalypse mention is made of the image of the beast. Is it not this image that will be set up in temples everywhere? It goes without saying that if he produces a widespread apostasy from Christianity, he will seize the churches along with the Christians. Since it would be unseemly for the Christian order and manner of worship to remain in them thereafter, something new will be introduced, in keeping with the spirit of the new god. And the chief place there will be occupied by whatever signifies the enthronement of Antichrist in the temple. In whatever place he personally comes, there he will be enthroned in person, as god. In every way the Apostle’s words foretell a fact, not express an idea. — It is therefore inappropriate for some to think that Antichrist’s sitting in the temple simply signifies that he will declare himself god and all will acknowledge him as such. “Showing himself that he is God.” He will surround himself with such pomp in the temple and furnish himself with such an apparatus of illusory signs, that all who have joined him will see in this display what appears to be a god—just as Herod of old, having clothed himself in royal apparel and sat in the judgment seat before the people, appeared to them as something extraordinary, so that his voice seemed not human but divine (Acts 12:21, 22). St. Chrysostom says: “He will strive to show himself as god, for he will perform great deeds and display great signs.” Oecumenius: “He will employ every kind of effort—by deeds, signs, and wonders—to show that he is god.”

“Do you not remember that while I was still with you I told you these things?” The Apostle interrupted his discourse, as has already been noted, and, without completing his thought—namely, that the Lord will not come until all this has taken place—he directs the attention of the Thessalonians to what he had personally told them, leaving them to supply the unfinished thought themselves. “I told you these things”—spoke of this, of these circumstances that are to precede the coming of the Lord. He spoke, and they forgot—and in this there is both a rebuke and a lesson to treasure the word that proceeds from lips inspired by God. They forgot, or perhaps misinterpreted it, having been thrown into confusion by the false reports that had spread, and having conflated the notions of hourly expectation of the Lord with the decisive arrival of the Day of the Lord. Thus St. Paul, in all that he mentioned concerning the manifestation of Antichrist, said nothing new. He had explained all of it in his first preaching. Consequently, the teaching about the end of the world with the circumstances preceding and following it—that is, the discourse on the Second Coming of Christ, the Judgment, Paradise, and Hell—constituted an indispensable part of the initial proclamation of the gospel and a subject that could not be deferred from the very first act of faith. Consequently, one cannot from now on treat these subjects with levity, and, while holding to other articles of faith, permit oneself to construct one’s own private views on them, bypassing the teaching handed down by the Apostles and preserved by the Church.

Let us note in passing that Antichrist is nowhere spoken of with such definiteness as here. But had the Thessalonians not fallen into perplexity, St. Paul would not have written about it at all, being content with his personal conversation with the Thessalonians and trusting that they remembered well and accurately what had been said to them. If now the Apostle’s word concerning Antichrist had reached us not in Scripture but through tradition from the Thessalonians—a word truly apostolic and God-inspired—and we held this teaching by that tradition alone; with what profoundly speculative gravity would those who do not accept traditions—the heterodox—have risen against us, reproaching us for believing in an ill-defined oral report of tradition, as they are accustomed to put it? They have already managed to contrive certain fancies from their own reasoning here. St. Paul speaks here with such definiteness, yet in other epistles makes no mention of it. Therefore, they say, the Apostle changed his manner of instruction from the first preaching and thereafter refrained from speaking about the circumstances of the Second Coming. But in fact all that follows from this is that the Apostle did not write with such definiteness again—though he alluded to it in many places—and did not write because he had explained everything in detail in the first preaching, mentioning also the possibility of deviation from the truth such as that of the Thessalonians, thereby forestalling error, and thus removing the occasion to write about it further.