3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:3–4 (ESV)
William Hendriksen (18 November 1900 – 12 January 1982) was a New Testament scholar and writer of Bible commentaries. Hendriksen was an ordained minister in the Christian Reformed Church and served as Professor of New Testament at Calvin Theological Seminary from 1942 to 1952. He was pastor of First Christian Reformed Church of Byron Center, MI from 1952 to 1961.
The following article is taken from Dr. Hendriksen’s commentary from 2 Thessalonians. The topic concerns the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction. While there are many misconceptions concerning the man of lawlessness, Dr. Hendriksen draws his conclusions from the biblical canon.
It can now be positively stated that the apostle’s use of the concept is capable of being traced to a canonical book. It is, indeed, true, as conservatives have always maintained, that many of the features in Paul’s description of the great and final prince of wickedness are derived from the book of Daniel:
(1) “The man of lawlessness,” cf. Dan. 7:25; 8:25.
(2) “the son of perdition,” cf. Dan. 8:26.
(3) “the one who opposes,” cf. Dan. 7:25
(4) “and exalts himself against everything (that is) called God or worshiped,” cf. Dan. 7:8, 20, 25; 8:4, 10, 11.
(5) “so that he seats himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God,” cf. Dan. 8:9–14.
This is not surprising, for “the little horn” of Dan. 7, the one which came up after the ten horns, is the antichrist, and “the little horn” of Dan. 8, the one which came up out of one of the four notable horns, is Antiochus Epiphanes, antichrist’s most notorious forerunner, the one who desecrated Jerusalem’s temple by erecting a pagan altar over the altar of burnt-offering, and by sacrificing upon it (which was an “appalling horror” in the estimation of every true believer).
Moreover, in Matt. 24:15 (cf. Mark 13:14) “the desolating abomination” (“appalling horror”) of which Jesus speaks is derived from Dan. 11:31; 12:11 (probably not directly from 9:27). History, in a sense, repeats itself. Better: prophecy attains multiple fulfilment. The underlying thought is ever the same. God’s city and sanctuary are desecrated, whether by Antiochus Epiphanes and his sacrilegious offerings (Dan. 8:9–14; cf. “Gog” in Ezek. 38, 39), by Roman armies with their idolatrous standards (Luke 21:20; Mark 13:14); or finally by the antichrist himself.
Now with respect to the final antichrist as pictured by Paul, our present passage (2 Thess. 2:3b, 4) states the following:
He is “the man of lawlessness” (a Semitism), that is, the man in whom opposition to God’s law will as it were be embodied, the very personification of rebellion against God’s ordinances.
He is also “the son of perdition” (another Semitism), the final Judas, see N.T.C. on John 17:12. Cf. David’s remark to Nathan, “The man who has done this is a son of death” (i.e., must certainly die); and cf. also Matt. 23:15: “a son of hell.” The man of lawlessness is pictured here as the utterly lost one, designated unto perdition. Contrast “sons of light” in 1 Thess. 5:5.
Furthermore, he is described as “the one who opposes.” This word (ἀντίκειμαι, here ὁ ἀντικείμενος) is found eight times in the New Testament (Luke 13:17; 21:15; 1 Cor. 16:9; Gal. 5:17; Phil. 1:28; 2 Thess. 2:4; 1 Tim. 1:10; 1 Tim. 5:14). It is used both as a verb (finite) and as a participial substantive (so here). The man of sin is the adversary of God, of God’s law, of God’s people, etc. As such he immediately reminds one of his master, Satan, who is “the great adversary.”
In very close connection with this opposing activity stands the fact that this adversary who will appear in the end-time “exalts himself against everything (that is) called God or worshiped.” In his reckless audacity and ferocious insolence, he uplifts himself (ὑπεραιρόμενος) not only against the only true God who has revealed himself in Jesus Christ and against all so-called gods, but also against all sacred objects, against whatever stands in connection with religious cults. The reference is probably to such objects as temples, places set aside for divine worship, altars, religious statues. He rages against them all.
He recognizes only one god (he would spell it with a capital: God), namely, himself! Hence, he seats himself in the sanctuary (the term ναός in its primary sense, in distinction from ἱερόν, generally refers to the shrine itself rather than to the entire building-complex) of God, that is, in the church (see 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21; and see N.T.C. on 2:19–22), for the term ναός is here clearly used metaphorically. He arrogates to himself authority over God’s true people. Of course, they will not recognize this violent usurper, and will refuse to render homage to him.
The result will be great tribulation for them (Matt. 24:15, 21, 22, 29). “Standing where he ought not” he proclaims or publicly declares himself to be God. In the Greek of that day and age the verb (ἀποδείκνυμι) is used of proclaiming an appointment to public office. Thus, we are told, “The expectation and hope of the world, Nero, has been declared (ἀποδέδεικται) Emperor” (M.M., p. 60), a quotation which also illustrates emperor-worship. But even Antiochus Epiphanes, that is, “Antiochus (the) Illustrious (God)” or “Antiochus (the) God who reveals himself,” demanding divine homage but not altogether ignoring Zeus, was not as blasphemous as the final man of lawlessness will be, for the latter will recognize only one deity, namely, himself, will seat himself (will not merely deposit his image) in God’s shrine, and will demand divine adoration for himself alone.
It is instructive to note that the explanation which I have given with respect to the “man of sin” passage is in line with that which was favored by the earliest ecclesiastical writers. These understood it as being a prophecy with reference to a definite person who would live on earth at the close of history and would be utterly discomfited by Christ at his return. The church should never have departed from this interpretation.[1]
May the Lord’s truth and grace be found here. Have a blessed day in the Lord.
Soli deo Gloria!
[1] William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of I-II Thessalonians, vol. 3, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 176–178.
His Word Today 