This is a continuation of my consideration whether my assumption that Jesus called Judas Iscariot ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας (NET: the one destined for destruction) is like Jesus’ disciples’ discussion about having no bread¹ after He said: “Watch out! Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod!”² In another essay I began to look at John’s description of antichrist and many antichrists because Meyer’s NT Commentary stated that many of the Church Fathers had understood Paul’s description of the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction, as the Antichrist.

I highlighted two things he wrote about their insights:³

They correctly agree in considering that by the advent (2 Thessalonians 2:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:8), or the day of the Lord (2 Thessalonians 2:2), is to be understood the personal advent of Christ for the last judgment and for the completion of the Messianic kingdom. Also it is correctly regarded as proved, that the Antichrist here described is to be considered as an individual person, in whom sin will embody itself.

Meyer’s NT Commentary continued to elaborate on the “view of the Fathers” regarding “the Antichrist…considered as an individual person” with the following caveat:

Mr. Meyer cataloged many evolving views: “[T]he view, first in the eleventh century, that the establishment and growing power of the Papacy is to be considered as the Antichrist predicted by Paul,”⁴ is a familiar one. “Yet even before the reference of Antichrist to Popery was maintained, Mohammed[55] was already regarded by the divines of the Greek church…as the Antichrist predicted by Paul.”⁵

The power which restrained Antichrist evolved as well.

The restraining power by which the appearance of Antichrist is delayed, is usually considered [by the Church Fathers] to be the continuance of the Roman Empire (τὸ κατέχον) and its representative the Roman emperor (ὁ κατέχων). Some, however, as Theodorus Mopsuestius and Theodoret, understand by it τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν ὅρον, i.e. more exactly, the counsel of God to keep back the appearance of Antichrist until the gospel is proclaimed throughout the earth…Chrysostom chooses a third interpretation, that by the restraining power is meant the continuance of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit…

In recent times it has often been considered as objectionable to determine exactly the individual traits of the imagery used by Paul. Accordingly the representation of the apostle has been interpreted in a general, ideal, or symbolical sense. To this class of interpreters belongs Koppe, according to whom Paul, founding on an old national Jewish oracle, supported especially by Daniel, would describe the ungodliness preceding the last day, which already worked, but whose full outbreak was only to take place after the death of the apostle; so that Paul himself was the κατέχων.[57]⁶

Meyer’s NT Commentary continued:

Other opinions were cited: “Nitzsch (l.c.) thinks on the power of atheism first come to have public authority, or the contempt of all religion generally.”⁷ “Pelt…sums up his views in the following words”:⁸

According to [Pelt], the chief stress lies on ΤῸ ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ ἬΔΗ ἘΝΕΡΓΕῖΤΑΙ Τῆς ἈΝΟΜΊΑς [literally: the mystery already working of lawlessness]. Antichrist is a union of the individuality and spiritual tendency in masses of individuals. The revolt of the Jews from the Romans, and the fearful divine punishment in the destruction of Jerusalem, Nero, Mohammed and his spiritual devastating power, the development of the Papacy in the Middle Ages, the French Revolution of 1789, with the abrogation of Christianity, and the setting up of prostitutes on altars for worship, in the external world, as well as the constantly spreading denial of the fundamentals of all religious truth and morality, of the doctrines of God, freedom, and immortality, and likewise the self-deification of the ego in the internal world,—all these phenomena are the real precursors of Antichrist; but they contain only some of his characteristics, not all; it is the union of all these characteristics which shall make the full Antichrist.⁹

Ultimately, though I found some of them illuminating, Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer rejected the views developed in recent times:

It is evident that all these explanations are arbitrary. The Pauline description is so definitely and sharply marked, and has for its whole compass so much the idea of nearness for its supposition, that it can by no means be taken generally, and in this manner explained away.

While I’m grateful to Mr. Meyer for painstakingly collecting all of these opinions in one place, I don’t intend to play guess the identity of Antichrist as an individual person. That game scatters in my opinion, rather than gathering with the Lord Jesus: and whoever does not gather (συνάγων, a form of συνέχω) with me scatters (σκορπίζει, a form of σκορπίζω),¹⁰ Jesus said. So, I want to approach it differently.

Matthew Poole’s summation from his Commentary of the difficulty of knowing “what whithholdeth” the revelation of the man of lawlessness was very accessible:

And now ye know what withholdeth: the apostle it seems had told them, as of his coming, so of what at present withheld the revealing of him. And what this was is difficult to know now, though it seems these Thessalonians knew it: there are many conjectures about it. This I shall say in general:
1. It was something that the apostle thought not safe openly to declare in writing; else he would not have written of it so obscurely.
2. It was both a thing, and a person; a thing, to katecon, in this verse, that which withholdeth; and a person, as in the next verse, o katecwn, he who letteth.
3. It was also such a thing and such a person as were to be removed out of the way, not totally, but as they were hinderances [sic] of this revelation.

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible echoed Mr. Poole’s first point:

It is not known precisely what is referred to by the phrase “what withholdeth,” τὸ κατέχον to katechon. The phrase means properly, something that “holds back,” or “restrains”….Of this, the apostle says, they had had full information; but we can only conjecture what it was.

This seems to be a natural consequence of the assumption that Antichrist is an unknown individual from the future. Rather than assuming that Paul, the Holy Spirit and the New Testament are keeping something from us, I prefer to experiment with the idea that ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας or αμαρτιας (NET: the man of lawlessness; KJV: that man of sin [Table])¹¹ and ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας (NET: the son of destruction; KJV: the son of perdition)¹² are other words for ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία (NET: sin that lives in me; KJV: sin that dwelleth in me),¹³ τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν φθειρόμενον κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τῆς ἀπάτης (NET: the old man who is being corrupted in accordance with deceitful desires; KJV: the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts),¹⁴ ἐμοὶ τὸ κακὸν παράκειται (NET/KJV: evil…present with me)¹⁵ and ἡ…σὰρξ (NET/KJV: the flesh).¹⁶ I’ll work backwards through this.

The spirit is willing, but the flesh (σὰρξ) is weak,¹⁷ Jesus said of disciples who both believed and followed Him. The Greek word translated willing was πρόθυμον (a form of πρόθυμος): “ready, willing, eager, predisposed.” The Greek word translated weak was ἀσθενής: “weak, powerless; weak and easily defeated; sick, ill, unhealthy; disabled, physically weak, feeble, miserable; morally weak; weak in influence, without influence; structurally weak (e.g., weak stones unable to support).” What is born of the flesh (σαρκὸς, a form of σὰρξ) is flesh (σάρξ),¹⁸ He told Nicodemus; in other words, it is weak (ἀσθενής). And again, Jesus said to his disciples, The Spirit is the one who gives life; human nature (σὰρξ) is of no help!¹⁹

Flesh (σὰρξ) and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,²⁰ Paul wrote the Corinthians. He elaborated on this point in his letter to the Romans (Romans 8:1-8 NET):

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death [Table]. For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened (ἠσθένει, a form of ἀσθενέω) through the flesh (σαρκός, a form of σὰρξ). By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (σαρκὸς, a form of σὰρξ) and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh (σαρκί, another form of σὰρξ), so that the righteous requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh (σάρκα, another form of σὰρξ) but according to the Spirit.

For those who live according to the flesh (σάρκα) have their outlook shaped by the things of the flesh (σαρκὸς), but those who live according to the Spirit have their outlook shaped by the things of the Spirit. For the outlook of the flesh (σαρκὸς) is death, but the outlook of the Spirit is life and peace, because the outlook of the flesh (σαρκὸς) is hostile to God, for it does not submit to the law of God, nor is it able to do so. Those who are in the flesh (σαρκὶ) cannot please God.

Prior to this, Paul had written, with my flesh (σαρκὶ, another form of σὰρξ) I serve the law of sin.²¹ [W]hen I want to do good, evil is present with me,²² he lamented as he characterized that evil as a different law in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members.²³ For the flesh (σὰρξ) has desires that are opposed to the Spirit, and the Spirit has desires that are opposed to the flesh (σαρκός, another form of σὰρξ),²⁴ he wrote to the Galatians. To the Ephesians he characterized this flesh as the old man who is being corrupted in accordance with deceitful desires.²⁵ He also called this old man simply, sin that lives in me.²⁶ And to the Thessalonians he described all of this as the man of lawlessness…the son of destruction.²⁷

I’ll continue with this in another essay.