Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,  2 Thessalonians 2:3  NASB

Lawlessness – Who is the man of lawlessness?  You don’t have to look to much further in the text to realize that Paul is speaking about ha-satan, the one the Lord will slay at his second coming (v. 8).  But when we ask the second question, our answers usually reveal an ignorance of proper biblical exegesis – and the woeful tragedy that follows.

The second question is this:  What does lawlessness mean?

If we answer this second question from our Western perspective, we might include descriptions like “opposed to righteousness,” “evil behavior,” “filled with the works of the flesh (cf. Galatians 5),” or something about being against the acceptable norms of a healthy society.  In other words, we import our view of “law” when we provide a definition.  We draw on the Greek idea of ultimate principles (the Good, the True and the Beautiful), filter them through our Greek-based system of justice and come up with a description that is right at home in our culture.  To be lawless is to be a rebel, an outlaw, a bad person who doesn’t follow the rules.

But this isn’t what Paul means at all!  When we exegete a passage of Scripture, the first thing we have to determine is what the words would mean in the time and culture when they were written.  In other words, what does “lawlessness” mean to Paul and to his readers?  To answer that we have to know something about Paul and his audience.  Paul doesn’t provide a dictionary with his letters because he assumes that the meanings of the word are commonly understood.  How can he do this?  In exactly the same way we do.  We write letters (or emails) and generally assume that the words we use will be understood as we intend them because we share a common culture.  So if we are going to understand Paul’s meaning for anomia (Greek – lawlessness), we must look to the common assumptions of Paul’s culture, not ours.  What do we discover?  It’s almost too obvious to mention.  Lawlessness is living without Torah.  Torah is the Law.  Paul assumes this to be obvious to all who read him.  So to be anti-law is to be anti-Torah.  The man of lawlessness is the man without Torah as the guide of his life, the man who opposes Torah.  And the epitome of the lawless one is ha-satan who rejects all Torah because Torah is God’s way of living.

Is there any believer who would deny this?  I don’t think so.  Satan opposed God, therefore he must oppose Torah.  By opposing Torah he reveals himself as lawless (without Torah).  No problem with this, right?  But now the implication (in case you haven’t seen it coming).  From Paul’s perspective, in Paul’s culture, according to Paul’s understanding of anomia, everyone who stands in opposition to Torah is a son of the lawless one.  What other conclusion can you draw once you realize what the word meant to Paul?  Are you going to claim that Paul didn’t see behavior that opposes the Torah as anomia?  Are you going to insist that Paul had a Greek view of law?  Impossible!  Paul was a rabbi, a Jewish Pharisee.  Law could mean only one thing for him – Torah.  To suggest any other definition is to break the first rule of exegesis.  We can’t import our definitions into texts written two thousand years ago to entirely different audiences.

There’s a little historical note that underscores this view.  The Textus Receptus (the Greek text used in the King James translation) has a different word in this verse.  The TR uses the word hamartias, a word that means “sin.”  Since the TR has been assembled from Greek texts that are later than the fragments of the NA27 (Nestle-Arland 27^th edition of the Greek New Testament), this means that at some time after Paul wrote the original, the words were changed to read “sin” rather than “lawlessness.”  But that implies that the translators viewed anomia as a synonym of hamartia.  Lawlessness is sin.  And that means that Paul definition of sin is disobedience to Torah.

Dare we say it?  Dare we say that Christian doctrine that teaches the replacement or abrogation of Torah is anomia, is hamartia?  Dare we say that those who proclaim Yeshua as Savior but who deny the obligation to Torah are really endorsing lawlessness?

This tragic conclusion applies to those who deliberately teach anti-Torah theology and it applies to those who don’t know any better because they have never heard the truth.  It is tragic because it divides the Kingdom and creates massive hypocrisy.  It is tragic because it prevents God’s people from fully experiencing His way of living.  And it is tragic because it didn’t have to happen.

Now what are you going to do about it?

Topical Index:  lawlessness, anomia, hamartia, sin, 2 Thessalonians 2:3, Satan