LiTERiTDRE.— (a) Relevant sections of the chief works on NT Theology, e.g. those of B. Weiss (Eng. tr., 1882-«3), W. Bey-
MAN OF SIN
MAN UF SIN
schlag (Enj. tr., 1895), H. J. Holtzmann f-1911), J. Bovon (21002-05), G. B. Stevens (1S99). (M Biblical Anthrovolog]/ : J. Laidlaw, The Biblr. Doctrine of ilait-, 1895 ; E. H. van Leeuwen, Bijhelsche Anthropologic, 1000; R. S. Franks, Man, Sin, and Salvation ((Jeiitury Bible Hiiiidbooks, lOOS) ; H. Wheeler Robinson, The Christian Doctrine «/ Man, 1911 ; M. Scott Fletcher, The Psychuloni/ of the ST, 1012. (c) Special discussions of the Pauline doctrine of man, as a whole or ni some of its aspects: H. Liidemann, Dis Anthropoloijie des Apostels Paulas, 1872 ; J. Gloel, Der heili'je Geist in der Heilsverkiindiriung des Paulus, 1888 ; T. Simon, Die Psycho- logie des Apostels Paulus, 1897 ; C. Clemen, Die christliche Lehre eon der Siinde, 1897 ; H. Gunkel, Die tt'irktingrn des heiligen Geistes-, 1899 : E. Sokolowski, Die Begriffe (Jeist und Leben bei PatUtts. 1903; F. R. Tennant, Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin, 1903 ; H. Wheeler Robinson, ' Hebrew Ps,vcholo<'.v in Relation to Pauline Anthro- pology,' in Mansp'ld College Essays, 1009 ; P. Volz, Der Geiat Gottes, 1910; J. WioSSitt, Pattl and Patdijiism (Moderu Re- ligious Problems, 1010); G. A. Deissmann, Paultts, 1911, Eng.
tr., 1912. H. Wheeler Robinson.
MAN OF SIN (2 Th 2^ ; RVm ' man of lawless- ness,' substituting the better reading di-o^ilas for aixaprla^ of TK). — Apart from sucli .apparent refer- ences to the subject as 2 Co 6'^ Col 2", St. Paul's doctrine of the Antichrist is found in the passage 2 Til 2'''^, in which lie associates ' tlie coinin" of our Lord Jesus Clirist' with a previous 'falling away ' or apostasy (dTroo-riwIa) and the revelation of ' the man of lawlessness,' whom he also designates ' the son of perdition ' (v.'), ' the opponent ' [avTmet- licvos) of God (v.''), ' the lawless one ' (6 dvofios, v.'), whose future revelation in his own time, however, is anticipated even now by a working of ' the mystery of lawlessness' (v.'). The revelation of the man of lawlessness, he further says, is delayed by a restraining power which he refers to in v." as an impersonal influence (t6 kot^oc) and in v.' as an actual person (6 Kar^x'^")- From the days of the early Fathers the interpretations of this pas- sage have been exceedingly various. A good sum- mary of the history of previous opinion is given by H. Alford [Gr- Test.^ iii. [1S71], Proleg., p. 55 8'.), but modern scholars are agreed in holding that the Apostle was speaking of an apocalypse of evil which was only a crowning manifestation of con- temporary influences hostile to God and His King- dom (v.'), and of a restraining power within the knowledge of the Thessalonians themselves (v.'). They are also generally agreed in the view that the two magnitudes which underlay tlie Apostle's cryptic language in regard to the man of lawless- ness and the restrainer are to be found in Judaism and the Roman Empire as represented by its ruler. But at this point opinion divides into two exactly contradictory theories, each of which is able to point to some favouring considerations in the language used by the Apostle.
(1) According to one theory the man of lawless- ness is Roman Imperialism with the Emperor at its head, while the restraining power is Judaism (for a clear and able exposition of this view see B. B. Warheld in Expositor, 3rd set. iv. [1886] 40 ff.). The deification of the Emperors, and especially Caligula's attempt to set up his statue in the Temple of Jerusalem (cf. E. Schiirer, HJP I. ii. [189U] 98 fi.), certainly aftbrd a very direct explana- tion of the language of v.^* as to the blasphemous pretensions of the man of lawlessness. Moreover, the early history of Christianity suggests that it was part of the Divine plan that the new religion should be developed for a time under the protect- ing shadow of Judaism as a religio licita. The failure of the Roman authorities at first to dis- tinguish the Church from the Synagogue (cf. Ac 2gu-i6) ji(] shelter the former in its days of weak- ness from the persecuting rage of pagan Imperial- ism that burst upon it as soon as its separateiiess and its absolute claims were clearly recognized. But the objection to this theory is tliat it attributes , to St. Paul, whose authorship of 2 Thess. maj- now be assumed with some confidence, an attitude to
Judaism and to Rome respectively which finds no counleri)art either in the I'he.ssalonian Epi^tle8 or in an}- other of his w ritings. It w as from Judaism, not from the Empire, that the o|)|iosition and per- secution he had to encounter h,s the Apostle of Christianity invariably came (1 Tli 2'*-"; cf. Acts, passim). I'he philosoi)hic historian may see in Judaism the protective sheath of the opening bud of Christianity ; but it was not so that St. Paul regarded it. On the contrary, the language in which he describes its treatment of Christ and the gospel, and his denunciaticm of the wrath of God upon it (1 Th 2'"-), suggest that the ' mystery of iniquity' already at work (2 Th 2') was iiuthing else than the secret ferment of its own anti-Chris- tian spirit. And Rome with its Emperor could hardly be the man of lawlessness to St. Paul, not only because it had not yet begun to persecute the Church, but because he sincerely rei^pected its authority as a power ordained of God (Ro 13'''), and did not hesitate to appeal to Caesar himself against his Jewish enemies (Ac 25""-).