Son of Destruction
Many Christians will apostatize when the “Lawless One,” the “Son of Destruction,” seats himself in the “sanctuary.”
As Paul explained, the “Day of the Lord” will not
arrive until the “apostasy” occurs and the “man of lawlessness”
is unveiled. He will take his seat “in the sanctuary of God” and oppose “all
that is called god.” In addition to the “lawless one,” the Apostle labeled
him “the son of destruction.” Is there significance in this
double appellation or is it for stylistic purposes? - [Photo by Levi Meir Clancy on Unsplash].
In his letter, Paul was responding to false
reports that the “Day of the Lord had set in.” But that could not be so
since two key prophetic events had not occurred - the revelation of the “man
of lawlessness” and the “apostasy.”
- (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4) - “That no one may deceive you in any respect. Because that day will not set in, except the apostasy come first, and there be revealed the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself on high against everyone called God or any object of worship, so that he, within the sanctuary of God, will take his seat, showing himself that he is God.”
In Paul’s epistles, the term occurs only here.
“Destruction” translates the Greek noun apôleia, meaning
“destruction, ruin, loss." The exact
same term was heard on the lips of Jesus when he called Judas Iscariot the “son
of destruction.” Certainly, Judas was an excellent model for the
ultimate apostate of the “last days,” but other than his betrayal of Christ,
nothing in his life paralleled the predicted activities of the “man of
lawlessness” – (John 17:12).
Another possibility is that “son of
destruction” refers to this malevolent figure’s final fate when he will be destroyed
at the “arrival” of Jesus. That possibility comports with Paul’s
description of his demise, “whom the Lord will consume with the
spirit of his mouth and destroy with the brightness of his coming.” But in verse
8, “destroy” translates a different Greek word, katargeô,
which more correctly means “disable, disarm, bring to nothing.”
More importantly, the natural sense of the genitive construction in the clause “son of destruction” is that “destruction” characterizes this figure - “destruction” defines what he is and/or does.
Paul’s scriptural source for the “son of
destruction” is the Book of Daniel, especially the passage from its
eleventh chapter describing an evil ruler of Greek descent:
- “And the king shall do according to his will, and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and he shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished; for that which is determined shall be done” – (Daniel 11:36).
This ruler is featured in the visions from
the last half of Daniel, where he is called variously, the “little
horn,” the “king of fierce countenance,” and the “contemptible
person.” He originated from the “fourth beast” and “waged war
against the saints and prevailed over them,” though only for the time
allotted by the “Ancient of Days.” His “war” included the
desecration of the “sanctuary,” the cessation of the daily burnt
offering, and the erection of the “abomination of desolation” in the “sanctuary” – (Daniel
7:21-25, 8:9-13, 8:23-26, 9:26-27, 11:30-36).
That background explains Paul’s warning that
this future figure will “take his seat in the sanctuary.” Did he mean the
“son of destruction” will enter a rebuilt physical temple in Jerusalem?
It is noteworthy that he used the Greek term for the inner sanctum or naos,
the “holy of holies,” and not the word for the entire temple complex.
Nowhere else does Paul express any interest
in the Jerusalem Temple or say anything about any future rebuilt temple.
However, he does apply the same term, the “sanctuary of God,”
metaphorically to the church. And since the topic in the present passage revolves
around the “apostasy” of believers, the context makes it more likely
that Paul was referring to this figure’s appearance in the church - (1
Corinthians 6:19, 2 Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 2:21).
In
the eighth chapter of Daniel, the “little horn” was identified as
the “king” from one of the four Greek kingdoms that succeeded the empire
carved out by Alexander the Great, the “goat with the prominent horn”
that overthrew the “kingdom of the Medes and Persians.” This is the same
“little horn” that waged war against the “saints” in the seventh
chapter - (Daniel 7:21, 8:8-13, 8:21-25).
The
only known historical figure that fulfilled Daniel’s prophecy was Antiochus
IV, the ruler of the Seleucid kingdom that persecuted the Jewish people for
over three years (168 B.C. to 165 B.C.), the allotted “season, seasons, and
part of a season.” His “war” included the corruption of Jewish
leaders, the banning of circumcision and other Jewish rites, the burning of the
Jewish scriptures, the cessation of the sacrificial rituals in the Temple, and
the erection of an altar to his god, Zeus Olympias, on the altar of
burnt offerings, the so-called “abomination of desolation.”
According to Daniel, this
“king of fierce countenance…
corrupted the holy people… and magnified himself in his heart, and
caused the destruction of many.” In
the Greek Septuagint version of Daniel, the term rendered “destruction”
is the same one used by Paul for the “son of destruction,” apôleia.
Most likely, considering the language and context of the passage in Thessalonians,
this was his source of the term “son of destruction.”
Thus,
Paul employed Daniel’s “little horn” as the model for the final deceiver
whose plan will be to deceive Christians and others by “lying signs and
wonders.” Just as the “little horn” caused many in Israel to fall, this creature likewise will cause destruction in the church before his own demise at
the “arrival” of Jesus. He is, therefore, the “son of destruction.”
Comments
Post a Comment
We encourage free discussions on the commenting system provided by the Google Blogger platform, with the stipulation that conversations remain civil. Comments voicing dissenting views are encouraged.