Charles Ellicott Commentary 2 Thessalonians 2:4

"he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God." — 2 Thessalonians 2:4 (ASV)

Who opposeth and exalteth himself — The original Greek uses a noun-like construction: “the one who opposes and exalts himself.” These were doubtless well-known descriptions of the Antichrist, with several details drawn directly from the description of Antiochus in Daniel 11. Since these are merely descriptive titles, we are not free to insist on the present tense and conclude that the Man of Sin was already acting this way when Paul wrote. The word for “the opposer,” or “adversary,” is a fairly close translation of the name “Satan” and, in ecclesiastical Greek, became a synonym for it. The acts attributed here to the Man of Sin are uniquely satanic (2 Timothy 3:6). Of course, we must not confuse Satan himself with his human agent.

Above all that is called God — The translation here is not entirely precise. In the original, the word “above” is part of a compound verb with “exalts.” It should be rendered, and he exalts himself beyond measure (2 Corinthians 12:7, where the same compound verb is used) against every so-called god. The clause “against every so-called god” probably applies only to this supreme self-exaltation. The description “who opposes” stands on its own; it is a key characteristic of the Man of Sin to be in constant opposition, having harmony with no one.

The phrase “every so-called god” includes false gods along with the true God (compare 1 Corinthians 8:5). Whether true or false, it does not matter to the jealous Antichrist, who wants nothing worshipped but himself. This explains the addition of the small clause, “or that is worshipped.” Many things received religious reverence from people without being called gods, and the original Greek word (sebasma) may be intended to allude to one such object of worship: the Roman Emperor, or Augustus (Sebastos). It would be a stretch, however, to see this as a direct prophecy of a conflict between Antichrist and the civil government. Still, it must be admitted that the word “gods” is sometimes used for secular rulers (for example, Psalms 82:1–6; John 10:34), and some interpret it that way here.

So that he as God — The words “as God” are not in the original text and should be removed. In several other ways, however, the English translation does not convey the sacrilege of the act as clearly as the Greek. A literal rendering would be, “so as to seat himself in the shrine of God, displaying himself that he is God.” The word himself emphasizes the spontaneous arrogance of the act; the Man of Sin does not merely yield to groveling flatterers. The verb for “sitting” is not in a tense that implies a habitual custom but indicates a single, expressive act of taking possession.

The preposition “in” (literally, into) conveys the idea of an actual intrusion. Furthermore, the word for “temple” is not the general term for the entire complex with its courts, but the sacred sanctuary itself. It is the word that would describe the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies of the Jewish temple (27:5, 51; Acts 17:4), and it is likely the Mercy Seat that provides the image for Paul’s thought (Psalms 99:1).

The temple of God — Although the imagery is drawn from the Jewish temple, we can say with some confidence that Paul did not expect the Antichrist to literally take his seat in that building. Nor should the metaphor be interpreted as a mere synonym for “the Church” (1 Corinthians 3:17). So far, these words do not necessarily mean that the Man of Sin will make special claims on the Christian community as such. Rather, the entire phrase, “taking his seat in the temple of God,” is a poetic or prophetic description of usurping divine authority in general—not only the authority of the true God, but whatever authority has been offered to anything “called God.”

Although the prophecy could be fulfilled without any symbolic act (for example, assuming a physical throne), the spontaneity (“himself”) and the openness (“displaying himself”) seem to be such essential parts of the prophecy that they necessarily imply the Man of Sin will make a formal claim to occupy the central place in human minds and aspirations that is acknowledged to belong to God alone. Making this formal claim appears to be identical with the “apocalypse” of the Man of Sin—the very act by which he is manifested or revealed.

Showing himself — Or, thus displaying himself. This does not mean he attempts to prove that he is God. The word simply continues the pictorial representation of the Man of Sin enthroning himself on the Mercy Seat and, by that act of sitting, parading his pretended divinity. As has been said, the performance of a symbolic act is not essential to the fulfillment of the prophecy (for example, Zechariah 9:9 could have been truly fulfilled without the literal riding in Matthew 21:7), although few great movements fail to express themselves in outward, symbolic acts. But these words show that (unless Paul was mistaken) an explicit claim for submission will be made, like that of a creature to the Creator.

Even if the “Man of Sin” signifies only a tendency and not a person, this “exhibition of himself as God” would hardly be fulfilled by a widespread social concession to a general spirit of, for instance, carnal luxury or atheistic intellectualism, unless the claims of these ideals were put forward and consciously admitted by that name. But it is difficult to believe that anything openly atheistic would be described as explicitly claiming or receiving divine honors. It seems most probable, therefore, that the great Apostasy will not be openly atheistic. Instead, it will be an apostasy, so to speak, from within the Church. The Man of Sin, who leads that Apostasy, will make a special claim upon the Christian Church to consciously grant him the very honors it pays to the living God.