Dan. 12:1–2 tells us that before the final resurrection at the
eschaton the archangel Michael will arise. Michael is called “the great prince
who protects your people.” He will arise because there will be a time of
unparalleled great distress. In widely diverse early Jewish and Jewish
Christian literature Michael is seen as the most important archangel (1 Enoch 24.6; Testament of Isaac 2.1; Ascension
of Isaiah 3:15–16; 1QM 17.7; 3 Enoch
17.3). His major task is protecting God’s people, and, indeed, he is seen as
the military leader of the heavenly host (1
Enoch 90.14; 2 Enoch 22:6–7; 1QM 17:6–8a). He is the
one who will blow the trumpet and lead the charge at the final judgment (Apocalypse of Moses 22.1; cf. 1 Thess.
4:16). Furthermore, Michael is the primary opponent of Satan in this sort of
literature (1 Enoch 69; 1QM 17:5–6;
Jude 9; Rev. 12:7–9). Some of this literature even says that he defeats Satan
in the end (1QM 13.10). Rev. 20:1–3 depicts a mighty angel who has the power to
restrain Satan, indeed chain him and throw him into a holding tank for the millennium
where he cannot deceive the nations. That this angel is probably Michael can be
seen from the parallel in PGM 4:268–72, the Paris magical papyrus where not
only is katechon used of the
restraining activity but Michael is the restrainer of the great dragon, Satan.
In Rev. 12:7–9 Michael fights Satan and casts him out of heaven, again making
it probable that Michael is the one containing Satan in Revelation 20. I would
suggest then that Paul is operating in 2 Thessalonians 2 in the same
constellation of early Jewish and Jewish Christian ideas.
But what of the Restrainer being removed from the scene? Nicholl has
shown that the LXX rendering of Dan. 12:1a refers to Michael standing aside or
passing aside, which precipitates unprecedented tribulation for the people of
God. This rendering of the text of Daniel would have been extant at least as
early as the late second century b.c. and was surely known to Paul since he
regularly draws on the LXX in his letters. The eschatological rebellion against
God must be preceded by the removal of Michael, who contains or inhibits all
such activities. Nicholl has shown that this interpretation of Dan. 12:1 was
extant in Jewish circles at and before the time of Paul.
If Michael is “the Restrainer” or restraining force (hence the neuter
noun katechon) in view of the
Danielic background, then the Lawless One must be a pagan ruler inspired and
empowered by Satan. This comports with the whole drift of Daniel 7–12 and with
Paul’s anti-imperial rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians 4–5. Though Paul is referring
to a desecration of the Jewish Temple as in Daniel and the early Christian
traditions in Mark 13, he does not think that this Lawless One has appeared
yet. That is, it is not Claudius. But Paul does see “the mystery of
lawlessness” already at work. The apostasy and the Man of Lawlessness are yet
in the future, and so therefore also is its sequel, namely the return of
Christ.
Perhaps it is in order to end with a conjecture. Had Paul lived long
enough, would he have seen the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by Titus
in a.d. 70 as a fulfillment of much of what he says here? Yes, I think that is
possible, perhaps even likely. It would have been the destruction of the right
temple by a pagan emperor claiming divine honors, even though he did not
desecrate the Temple in quite the manner described in Daniel and here. Paul
might also have given some thought to Nero being the anti-Christ figure who was
not yet revealed at the time Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians. (Ben Witherington III,
1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary [Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 2006], 211-12)
