2Th 2:1. ʼΕρωτῶμεν δέ] passing from what the apostle prays for the Thessalonians (2Th 1:11-12) to what he requires of them. On ἐρωτᾶν, see on 1Th 4:1.
ἀδελφοί] an affectionate and winning address.
ὑπέρ] is in the Vulgate, as well as by Pelagius, Faber Stapulensis, Bugenhagen, Clarius, Erasmus, Zwingli, Calvin, Hemming, Hunnius, Justinian, Estius, Piscator, Balduin, Aretius, Cornelius a Lapide, Beza. Fromond., Calixt, Bern. a Piconius, Nat. Alexander, and many others, understood as a form of adjuration (per adventum); and then the meaning attributed to it is either: si vobis dies ille tremendus est … obtestor vos per illum (Zwingli), or: si vobis animo carus est adventus domini, si desiderabile est vobis ad ipsum dominum colligi, etc. (Hemming), or lastly: quam vere exspectatis domini adventum, etc. (Beza). Certainly ὑπέρ, as elsewhere πρός, sometimes occurs in protestations with the genitive; comp. Hom. Il. xxiv. 466 f.
Καί μιν ὑπὲρ πατρὸς καὶ μητέρος ἠϋκόμοιο | Λίσσεο καὶ τέκεος, ἵνα οἱ σὺν θυμὸν ὀρίνῃς, Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 244. But (1) such a usage is entirely foreign to the N. T. (2) It is hardly conceivable that Paul should have chosen that as an object of adjuration, concerning which he was about to instruct them in what follows. Therefore Zeger, Vorstius, Grotius, Hammond, Wolf, Noesselt, Koppe, Storr, Heydenreich, Flatt, Pelt, Schott, de Wette, Winer (p. 343 [E. T. 479]), Baumgarten-Crusius, Wieseler, Bloomfield, Alford, Ewald, Bisping, Riggenbach, and others more correctly take ὑπέρ in the sense of περί, in respect of. Comp. Rom 9:27; 2Co 1:8; Passow, A 3; Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 244; Kühner, II. p. 288. Yet this does not prevent the maintenance of the special import of the preposition also here. The meaning is in the interest of the advent, namely, in order to preserve it from everything that is erroneous. When, then, the apostle says: we entreat you in the interest of the advent, the meaning of this abbreviated form of expression is: we entreat you in the interest of the advent, namely, to guard it against all misrepresentations, not to deviate from the correct view concerning it.
παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου] here also, as everywhere with Paul, is nothing else than the personal coming (return) of Christ at the completion of the kingdom of God.
ἐπισυναγωγή] points back to 1Th 4:17, denoting the act by which all believers are caught up to Christ, or gathered together to Him, to be then eternally united to Him, following the resurrection and change.
ἡμῶν] is placed first in order to obtain a more direct contrast to κυρίου.
ἐπʼ αὐτόν] up to Him. Incorrectly Grotius, Koppe, Heydenreich, Pelt, Alford, and others, that it is equivalent to πρὸς αὐτόν.
2Th 2:2. A statement of the object of the whole sentence, 2Th 2:1.
σαλεύεσθαι] from σάλος, which is especially used of the sea agitated by a storm (comp. Luk 21:25), denotes being placed in a state of commotion and vacillation. It is spoken both in a natural sense of circumstances in the external world (comp. Mat 11:7; Act 4:31; Act 16:26; Heb 12:26, etc.), and also transferred to mental conditions (comp. Act 17:13). σαλευθῆναι ἀπὸ τοῦ νοός is a pregnant construction, including two ideas: to be put in a state of mental commotion away from the νοῦς, i.e. so that the νοῦς goes astray, does not attain to its proper function. Comp. Rom 9:3 : ἀνάθεμα εἶναι ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ.
νοῦς] is to be taken quite generally. It denotes the reasonable, sober, and considerate state of mind, mentis tranquillitas (Turretin). Others, contrary to the meaning of the word, understand by νοῦς the more correct view or conviction, received by the personal instruction of the apostle concerning the advent, from which the Thessalonians were not to suffer themselves to be removed. So Hemming, Bullinger, Estius, Lucius Osiander, Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Fromond., Bern. a Piconius, Nat. Alexander, Moldenhauer, Flatt, Heydenreich, and many others; whilst, in an equally erroneous manner, Wolf interprets the expression of the “sensus verborum Pauli, de hoc argumento in superiore epistola traditorum.”
μὴ ταχέως] not suddenly. This does not import, “so soon after my departure” (Joachim Lange), or so shortly after the instructions received from us (Piscator, Calovius, Olshausen, and others), but: suddenly, so soon after the matter in question was spoken of.
μηδὲ θροεῖσθαι] nor yet be frightened. A new and stronger point, which is more definitely described or divided by the following μήτε, according to a threefold statement of the cause. See on this distinction between μηδέ and μήτε, Winer, p. 432 [E. T. 611].
μήτε διὰ πνεύματος] neither by inspiration. Falsely-understood prophecies of the O. T. (Krause), or signa quasi per spiritum facta (Pelagius), or deceitful revelations by spiritual appearances (Ernest Schmid, Schrader), or by dreams (Schrader), are not meant; but inspired prophetical discourses, delivered by the members of the church in Christian assemblies, and whose contents were falsely given out as divine revelations. To understand, with Chrysostom, Bugenhagen, Vatablus, Koppe, Storr, Bolten, Heydenreich, and others (Flatt and de Wette give the alternative), πνεῦμα as an abstract noun, instead of the concrete πνευματικός, so that the persons who delivered the inspired discourses are to be understood, although not without analogy, is yet objectionable in itself, and has the want of harmony occasioned by it with the following λόγου and ἐπιστολῆς against it.
μήτε διὰ λόγου] is by Baumgarten-Crusius referred to a traditional (falsified) word of Jesus, more specifically by Noesselt to the prophecy of Christ in Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21. But if Paul had in view a saying of Christ, he would have indicated it (perhaps by μήτε διὰ λόγου ὡς κυρίου, or something similar). Others, as Michaelis and Tychsen, translate λόγος by “reckoning,” and suppose that one made a reckoning of the times on the ground of the Book of Daniel, and in consequence inferred that the advent of Christ was directly at hand. But λόγου by itself certainly does not justify such an artificial hypothesis. Lastly, others, in distinction from prophecy delivered by inspiration, take λόγος in the sense of a calm and didactic discourse, whether aiming at conviction or seduction. So, after the example of Chrysostom, Oecumenius (διὰ πιθανολογίας), Theophylact (διὰ διδασκαλίας ζώσῃ φωνῇ γινομένης), Clarius (oratione persuasoria), Zeger (per doctrinam viva voce prolatam), Ewald (“by word; that is, by discourse and doctrine [διδαχή, 1Co 14:26]; whilst one sought to prove the error in a learned manner by a clever discourse, perhaps from the Holy Scriptures”), Hofmann, Riggenbach, and many others. However, from the parallel arrangement in 2Th 2:15, which opposes the true to the false expressed in 2Th 2:2, it is evident that διὰ λόγου and διʼ ἐπιστολῆς are closely connected ideas, of which the first denotes the oral, and the second the written statement. It is accordingly most natural to construe διὰ λόγου not by itself, but to unite ὡς διʼ ἡμῶν, as proceeding from us, both with διὰ λόγου and with διʼ ἐπιστολῆς; and to understand the first of oral expressions which were imputed to the apostle,[43] and the latter of written expressions which were imputed to him by means of a forged epistle. On the other hand, with Erasmus, to refer ὡς διʼ ἡμῶν also to ΔΙᾺ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς is impossible; as, although ΛΌΓΟΙ and ἘΠΙΣΤΟΛΑΊ may be placed in the category of those things which proceed from one absent, yet this cannot be the case with inspired prophetical discourses, as with these the personal presence of the speaker was requisite. Correctly Theodoret: ΠΑΡΕΓΓΥᾷ ΤΟΊΝΥΝ Ὁ ΘΕῖΟς ἈΠΌΣΤΟΛΟς, ΜῊ ΠΙΣΤΕΎΕΙΝ ΤΟῖς ΛΈΓΟΥΣΙΝ ἘΝΕΣΤΗΚΈΝΑΙ ΤῸΝ Τῆς ΣΥΝΤΕΛΕΊΑς ΚΑΙΡΌΝ, ΚΑῚ ΠΑΡΑΥΤΊΚΑ ΤῸΝ ΚΎΡΙΟΝ ἘΠΙΦΑΝΉΣΕΣΘΑΙ, ΜΉΤΕ ΕἸ ΠΡΟΣΠΟΙΟῖΝΤΟ ΧΡΗΣΜῼΔΕῖΝ ΚΑῚ ΠΡΟΦΗΤΕΎΕΙΝ· ΤΟῦΤΟ ΓᾺΡ ΛΈΓΕΙ ΜΉΤΕ ΔΙᾺ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς· ΜΉΤΕ ΕἸ ΠΛΑΣΆΜΕΝΟΙ Ὡς ἘΞ ΑὐΤΟῦ ΓΡΑΦΕῖΣΑΝ ἘΠΙΣΤΟΛῊΝ ΠΡΟΦΈΡΟΙΕΝ, ΜΉΤΕ ΕἸ ἈΓΡΆΦΩς ΑὐΤῸΝ ΕἸΡΗΚΈΝΑΙ ΛΈΓΟΙΕΝ.
Ὡς ΔΙʼ ἩΜῶΝ] simply denies that such a saying or letter, containing such an assertion, arose from Paul and his two companions, or proceeded from them. The apostle accordingly supposes, that as there were actually in Thessalonica prophetical announcements (πνεῦμα) which had the assertion which follows as their contents, so there were also actually present a λόγος and an ἘΠΙΣΤΟΛΉ containing the contents here stated. Accordingly, it is a completely arbitrary assumption when Kern, p. 149 f.; Reuss, Gesch. der heil. Schriften N. T., 4th edit., Braunschw. 1864, p. 71; Bleek, Einleit. in d. N. T., Ber. 1862, p. 385 f.; and Hilgenfeld, in d. Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol., Halle 1862, p. 249, after the example of Beza (but he not decidedly), Hammond, and Krause, refer the ἐπιστολή to the apostle’s First Epistle to the Thessalonians, which was wrongly understood, or, as Hilgenfeld thinks, from which an inference suggested by it was drawn.
ὡς ὅτι ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου] as if, or, like as if the day of the Lord is already present, or, is even on the point of commencing[44] (comp. Rom 8:38; 1Co 3:22; 1Co 7:26; Gal 1:4), gives the contents of the communications unsettling and terrifying them. ὡς placed before ὍΤΙ brings into prominence the fact that this notion was completely unfounded and purely imaginary. Comp. also 2Co 11:21, and Winer, p. 544 [E. T. 771]. Completely erroneous Hofmann: Ὡς ὍΤΙ is equivalent to Ὡς ἘΆΝ, 1Th 2:7.
When, moreover, the apostle says that these illusions unsettled and terrified the Thessalonians, this effect might be produced both on those who regarded the advent with longing desire and on those who regarded it with fear. For what is eagerly expected puts a man in a state of excitement, and if it is something decisive of his fate, into a state of fear, as soon as he believes that the moment of its realization has come.
[43] But not, as Macknight (comp. also Bloomfield) thinks, of a pretended oral message of the apostle to his readers; nor, as Grotius explains it, of “rumores de nobis, quasi aliud nunc diceremus, quam antehac diximus.”
[44] Incorrectly Hoelemann, Die Stellung St. Pauli zu der Frage um die Zeit der Wiederkunft Christi, Leipz. 1858, p. 14: “as if the day of the Lord was at hand.”
2Th 2:3-4. An emphatically-repeated exhortation, and the reason of it. The readers were by no means to be misled into the fancy, that the day of the Lord was now to dawn; for the apostasy and the appearance of Antichrist must precede it.
ἐξαπατᾶν] does not precisely convey the idea of a deceit occurring from wicked intention, whilst it may be correctly imagined that nothing evil was seen in the mode of deception mentioned in 2Th 2:2-rather it was considered as an excusable vehicle for the diffusion of views which were believed to be recognised as true; only the idea of delusion, i.e. of being misled into a false and incorrect mode of contemplation, is expressed by the verb.
When, then, the apostle says, Let no man befool you, it is, similar to a form of representation usual to him, in the meaning of suffer yourselves to be befooled by no one. Comp. Eph 5:6; Col 2:16; Col 2:18.
κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον] not only recapitulates the three modes of misleading mentioned in 2Th 2:2 (Bengel, Baumgarten-Crusius), but is an absolute expression, so that accordingly it may be supposed that some other mode of deception might be employed.
The sentence 2Th 2:3-4 is grammatically incomplete. The finite verb to ὅτι is wanting, which Paul intended to accompany the conjunction, but easily forgot as he added to ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας a longer description. It is perfectly clear from the connection that οὐκ ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου from 2Th 2:2 is to be supplied to ὅτι. In a very forced manner Knatchbull attempts to remove the incompleteness of the construction by placing a comma after ὅτι, supplying ἐνέστηκεν to ὅτι, and uniting it with μή τις … τρόπον into one sentence. “Suffer yourselves to be deceived by no one that (the day of the Lord is at the door), unless first there shall have come,” etc. To maintain this meaning ἐνέστηκεν must necessarily be added to ὅτι. But still more arbitrary is the attempt of Storr and Flatt to remove the ellipsis by explaining ἐὰν μή as analogous (!) to the Hebrew אִם לֹא, in the sense of most certainly, most positively.
ὅτι] is to be separated from the preceding by a colon, and does not denote indeed (Baumgarten-Crusius), but for.
ἀποστασία] a later Greek form for the older ἀπόστασις. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 528. The expression is to be left in its absoluteness, not, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Augustin (de civitate dei, xx. 21), and Bolten, to be taken as abstractum pro concreto, so that Antichrist himself is to be understood. But not apostasy in the political sense, but entirely religious apostasy-that is, a falling away from God and true religion-can have been meant by ἀποστασία. (1) What is said of the ἄνθρωτος τῆς ἁμαρτίας in direct internal connection with the apostasy, (2) the characteristic of the ἀποστασία, 2Th 2:3, by ἀνομία, 2Th 2:7, and (3) the constant biblical usage, constrain us to this view. Comp. LXX. 2Ch 29:19; Jer 2:19; 1Ma 2:15, etc.; Act 21:21; 1Ti 4:1. Accordingly, also, Kern’s view (comp. already Aretius and Vorstius) is to be rejected as inadmissible, that we are to think of a mixture of political and religious apostasy.
Moreover, the apostle speaks of ἡ ἀποστασία (with the article), and also ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας κ.τ.λ., either because the readers had already been orally instructed concerning it (comp. 2Th 2:5), or because the Old Testament prophets had already foretold the apostasy and the appearance of Antichrist. But the apostasy is not the consequence of the appearance of Antichrist, so that Paul by καὶ ἀποκαλυφθῇ κ.τ.λ. goes backwards from a statement of its effect to a specification of its author (so Pelt and de Wette, appealing to 2Th 2:9-10); but it precedes the appearance of antichrist, so that this is the historical climax of the ἀποστασία, and serves for its completion (2Th 2:7-10).
The apostle considers Antichrist as a parallel to Christ; therefore he here speaks of an ἀποκάλυψις (comp. 2Th 1:7), a revelation of what was hitherto concealed, as well as, in 2Th 2:9, of an advent of the same.
ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας] the man of sin, i.e. in whom sin is the principal matter, and is, as it were, incorporated-who thus forms the climax of wickedness.
ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας] the son of perdition, i.e. who on account of his wickedness falls a prey to perdition. Comp. Joh 17:12. See Winer, p. 213 [E. T. 298]. Schleusner and Pelt erroneously take the expression as transitive: “who will be the cause of perdition to others.” Equally erroneously Theodoret, Oecumenius, and others; also Heydenreich and Schott: the transitive sense is to be united with the intransitive.
2Th 2:4. Ὁ ἀντικείμενος] is not to be united by zeugma with ὑπεραιρόμενος, so that out of ἐπὶ πάντα κ.τ.λ. the dative παντὶ λεγομένῳ Θεῷ ἢ σεβάσματι is to be taken (Benson, Koppe, Krause, Rosenmüller, Flat, Pelt, Bloomfield, Hofmann, Riggenbach), but is absolute, in the sense of a substantive-the opposer. It has been erroneously maintained by Pelt, that the article being only put once necessitates the assumption of a zeugma. But all that follows from the single insertion of the article is only that the two statements, ἀντικεῖσθαι and ὑπεραίρεσθαι, must contain something related to each other, which is summed up in a common general idea. This general idea is extremely evident from what follows. Accordingly, the person of whom Paul speaks was designated according to his internal nature by ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, then characterized according to his ultimate fate by ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, and now-whilst Paul in his delineation takes a step backward (comp. 2Th 2:8 and 2Th 2:9)-the mode and manner of his public external appearance and conduct is described.
But if ὁ ἀντικείμενος denotes simply and absolutely the opposer, the question is asked, whom does he oppose? Baumgarten and Michaelis erroneously answer: the human race; for this interpretation has no point of contact in the context, and would explain away the form so definitely brought before us by Paul by a vague generality. De Wette and others more definitely answer: God and Christ. And certainly the description that immediately follows shows that the opposer opposes himself in the highest degree to God. But this fact does not justify such a wide meaning, if another is opposed to it in the context. Now the context specially points to the opposer of Christ (thus Heydenreich, Schott, and Kern). For the man of sin stands in the closest and strictest parallelism with Christ. He is the forerunner of Christ’s advent, and has, as the caricature of Christ, like Him an advent and a manifestation: he raises the power of evil, which exalts itself in a hostile manner against Christ and His kingdom, to the highest point; his working is diametrically the opposite of the working of Christ, and it is Christ’s appearance which destroys him. Accordingly, the opponent can be none other than the Antichrist (ὁ ἀντίχριστος, 1Jn 2:18). This Antichrist is not the devil himself (Pelagius and others), for he is distinguished from him (2Th 2:9); but according to 2Th 2:9 he is an instrument of the devil.
In καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος κ.τ.λ. he is further described as he who, in frivolous arrogance, exalts himself above all that is called God. With this description the delineation of Antiochus Epiphanes, in Dan 11:36-37, was before the mind of the apostle, where it is said: καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑψωθήσεται καὶ μεγαλυνβήσεται ἐπὶ πάντα Θεόν, καὶ λαλήσει ὑπέρογκα … καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας θεοὺς τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ οὐ συνήσει … καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶν Θεὸν οὐ συνήσει, ὅτι ἐπὶ πάντας μεγαλυνθήσεται Comp. Dan 7:25 : καὶ λόγους πρὸς τὸν ὕψιστον λαλήσει.
ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον Θεόν] includes the true God as well as the false gods worshipped by the heathen; but λεγόμενον is a natural addition from Christian caution, as πάντα Θεόν would have been a senseless and indeed blasphemous expression for a Christian.
ἢ σέβασμα] serves for a generalization of the idea Θεόν. Accordingly the meaning is: or whatever else is an object of adoration, sc. of divine adoration (= numen).
ὥστε κ.τ.λ.] The arrogant wickedness of Antichrist proceeds so far that he claims divine adoration for himself.
καθίσαι] intransitive, seats himself; accordingly not αὑτόν (Grotius, Koppe, Pelt), but αὐτόν is to be written. αὐτόν is placed for the sake of emphasis: he, who has lost all reverence for the divine, in whose form he wishes to appear.
ὁ ναὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ] is not, as Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Musculus, Hunnius, Estius, Lucius and Andrew Osiander, Aretius, Vorstius, Calixt, Calovius, Wolf, Benson, Moldenhauer, Bolten, and others, also Heydenreich, Pelt, Olshausen, Bloomfield, Alford, Bisping, and Hilgenfeld (l.c. p. 253) assume, a figurative representation of the Christian church, but, on account of the definite expression καθίσαι, cannot be otherwise understood than in its proper sense. But on account of the repetition of the article can only one definite temple of one definite true God-that is, the temple of Jerusalem-be meant (Grotius, Clericus, Schöttgen, Whitby, Kern, de Wette, Wieseler, v. Döllinger, l.c. p. 282).[45]
ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἘΣΤῚΝ ΘΕΌς] exhibiting himself that he is a god, i.e. whilst he not only actually takes possession of the temple of the only true God as his own, as a dwelling-place belonging to him, but also publicly predicates of himself divine dignity, and accordingly requires to be adored. The interpretation of Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and others, also Heydenreich, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, Bisping, and Riggenbach: “who shows himself or seeks to show himself as a god by deceitful miracles” (2Th 2:9), agrees not with the preceding καθίσαι.
[45] Schrader certainly finds in ὁ ναός a heathen temple; and by the addition τοῦ Θεοῦ its interior is denoted, the place where the god had its seat!
2Th 2:5. Estius: “Est … tacita objurgatio, quasi dicat: quum haec vobis praesens dixerim, non debebatis commoveri rumoribus aliquorum dicentium instare diem domini.”
On πρὸς ὑμᾶς] see on 1Th 3:4.
ταῦτα] namely, the contents of 2Th 2:3-4. To assume, however, a parenthesis from 2Th 2:5 to οἴδατε in 2Th 2:6 (so Heinsius) is arbitrary.
2Th 2:6. Τὸ κατέχον] is that which keeps back, that which hinders (τὸ κωλύον, Chrysostom). But it does not denote, as Heinsius thinks (here and in 2Th 2:7), that which hinders the apostle from speaking freely of Antichrist;[46] also not that which hinders the commencement of the advent of Christ (Noack, der Ursprung des Christenthums, Bd. 2, Leipz. 1857, p. 315), but that which hinders the appearance of Antichrist. This follows from the additional sentence εἰς τὸ κ.τ.λ., in which (1) ΑὐΤΌΝ can only be referred to the ἌΝΘΡΩΠΟς Τῆς ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς, and (2) ἈΠΟΚΑΛΥΦΘῆΝΑΙ ἘΝ Τῷ ἙΑΥΤΟῦ ΚΑΙΡῷ forms a contrast to the idea of keeping back contained in κατέχον. τὸ κατέχον is therefore, according to its objective side, to be completed by τὸ τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῆς ἁμαρτίας κατέχον. What, on the other hand, the apostle supposes to be the subject of this preventing power can only be explained at the conclusion of this section.
εἰς τὸ κ.τ.λ.] not donec, usque dum, but in order that (the aim of God in the κατέχειν).
ἘΝ Τῷ ἙΑΥΤΟῦ ΚΑΙΡῷ] in his time, i.e. in the time appointed for him by God. More difficult than these determinations is the solution of the question, In what connection this verse is conjoined to the preceding by means of καὶ νῦν. Storr, with whom Flatt agrees, finds in ΝῦΝ a contrast to ἜΤΙ, 2Th 2:5. The thought would then be, that the advent cannot commence until Antichrist appears, this I have told you by word of mouth; but now, after my written declaration (2Th 2:3), you know also why the appearance of Antichrist is still delayed, namely, by the circumstance that the ἀποστασία must precede his appearance. But if Paul had actually wished to have expressed this contrast, he would have been obliged to write in 2Th 2:5, ὍΤΙ ΤΑῦΤΑ ΜῈΝ ἜΤΙ ὪΝ ΠΡῸς ὙΜᾶς ἜΛΕΓΟΝ ὙΜῖΝ, and in 2Th 2:6, ΝῦΝ ΔῈ ΚΑῚ ΤῸ ΚΑΤΈΧΟΝ ΟἼΔΑΤΕ. Related to Storr’s view is the interpretation of Kern, with whom Hilgenfeld (l.c. p. 247) agrees: “That the advent of Christ does not take place until the man of sin be revealed, is already known to you: and now, in reference to what the present presents to you, ye know also that which hinders.” The same objection is decisive against this view. Further, according to Hofmann, who considers 2Th 2:5-6 as “two halves of one question united with καί,” νῦν stands not, indeed, in opposition to ἜΤΙ, 2Th 2:5, but must express “the present in reference to that future which was known to the readers,” that they know that in the present by which its commencement is still hindered. But the temporal νῦν can never form a contrast to ΤΑῦΤΑ in 2Th 2:5; and to assume that the words in 2Th 2:6 are still contained in the question in 2Th 2:5 is entirely erroneous, because in this case ΚΑῚ ΝῦΝ Κ.Τ.Λ. could only be considered as dependent on ὍΤΙ,[47] but it is not necessary to recall to mind what is actually known in the present.
νῦν is also understood as a particle of time, by Whitby, Macknight, Heydenreich, Schrader, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Wieseler, and Bisping, but they do not connect it with οἴδατε, but with τὸ κατέχον: “and ye know that which at present hinders.” But only a grammatical impropriety would be expressed thereby, as καὶ τὸ νῦν κατέχον would be required. For it is inconceivable that an adverb, whose proper place is between the article and the participle, should by a hyperbaton be placed first, because it has already in its natural position the same emphasis which it would receive by its being placed first. The passages appealed to, as 2Th 2:7, 1Co 7:17, Rom 12:3, etc., are not analogous. And as little do the temporal particles ἄρτι and ἤδη, 2Th 2:7, decide for this construction. For the emphasis lies not on ἄρτι, but on κατέχων, so that ἄρτι might be omitted without injury to the sense; and ἤδη is not put in exchange for νῦν, but for ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ. Likewise νῦν is understood by Schott as a temporal and consecutive particle, but καί is then taken in the sense of also: “For ye know also now (not only have ye learned it at that time when I was with you), why the appearance of Antichrist is still delayed.” But (1) τὸ οὖν κατέχον οἴδατε καὶ νῦν would require to have been written; (2) τὸ κατέχον must refer to a point formerly already explained; but it is entirely a new point, as in what goes before what hindered the appearance of Christ, but not what hindered the appearance of Antichrist, was spoken of; (3) lastly, to what an idle, dragging, and trivial addition would 2Th 2:6 be degraded! The only correct view is to take καὶ νῦν in a logical sense, but not, with Koppe and Krause, as an inferential particle (“and accordingly”), but with de Wette, Alford, and Ewald, as a particle of transition to a new communication: and now, comp. Act 7:34; Act 10:5; Act 13:11; Act 20:25, etc.; Hartung, Partikellehre, II. p. 26. Accordingly, the emphasis does not lie on νῦν, but on κατέχον. The meaning is: and now-to pass on to a further point-ye know what hindereth, namely, wherein it consists, and why the appearance of Antichrist is still prevented, that it should be revealed in its appointed time, marked out by God. The Thessalonians knew this point from the apostle’s oral instructions, so that they required only to be reminded of it.
[46] “Neque ignoratis, quid sit, quod me nunc aperte vetat loqui;” and on ver. 7: “ille, qui nunc obstat, quo minus aperte loquar.” Heinsius makes the words refer to the apostle’s fear of offending Nero!
[47] For if in the presumed, question, not οἴδατε and ἔλεγον, but and οἴδατε and μνημονεύετε were to correspond, καὶ οὐκ οἴδατε νῦν τὸ κατέχον would require to have been written.
2Th 2:7.[48] An explanatory justification of εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ, but not a parenthesis (Hemming). The mystery of wickedness is certainly even now active, but Antichrist cannot be manifest until the power preventing him be overcome.
μυστήριον] is contrasted with ἀποκαλυφθῆναι, and ἤδη with ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ. But the chief emphasis of the sentence lies on μυστήριον, which on that account is not only placed first, but is besides separated from its further definition τῆς ἀνομίας by the verb and adverb. Comp. Gal 2:6; Gal 2:9; Arrian, Exp. Al. i. 7. 16: καὶ εὑρέσθαι συγγνώμην τῷ πλήθει τῶν Θηβαίων τῆς ἀποστάσεως.
ἀνομία] means lawlessness, then ungodliness or wickedness generally. The expression corresponds to ἀποστασία, 2Th 2:3. For the ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας was mentioned in 2Th 2:3 as the historical crown of the ἀποστασία; whilst here, in like manner, ἀνομία appears as its forerunner (ἤδη). The genitive τῆς ἀνομίας is not a genitive of the working cause-wickedness, which lays its concealed snares (Theodoret), or which works under the appearance of good intentions, but uses secret unworthy means for its object (Flatt); or the plan of ungodliness (Baumgarten-Crusius); or the secret counsel of the supernatural power of darkness (κατʼ ἐνέργειαν τοῦ σατανᾶ, 2Th 2:9), which is placed in parallelism with God’s eternal counsel or μυστήριον in reference to Christ and His kingdom (Kern); but is the genitive of apposition. But neither is Antichrist himself meant, who, as Christ, because God manifest in the flesh, is called in 1Ti 3:16 : τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, is likewise named τὸ μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας, because he is an incarnation of the devil (Olshausen); nor is μυστήριον a mere intensification of the idea ἀνομία, so that a hitherto unheard of, unexampled godlessness was designated (Krebs, Hofmann, comp. also Heydenreich, p. 41, and Schott, p. 22).[49] Rather, taking into consideration the emphatic antithesis which ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ forms to ἈΠΟΚΑΛΥΦΘῆΝΑΙ, the natural meaning of the words can only be the mystery of wickedness, i.e. wickedness in so far as it is still a mystery, something concealed, not yet publicly brought to light. Paul thinks on the detached traces of wickedness, recognisable in their true import only to a few as to himself, which already appeared, but which only at a later period will concentrate themselves, and reach their climax in Antichrist.
ἐνεργεῖται] is not passive, as Estius, Grotius, Kypke, Nösselt, Storr, Schott, Bloomfield, and others assume, but middle, is active, begins to bestir itself or to develope its activity. The subject of ἐνεργεῖται is ΤῸ ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ, not Antichrist, as Zeger thinks.
ΜΌΝΟΝ] is still by Heinsius[50] and Kypke connected with the preceding, and separated from what follows by a comma. Erroneously, as μόνον is irreconcilable with ἬΔΗ in the same clause. But also ΜΌΝΟΝ does not begin a protasis to which ΚΑῚ ΤΌΤΕ, 2Th 2:8, introduces the apodosis (Koppe). Rather a comma is to be put after ἈΝΟΜΊΑς, and a colon after ΓΈΝΗΤΑΙ. Accordingly 2Th 2:7 is divided into two halves, of which the first forms a concession, and the second a limitation. The meaning is: as a mystery wickedness certainly works even now, only, before Antichrist can be manifested, we must wait until, etc.
ἕως] until that, should properly stand before ὁ κατέχων; but it is placed after, in order to bring forward more emphatically Ὁ ΚΑΤΈΧΩΝ as the chief idea. Comp. Gal 2:10 : μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν. See Winer, p. 485 [E. T. 688]. Erroneously Tychsen: the construction is “somewhat distorted;” it should have been ΜΌΝΟΝ Ὁ ΚΑΤΈΧΩΝ ἝΩς ἌΡΤΙ. Others, equally erroneously, assume that for the completion of the sentence an additional verb is to be taken from the participle Ὁ ΚΑΤΈΧΩΝ. Thus, in conformity with the Vulgate (tantum ut qui tenet nunc, teneat, donec de medio fiat), Nicolas de Lyra, Erasmus, Zwingli, Zeger, Camerarius, Estius, Lucius and Andrew Osiander, Balduin, Menochius, Cornelius a Lapide, and others, who supply ΚΑΤΕΧΈΤΩ; Jac. Cappellus, Beza, Calixt, Joachim Lange, Whitby, who supply ΚΑΘΈΞΕΙ; Bengel, Storr, Pelt, who supply ΚΑΤΈΧΕΙ. Not less arbitrarily do Knatchbull, Benson, and Baumgarten proceed, who would add ἘΣΤΊΝ after ΜΌΝΟΝ. For not the mere copula ἐστίν, but the emphatic and independent ἔστιν, would warrant the sense assumed by them; but a word which has the emphasis cannot be left out.
ὁ κατέχων] must be essentially the same as what was designated in 2Th 2:6 by the neuter τὸ κατέχον. For the same function is ascribed to both, whilst in a similar manner as τὸ κατέχον formerly, so now also Ὁ ΚΑΤΈΧΩΝ (comp. 2Th 2:8) appears as that by which the ἈΠΟΚΆΛΥΨΙς of Antichrist is still delayed. The restraining power, on which Paul thought, must accordingly have been so constituted that it can be brought under a twofold form of description, and be represented both as a thing and as a person. To make ὁ κατέχων denote the ruling power (qui obtinet, i. e. rerum potitur, Beza, and so also Whitby, Noesselt, and others) is as contrary to the context as it would be to supply fidem as an accusative to it (Nicolas de Lyra: “qui tenet nunc fidem catholicam, teneat eam firmiter”), or fidem atque caritatem (Zeger), or Christum et veram ejus religionem (Estius), or Christi adventum (Vatablus), or τὴν ἀνομίαν (Flatt, Heydenreich, Schott), and the like.
ἌΡΤΙ] is closely connected with Ὁ ΚΑΤΈΧΩΝ, and brings specially forward the reference already contained in the present participle to the immediate present time of the writer. Schott, after Flatt and Pelt, thinks that if ἌΡΤΙ is to be limited to the time of the speaker, it is not suitable to the view of the apostle (see on 1Th 4:15); that it may accordingly be understood generally: “tempus efficientiae ΤΟῦ ΚΑΤΈΧΟΝΤΟς opportunum, quod porro elapsurum sit ad initium usque temporis illi oppositi i. e. donec, remoto Τῷ ΚΑΤΈΧΟΝΤΙ, palam sit proditura Ἡ ἈΠΟΣΤΑΣΊΑ.”
ἘΚ ΜΈΣΟΥ ΓΊΝΕΣΘΑΙ] is not necessarily to be considered of death or violence (Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius). It can denote any removal or being taken out of the way, however it may happen. Comp. 1Co 5:2; Col 2:14; Plutarch, Timol. p. 238: ἔγνω ζῆν καθʼ ἑαυτὸν ἐκ μέσου γενόμενος. The opposite of ἘΚ ΜΈΣΟΥ ΓΊΝΕΣΘΑΙ or ΑἼΡΕΣΘΑΙ is ἘΝ ΜΈΣῼ ΕἾΝΑΙ, to be in the way, or to be obstructive. Comp. Xenoph. Cyrop. v. 2. 26: καὶ σφόδρʼ ἂν εἴ πῃ γε δύναιντο συμμίξαι. Τί δʼ ἐν μέσῳ, ἔφη, ἐστὶ τοῦ συμμίξαι; Ἀσσύριοι, ἔφασαν, τὸ αὐτὸ ἔθνος, διʼ οὗπερ νῦν πορεύῃ.
[48] Comp. C. Th. Beyer, de κατέχοντι τὴν ἀνομίαν, 2Th 2:7, commentatio, Lips. 1824.-J. Grimm, the κατέχων of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (Regensburger Lyceal-Programm), 1861.
[49] For this meaning an appeal is made to Joseph, de bello Jud. i. 24. 2 Thessalonians 1 : καὶ τὸν Ἀντιπάτρου βίον οὐκ ἂν ἁμάρτοι τις εἰπὼν κακίας μυστήριον.
[50] Heinsius finds the thought expressed: what was only begun in the time of Nero, Antichrist will at a later period bring to a conclusion.
2Th 2:8. What was left to the readers themselves to supply to μόνον, 2Th 2:7, from the conclusion of 2Th 2:6, is now, in its essence, although in an altered form, expressly indicated by καὶ τότε ἀποκαλυφθήσεται ὁ ἄνομος.
καὶ τότε] and then, namely, as soon as the κατέχων is taken out of the way. The emphasis is on καὶ τότε, not on ὁ ἄνομος (Grotius), nor on ἀποκαλυφθήσεται.
ὁ ἄνομος] the lawless one, is not a different person from ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας (Grotius), but identical with him. For καὶ τότε ἀποκαλυφθήσεται points back to μόνον, 2Th 2:7, and by this to ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτόν, 2Th 2:6. The expression ἀνομία, just used, afforded the easily explained occasion for calling Antichrist ἄνομος.
With the relative sentence ὃν ὁ κύριος … παρουσίας αὐτοῦ (which is incorrectly enclosed in a parenthesis by Benson, Moldenhauer, Schott, and Kern) the apostle immediately adds the ultimate fate which Antichrist has to expect. That Paul so directly passes over to this, although he has it yet in view to speak of the working of Antichrist before his destruction (comp. 2Th 2:9-10), is an involuntary impulse of his Christian heart which causes him immediately to resolve the horror which the announcement of such an event as the ἀποκάλυψις τοῦ ἀνόμου has into comfort and consolation, as a discord into harmony, comp. 2Th 2:3-4.
In a soaring and poetical form of expression, the members of which have their Hebrew parallels, Paul describes the fate of Antichrist. Not improbably Isa 11:4 was present to his mind, where it is declared of the promised Deliverer of the seed of Jesse: καὶ πατάξει λῆν τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐν πνεύματι διὰ χειλέων ἀνελεῖ ἀσεβῆ.
ἀναλίσκειν] to consume, to destroy.
τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ] describes the power and irresistible might of the reappearing Christ, the breath of whose mouth suffices to bring His opponents to nothing. More definite interpretations, as the sentence of condemnation (Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide), or a command or address (Theodoret: φθέγξεται μόνον; Theodore Mopsuestia, ed. Fritzsche, p. 148: μόνον ἐπιβοήσας … τοῦτο γὰρ λέγει τὸ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ ἀντὶ τοῦ τῇ φωνῇ, ἀπὸ τοῦ παρʼ ἡμῖν αὐτὸ εἰρηκώς, ἐπειδὴ ἡμεῖς τῷ πνεύματι συνεργῷ κεχρήμεθα πρὸς τὴν ἔναρθρον λαλιάν), are to be rejected; for they destroy or weaken the picturesque directness and strength of the figure. Comp. moreover, Eurip. Med. 588: ἓν γὰρ οὖν κτενεῖ σʼ ἔπος.
καταργεῖν] to overthrow, to annihilate. On account of Rev 19:20, Calovius and Olshausen interpret the verb of a mere “rendering inefficient,” depriving Antichrist of his influence; but the parallel ἀναλώσει decides against this meaning, and a comparison of the Pauline form of expression with that of the Apocalypse is useless labour.
τῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ] by the appearance of His presence. The majestic brightness of the advent is not described by ἐπιφάνεια (Musculus, Hemming, Bullinger, Heinsius, Andrew Osiander, Cornelius a Lapide, Erasmus Schmid, Calixt, Clericus, Bernard a Piconius, Sebastian Schmid, Schoettgen, Turretin, Whitby, Benson, Macknight, Koppe, Krause, Bolten, Heydenreich, Pelt, Schott, Kern, Wieseler, and others); also παρουσία and ἐπιφάνεια are not to be distinguished, as Olshausen strangely thinks, as objective and subjective, i.e. as “the actual fact of the appearance of Christ,” and “the contemplation of it on the part of man, the consciousness of His presence;” but the placing the two together has the same design as formerly, τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ, namely, vividly to represent the power of Christ, inasmuch as the mere advent of His presence suffices to annihilate His adversaries. Comp. Bengel: “apparitio adventus ipso adventu prior est, vel certe prima ipsius adventus emicatio, uti ἐπιφάνεια τῆς ἡμέρας.”
2Th 2:9-10. The apostle has in 2Th 2:8 not only said when Antichrist will appear, but he has also immediately added what fate awaits him. He now goes backward in point of time, whilst in addition he describes the character of the working which Antichrist will develope before his destruction, brought about by the appearance of Christ.
οὗ] sc. τοῦ ἀνόμου. Parallel with ὅν, 2Th 2:8.
ἐστίν] the present describes the certainty of the coming in the future. See Winer, p. 237 [E. T. 331]. Incorrectly Koppe, it imports: “jam agit et mox apertius majoreque cum vi aget.”
κατʼ ἐνέργειαν τοῦ σατανᾶ] does not belong as an independent statement to ἐστίν (so Hofmann, as before him already Georgii, in Zeller’s theol. Jahrb. 1845, Part 1, p. 8, who gives the meaning that the act of the appearing of the ἄνομος will itself be a work of Satan), but is a subsidiary statement to the principal clause ἐστὶν ἐν κ.τ.λ., assigning the reason of it. It does not import “after the example of the working of the devil” (similiter ac si satanas ageret, Michaelis), but in conformity with it, that an ἐνέργεια τοῦ σατανᾶ is its characteristic, that is, that the devil works in and through him.
εἶναι ἔν τινι] to consist in something, to prove or make itself known in something. Against Hofmann, who arbitrarily denies this use of the phrase, comp. Winer, p. 345 [E. T. 482].
δυνάμει καὶ σημείοις καὶ τέρασιν] a rhetorical enumeration, as in Act 2:2, for the exhaustion of the idea. But as πάσῃ (see Winer, p. 466 [E. T. 660]), so also ψεύδους belongs to all three substantives. The genitive may import: in every kind of power, and in all signs and wonders whose nature is falsehood, or which proceed from falsehood, or which lead to falsehood, whose aim is falsehood. The last meaning is, with Aretius, de Wette, and others, to be preferred, as Antichrist is indeed the first to bring evil to its climax.
ψεῦδος] falsehood, belongs to the essential nature of the devil (comp. Joh 8:44). It represents evil as the counterpart of divine truth (the ἀλήθεια).
2Th 2:10. Καὶ ἐν πάσῃ ἀπάτῃ ἀδικίας] and in every deceit which leads to or advances unrighteousness, i.e. ungodliness (Estius, Aretius, Grotius, de Wette, and others).
But this energetic working of Antichrist by no means describes his power as irresistible; only the ἀπολλύμενοι succumb under it. Theodoret: Οὐ γὰρ πάντων κρατήσει, ἀλλὰ τῶν ἀπωλείας ἀξίων, οἳ καὶ δίχα τῆς τούτου παρουσίας σφᾶς αὐτοὺς τῆς σωτηρίας ἐστέρησαν.
τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις] is dativus incommodi, and belongs not only to ἐν πάσῃ ἀπάτῃ ἀδικίας (Heydenreich, Flatt, Hofmann), but to the whole sentence from 2Th 2:9 onwards.
οἱ ἀπολλύμενοι] are they who perish, who fall into eternal ἀπώλεια (comp. 1Co 1:18; 2Co 2:15; 2Co 4:3), and the present participle characterizes this future fate as already decided. Comp. Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 371. But the addition ἀνθʼ ὧν κ.τ.λ. denotes that this was occasioned by their own fault.
ἀνθʼ ὧν τὴν ἀγάπην τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἐδέξαντο] in requital for this (comp. Luk 1:20; Luk 19:44; Act 12:23; LXX. 1Ki 11:11; Joe 3:5; Xen. Anab. i. 3. 4, ibid. v. 5. 14), that they have not received in themselves the love of the truth. To interpret, with Bolten: τὴν ἀγάπην τῆς ἀληθείας, “the loveable and true religion,” is naturally as impossible as, with Chrysostom, Theodoret,[51] Oecumenius, and Theophylact, to find therein a circumlocution for Christ Himself. ἡ ἀλήθεια denotes moral and religious truth generally, not, as is usually supposed, Christian truth specially. Thus every objection which Kern (p. 212) takes to it vanishes, that τὴν ἀγάπην τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἐδέξαντο was written instead of the simple τὴν ἀλήθειαν οὐκ ἐδέξαντο. For in a similar manner, as the apostle in Gal 5:5, instead of the simple δικαιοσύνην ἀπεκδεχόμεθα, which one would expect, put the apparently strange ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης ἀπεκδεχόμεθα, but did so designedly, in order to oppose to the arrogant feeling of the legally righteous the humble feeling of the true Christian; so here the expression τὴν ἀγάπην τῆν ἀληθείας οὐκ ἐδέξαντο is designedly chosen to bring forward the high degree of guilt. Not only have they not received the Christian truth presented to them; for it might be still conceivable that they highly esteemed the truth itself and felt themselves drawn to it, although in consequence of spiritual blindness they had not known and recognised Christianity as an embodiment and full expression of the truth; but they have not even received into their hearts the love of the truth under whatever form it may be presented to them; they have rendered themselves entirely unsusceptible of the truth, they have hardened themselves against it.
εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι αὐτούς] in order that they might be saved, brings still more prominently forward this hardness. They ought to have received that ἀγάπη τῆς ἀληθείας, to the end that they might receive σωτηρία, eternal salvation. But the attainment of such an end did not trouble them, was something indifferent to them.
2Th 2:11. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο] and on this account, refers to ἀνθʼ ὧν τὴν ἀγάπην τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἐδέξαντο, 2Th 2:10, and καί serves to bring forward the reciprocal relation between cause and effect.
πέμπει αὐτοῖς ὁ Θεός] the present is chosen, because according to 2Th 2:7 the beginnings of lawlessness even now appeared. But the verbal idea is not, with Theodoret, John Damascenus, Theodore Mopsuestius, p. 148, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Pelagius, Nicolas de Lyra, Hunnius, Justinian, Wolf, Turretin, Whitby, Moldenhauer, Koppe, Heydenreich, Flatt, and others, to be weakened into the idea of the divine permission, but must be taken in its proper sense. For according to the Pauline view it is a holy ordinance of God that the wicked by their wickedness should lose themselves always the more in wickedness, and thus sin is punished by sin. But what is an ordinance of God is also accomplished by God Himself. See Meyer on Rom 1:24.
ἐνέργειαν πλάνης] active power of seduction. On πλάνη, see on 1Th 2:3.
εἰς τὸ πιστεῦσαι κ.τ.λ.] not a statement of the consequence (Macknight and others), but of the design of God. In a forced manner, Hofmann: εἰς τὸ πιστεῦσαι belongs to ἐνέργειαν.
2Th 2:12. Ἵνα] dependent on εἰς τὸ πιστεῦσαι κ.τ.λ., not on πέμπει, as Hofmann thinks. A statement of the further or higher design.
ἵνα κριθῶσι] in order that they may be judged, i.e. according to the context, condemned.
The truth is the Christian truth, and the unbelief, shown against it, is the consequence of the love for the truth in general being wanting (2Th 2:10).
CONCLUDING REMAEKS ON CHAP. 2Th 2:1-12
The apocalyptic teaching of the apostle in chap. 2Th 2:1-12 has occupied Christians of all times, and has been very variously interpreted. A chief distinction in the interpretations consists in this, that this Pauline prediction may be considered either as that which will be fulfilled in the near or more distant future, or as having already received its fulfilment.
I. The Church Fathers belong to the representatives of the first view (Irenaeus, adv. haer. v. 25, 29, 30; Tertullian, de resur. carn. c. 24; Chrysostom in loco; Cyril. Hierosolym. Catech. 15; Augustine, de civit. dei, xx. 19; Theodoret in loco, and epit. decret. div. c. 23; Theodorus Mopsuestius, and others). They correctly agree in considering that by the advent (2Th 2:1; 2Th 2:8), or the day of the Lord (2Th 2:2), is to be understood the personal advent of Christ for the last judgment and for the completion of the Messianic kingdom. Also it is correctly regarded as proved, that the Antichrist here described is to be considered as an individual person, in whom sin will embody itself. Yet Augustin already remarks, that “nonnulli non ipsum principem, sed universum quodam modo corpus ejus i. e. ad eum pertinentem hominum multitudinem simul cum ipso suo principe hoc loco intelligi Antichristum volunt.” The restraining power by which the appearance of Antichrist is delayed, is usually considered to be the continuance of the Roman Empire (τὸ κατέχον) and its representative the Roman emperor (ὁ κατέχων). Some, however, as Theodorus Mopsuestius and Theodoret, understand by it τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν ὅρον, i.e. more exactly, the counsel of God to keep back the appearance of Antichrist until the gospel is proclaimed throughout the earth. This latter interpretation is certainly unsuitable enough. For although the difference of gender τὸ κατέχον and ὁ κατέχων may be to distinguish God’s counsel and God Himself, yet ἐκ μέσου γίνεσθαι is not reconcilable with the masculine ὁ κατέχων. Chrysostom chooses a third interpretation, that by the restraining power is meant the continuance of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. But he directly refutes this by the fact that if so, Antichrist must have already appeared, as those gifts have long since disappeared in the Christian church. The temple of God, in which Antichrist will place himself, is referred either to the Christian church (so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Augustin), the expression being taken figuratively, or to the actual temple of Jerusalem (so Irenaeus and Cyril); in which latter case the objection, that this temple was already destroyed, is met by the shift that a new temple rebuilt in place of the old one by Antichrist is to be thought on. Lastly, some, as Chrysostom,[52]-although in contradiction to the chronology of the Epistle,-interpret the ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ Τῆς ἈΝΟΜΊΑς, which already begins to work, of Nero, the forerunner and type of Antichrist in St. Paul’s time; and others, as Theodoret, of the outbreak of heresies.
The common and grave error in the explanations of the Fathers, by means of which they run counter to the Pauline representation, consisted in their not doing sufficient justice to the point of nearness of the event predicted by Paul. It is incontestable, as the result of correct exegesis, that Paul not only considered Antichrist as directly preceding the advent, but also regarded the advent as so near, that he himself might then be alive. It was natural that the Fathers, as the prophecy of the apostle had not been fulfilled in their times, should disregard this point; but they held that in this prophecy a picture of the last things, fully corresponding to the reality in the future, must have been given. They therefore satisfied themselves with the consideration that the prediction had already begun to be fulfilled in the apostolic times, but that the apostle could not possibly give an exact statement of time, as he only says that Antichrist will be revealed in his appointed time.[53]
[53] Comp. Augustin, Epist. 80 (Ep. 199, ed. Bened.): … ita sane obscure sunt et mystice dicta, ut tamen appareat, eum nihil de statutis dixisse temporibus, nullumque eorum intervallum spatiumque aperuisse. Ait enim: ut reveletur in suo tempore, nec dixit, post quantum temporis hoc futurum sit.
The view of the Fathers remained in the following ages the prevalent one in the Christian church. It was necessary, however, partially to change and transform it, the relation of Christianity to the Roman state having altered, as the Christian church, instead of being exposed to renewed hostilities from the secular power, had obtained the sovereignty of the state, and, penetrating larger portions of the world, represented itself as the kingdom of God on earth, and an imposing hierarchy was placed at its head. Whilst, accordingly, the idea of the advent stepped more and more into the background in the church generally, and especially with the hierarchy, on the other hand, those who had placed themselves in opposition to the hierarchy believed themselves obliged to apply to it the description of the apostle, as well as the figures in the Apocalypse of St. John. Thus arose-whilst the early view concerning the παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου was held with only the modification that its entrance was to be expected in the distant future-the view, first in the eleventh century, that the establishment and growing power of the Papacy is to be considered as the Antichrist predicted by Paul. At first this view was expressed in the conflict between the emperors and the popes by the partisans of the imperial power; but was then repeated by all those who had placed themselves in opposition with the hierarchy, because they wished, instead of the rigid ecclesiastical power, a freer spirit of Christianity to rule; thus by the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and the followers of Wickliffe and Huss. The empire-which was regarded as nothing else than a revival and renewal of the old Roman Empire-was considered as the restraining power which still delayed the destruction of the Papacy.
This reference[54] of Antichrist to the papal hierarchy became specially prevalent toward the time of the Reformation, and after that event was almost regarded as a dogma in the evangelical church. It is found in Bugenhagen, Zwingli, Calvin, Victorin Strigel, Hemming, Hunnius, Lucius and Andrew Osiander, Camero, Balduin, Aretius, Er. Schmid, Beza, Quistorp, Calixt, Calovius, Newton, Wolf, Joachim Lange, Turretin, Benson, Bengel, Macknight, Zachariae, Michaelis, and others. Accordingly it is expressed in the Lutheran symbolical books; comp. Articul. Smalcald. II. 4 (ed. Meyer, p. 189 f.): Haec doctrina praeclare ostendit, papam esse ipsum verum Antichristum, qui supra et contra Christum sese extulit et evexit, quandoquidem Christianos non vult esse salvos sine sua potestate, quae tamen nihil est, et a deo nec ordinata nec mandata est. Hoc proprie loquendo est se efferre supra et contra deum, sicut Paulus 2 Thessalonians 2 loquitur.
De pot. et prim. pap. (p. 210): Constat autem, Romanos pontifices cum suis membris defendere impiam doctrinam et impios cultus. Ac plane notae Antichristi competunt in regnum papae et sua membra. Paulus enim ad Thessalonicenses describens Antichristum, vocat eum adversarium Christi, extollentem se super omne, quod dicitur aut colitur deus, sedentem in templo dei tanquam deum. Also Luther’s powerful treatise against the papal bull bore the title: “Adversus exsecrabilem bullam Antichristi.” It was thought that the Papacy would go on more and more developing what was anti-Christian in it, and that then the last judgment would overtake it. The ἀποστασία was the falling away from the pure gospel to the traditions of men. The singular Ὁ ἌΝΘΡΩΠΟς Τῆς ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς Κ.Τ.Λ. is to be understood collectively as a series et successio hominum, inasmuch as the question is concerning an imperium monarchicum which remains one and the same, although its temporal head may be changed. The godlessness of Antichrist, described in 2Th 2:4, is historically proved by the pope placing himself above all human and divine authority, the words πάντα λεγόμενον Θεὸν κ.τ.λ., in accordance to biblical usage, being referred to the princes and great men of the world, and an allusion being discovered in ΣΈΒΑΣΜΑ to the Roman imperial title ΣΕΒΑΣΤΌς. The objection, that there have been pious popes, is removed by the proverb: “a potiori fit denominatio.” ναὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ is referred to the Christian church, and the ΚΑΘΊΣΑΙ to the tyrannical power usurped over it. By ΤῸ ΚΑΤΈΧΟΝ is nearly universally understood the Roman Empire, and by Ὁ ΚΑΤΈΧΩΝ the Roman emperor, for which proof is deduced from history, that the papal power sprang from the ruins of the Roman Empire, whilst in reference to the continuation of the empire in Germany, it is observed that praeter titulum nihil fere remains. The declaration τὸ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας, 2Th 2:7, is considered as justified by the fact that at least the semina erroris et ambitionis, which paved the way for the Papacy, were present in the time of the apostle; for which Camero appeals to Galatians 1, 2, and others to other proofs. For an enumeration of τέρατα ψεύδους, 2Th 2:9, relics, transubstantiation, purgatory, etc., afford rich material. The annihilation of Antichrist by the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ ΤΟῦ ΣΤΌΜΑΤΟς of the Lord, is understood to denote the annihilation of his importance in the minds of men by the divine word of Scripture being again opened up and diffused in its purity by means of the Reformation; whilst the ΚΑΤΑΡΓΉΣΕΙ Τῇ ἘΠΙΦΑΝΕΊᾼ Τῆς ΠΑΡΟΥΣΊΑς ΑὐΤΟῦ denotes the final and material destruction of Antichrist by the coming of Christ to judgment.
[54] See against this view, Koppe, Excurs. II. p. 120 ff.
In the presence of such polemics used against them, the Catholics are certainly not to be blamed that in retaliation they interpreted ἀποστασία as the defection from the Roman church and from the pope, and Antichrist as the heretics, especially Luther and the evangelical church. Comp. Estius, Fromond., Bern. a Piconio.
Yet even before the reference of Antichrist to Popery was maintained, Mohammed[55] was already regarded by the divines of the Greek church (latterly by Faber Stapulensis and others) as the Antichrist predicted by Paul, and in the ἈΠΟΣΤΑΣΊΑ was seen the defection of several Oriental and Greek churches from Christianity to Mohammedanism. This interpretation at least so far exercised an influence on the evangelical church, that some of its theologians have assumed a double Antichrist-one Oriental, viz. Mohammed and the Turkish power, and the other Western, viz. the pope and his power. So Melancthon, Bucer, Musculus, Bullinger, Piscator, and Vorstius.
[55] See against this view, Turretin, p. 515 ff.
Related to this whole method of interpretation is the assumption,[56] made in our own century, that by the apostasy is to be understood the enormities of the French Revolution; by Antichrist, Napoleon; and by him that restraineth, the continuation of the German Empire-an interpretation which the extinction of the German Empire in 1806 has already condemned.
[56] See Leutwein, das Thier war und ist nicht, und wird wiederkommen aus dem Abgrunde. Eine Abhandlung für nachdenkende Leser, Ludwigsb. 1825.
In recent times it has often been considered as objectionable to determine exactly the individual traits of the imagery used by Paul. Accordingly the representation of the apostle has been interpreted in a general, ideal, or symbolical sense. To this class of interpreters belongs Koppe, according to whom Paul, founding on an old national Jewish oracle, supported especially by Daniel, would describe the ungodliness preceding the last day, which already worked, but whose full outbreak was only to take place after the death of the apostle; so that Paul himself was the κατέχων.[57] Similarly Storr (l.c.), who understands by the ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας “potestas aliqua, deo omnique religioni adversaria, quae penitus incognita et futuro demum tempore se proditura sit,” and by the preventing power the “copia hominum verissimo amore inflammatorum in christianam religionem.”
Further, Nitzsch (l.c.) thinks on the power of atheism first come to have public authority, or the contempt of all religion generally. Further, the opinion of Pelt is entirely peculiar, who in His Commentary, p. 204,[58] sums up his views in the following words: “Mihi … adversarius illi principium esse videtur sive vis spiritualis evangelio contraria, quae huc usque tamen in Pontificiorum Romanorum operibus ac serie luculentissime sese prodidit, ita tamen, ut omnia etiam mala, quae in ecclesia compareant, ad eandem Antichristi ἐνέργειαν sint referenda. Ejus vero ΠΑΡΟΥΣΊΑ i. e. summum fastigium, quod Christi reditum qui nihil aliud est, nisi regni divini victoria,[59] antecedet, futurum adhuc esse videtur, quum illud tempus procul etiamnum abesse putemus, ubi omnes terrae incolae in eo erunt, ut ad Christi sacra transeant. Κατέχον vero cum Theodoreto putarim esse dei voluntatem illud Satanae regnum cohibentem, ne erumpat, et, si mediae spectantur causae, apostolorum tempore maxime imperii Romani vis, et quovis aevo illa resistentia, quam malis artibus, quae religionem subvertere student, privati commodi et honoris augendorum cupiditas opponere solet.” Pelt thinks that the symptoms of the future corruption of the Christian church were already present in the apostolic age in the danger of falling away from Christian freedom into Jewish legalism, in the mingling of heathenism with Christianity, in the false gnosis and asceticism, in the worship of angels, and in the fastus a religione Christiana omnino alienus. To the same class belongs Olshausen,[60] who considers the Pauline description only as a typical representation of future events. According to him, the chief stress lies on ΤῸ ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ ἬΔΗ ἘΝΕΡΓΕῖΤΑΙ Τῆς ἈΝΟΜΊΑς. Antichrist is a union of the individuality and spiritual tendency in masses of individuals. The revolt of the Jews from the Romans, and the fearful divine punishment in the destruction of Jerusalem, Nero, Mohammed and his spiritual devastating power, the development of the Papacy in the Middle Ages, the French Revolution of 1789, with the abrogation of Christianity, and the setting up of prostitutes on altars for worship, in the external world, as well as the constantly spreading denial of the fundamentals of all religious truth and morality, of the doctrines of God, freedom, and immortality, and likewise the self-deification of the ego in the internal world,-all these phenomena are the real precursors of Antichrist; but they contain only some of his characteristics, not all; it is the union of all these characteristics which shall make the full Antichrist. The preventing power is to be understood of the preponderance of the Christian world in its German and Roman constituents over the earth; i.e. of the whole political condition of order, with which, on the one hand, there is the constant repression of all ἀποστασία and ἈΝΟΜΊΑ, and on the other hand, the continued and peaceful development of Christianity. Of this condition the Roman Empire, as the strongest and most orderly secular organization which history knows, is the natural type. Baumgarten-Crusius is also here to be named. According to him, the Pauline prediction contains no new teachings peculiar to the apostle, but only representations from the old Messianic pictures in the prophets, especially in Daniel. The apostle’s design is practical, to make the Thessalonians calmly observant, attentive to the times, prepared and strong for the future; the passage has a permanent value in this reference, and in the chief thought that the development and determination of these things can only gradually take place. The passage is indeed historical and for the near future, but Paul has no definite or personal manifestations, whether present or future, in view, at least not in ἈΝΤΙΚΕΊΜΕΝΟς, which he describes as still entirely concealed; and it is even doubtful whether he understood by it an individual person. Only ΤῸ ΚΑΤΈΧΟΝ has a definite reference, but not to a person; on the contrary, the new spirit of Christianity is meant. The difference in gender, Ὁ ΚΑΤΈΧΩΝ and ΤῸ ΚΑΤΈΧΟΝ, is used either only to correspond with ἈΝΤΙΚΕΊΜΕΝΟς, or Paul thinks on ΧΡΙΣΤῸς ἘΝ ΑὐΤΟῖς, Col 1:27! Lastly, to the same class belong Bloomfield and Alford.[61] According to the former, the μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας is something still continuing; the prediction of the apostle will obtain its complete fulfilment only at the end of time, when only then the preventing power-which is most probably to be understood, with Theodoret, of the council of divine Providence-will be removed. According to the latter (see Proleg. p. 67 ff.), we stand, though 1800 years later, with regard to the ἀνομός where the apostle stood; the day of the Lord not present, and not to arrive until the man of sin be manifested; the ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ Τῆς ἈΝΟΜΊΑς still working, and much advanced in his working; the preventing power not yet taken out of the way. All this points to a state in which the ἈΝΟΜΊΑ is working on underground, under the surface of things, gaining an expansion and power, although still hidden and unconcentrated. It has already partially embodied itself in Popery, in Nero and every Christian persecutor, in Mohammed and Napoleon, in Mormonism, and such like. The ΚΑΤΈΧΟΝ and the ΚΑΤΈΧΩΝ are to be understood of the fabric of human polity and those who rule that polity, by which hitherto all outbursts of godlessness have been suppressed and hindered in their course and devastations.
[57] To prove this view of the κατέχων by Koppe as the correct one by a closer exposition, is the object of the above-mentioned treatise of Beyer (on 2Th 2:7). Also Heydenreich, Schott, and Grimm (Stud. u. Krit. 1850, Part 4, p. 790 ff.) so far agree with Koppe, that they understand the neuter as the multitude of the truly pious and believers (Heydenreich), or as the veri religionis doctores (Schott), or as the apostolorum chorus (Grimm). For the removal of the objection, that Paul hoped to survive the advent, and that accordingly ἐκ μέσου γίνεσθαι would be unsuitable, Schott and Grimm consider it probable that by this expression we are to think not on death, but on “alia res externa, e.g. captivitas dura.” Akin to this interpretation of the κατέχων is Wieseler’s view (Chronologie des apost. Zeitalt., Götting. 1848, p. 272 f.), that Paul would denote with it the pious in Jerusalem, particularly the Christians, or in case κατέχων necessarily denoted an individual, the Apostle James the Just. Comp. also Böhme, de spe messiana apostolica, Hal. 1826, p. 30, according to whom the apostolic circle are denoted in general, and in particular the most prominent member, perhaps the Apostle James. Hofmann judges differently upon τὸ κατέχον and ὁ κατέχων, Schriflbeweis, Part 1, 2d ed. Nördling. 1857, p. 352 f., and in his h. Schr. N.T., Part 1, p. 318 ff., with whom Baumgarten, l.c. p. 609, Luthardt, l.c. p. 159 f., and Riggenbach coincide. According to Hofmann, as throughout the whole passage 2Th 2:5-7 Paul refers apparently to the visions of Daniel, he must have spoken to the Thessalonians of that which hinders the man of sin from coming sooner than his proper time with reference to these prophecies of Daniel. Therefore, in agreement with Daniel, a spiritual power is to be thought of which rules in the secular world and in the various governments in agreement with the divine will, and opposes the influences of the spirit of nations and kingdoms working contrary to the divine will. This power may be designated both as neuter and as masculine, as κυριότης and as κύριος, and the words μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μἑσου γένηται· καὶ τότε ἀποκαλυφθήσεται ὁ ἄνομος are sufficiently similar to those of Daniel: וַאֲנִי יוֹצֵא וְהִנֵּה שַׂר־יָוָן בָּא (Dan 10:20), in order to be recognised as a transfer of the same to those last times when the spiritual power which now preserves the earthly commonwealth in agreement with the kingdom of God entirely recedes, in order that every form of secular power may enter which will allow no more place for the church of God on earth. Still differently, Ewald, Jahrb. der bibl. Wissenschaft, Jahr. 3, Gött. 1851, p. 250 f. (comp. Sendschreiben des Ap. Paulus, Gött. 1857, p. 27): “We have here a mystery before us which in the early apostolic times only believers loved to talk over and to diffuse among themselves, so that Paul may have been unwilling to speak openly upon it. The appearance of Antichrist was expected according to Mat 24:15 (?), and Paul here describes it, only more openly and freely than it is there indicated in the prophecy of Christ; but an opinion must have been formed in the bosom of the mother church at Jerusalem why Antichrist had not as yet appeared, which was imparted only to believers. We may, however, pretty nearly guess what it was from other signs. If we reflect that, according to Rev 11:3 ff., Antichrist was not to be considered as coming until the two martyrs of the old covenant had appeared, and their destruction was the true beginning of his extreme rage; further, that instead of these two assumed martyrs, it was also, or rather originally, still more commonly supposed that only Elijah must return before Christ, and accordingly also before Antichrist. Elijah’s return is not actually denied in that passage, where this expectation is treated of in the freest manner (Mat 17:11 f., comp. Mat 11:13 f.), so it is most probable that by that which hindereth the appearance of Antichrist the coming of Elijah is meant (Sendschr. des Ap. Paulus, p. 27: the tarrying of Elijah in heaven); and by him who hitherto hindered, and who must be taken out of the way before the last atrocious wickedness of Antichrist, is meant Eljiah himself.” Still otherwise Noack (Der Ursprung des Christenthums, vol. II., Leipz. 1857, p. 313 ff.), who by him that hindereth-arbitrarily identifying the same with the man of sin-understands Simon Magus and his machinations. Still differently Jowett, according to whom (after the suggestion of Ewald, Jahrb. X., Gött. 1860, p. 235) τὸ κατέχον is designed to indicate the Mosaic law.
[58] In only an unessentially modified form Pelt has latterly maintained the same view in the Theolog. Mitarbeiten. Jahrg. 4, Kiel 1841, H. 2, p. 114 ff.
[59] Comp. Pelt, p. 185: … “tenentes, illum Christi adventum a Paulo non visibilem habitum.”
[60] Bisping follows him in all essential points.
[61] Comp. also Düsterdieck, die drei johanneischen Briefe, Bd. I., Gött. 1852, p. 306: “John, as Paul (2Th 2:1-12), in conformity to the instruction of the Lord, recognises in the powerful errors of the present the signs of an approaching decision. The last hour is present, the advent is at hand. The last hour is the concluding period of αἰὼν οὗτος, the period of travail, which continues in an unbroken connection from its commencement, the destruction of Jerusalem, even to the end, to which the advent directly succeeds.” John has not erred in that he soon expected the real commencement of the crisis, continually carried on throughout the whole historical development of the kingdom of Christ; for that generation, as our Lord had predicted, survived the destruction of the holy city, an event of whose importance in the history and judgment of the world there can be no doubt. Moreover, in reference to 1Th 4:15 (ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες κ.τ.λ.), Düsterdieck (l.c. p. 308) recognises that there Paul has shortened the chronological perspective too much; but then he thinks, referring to 2Th 2:1 ff. and Rom 11:25 ff., that this is an imperfection which was gradually overcome in the apostle by the moral development of his life in God, and that it was changed for the real truth. But it is assumed, without right, that an entirely different view of things lies at the foundation of the section 2Th 2:1-12 than of the section 1Th 4:13 ff., as the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was written only a few months after the First; and besides, 2Th 2:5 points to the agreement of the written explanations there given with the oral instructions to the Thessalonians given even previously to the First Epistle. Further on, Düsterdieck (p. 330) concedes that because Paul in 1Th 4:13 ff. has abbreviated the interval to the advent, he was also in 2Th 2:1 ff. constrained to represent the personal appearance of the opponent incorrectly in point of chronology.
It is evident that all these explanations are arbitrary. The Pauline description is so definitely and sharply marked, and has for its whole compass so much the idea of nearness for its supposition, that it can by no means be taken generally, and in this manner explained away.
II. Others have regarded the apocalyptic instruction of the apostle as a prophecy already fulfilled. Thus Grotius, Wetstein, Hammond, Clericus, Whitby, Schoettgen, Noesselt, Krause, and Harduin.[62] The reference of the παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου to the coming of the Lord in judgment at the destruction of Jerusalem, is common to all these writers. In reference to the other chief points of the Pauline representation they differ as follows:-
[62] What is necessary to be said on Kern’s view has already been observed in the Introduction, sec. 3. Döllinger (l.c.), who like Kern understands by Antichrist Nero, thinks, however, that with this assumption the authenticity of the Epistle, and even its composition in the year 53, are perfectly reconcilable. According to Döllinger, the prophecy in all its essentials was fulfilled close upon the apostle’s days, although a partial fulfilment at the end of time is not excluded by this assumption. Already Paul has recognised the youthful Nero as the future Antichrist, whose public appearance was already prepared, but was yet prevented by Claudius as the then possessor of the imperial throne. The coming of Christ is His coming to execute judgment on Jerusalem. Nero, although he personally undertook nothing against the temple of Jerusalem, yet entrusted Vespasian with the guidance of the war, and accordingly brought-certainly only after his death-the abomination of desolation into the holy city. Lastly, the apostasy is the being led astray into the false doctrines of the Gnostics.
Grotius[63] understands by Antichrist the Emperor Caius Caligula, notorious for his ungodliness, who, according to Suetonius, Caligul. xxii. 33, ordered universal supplication to himself as the supreme God, and according to Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 8, and Philo, legat. ad Caj. p. 1022, wished to set up his colossal statue in the temple of Jerusalem; by the κατέχων, L. Vitellius, the proconsul of Syria and Judea, who dissuaded from the erection of the statue; and by the ἄνομος, Simon Magus.
This opinion is sufficiently contradicted, partly by the impossibility of distinguishing the ἄνομος from ἌΝΘΡΩΠΟς Τῆς ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς as a separate person, and partly by its incongruity with the period of the composition of the Epistle. See sec. 2 of the Introduction.
[63] See against him, Turretin, p. 483 ff.
According to Wetstein, the ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας is Titus, whose army, according to Joseph. de bello Jud. vi. 6. 1, brought idols into the captured temple of Jerusalem, sacrificed there, and saluted Titus as imperator. The κατέχων is Nero, whose death must precede the rule of Titus; and the ἀποστασία is the rebellion and murder of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. But how can Titus, the ornament of the Roman emperors, pass for Antichrist; and Nero, that monster in human form, the power which hinders the outburst of Antichrist?
Hammond[64] understands by the man of sin Simon Magus and the Gnostics, whose head he was. The ἐπισυναγωγὴ ἐπʼ αὐτόν, 2Th 2:1, is the “major libertas coeundi in ecclesiasticos coetus ad colendum Christum;” the ἈΠΟΣΤΑΣΊΑ is the falling away of Christians to the Gnostics (1Ti 4:1); ἈΠΟΚΑΛΥΦΘῆΝΑΙ denotes the casting off the mask of Christianity; 2Th 2:4 refers to the fact that Simon Magus “se dictitaret summum patrem omnium rerum, et qui ipsum Judaeorum deum creaverat.” ΤῸ ΚΑΤΈΧΟΝ is the circumstance that the apostles and orthodox Christians still preserved union with the Jews, and had not yet turned themselves to the Gentiles. The neuter ΚΑΤΈΧΟΝ and the masculine ΚΑΤΈΧΩΝ are equivalent; or if a distinction is to be maintained, Ὁ ΚΑΤΈΧΩΝ must be regarded as the same as Ὁ ΝΌΜΟς. The ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ Τῆς ἈΝΟΜΊΑς is the “duplicis generis scelera horum hominum, libidines nefariae et odium in Christianos.” 2Th 2:8 refers to the contest of Peter and Paul with Simon Magus in Rome, which ended in the death of the latter.
The exegetical and historical monstrosity of this interpretation is at present universally acknowledged.
[64] Comp. against him, Turretin, p. 493 ff.
The interpretations of Clericus, Whitby, Schoettgen, Noesselt, Krause, and Harduin have a greater resemblance between them.
According to Clericus,[65] the apostasy is the rebellion of the Jews against the Roman yoke; the man of sin is the rebellious Jews, and especially their leader, Simon the son of Giora, of whose atrocities Josephus informs us. πᾶς λεγόμενος Θεὸς κ.τ.λ. denotes the government. ΤῸ ΚΑΤΈΧΟΝ is whatever hindered the open outbreak of the rebellion, partly the fear of the proceres Judaeae gentis, who mistrusted the war because they expected no favourable result, partly the fear of the Roman army; ὁ κατέχων on the one side “praeses Romanus,” on the other side “gentis proceres, rex Agrippa et pontifices plurimi.” The ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ Τῆς ἈΝΟΜΊΑς which already works consists in the rebellious ambition which conceals itself under the pretext of the independence of the Jewish people, yea, under the cloak of a careful observance of the Mosaic law, until at length what strives in secret is openly manifested.
[65] See against him, Turretin, p. 501 ff.
Whitby[66] considers the Jewish people as Antichrist, and finds in the apostasy the rebellion against the Romans, or also the falling away from the faith; and in the ΚΑΤΈΧΩΝ the Emperor Claudius, during whose life the Jews could not possibly think of a rebellion, as he had shown himself favourable to them.
[66] See against him, Turretin, p. 508 ff.
According to Schoettgen, the Jewish Pharisees and Rabbis are Antichrist. The ἀποστασία is the rebellion excited by them, of the Jews against the Romans; πᾶς λεγόμενος Θεός refers likewise to the rulers; τὸ κατέχον and ὁ κατέχων are probably the Christians who by their prayers effected a respite from the catastrophe, until, in consequence of a divine oracle, they left Jerusalem, and betook themselves to Pella; μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας denotes ipsa doctrina perversa.
Noesselt, whom Krause follows, understands Antichrist of the Jewish zealots, but interprets the preventing power, as Whitby does, of the Emperor Claudius.
Lastly, Harduin explains the ἀποστασία of the falling off of the Jews to heathenism. He considers the high priest Ananias (Act 23:2) as the ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, and his predecessor in office as the κατέχων, who must first be removed by death in order to make place for Ananias. At the beginning of his high-priesthood the ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας will appear as a deceitful prophet, and be destroyed at the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.
All these interpretations of the second class avoid, it is true, the common error of the interpretations of the first class, as they give due prominence to the point of the nearness of the catastrophe described by Paul; but, apart from many and strong objections which may be brought against each, they are all exposed to this fatal objection, the impossibility of understanding the coming of the Lord, mentioned by Paul, of the period of the destruction of Jerusalem.
Tychsen (l.c.) has endeavoured to divest the Pauline representation of its prophetic character, by assuming that the apostle follows step by step the course of an Epistle received from Thessalonica, from which he perceived that the church had been led astray into the erroneous notion that the advent of Christ was already at hand. The apostle cites passages from that writing, and adds each time his refutation. For the statement of this opinion, which only claims attention on account of its strangeness, it will be sufficient to give the translation from 2Th 2:3 and onwards, in which Tychsen (p. 184 f.) sums up the view he has already stated at length. It is as follows: “You certainly wrote to me, ‘This day cannot come until the great apostasy will occur; when a thoroughly lawless and corrupt man will publicly appear, who in hostile pride exalts himself above all that man calls divine and honourable, who also intrudes even into the temple of God, and gives himself out as a god.’ But do you not remember that I, when I was with you, told you something of this? and besides, you know what is in the way of that lawless one, so that he can only appear in his time, not yet at present. ‘This wickedness,’ you say further, ‘even now secretly works.’ Only that hindrance must first be removed out of the way! ‘And when this is removed,’ ye think, ‘the wicked one will soon fearlessly show himself.’ Now let him do it! The Lord Jesus will annihilate him with His divine power, and destroy him by His solemn appearance. ‘When this lawless one comes,’ ye continue, ‘so will his appearance be accompanied by the assistance of Satan with deceiving miracles, delusions, and everything which can lead to blasphemy.’ Yet all this cannot seduce you, but only those unhappy persons who have no love for true religion, and accordingly are helplessly lost by their own fault. God for a punishment to them permitted seducers to rise up, that they might believe the lie. A merited punishment for all friends of vice who are prepossessed against true doctrine!”
For a correct judgment of the apocalyptic instruction of the apostle, it is firmly to be maintained that Paul could not possibly wish to give a representation of the distant future. On the contrary, the events which he predicted were for him so near, that he himself even thought that he would survive them. He hoped to survive even to the personal return of the Lord for judgment and for the completion of His kingdom; His return shall be preceded by the appearance of Antichrist, whom he considered not as a collective idea, but as an individual person, and not in the political, but in the religious sphere, and specially as a caricature of Christ and the culmination of ungodliness; but Antichrist can only appear when the preventing power, which at present hinders his appearance, will be removed. As, now, these circumstances, which Paul thinks were to be realized in the immediate future, have not actually taken place, so it is completely arbitrary to expect the fulfilment of the prophecy only in a distant future; rather it is to be admitted, that although, as the very kernel of Paul’s representation, the perfectly true idea lay at the bottom, that the return of the Lord for the completion of the kingdom of God was not to be expected until the moral process of the world had reached its close by the complete separation of the susceptible and the unsusceptible, and accordingly also until the opposition to Christ had reached its climax, yet Paul was mistaken concerning the nearness of the final catastrophe, and, carried along by his idiosyncrasy, had wished to settle more exactly concerning its circumstances and moral conditions than is allotted to man in general to know, even although he should be the apostle, the most filled with the Spirit of Christ. Comp. Mat 24:36; Mar 13:32; Act 1:7.
We can thus only determine the meaning and interpretation which Paul himself connected with his prophecy, and how he came to the assertion of such a prophecy. It rests on the apocalyptic views of the Jews. It was a prevalent opinion of the Jews in the time of Christ, that a time of tribulation and travail and an Antichrist were to precede the appearance of the Messiah. Comp. Gfrörer, das Jahrhundert des Heils, Part 2, p. 256 ff., 300 ff., 405 ff. The description of Antiochus Epiphanes in Dan 8:23 ff; Dan 11:36 ff., and the apocalyptic representation of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38, 39, were esteemed as types of Antichrist. From these passages it is further explicable how Paul conceived Antichrist as a personality, as an individual.
Accordingly, it remains only still to determine, for the explication of the Pauline prophecy, what is to be understood by the preventing power, which still delayed the appearance of Antichrist. Without doubt, the Fathers have already correctly recognised by τὸ κατέχον the Roman Empire, and-in another form of expression for it-by ὁ κατέχων the Roman emperor, as the representative of the empire. This is the more probable as, according to the Book of Daniel, the whole history of the world was to fall within the four monarchies of the world, but the fourth was by Josephus and others regarded as the Roman Empire, whose impending ruin the apostle might not without reason think himself justified in inferring from many symptoms.
2Th 2:13. Ἡμεῖς δέ] but we, namely, I, Paul, together with Silvanus and Timotheus, in contrast to the persons described in 2Th 2:10-12.
ὀφείλομεν] denotes here, as in 2Th 2:13, the subjective obligation, an internal impulse.
ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ κυρίου] comp. 1Th 1:4. The κύριος here is Christ, because τῷ Θεῷ directly precedes and ὁ Θεός directly follows, consequently another subject was evidently thought on by the apostle.
ὅτι εἵλατο ὑμᾶς κ.τ.λ.] the material object of εὐχαριστεῖν for the purpose of a further statement of the personal object περὶ ὑμῶν, that, namely, etc.
αἱρεῖσθαι] in the sense of divine election (Deu 26:18; Deu 7:6-7; Deu 10:15), does not elsewhere occur with Paul. He uses ἐκλέγεσθαι (Eph 1:4; 1Co 1:27-28), or προγινώσκειν (Rom 8:29; Rom 11:2), or προορίζειν (Rom 8:29; Eph 1:11). αἱρεῖσθαι is found in Php 1:22 in the related sense of “to choose between two objects the preferable.”
ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς] from the beginning, i.e. from eternity. Comp. 1Jn 1:1; 1Jn 2:13. The following forms are analogous: ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων, Eph 3:9; ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν γενεῶν, Col 1:26; πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων, 1Co 2:7; πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, Eph 1:4; πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων, 2Ti 1:9. Others, as Vorstius and Krause, interpret ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς of the beginning of the publication of the gospel, so that the Thessalonians were reckoned as the first who embraced the gospel in Macedonia. But this does not suit εἵλατο, for the election on the part of God belongs to the region of eternity; the calling (2Th 2:14) is its realization in time. Besides, an addition would be necessary to ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς, as Php 4:15 proves, ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. Lastly, the objection of Vorstius: “absurdum est, per principium intelligere aeternitatem, quippe in qua nullum est principium,” overlooks the fact that ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς is nothing more than a popular expression.[67]
εἰς σωτηρίαν] is by Flatt referred to salvation in this life, whilst he considers included therein the forgiveness of sins, the assurance of God’s peculiar love, and the freedom from the dominion of sinful inclinations. Incorrect on this account, because the σωτηρία of the Thessalonians is in undeniable contrast with the condemnation of the ungodly (2Th 2:12), and thus likewise must be referred to the result to be expected at the advent of Christ, accordingly must denote eternal salvation.
ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος καὶ πίστει ἀληθείας] belongs neither to σωτηρίαν alone (Koppe, Flatt, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann, Riggenbach), nor to εἵλατο alone (de Wette), but to the whole idea εἵλατο εἰς σωτηρίαν, and states the means by which the election, which has taken place to eternal salvation, was to be realized.[68] To assume, with de Wette, that ἐν is placed for ΕἸς, and to find the next aim denoted by ἐν ἁγιασμῷ κ.τ.λ., is unmaintainable. For if ΕἸς ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑΝ and ἘΝ ἉΓΙΑΣΜῷ were co-ordinates, then (1) ΕἸς ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑΝ, because the highest aim, would be put not in the first, but in the second place; and (2) the sudden transition from a preposition of motion to one of rest would be inexplicable. ΠΝΕῦΜΑ is not the spirit of man, to which the being sanctified was to be referred (genitive of the object: “by the improvement of the spirit,” Koppe, Krause, Schott), but the Holy Spirit, from whom the sanctification of the whole man is to proceed, or by whom it is to be effected (genitive of origin). Accordingly it is also evident wherefore the apostle mentions the belief in the Christian truth only after ἁγιασμός, although otherwise the sanctification of man follows only on his reception of the divine word. For Paul considers a twofold means of the realization of the divine election-first, the influence of the Holy Spirit upon man, and secondly, man’s own reception. But the former already precedes the latter.
[67] Also Schrader’s assertion, that the author (the pseudo-Paul) betrays by ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς “that he considered the time when the gospel was first preached in Thessalonica as already long past,” has no meaning according to the above.
[68] In a manner entirely incorrect, and with a mistake of the actual use of the preposition ἐν narrowing its meaning, Hofmann objects-and Möller should not have followed him-against the above interpretation, that then the means would be taken for the act of the election itself.
2Th 2:14. Εἰς ὅ] to which. Incorrectly, Olshausen: therefore. Εἰς ὅ does not refer to πίστει (Aretius), also not to ἐν ἁγιασμῷ καὶ πίστει (Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Fromond., Nat. Alexander, Moldenhauer, Koppe, Flatt, Schott, Schrader, de Wette, Hofmann), still less to the “electio” and the “animus, quo eadem digni evadimus” (Pelt), but to εἰς σωτηρίαν ἐν ἁγιασμῷ κ.τ.λ.; whilst to the aim of the election, and to the means by which it was to be realized according to God’s eternal counsel, is added the actual call of the readers occurring in time. Accordingly, εἰς ὅ is to be completed by εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι ὑμᾶς διʼ ἁγιασμοῦ πνεύματος καὶ πίστεως ἀληθείας.
διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἡμῶν] through our publication of the gospel. Comp. 1Th 1:5. The historical condition of πίστις.
εἰς περιποίησιν δόξης τοῦ κυρίου] an appositional resumption of εἰς σωτηρίαν, in order further to characterize the salvation, whose reception God had predetermined to the readers, as an acquisition (see on 1Th 5:9) of the glory which Christ possesses. So in essentials, Pelagius, Musculus, Hunnius, Piscator, Vorstius, Grotius, Wolf, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, Alford, Ewald, Bisping, Riggenbach, and others. Less suitably, because weakening the force and the important contents of the expression, Luc. Osiander, Benson, Moldenhauer, and Pelt explain δόξα τοῦ κυρίου of the glory, of which Christ is the source or bestower. Against the reference to God as the subject in περιποίησιν, and to Christ as the receiver of the δόξα (Oecumenius: ἵνα δόξαν περιποιήσῃ τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ; Theophylact, Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide), is the circumstance, that although εἰς περιποίησιν might stand instead of εἰς τό with the infinitive, yet the dative τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν would require to be placed instead of the genitive τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. Lastly, the passive signification of περιποίησις: “ut essetis gloriosa possessio domini nostri Jesu Christi” (Menochius, Harduin; also Luther: “to the glorious inheritance,” and Calvin), has against it the weakening of the substantive δόξης into an adjective, and the parallel passage in 1Th 5:9. Besides, the context decides against the two last-mentioned views. For the object of 2Th 2:13-14 is to bring forward the glory of the lot which is assigned to the Thessalonians, in order thereby to lead to the exhortation in 2Th 2:15.
2Th 2:15. Ἄρα οὖν] wherefore then, as such an end awaits you.
στήκετε] stand fast, comp. 1Th 3:8. The opposite of σαλευθῆναι, 2Th 2:2.
καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις] and hold fast to the traditions, instructions in Christianity. As κρατεῖν here (comp. Mar 7:3), so does κατέχειν τὰς παραδόσεις stand in 1Co 11:2.
ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε] See Winer, p. 204 [E. T. 284].
εἴτε διὰ λόγου] whether by oral discourse.
διʼ ἐπιστολῆς] refers to the First Epistle to the Thessalonians.
2Th 2:16-17. The apostle rises from his evangelical activity (2Th 2:15) up to Christ, the Lord and Ruler of the Christian church, and concludes with the mention of God, who is the final reason and contriver of the Christian salvation. The unusual (2Co 13:13) naming of Christ first and of God second, is sufficiently explained from the fact that Christ is the Mediator between God and man.
On the union of the two nominatives, Christ and God, with a verb in the singular, see on 1Th 3:11.
ὁ ἀγαπήσας ἡμᾶς καὶ δοὺς παράκλ. κ.τ.λ.] a fittingly-selected characteristic, in order to mark the confidence with which Paul expects the hearing of his supplications.
ὁ ἀγαπήσας ἡμᾶς καὶ δούς] refers exclusively to ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἡμῶν. Baumgarten-Crusius incorrectly refers only the second participle to God, and the first to Christ. But the participle aorist ἀγαπήσας must not be weakened into “qui nos amat et quovis tempore amavit” (so Schott, after Flatt and Pelt), but refers to the divine proof of love already belonging to the past,-accomplished, i.e. to the fact by which the love of God to mankind is κατʼ ἐξοχήν proved,-to the mission of His Son in order to rescue sinners from destruction.
καὶ δούς] and has thereby communicated to us.
παράκλησιν] comfort. This is called eternal,[69] not, perhaps, on account of the blessings of eternal life which Christians have to expect (Chrysostom, Estius, Vorstius, Grotius, Fromond., and others), but because Christians have become the sons of God, and as such are filled with indestructible confidence that all things, even the severest affliction which may befall them, infallibly serves for their good, because God has so ordained, and that nothing in the world will be able to separate them from the love of God in Christ; comp. Rom 8:28; Rom 8:38 f. The opposite of this eternal consolation is the fleeting and deceptive consolation of the world (Olshausen). παράκλησις accordingly refers to the present. On the other hand (2Th 2:13-14), ἐλπὶς ἀγαθή refers to the blessedness and glory to be expected in the future.
ἐν χάριτι] in grace, i.e. by means of a gracious appointment, belongs not to ἐλπίδα, but to the participles. The opposite is man’s own merit.
παρακαλέσαι] may comfort or calm, refers particularly to the disquiet of the readers in reference to the advent (2Th 2:2).
καὶ στηρίξαι] sc. ὑμᾶς (see critical remarks), which is in itself evident from the preceding ὑμῶν.
ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ ἀγαθῷ] in every good work and word. Grotius incorrectly takes it in the sense of εἰς πᾶν ἔργον καὶ πάντα λόγον ἀγαθόν. But, with Chrysostom, Calvin, Turretin, Bolten, Flatt, and others, to limit λόγος to teaching is erroneous, on account of the universal παντί and its being placed along with ἔργῳ. The apostle rather wishes an establishment in every good thing, whether manifested in works or in words.
[69] The feminine form αἰωνία is found only here in the N. T. and in Heb 9:12.
1. Now I beseech you, by the coming. It may indeed be read, as I have noted on the margin, concerning the coming, but it suits better to view it as an earnest entreaty, taken from the subject in hand, just as in 1Co 15:31, when discoursing as to the hope of a resurrection, he makes use of an oath by that glory which is to be hoped for by believers. And this has much more efficacy when he adjures believers by the coming of Christ, not to imagine rashly that his day is at hand, for he at the same time admonishes us not to think of it but with reverence and sobriety. For it is customary to adjure by those things which are regarded by us with reverence. The meaning therefore is, “As you set a high value on the coming of Christ, when he will gather us to himself, and will truly perfect that unity of the body which we cherish as yet only in part through means of faith, so I earnestly beseech you by his coming not to be too credulous, should any one affirm, on whatever pretext, that his day is at hand.”
As he had in his former Epistle adverted to some extent to the resurrection, it is possible that some fickle and fanatical persons took occasion from this to mark out a near and fixed day. For it is not likely that this error had taken its rise earlier among the Thessalonians. For Timothy, on returning thence, had informed Paul as to their entire condition, and as a prudent and experienced man had omitted nothing that was of importance. Now if Paul had received notice of it, he could not have been silent as to a matter of so great consequence. Thus I am of opinion, that when Paul’s Epistle had been read, which contained a lively view of the resurrection, some that were disposed to indulge curiosity philosophized unseasonably as to the time of it. This, however, was an utterly ruinous fancy, (636) as were also other things of the same nature, which were afterwards disseminated, not without artifice on the part of Satan. For when any day is said to be near, if it does not quickly arrive, mankind being naturally impatient of longer delay, their spirits begin to languish, and that languishing is followed up shortly afterwards by despair.
This, therefore, was Satan’s subtlety: as he could not openly overturn the hope of a resurrection with the view of secretly undermining it, as if by pits underground, (637) he promised that the day of it would be near, and would soon arrive. Afterwards, too, he did not cease to contrive various things, with the view of effacing, by little and little, the belief of a resurrection from the minds of men, as he could not openly eradicate it. It is, indeed, a plausible thing to say that the day of our redemption is definitely fixed, and on this account it meets with applause on the part of the multitude, as we see that the dreams of Lactantius and the Chiliasts of old gave much delight, and yet they had no other tendency than that of overthrowing the hope of a resurrection. This was not the design of Lactantius, but Satan, in accordance with his subtlety, perverted his curiosity, and that of those like him, so as to leave nothing in religion definite or fixed, and even at the present day he does not cease to employ the same means. We now see how necessary Paul’s admonition was, as but for this all religion would have been overturned among the Thessalonians under a specious pretext.
(636) “Vne fantasie merueilleusement pernicieuse, et pour ruiner tout;” — “A fancy that was singularly destructive, and utterly ruinous.”
(637) See Calvin on the Corinthians, vol. 1, p. 38.
2. That ye be not soon shaken in judgment. He employs the term judgment to denote that settled faith which rests on sound doctrine. Now, by means of that fancy which he rejects, they would have been carried away as it were into ecstasy. He notices, also, three kinds of imposture, as to which they must be on their guard — spirit, word, and spurious epistle. By the term spirit he means pretended prophecies, and it appears that this mode of speaking was common among the pious, so that they applied the term spirit to prophesyings, with the view of putting honor upon them. For, in order that prophecies may have due authority, we must look to the Spirit of God rather than to men. But as the devil is wont to transform himself into an angel of light, (2Co 11:14,) impostors stole this title, in order that they might impose upon the simple. But although Paul could have stripped them of this mask, he, nevertheless, preferred to speak in this manner, by way of concession, as though he had said, “However they may pretend to have the spirit of revelation, believe them not.” John, in like manner, says:
“Try the spirits, whether they are of God.” (1Jo 4:1.)
Speech, in my opinion, includes every kind of doctrine, while false teachers insist in the way of reasons or conjectures, or other pretexts. What he adds as to epistle, is an evidence that this impudence is ancient — that of feigning the names of others. (638) So much the more wonderful is the mercy of God towards us, in that while Paul’s name was on false grounds made use of in spurious writings, his writings have, nevertheless, been preserved entire even to our times. This, unquestionably, could not have taken place accidentally, or as the effect of mere human industry, if God himself had not by his power restrained Satan and all his ministers.
As if the day of Christ were at hand. This may seem to be at variance with many passages of Scripture, in which the Spirit declares that that day is at hand. But the solution is easy, for it is at hand with regard to God, with whom one day is as a thousand years. (2Pe 3:8.) In the mean time, the Lord would have us be constantly waiting for him in such a way as not to limit him to a certain time.
Watch, says he, for ye know neither the day nor the hour.
(Mat 24:36.)
On the other hand, those false prophets whom Paul exposes, while they ought to have kept men’s minds in suspense, bid them feel assured of his speedy advent, that they might not be wearied out with the irksomeness of delay.
(638) “Des grands personnages;” — “Of great personages.”
3. Let no man deceive you. That they may not groundlessly promise themselves the arrival in so short a time of the joyful day of redemption, he presents to them a melancholy prediction as to the future scattering of the Church. This discourse entirely corresponds with that which Christ held in the presence of his disciples, when they had asked him respecting the end of the world. For he exhorts them to prepare themselves for enduring hard conflicts, (639) (Mat 24:6,) and after he has discoursed of the most grievous and previously unheard of calamities, by which the earth was to be reduced almost to a desert, he adds, that the end is not yet, but that these things are the beginnings of sorrows. In the same way, Paul declares that believers must exercise warfare for a long period, before gaining a triumph.
We have here, however, a remarkable passage, and one that is in the highest degree worthy of observation. This was a grievous and dangerous temptation, which might shake even the most confirmed, and make them lose their footing — to see the Church, which had by means of such labors been raised up gradually and with difficulty to some considerable standing, fall down suddenly, as if torn down by a tempest. Paul, accordingly, fortifies beforehand the minds, not merely of the Thessalonians, but of all the pious, that when the Church should come to be in a scattered condition, they might not be alarmed, as though it were a thing that was new and unlooked for.
As, however, interpreters have twisted this passage in various ways, we must first of all endeavor to ascertain Paul’s true meaning. He says that the day of Christ will not come, until the world has fallen into apostasy, and the reign of Antichrist has obtained a footing in the Church; for as to the exposition that some have given of this passage, as referring to the downfall of the Roman empire, it is too silly to require a lengthened refutation. I am also surprised, that so many writers, in other respects learned and acute, have fallen into a blunder in a matter that is so easy, were it not that when one has committed a mistake, others follow in troops without consideration. Paul, therefore, employs the term apostasy to mean — a treacherous departure from God, and that not on the part of one or a few individuals, but such as would spread itself far and wide among a large multitude of persons. For when apostasy is made mention of without anything being added, it cannot be restricted to a few. Now, none can be termed apostates, but such as have previously made a profession of Christ and the gospel. Paul, therefore, predicts a certain general revolt of the visible Church. “The Church must be reduced to an unsightly and dreadful state of ruin, before its full restoration be effected.”
From this we may readily gather, how useful this prediction of Paul is, for it might have seemed as though that could not be a building of God, that was suddenly overthrown, and lay so long in ruins, had not Paul long before intimated that it would be so. Nay more, many in the present day, when they consider with themselves the long-continued dispersion of the Church, begin to waver, as if this had not been regulated by the purpose of God. The Romanists, also, with the view of justifying the tyranny of their idol, make use of this pretext — that it was not possible that Christ would forsake his spouse. The weak, however, have something here on which to rest, when they learn that the unseemly state of matters which they behold in the Church was long since foretold; while, on the other hand, the impudence of the Romanists is openly exposed, inasmuch as Paul declares that a revolt will come, when the world has been brought under Christ’s authority. Now, we shall see presently, why it is that the Lord has permitted the Church, or at least what appeared to be such, to fall off in so shameful a manner.
Has been revealed. It was no better than an old wife’s fable that was contrived respecting Nero, that he was carried up from the world, destined to return again to harass the Church (640) by his tyranny; and yet the minds of the ancients were so bewitched, that they imagined that Nero would be Antichrist. (641) Paul, however, does not speak of one individual, but of a kingdom, that was to be taken possession of by Satan, that he might set up a seat of abomination in the midst of God’s temple — which we see accomplished in Popery. The revolt, it is true, has spread more widely, for Mahomet, as he was an apostate, turned away the Turks, his followers, from Christ. All heretics have broken the unity of the Church by their sects, and thus there have been a corresponding number of revolts from Christ.
Paul, however, when he has given warning that there would be such a scattering, that the greater part would revolt from Christ, adds something more serious — that there would be such a confusion, that the vicar of Satan would hold supreme power in the Church, and would preside there in the place of God. Now he describes that reign of abomination under the name of a single person, because it is only one reign, though one succeeds another. My readers now understand, that all the sects by which the Church has been lessened from the beginning, have been so many streams of revolt which began to draw away the water from the right course, but that the sect of Mahomet was like a violent bursting forth of water, that took away about the half of the Church by its violence. It remained, also, that Antichrist should infect the remaining part with his poison. Thus, we see with our own eyes, that this memorable prediction of Paul has been confirmed by the event.
In the exposition which I bring forward, there is nothing forced. Believers in that age dreamed that they would be transported to heaven, after having endured troubles during a short period. Paul, however, on the other hand, foretells that, after they have had foreign enemies for some time molesting them, they will have more evils to endure from enemies at home, inasmuch as many of those that have made a profession of attachment to Christ would be hurried away into base treachery, and inasmuch as the temple of God itself would be polluted by sacrilegious tyranny, so that Christ’s greatest enemy would exercise dominion there. The term revelation is taken here to denote manifest possession of tyranny, as if Paul had said that the day of Christ would not come until this tyrant had openly manifested himself, and had, as it were, designedly overturned the whole order of the Church.
(639) “Merveilleux et durs combats;” — “Singular and hard conflicts.”
(640) “Pour tourmenter griefuement l’Eglise;” — “To torment the Church grievously.”
(641) The strange notion here referred to by Calvin as to Nero, is accounted for by Cornelius à Lapide in his Commentary on the Revelation, from the circumstance that Alcazar having explained the expression which occurs in Rev 13:3, “I saw one of the heads as it were killed to death,” as referring to Nero killed, and soon afterwards raised up, as it were, and reviving in the person of Domitian his successor, some of the ancients, understanding literally what was meant by him figuratively, conceived the idea that Nero would be Antichrist, and would be raised up, and appear again in the end of the world. — Ed.
4. An adversary, and that exalteth himself. The two epithets — man of sin, and son of perdition — intimate, in the first place, how dreadful the confusion would be, that the unseemliness of it might not discourage weak minds; and farther, they tend to stir up the pious to a feeling of detestation, lest they should degenerate along with others. Paul, however, now draws, as if in a picture, a striking likeness of Antichrist; for it may be easily gathered from these words what is the nature of his kingdom, and in what things it consists. For, when he calls him an adversary, when he says that he will claim for himself those things which belong to God, so that he is worshipped in the temple as God, he places his kingdom in direct opposition to the kingdom of Christ. Hence, as the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, so this tyranny must be upon souls, that it may rival the kingdom of Christ. We shall also find him afterwards assigning to him the power of deceiving, by means of wicked doctrines and pretended miracles. If, accordingly, you would know Antichrist, you must view him as diametrically opposed to Christ.(642)
Where I have rendered — everything that is called God, the reading more generally received among the Greeks is, every one that is called. It may, however, be conjectured, both from the old translation (643) and from some Greek commentaries, that Paul’s words have been corrupted. The mistake, too, of a single letter was readily fallen into, especially when the shape of the letter was much similar; for, where there was written πᾶν τὸ, (everything,) some transcriber, or too daring reader, turned it into πάντα, (every one.) This difference, however, is not of so much importance as to the sense, for Paul undoubtedly means that Antichrist would take to himself those things that belonged to God alone, so that he would exalt himself above every divine claim, that all religion and all worship of God might lie under his feet. This expression then, everything that is reckoned to be God, is equivalent to everything that is reckoned as Divinity, and σέβασμα, that is, in which the veneration due to God consists.
Here, however, the subject treated of is not the name of God himself, but his majesty and worship, and, in general, everything that he claims for himself. “True religion is that by which the true God alone is worshipped; that, the son of perdition will transfer to himself.” Now, every one that has learned from Scripture what are the things that more especially belong to God, and will, on the other hand, observe what the Pope claims for himself — though he were but a boy of ten years of age — will have no great difficulty in recognizing Antichrist. Scripture declares that God is the alone Lawgiver (Jas 4:12) who is able to save and to destroy; the alone King, whose office it is to govern souls by his word. It represents him as the author of all sacred rites; (644) it teaches that righteousness and salvation are to be sought from Christ alone; and it assigns, at the same time, the manner and means. There is not one of these things that the Pope does not affirm to be under his authority. He boasts that it is his to bind consciences with such laws as seem good to him, and subject them to everlasting punishment. As to sacraments, he either institutes new ones, according to his own inclination, (645) or he corrupts and deforms those which had been instituted by Christ — nay, sets them aside altogether, that he may substitute in their place the sacrileges (646) which he has invented. He contrives means of attaining salvation that are altogether at variance with the doctrine of the Gospel; and, in fine, he does not hesitate to change the whole of religion at his own pleasure. What is it, I pray you, for one to lift up himself above everything that is reckoned God, if the Pope does not do so? When he thus robs God of his honor, he leaves him nothing remaining but an empty title of Deity, (647) while he transfers to himself the whole of his power. And this is what Paul adds shortly afterwards, that the son of perdition would shew himself as God. For, as has been said, he does not insist upon the simple term God, but intimates, that the pride (648) of Antichrist would be such, that, raising himself above the number and rank of servants, and mounting the judgment-seat of God, (649) would reign, not with a human, but with a divine authority. For we know that whatever is raised up into the place of God is an idol, though it should not bear the name of God.
In the temple of God. By this one term there is a sufficient refutation of the error, nay more, the stupidity of those who reckon the Pope to be Vicar of Christ, on the ground that he has his seat in the Church, in whatever manner he may conduct himself; for Paul places Antichrist nowhere else than in the very sanctuary of God. For this is not a foreign, but a domestic enemy, who opposes Christ under the very name of Christ. But it is asked, how the Church is represented as the den of so many superstitions, while it was destined to be the pillar of the truth? (1Ti 3:15.) I answer, that it is thus represented, not on the ground of its retaining all the qualities of the Church, but because it has something of it remaining. I accordingly acknowledge, that that is the temple of God in which the Pope bears rule, but at the same time profaned by innumerable sacrileges.
(642) “The name of the Man of Sin is not Antitheos, but ἀντίχριστος — not one that directly invadeth the properties of the supreme God, but of God incarnate, or Christ as Mediator. [...] he usurpeth the authority due to Christ.” — Dr. Manton’s Sermons on 2 Thessalonians. — Ed
(643) The rendering of the Vulgate is as follows,— “Supra omne quod dicitur Deus aut quod colitur;” — “Above everything that is called God, or that is worshipped.” Wyclif (1380) renders thus: “Ouer alle thing that is seid God, or that is worschipid.” — Ed.
(644) “Que c’est a luy seul d’establir seruice diuin, et ceremonies qui en dependent;” — “That it belongs to him alone to establish divine worship, and the rites that are connected with it.”
(645) “Selon son plaisir et fantasie;” — “According to his own pleasure and fancy.”
(647) “Le titre de Dieu par imagination;” — “The title of God by imagination.”
(648) “L’orgueil et arrogance;” — “The pride and arrogance.”
(649) “Auec vne fierete intolerable;” — “With an intolerable presumption.”
5. Do ye not remember? This added no small weight to the doctrine, that they had previously heard it from the mouth of Paul, that they might not think that it had been contrived by him at the instant. And as he had given them early warning as to the reign of Antichrist, and the devastation that was coming upon the Church, when no question had as yet been raised as to such things, he saw beyond all doubt that the doctrine was specially useful to be known. And, unquestionably, it is really so. Those whom he addressed were destined to see many things that would trouble them; and when posterity would see a large proportion of those who had made profession of the faith of Christ revolt from piety, maddened, as it were, by a gad-fly, or rather by a fury, (650) what could they do but waver? This, however, was as a brazen (651) wall (652) — that matters were so appointed by God, because the ingratitude of men (653) was worthy of such vengeance. Here we may see how forgetful men are in matters affecting their everlasting salvation. We must also observe Paul’s mildness; for while he might have been vehemently incensed, (654) he does but mildly reprove them; for it is a fatherly way of reproving them to say to them, that they had allowed forgetfulness of a matter so important and so useful to steal in upon their minds.
(650) “Se reuolter de la vraye religion, et se precipiter en ruine comme gens forcenez, ou plustost endiablez;” — “Revolt from the true religion, and plunge themselves in ruin like persons enraged, or rather possessed.”
(651) Murus aheneus . See Hor. Ep. 1:1, 60.
(652) “Mais voici en cest endroit qui leur deuoit seruir d’vne forteresse inuincible;” — “But behold in this matter what would furnish them with an invincible fortress.”
(653) “L’ingratitude execrable et vileine des hommes;” — “The execrable and base ingratitude of men.”
(654) “Contre les Thessaloniciens;” — “Against the Thessalonians.”
6. And now what withholdeth Τὸ κατέχον means here properly an impediment or occasion of delay. Chrysostom, who thinks that this can only be understood as referring to the Spirit, or to the Roman Empire, prefers to lean to the latter opinion. He assigns a plausible reason — because Paul would not have spoken of the Spirit in enigmatical terms, (655) but in speaking of the Roman Empire wished to avoid exciting unpleasant feeling. He states also the reason why the state of the Roman Empire retards the revelation of Antichrist — that, as the monarchy of Babylon was overthrown by the Persians and Medes, and the Macedonians, having conquered the Persians, again took possession of the monarchy, and the Macedonians were at last subdued by the Romans, so Antichrist seized hold for himself of the vacant supremacy of the Roman Empire. There is not one of these things that was not afterwards confirmed by actual occurrence. Chrysostom, therefore, speaks truly in so far as concerns history. I am of opinion, however, that Paul’s intention was different from this — that the doctrine of the gospel would require to be spread hither and thither, until nearly the whole world were convicted of obstinacy and deliberate malice. For there can be no doubt that the Thessalonians had heard from Paul’s mouth as to this impediment, of whatever sort it was, for he recalls to their remembrance what he had previously taught in their presence.
Let my readers now consider which of the two is the more probable — either that Paul declared that the light of the gospel must be diffused through all parts of the earth before God would thus give loose reins to Satan, or that the power of the Roman Empire stood in the way of the rise of Antichrist, inasmuch as he could only break through into a vacant possession. I seem at least to hear Paul discoursing as to the universal call of the Gentiles — that the grace of God must be offered to all — that Christ must enlighten the whole world by his gospel, in order that the impiety of men might be the more fully attested and demonstrated. This, therefore, was the delay, until the career of the gospel should be completed, because a gracious invitation to salvation was first in order. (656) Hence he adds, in his time, because vengeance was ripe after grace had been rejected. (657)
(655) “En termes couuerts ou obscurs;” — “In hidden or obscure terms.”
(656) “D’autant que l’ordre que Dieu vouloit tenir, requeroit que le monde premierement fust d’vne liberalite gratuite conuié a salut;” — “Inasmuch as the order that God designed to maintain, required that the world should first of all be invited to salvation by a gracious liberality.”
(657) “La droite saison de la vengeance estoit apres la grace reiette;” — “The right season of vengeance was after grace had been rejected.”
7. The mystery of iniquity. This is opposed to revelation; for as Satan had not yet gathered so much strength, as that Antichrist could openly oppress the Church, he says that he is carrying on secretly and clandestinely (658) what he would do openly in his own time. He was therefore at that time secretly laying the foundations on which he would afterwards rear the edifice, as actually took place. And this tends to confirm more fully what I have already stated, that it is not one individual that is represented under the term Antichrist, but one kingdom, which extends itself through many ages. In the same sense, John says that Antichrist will come, but that there were already many in his time. (1Jo 2:18.) For he admonishes those who were then living to be on their guard against that deadly pestilence, which was at that time shooting up in various forms. For sects were rising up which were the seeds, as it were, of that unhappy weed which has well-nigh choked and destroyed God’s entire tillage. (659) But although Paul conveys the idea of a secret manner of working, yet he has made use of the term mystery rather than any other, alluding to the mystery of salvation, of which he speaks elsewhere, (Col 1:26,) for he carefully insists on the struggle of repugnancy between the Son of God and this son of perdition
Only now withholding. While he makes both statements in reference to one person — that he will hold supremacy for a time, and that he will shortly be taken out of the way, I have no doubt that he refers to Antichrist; and the participle withholding must be explained in the future tense. (660) For he has, in my opinion, added this for the consolation of believers — that the reign of Antichrist will be temporary, the limits of it having been assigned to it by God; for believers might object — “Of what avail is it that the gospel is preached, if Satan is now hatching a tyranny that he is to exercise for ever?” He accordingly exhorts to patience, because God afflicts his Church only for a time, that he may one day afford it deliverance; and, on the other hand, the perpetuity of Christ’s reign must be considered, in order that believers may repose in it.
(658) “Et comme par dessous terre;” — “And as it were under ground.”
(659) “Le bon blé que Dieu auoit seme en son champ;” — “The good wheat that God had sown in his field.”
(660) “Faut resoudre ce participe Tenant en vn temps futur Tiendra ;” — “We must explain this participle, withholding, in the future tense — He will withhold. ”
8. And then will be revealed — that is, when that impediment (τὸ κατέχον) shall be removed; for he does not point out the time of revelation as being when he, who now holds the supremacy, will be taken out of the way, but he has an eye to what he had said before. For he had said that there was some hindrance in the way of Antichrist’s entering upon an open possession of the kingdom. He afterwards added, that he was already hatching a secret work of impiety. In the third place, he has interspersed consolation, on the ground that this tyranny would come to an end. (661) He now again repeats, that he (662) who was as yet hidden, would be revealed in his time; and the repetition is with this view — that believers, being furnished with spiritual armor, may, nevertheless, fight vigorously under Christ, (663) and not allow themselves to be overwhelmed, although the deluge of impiety should thus overspread. (664)
Whom the Lord. He had foretold the destruction of Antichrist’s reign; he now points out the manner of his destruction — that he will be reduced to nothing by the word of the Lord. It is uncertain, however, whether he speaks of the last appearance of Christ, when he will be manifested from heaven as the Judge. The words, indeed, seem to have this meaning, but Paul does not mean that Christ would accomplish this (665) in one moment. Hence we must understand it in this sense — that Antichrist would be wholly and in every respect destroyed, (666) when that final day of the restoration of all things shall arrive. Paul, however, intimates that Christ will in the mean time, by the rays which he will emit previously to his advent, put to flight the darkness in which Antichrist will reign, just as the sun, before he is seen by us, chases away the darkness of the night by the pouring forth of his rays. (667)
This victory of the word, therefore, will shew itself in this world, for the spirit of his mouth simply means the word, as it also does in Isa 11:4, to which passage Paul seems to allude. For the Prophet there takes in the same sense the scepter of his mouth, and the breath of his lips, and he also furnishes Christ with these very arms, that he may rout his enemies. This is a signal commendation of true and sound doctrine — that it is represented as sufficient for putting an end to all impiety, and as destined to be invariably victorious, in opposition to all the machinations of Satan; as also when, a little afterwards, the proclamation of it is spoken of as Christ’s coming to us.
When Paul adds, the brightness of his coming, he intimates that the light of Christ’s presence will be such as will swallow up the darkness of Antichrist. In the mean time, he indirectly intimates, that Antichrist will be permitted to reign for a time, when Christ has, in a manner, withdrawn, as usually happens, whenever on his presenting himself we turn our back upon him. And, undoubtedly, that is a sad departure (668) of Christ, when he has taken away his light from men, which has been improperly and unworthily received, (669) in accordance with what follows. In the mean time Paul teaches, that by his presence alone all the elect of God will be abundantly safe, in opposition to all the subtleties of Satan.
(661) “Que sa tyrannie deuoit prendre fin quelque fois;” — “That his tyranny must at some time have an end.”
(662) “Ce fils de perdition;” — “This son of perdition.”
(663) “Sous l’enseigne de Christ;” — “Under Christ’s banner.”
(664) “Si outrageusement;” — “So outrageously.”
(665) “Cela tout;” — “All this.”
(666) “Descomfit;” — “Defeated.”
(667) “Estendant la vertu de ses rayons tout a l’enuiron;” — “Diffusing the virtue of his rays all around.”
(668) “Vn triste et pitoyable department;” — “A sad and lamentable departure.”
(669) “Laquelle ils auoyent reiettee ou receué irreueremment, et autrement qu’il n’appartenoit;” — “Which they had rejected or received irreverently, and otherwise than was befitting.”
9. Whose coming He confirms what he has said by an argument from contraries. For as Antichrist cannot stand otherwise than through the impostures of Satan, he must necessarily vanish as soon as Christ shines forth. In fine, as it is only in darkness that he reigns, the dawn of the day puts to flight and extinguishes the thick darkness of his reign. We are now in possession of Paul’s design, for he meant to say, that Christ would have no difficulty in destroying the tyranny of Antichrist, which was supported by no resources but those of Satan. In the mean time, however, he points out the marks by which that wicked one may be distinguished. For after having spoken of the working or efficacy of Satan, he marks it out particularly when he says, in signs and lying wonders, and in all deceivableness. And assuredly, in order that this may be opposed to the kingdom of Christ, it must consist partly in false doctrine and errors, and partly in pretended miracles. For the kingdom of Christ consists of the doctrine of truth, and the power of the Spirit. Satan, accordingly, with the view of opposing Christ in the person of his Vicar, puts on Christ’s mask, (670) while he, nevertheless, at the same time chooses armor, with which he may directly oppose Christ. Christ, by the doctrine of his gospel, enlightens our minds in eternal life; Antichrist, trained up under Satan’s tuition, by wicked doctrine, involves the wicked in ruin; (671) Christ puts forth the power of his Spirit for salvation, and seals his gospel by miracles; the adversary, (672) by the efficacy of Satan, alienates us from the Holy Spirit, and by his enchantments confirms miserable men (673) in error.
He gives the name of miracles of falsehood, not merely to such as are falsely and deceptively contrived by cunning men with a view to impose upon the simple — a kind of deception with which all Papacy abounds, for they are a part of his power which he has previously touched upon; but takes falsehood as consisting in this, that Satan draws to a contrary end works which otherwise are truly works of God, and abuses miracles so as to obscure God’s glory. (674) In the mean time, however, there can be no doubt, that he deceives by means of enchantments—an example of which we have in Pharaoh’s magicians. (Exo 7:11.)
(670) “Et s’en desguise;” — “And disguises himself with it.”
(671) “En ruine et perdition eternelle;” — “In eternal ruin and perdition.”
(672) Our author evidently means Antichrist, alluding to the term applied to him by Paul in the 4th verse.—Ed.
(673) “Les poures aveugles;” — “The poor blind.”
(674) It is observed by Dr. Manton, in his Sermons on 2d Thess. that “there are seven points in Popery that are sought to be confirmed by Miracles.—1. Pilgrimages. 2. Prayers for the Dead. 3. Purgatory. 4. The Invocation of Saints. 5. The Adoration of Images. 6. The Adoration of the Host. 7. The Primacy of the Pope.” —Ed.
10In those that perish. He limits the power of Satan, as not being able to injure the elect of God, just as Christ, also, exempts them from this danger. (Mat 24:24.) From this it appears, that Antichrist has not so great power otherwise than by his permission. Now, this consolation was necessary. For all the pious, but for this, would of necessity be overpowered with fear, if they saw a yawning gulf pervading the whole path, along which they must pass. Hence Paul, however he may wish them to be in a state of anxiety, that they may be on their guard, lest by excessive carelessness they should fall back, nay, even throw themselves into ruin, does, nevertheless, bid them cherish good hope, inasmuch as Satan’s power is bridled, that he may not be able to involve any but the wicked in ruin.
Because they received not the love. Lest the wicked should complain that they perish innocently, (675) and that they have been appointed to death rather from cruelty on the part of God, than from any fault on their part, Paul shews on what good grounds it is that so severe vengeance from God is to come upon them — because they have not received in the temper of mind with which they ought the truth which was presented to them, nay more, of their own accord refused salvation. And from this appears more clearly what I have already stated — that the gospel required to be preached to the world before God would give Satan so much permission, for he would never have allowed his temple to be so basely profaned, (676) had he not been provoked by extreme ingratitude on the part of men. In short, Paul declares that Antichrist will be the minister of God’s righteous vengeance against those who, being called to salvation, have rejected the gospel, and have preferred to apply their mind to impiety and errors. Hence there is no reason why Papists should now object, that it is at variance with the clemency of Christ to cast off his Church in this manner. For though the domination of Antichrist has been cruel, none have perished but those who were deserving of it, nay more, did of their own accord choose death. (Pro 8:36.) And unquestionably, while the voice of the Son of God has sounded forth everywhere, it finds the ears of men deaf, nay obstinate, (677) and while a profession of Christianity is common, there are, nevertheless, few that have truly and heartily given themselves to Christ. Hence it is not to be wondered, if similar vengeance quickly follows such a criminal (678) contempt.
It is asked whether the punishment of blindness does not fall on any but those who have on set purpose rebelled against the gospel. I answer, that this special judgment by which God has avenged open contumacy, (679) does not stand in the way of his striking down with stupidity, (680) as often as seems good to him, those that have never heard a single word respecting Christ, for Paul does not discourse in a general way as to the reasons why God has from the beginning permitted Satan to go at large with his falsehoods, but as to what a horrible vengeance impends over gross despisers of new and previously unwonted grace. (681)
He uses the expression — receiving the love of the truth, to mean — applying the mind to the love of it. Hence we learn that faith is always conjoined with a sweet and voluntary reverence for God, because we do not properly believe the word of God, unless it is lovely and pleasant to us.
(675) “Sans cause et estans innocens;” — “Without cause, and being innocent.”
(676) “Vileinement et horriblement;” — “Basely and horribly.”
(677) “Eudurcies et obstinees;” — “Hardened and obstinate.”
(678) “Si execrable;” — “So execrable.”
(679) “Le mespris orgueilleux de sa Parolle;” — “Proud contempt of his Word.”
(680) “Estourdissement et stupidite;” — “Giddiness and stupidity.”
(681) “C’est ascauoir de l’Euangile;” — “That is, of the Gospel.”
11The working of delusion. He means that errors will not merely have a place, but the wicked will be blinded, so that they will rush forward to ruin without consideration. For as God enlightens us inwardly by his Spirit, that his doctrine may be efficacious in us, and opens our eyes and hearts, that it may make its way thither, so by a righteous judgment he delivers over to a reprobate mind (Rom 1:28) those whom he has appointed to destruction, that with closed eyes and a senseless mind, they may, as if bewitched, deliver themselves over to Satan and his ministers to be deceived. And assuredly we have a notable specimen of this in the Papacy. No words can express how monstrous a sink of errors (682) there is there, how gross and shameful an absurdity of superstitions there is, and what delusions at variance with common sense. None that have even a moderate taste of sound doctrine, can think of such monstrous things without the greatest horror. How, then, could the whole world be lost in astonishment at them, were it not that men have been struck with blindness by the Lord, and converted, as it were, into stumps?
(682) “Quel monstrueux et horrible retrait d’erreurs;” — “What a monstrous and horrible nest of errors.”
12That all may be condemned. That is, that they may receive the punishment due to their impiety. Thus, those that perish have no just ground to expostulate with God, inasmuch as they have obtained what they sought. For we must keep in view what is stated in Deu 13:3, that the hearts of men are subjected to trial, when false doctrines come abroad, inasmuch as they have no power except among those who do not love God with a sincere heart. Let those, then, who take pleasure in unrighteousness, reap the fruit of it. When he says all, he means that contempt of God finds no excuse in the great crowd and multitude of those who refuse to obey the gospel, for God is the Judge of the whole world, so that he will inflict punishment upon a hundred thousand, no less than upon one individual.
The participle εὐδοκήσαντες (taking pleasure) means (so to speak) a voluntary inclination to evil, for in this way every excuse is cut off from the ungrateful, when they take so much pleasure in unrighteousness, as to prefer it to the righteousness of God. For by what violence will they say that they have been impelled to alienate themselves by a mad revolt (683) from God, towards whom they were led by the guidance of nature? It is at least manifest that they willingly and knowingly lent an ear to falsehoods.
(683) “En se reuoltant malicieusement;” — “By revolting maliciously.”
13But we are bound to give thanks. He now separates more openly the Thessalonians from the reprobate, that their faith may not waver from fear of the revolt that was to take place. At the same time, he had it in view to consult, not their welfare only, but also that of posterity. (684) And he does not merely confirm them that they may not fall over the same precipice with the world, but by this comparison he extols the more the grace of God towards them, in that, while they see almost the whole world hurried forward to death at the same time, as if by a violent tempest, they are, by the hand of God, maintained in a quiet and secure condition of life. (685) Thus we must contemplate the Judgments of God upon the reprobate in such a way that they may be, as it were, mirrors to us for considering his mercy towards us. For we must draw this conclusion, that it is owing solely to the singular grace of God that we do not miserably perish with them.
He calls them beloved of the Lord, for this reason, that they may the better consider that the sole reason why they are exempted from the almost universal overthrow of the world, was because God exercised towards them unmerited love. Thus Moses admonished the Jews —
“God did not elevate you so magnificently because ye were more powerful than others, or were numerous, but because he loved your fathers.” (Deu 7:7.)
For, when we hear the term love, that statement of John must immediately occur to our mind — Not that we first loved him. (1Jo 4:19.) In short, Paul here does two things; for he confirms faith, lest the pious should give way from being overcome with fear, and he exhorts them to gratitude, that they may value so much the higher the mercy of God towards them.
Hath chosen you. He states the reason why all are not involved and swallowed up in the same ruin — because Satan has no power over any that God has chosen, so as to prevent them from being saved, though heaven and earth were to be confounded. This passage is read in various ways.
The old interpreter has rendered it first-fruits, (686) as being in the Greek ἀπαρχήν; but as almost all the Greek manuscripts have απ᾿ ἀρχὢς, I have in preference followed this reading. Should any one prefer first-fruits, the meaning will be, that believers have been, as it were, set aside for a sacred offering, by a metaphor taken from the ancient custom of the law. Let us, however, hold by what is more generally received, that he says that the Thessalonians were chosen from the beginning
Some understand the meaning to be, that they had been called among the first; but this is foreign to Paul’s meaning, and does not accord with the connection of the passage. For he does not merely exempt from fear a few individuals, who had been led to Christ immediately on the commencement of the gospel, but this consolation belongs to all the elect of God, without exception. When, therefore, he says from the beginning, he means that there is no danger lest their salvation, which is founded on God’s eternal election, should be overthrown, whatever tumultuous changes may occur. “However Satan may mix and confound all things in the world, your salvation, notwithstanding, has been placed on a footing of safety, prior to the creation of the world.” Here, therefore, is the true port of safety, that God, who elected us of old, (687) will deliver us from all the evils that threaten us. For we are elected to salvation; we shall, therefore, be safe from destruction. But as it is not for us to penetrate into God’s secret counsel, to seek there assurance of our salvation, he specifies signs or tokens of election, which should suffice us for the assurance of it.
In sanctification of the spirit, says he, and belief of the truth. This may be explained in two ways, with sanctification, or by sanctification. It is not of much importance which of the two you select, as it is certain (688) that Paul meant simply to introduce, in connection with election, those nearer tokens which manifest to us what is in its own nature incomprehensible, and are conjoined with it by an indissoluble tie. Hence, in order that we may know that we are elected by God, there is no occasion to inquire as to what he decreed before the creation of the world, but we find in ourselves a satisfactory proof if he has sanctified us by his Spirit, — if he has enlightened us in the faith of his gospel. For the gospel is an evidence to us of our adoption, and the Spirit seals it, and those that are led by the Spirit are the sons of God, (Rom 8:14,) and he who by faith possesses Christ has everlasting life. (1Jo 5:12.) These things must be carefully observed, lest, overlooking the revelation of God’s will, with which he bids us rest satisfied, we should plunge into a profound labyrinth from a desire to take it from his secret counsel, from the investigation of which he draws us aside. Hence it becomes us to rest satisfied with the faith of the gospel, and that grace of the Spirit by which we have been regenerated. And by this means is refuted the wickedness (689) of those who make the election of God a pretext for every kind of iniquity, while Paul connects it with faith and regeneration in such a manner, that he would not have it judged of by us on any other grounds.
(684) “Mais aussi pour les autres fideles, qui viendroyent apres;” — “But also for other believers, who should come after.”
(685) “En vn estat ferme et paisible, qui mene a la vie;” — “In a secure and peaceable condition, which leads to life.”
(686) Primitias . Wiclif (1380) following, as he is wont, the reading of the Vulgate, renders it “the first fruytis.”
(687) “Des le commencement;” — “From the beginning.”
(688) “S. Paul ne vent autre chose, sinon apres auoir parlé de l’election de Dieu, adiouster maintenant des signes plus prochains qui nous la manifestent;” — “St. Paul means simply, after having spoken of the election of God, to add now those nearer tokens which manifest it to us.”
(689) “La meschancete horrible;” — “The horrible wickedness.”
14To which he called us. He repeats the same thing, though in somewhat different terms. For the sons of God are not called otherwise than to the belief of the truth. Paul, however, meant to shew here how competent a witness he is for confirming that thing of which he was a minister. He accordingly puts himself forward as a surety, that the Thessalonians may not doubt that the gospel, in which they had been instructed by him, is the safety-bringing voice of God, by which they are aroused from death, and are delivered from the tyranny of Satan. He calls it his gospel, not as though it had originated with him, (690) but inasmuch as the preaching of it had been committed to him.
What he adds, to the acquisition or possession of the glory of Christ, may be taken either in an active or in a passive signification — either as meaning, that they are called in order that they may one day possess a glory in common with Christ, or that Christ acquired them with a view to his glory. And thus it will be a second means of confirmation that he will defend them, as being nothing less than his own inheritance, and, in maintaining their salvation, will stand forward in defense of his own glory; which latter meaning, in my opinion, suits better.
(690) “Non pas qu’il soit creu en son cerueau;” — “Not as though it had been contrived in his brain.”
He deduces this exhortation on good grounds from what goes before, inasmuch as our steadfastness and power of perseverance rest on nothing else than assurance of divine grace. When, however, God calls us to salvation, stretching forth, as it were, his hand to us; when Christ, by the doctrine of the gospel, presents himself to us to be enjoyed; when the Spirit is given us as a seal and earnest of eternal life, though the heaven should fall, we must, nevertheless, not become disheartened. Paul, accordingly, would have the Thessalonians stand, not merely when others continue to stand, but with a more settled stability; so that, on seeing almost all turning aside from the faith, and all things full of confusion, they will, nevertheless, retain their footing. And assuredly the calling of God ought to fortify us against all occasions of offense in such a manner, that not even the entire ruin of the world shall shake, much less overthrow, our stability.
15Hold fast the institutions. Some restrict this to precepts of external polity; but this does not please me, for he points out the manner of standing firm. Now, to be furnished with invincible strength is a much higher thing than external discipline. Hence, in my opinion, he includes all doctrine under this term, as though he had said that they have ground on which they may stand firm, provided they persevere in sound doctrine, according as they had been instructed by him. I do not deny that the term παραδόσεις is fitly applied to the ordinances which are appointed by the Churches, with a view to the promoting of peace and the maintaining of order, and I admit that it is taken in this sense when human traditions are treated of, (Mat 15:6.) Paul, however, will be found in the next chapter making use of the term tradition, as meaning the rule that he had laid down, and the very signification of the term is general. The context, however, as I have said, requires that it be taken here to mean the whole of that doctrine in which they had been instructed. For the matter treated of is the most important of all — that their faith may remain secure in the midst of a dreadful agitation of the Church.
Papists, however, act a foolish part in gathering from this that their traditions ought to be observed. They reason, indeed, in this manner — that if it was allowable for Paul to enjoin traditions, it was allowable also for other teachers; and that, if it was a pious thing (691) to observe the former, the latter also ought not less to be observed. Granting them, however, that Paul speaks of precepts belonging to the external government of the Church, I say that they were, nevertheless, not contrived by him, but divinely communicated. For he declares elsewhere, (1Co 7:35,) that it was not his intention to ensnare consciences, as it was not lawful, either for himself, or for all the Apostles together. They act a still more ridiculous part in making it their aim to pass off, under this, the abominable sink of their own superstitions, as though they were the traditions of Paul. But farewell to these trifles, when we are in possession of Paul’s true meaning. And we may judge in part from this Epistle what traditions he here recommends, for he says — whether by word, that is, discourse, or by epistle. Now, what do these Epistles contain but pure doctrine, which overturns to the very foundation the whole of the Papacy, and every invention that is at variance with the simplicity of the Gospel?
(691) “Une bonne chose et saincte;” — “A good thing and holy.”
16Now the Lord himself. When he ascribes to Christ a work altogether Divine, and represents him, in common with the Father, as the Author of the choicest blessings, as we have in this a clear proof of the divinity of Christ, so we are admonished, that we cannot obtain anything from God unless we seek it in Christ himself: and when he asks that God may give him those things which he had enjoined, he shews clearly enough how little influence exhortations have, unless God inwardly move and affect our hearts. Unquestionably there will be but an empty sound striking upon the ear, if doctrine does not receive efficacy from the Spirit.
What he afterwards adds,who hath loved you, and hath given consolation, etc., relates to confidence in asking; for he would have the Thessalonians feel persuaded that God will do what he prays for. And from what does he prove this? Because he once shewed that they were dear to him, while he has already conferred upon them distinguished favors, and in this manner has bound himself to them for the time to come. This is what he means by everlasting consolation. The term hope, also, has the same object in view — that they may confidently expect a never-failing continuance of gifts. But what does he ask? That God may sustain their hearts by his consolation; for this is his office, to keep them from giving way through anxiety or distrust; and farther, that he may give them perseverance, both in a pious and holy course of life, and in sound doctrine; for I am of opinion, that it is rather of this than of common discourse that he speaks, so that this agrees with what goes before.
