Mga Komentaryo sa Bibliya

CHAPTER 2

2 Thessalonians 2:2. Elz. has ἀπὸ τοῦ νοός. Instead of it, D E 43, al., Syr. Erp. Syr. p. c. ast. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast. Hier. Pel. have ἀπὸ τοῦ νοὸς ὑμῶν. An interpretation.

Instead of the Receptus μήτε θροεῖσθαι, A B D* F G א, Or. require μηδὲ θροεῖσθαι. Correctly preferred by Lachm. Tisch. Bloomfield, and Alford, for θροεῖσθαι contains a new point, intensifying the discourse.

κυρίου] Elz. Matth. read Χριστοῦ. Against the preponderating authority of A B D* E (?) F G L א, min. plur. vers. and Fathers.—2 Thessalonians 2:3. Instead of the Receptus ἁμαρτίας, B א 3, al., perm. Copt. Sahid. Slav. ed. Or. ms. (bis et in edd. qu.) Cyr. hieros. Damasc. Nicephor. Tert. Ambrosiast. ed. Ambr. have ἀνομίας. But ἀνομίας is taken from ἀνομίας, 2 Thessalonians 2:7, and ἄνομος, 2 Thessalonians 2:8.—2 Thessalonians 2:4. Instead of the Receptus ὑπεραιρόμενος, F G, Or. (semel) Prosop. (ap. Niceph. semel) demand ἐπαιρόμενος. But the directly following ἐπί decides against its genuineness.

Before καθίσαι Elz. Matth. add ὡς Θεόν. A gloss for the sake of strengthening. Correctly erased by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, to whom also Reiche agrees, after A B D* א, min. perm. Erp. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Clar. Germ. Or. (ter.) Hippol. Cyr. utr. Severus, Chrys. ms. Theodoret (alic.) Polychronius, Methodius jun., Damasc. Ir. Tert. Cypr. Aug. Ambrosiast. Ruf. Primas. Cassiod. al.

Instead of the Receptus ἀποδεικνύντα, A F G, 3, 23, al., edd. Or. (semel) Cyr. utr. Theodoret (ter.) Damasc. (semel) have ἀποδεικνύοντα.—2 Thessalonians 2:8. ὁ κύριος ʼΙησοῦς] Elz. Matth. Tisch. 2, Bloomfield, and Reiche read only ὁ κύριος, after B (e sit.) D*** E** K L* min. pl. Arab. in polygl. Sl. ms. Or. (semel vel bis) Macar. Cyr. hier. Theodoret (sem.) Damasc. (sem.) Oec. Vig. al. But ὁ κύριος ʼΙησοῦς (received by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. 1 and 7, Alford) is required by A D* E* F G L** א, 17, 31, al., perm. Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Slav. ed. Vulg. It. Or. (semel vel bis) Hippol. Constitut. Ath. Bas. Cyr. Ephr. Chrys. Theodoret (saepe), Damasc. Theoph. Ir. (semel) Tert. Hier. (saepe) Fulgent. Hilar. Ambros. Aug. Rufin. Ambrosiast. Primas. Pelag.

Elz. has ἀναλώσει. Lachm. and Tisch. 1 read ἀνελεῖ, after A B D* 17, 23, al., mult. Or. (semel) Hipp. Macar. Method. jun., Andreas caesar. Cyr. hieros. Chrys. ms. Damasc. Theophylact. But ἀναλώσει is the more unusual form, and ἀνελεῖ is taken from the LXX. Isaiah 11:4.—2 Thessalonians 2:10. ἀδικίας] Elz. Griesb. Matth. Scholz read τῆς ἀδικίας. The article is wanting in A B F G א* min. Or. (sexies) Cyr. hieros. The last syllable of the preceding ἀπάτῃ gave occasion to this addition.

τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις] Elz. Griesbach, Matth. Bloomfield read ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις. Against A B D* F G א* 17, 71, al., Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. It. Or. (quinquies) Cyr. hieros. Damasc. (semel) Ir. Tert. Aug. Ambrosiast. al.—2 Thessalonians 2:11. Instead of the Receptus πέμψει, A B D* F G א* 67** al., Vulg. ms. Or. (bis vel ter) Bas. Cyr. hieros. Damasc. Ir. Ambrosiast. ed. require πέμπει. Recommended by Griesb. Received by Lachm. Scholz, Tisch. and Alford. Correctly. The present only suits 2 Thessalonians 2:7, according to which the wickedness had already begun to work.—2 Thessalonians 2:12. τῇ ἀδικίᾳ] Elz. Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Alford read ἐν τῇ ἀδικίᾳ, after A D*** E K L א**** min. pl. Copt. Syr. utr. al., m. Or. (bis) Chrys. Theodoret (semel), Damasc. (semel) al., Cypr. Hier. Lachm. has bracketed ἐν. It is wanting in B D* F G א* min. perm. edd. Sahid. Vulg. It. Or. (bis) Hippol. Cyr. utr. Theodoret (alic.), Damasc. Ir. Tert. Aug. Ambrosiast. al. Erased by Tisch. 1. But the addition was most natural for a N. T. writer, on account of its agreement with the Hebrew, whilst at a later period the parallel member in the first half of the verse might easily have been the occasion of its omission.—2 Thessalonians 2:13. ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς] B F G 35, al., Didym. Damasc. (comm.) Vulg. Ambr. Pel. read ἀπαρχήν. So Lachm. and Tisch. 1. Not only do A D E K 4 א, almost all min., many vers. and Fathers attest the reading of the Receptus ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς, but Paul could not possibly have written ἀπαρχήν, as the Thessalonians were not the first who became believers, either generally or even in Macedonia.—2 Thessalonians 2:17. στηρίξαι] Elz. Matth. read στηρίξαι ὑμᾶς. But ὑμᾶς is wanting in A B D* E* F G א, min. mult. Syr. utr. Arm. Vulg. It. Chrys. Oec. Ambrosiast. al., and is a supplementary addition.

Instead of ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ Elz. and Matth. have λόγῳ καὶ ἔργῳ. Against decisive testimony (A B D E L א, min. mult. Copt. Aeth. Syr. p. Slav. ms. Vulg. It. Chrys. Theophyl. Theodoret, Oec. Ambrosiast. Vigil. al.).

2 Thessalonians 2:1. ʼΕρωτῶμεν δέ] passing from what the apostle prays for the Thessalonians (2 Thessalonians 1:11-12) to what he requires of them. On ἐρωτᾶν, see on 1 Thessalonians 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. Romans 9:27; 2 Corinthians 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 1 Thessalonians 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.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. Dogmatic portion of the Epistle. Information, by way of correction, concerning the commencement of the advent. The day of the Lord is not yet. It will only then occur when Antichrist, whom now a preventing power hinders from appearing, will be manifested.

See on 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, Noesselt, Opusc. ad interpretationem sacrarum scriptur. fascic. II., Hal. 1787, p. 257 ff.; Seger, Diss. philol. ad locum 2 Thess. ii. 1–12, Hal 1791; Tychsen in Henke’s Magazin f. Religionsphilos., Exeges. und Kirchengesch. vol. VI., Helmst. 1796, p. 171 ff.; Storr, Opusc. acad. vol. III., Tüb. 1803, p. 323 ff.; Nitzsch, De revelatione religionis externa eademque publica, Lips. 1808, p. 223 ff.; Heydenreich in the Neuen Krit. Journal der theol. Literatur, by Winer and Engelhardt, Bd. 8, Sulzb. 1828; Kern in the Tübing. Zeitschr. f. theol. 1839, Part 2, p. 145 ff.; Wieseler, Chronologie des apost. Zeitalters, Gött. 1848, p. 257 ff.; Baumgarten, die Apostelgeschichte oder der Entwickelungsgang der Kirche von Jerusalem bis Romans , 2 d ed. vol. i., Braunschw. 1859, p. 603 ff.; Schneckenburger on the Lehre vom Antichrist. Treated of by Ed. Böhmer in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. von Liebner, etc., Gotha 1859, p. 420 ff.; v. Döllinger, Christenthum u. Kirche in der Zeit der Grundlegung, Regensb. 1860, p. 277 ff., 422 ff.; Luthardt, die Lehre von den letzten Dingen, Leipz. 1861, p. 145 ff.; older literature in Wolf.

2 Thessalonians 2:2. A statement of the object of the whole sentence, 2 Thessalonians 2:1.

σαλεύεσθαι] from σάλος, which is especially used of the sea agitated by a storm (comp. Luke 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. Matthew 11:7; Acts 4:31; Acts 16:26; Hebrews 12:26, etc.), and also transferred to mental conditions (comp. Acts 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. Romans 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, 1 Corinthians 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 2 Thessalonians 2:15, which opposes the true to the false expressed in 2 Thessalonians 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. Romans 8:38; 1 Corinthians 3:22; 1 Corinthians 7:26; Galatians 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 2 Corinthians 11:21, and Winer, p. 544 [E. T. 771]. Completely erroneous Hofmann: Ὡς ὍΤΙ is equivalent to Ὡς ἘΆΝ, 1 Thessalonians 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.”

2 Thessalonians 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 2 Thessalonians 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. Ephesians 5:6; Colossians 2:16; Colossians 2:18.

κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον] not only recapitulates the three modes of misleading mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 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 2 Thessalonians 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 2 Thessalonians 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, 2 Thessalonians 2:3, by ἀνομία, 2 Thessalonians 2:7, and (3) the constant biblical usage, constrain us to this view. Comp. LXX. 2 Chronicles 29:19; Jeremiah 2:19; 1Ma 2:15, etc.; Acts 21:21; 1 Timothy 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. 2 Thessalonians 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 2 Thessalonians 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 (2 Thessalonians 2:7-10).

The apostle considers Antichrist as a parallel to Christ; therefore he here speaks of an ἀποκάλυψις (comp. 2 Thessalonians 1:7), a revelation of what was hitherto concealed, as well as, in 2 Thessalonians 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. John 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.

2 Thessalonians 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. 2 Thessalonians 2:8 and 2 Thessalonians 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, 1 John 2:18). This Antichrist is not the devil himself (Pelagius and others), for he is distinguished from him (2 Thessalonians 2:9); but according to 2 Thessalonians 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 Daniel 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. Daniel 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” (2 Thessalonians 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!

2 Thessalonians 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 1 Thessalonians 3:4.

ταῦτα] namely, the contents of 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4. To assume, however, a parenthesis from 2 Thessalonians 2:5 to οἴδατε in 2 Thessalonians 2:6 (so Heinsius) is arbitrary.

2 Thessalonians 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 2 Thessalonians 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, 2 Thessalonians 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 (2 Thessalonians 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 2 Thessalonians 2:5, ὍΤΙ ΤΑῦΤΑ ΜῈΝ ἜΤΙ ὪΝ ΠΡῸς ὙΜᾶς ἜΛΕΓΟΝ ὙΜῖΝ, and in 2 Thessalonians 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 2 Thessalonians 2:5-6 as “two halves of one question united with καί,” νῦν stands not, indeed, in opposition to ἜΤΙ, 2 Thessalonians 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 2 Thessalonians 2:5; and to assume that the words in 2 Thessalonians 2:6 are still contained in the question in 2 Thessalonians 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 2 Thessalonians 2:7, 1 Corinthians 7:17, Romans 12:3, etc., are not analogous. And as little do the temporal particles ἄρτι and ἤδη, 2 Thessalonians 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 2 Thessalonians 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. Acts 7:34; Acts 10:5; Acts 13:11; Acts 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.

2 Thessalonians 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. Galatians 2:6; Galatians 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, 2 Thessalonians 2:3. For the ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας was mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 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, 2 Thessalonians 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 1 Timothy 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, 2 Thessalonians 2:8, introduces the apodosis (Koppe). Rather a comma is to be put after ἈΝΟΜΊΑς, and a colon after ΓΈΝΗΤΑΙ. Accordingly 2 Thessalonians 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. Galatians 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 2 Thessalonians 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. 2 Thessalonians 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 1 Thessalonians 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. 1 Corinthians 5:2; Colossians 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, 2 Thessalonians 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.