Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - 2 Thessalonians 2:1 - 2:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
III. EXHORTATION (2:1-12)
The discouragement of those converts who feared that they were not morally prepared for the day of judgment (1:3-12) was intensified by the assertion of some, perhaps the idle brethren, supported, it was alleged, by the authority of Paul, that the day of the Lord was actually present. Paul, who receives news of the situation orally or by letter, together with a request for information about the Parousia and Assembling, is at a loss to understand how anything he had said in the Spirit, orally, or in his previous epistle, could be misconstrued to imply that he was responsible for the misleading assertion, “the day of the Lord is present.” Believing, however, that the statement has been innocently attributed to him, and feeling sure that a passing allusion to his original oral instruction concerning times and seasons will make plain the absurdity of the assertion, and at the same time quiet the agitation of the faint-hearted, he answers the request in words not of warning but of encouragement (cf. also vv. 13 f.). “Do not be discouraged,” he says in effect, “for the day of the Lord, though not far distant, will not be actually present until first of all the Anomos comes; and again be not discouraged, for the advent of the Anomos is intended not for you believers, but solely for the unbelievers, and destruction sudden and definitive is in store both for him and for them.”
The exhortation falls roughly into four parts (1) the object of the exhortation (vv. 1-2); (2) the reason why the day of the Lord is not present (vv. 3-8a); (3) the triumph of the good over the evil in the destruction of the Anomos (v. 8b. c); and (4) the spiritual significance of the Parousia of the Anomos (vv. 9-12). There is no formal counterpart in I either of the exhortation or of the preceding prayer (1:11-12); furthermore the material of 2:1-12 like that of 1:5-12 is, compared with I, almost wholly new.
1Now brothers, in reference to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to meet him, we ask you 2not to be readily unsettled in your mind or to be nervously wrought up by the statement made by Spirit, orally, or by letter, as if we had made it, that the day of the Lord is present.
3Let no one deceive you in any way whatever: for (the day of the Lord will not be present) unless first of all there comes the apostasy and there be revealed the man of lawlessness, the son of perdition, 4the one who opposes and exalts himself against every one called God or an object of worship so that he sits (or, attempts to sit) in the temple of God and proclaims (or, attempts to proclaim) that he himself is really God. 5You remember, do you not, that when I was yet with you, I used to tell you these things? 6And as to the present time, you know the spirit or power that detains him (or, is holding sway), in order that he (the lawless one) may be revealed in his appointed time. 7For, the secret of lawlessness has already been set in operation; only (the apostasy will not come and the Anomos will not be revealed) until the person who now detains him (or, is now holding sway) is put out of the way. 8And then will be revealed the Anomos whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of his mouth and will destroy with the manifestation of his coming.
9Whose coming, according to the energy of Satan, attended by all power and signs and wonders inspired by falsehood 10and by all deceit inspired by unrighteousness, is for those destined to destruction; doomed because they had not welcomed the love for the truth unto their salvation. 11And so for this reason, it is God that sends them an energy of delusion that they may believe the falsehood; 12that (finally) all may be judged who have not believed the truth but have consented to that unrighteousness.
1-2. First stating the theme as given him in their letter, “concerning the advent and the assembling to meet him” (v. 1), Paul exhorts the readers not to let their minds become easily unsettled, and not to be nervously wrought up by the assertion, however conveyed and by whatever means attributed to him, that the day of the Lord is actually present (v. 2).
1. ἐωῶε δ ὐᾶ ἀεφι In this phrase (which = I 5:12), δ marks a transition from the thanksgiving and prayer (1:3-12) to a new epistolary section, the exhortation (vv. 1-12). But the same people are chiefly in mind here as in 1:3-12, the faint-hearted, though the converts as a whole are addressed, and that too affectionately, “brothers” (1:3).
ὑὲ τςπρυίςκλ The prepositional phrase, introduced by ὑέ= πρ (see 1:4 and I 3:2, 5:10), announces the two closely related subjects (note the single τ) about which the readers of I had solicited information, “the coming of our (B and Syr. omit ἡῶ Lord Jesus” and “our assembling unto him.” The addition of ἐʼατ intimates that not only the well-known muster (ἐιυαωη of the saints (cf. Mar_13:27 = Mat_24:31) that precedes the rapture (I 4:17) is meant, but also the sequel of the rapture (σνκρῳεν, I 4:17).
Since ἐωάis rare in Paul (see on I 4:1), it is not strange that ἐωά ὑέis unique in Paul; he uses, however, πρκλῖ ὑέ(see on I 3:2) as well as πρκλῦε δ ὑᾶ ἀεφι(I 4:10, 5:14; cf. Rom_15:30, Rom_15:16:17, 1Co_1:10, 1Co_16:15); cf. further ο θλμνἀνενπρ (I 4:13, 1Co_12:1, and 2Co_1:8 (א et al.) where BKL have ὑέ On the exact phrase ἡπρυί κλcf. I 5:23.—ἐιυαωη(elsewhere in Gk. Bib. only 2 Mal_2:7, Heb_10:25; cf. Deiss. Light, 101 ff.) refers to the constant hope of the Jews that their scattered brethren would be gathered together in Palestine (Isa_27:13, Sir. 36:13, 2 Mac. 2:18; cf. the ἐιυάε under the leadership of the Messiah in Ps. Sol. 17:28. 50), a hope which passed over, with some changes, into Christian apocalyptic; see for details Schü II, 626 ff.; Bousset, Relig2 271 ff.; and Volz. Eschat. 309 ff. Swete (on Mar_13:27,) observes that ἐιυαωηin Heb_10:25 “is suggestively used for the ordinary gatherings of the church, which are anticipations of the great assembling at the Lord’s return.” On ἐιfor πό here due to the substantive, cf. Gal_4:9 and especially Hab_2:5 (B; AQ have πό
2. εςτ μ τχω κλ The object (εςτ μ) of ἐωῶεis specified by two infinitives, one aorist σλυῆαwhich looks at the action without reference to its progress or completion; the other present, θοῖθ which defines the action as going on; hence, “we urge you not to be easily unsettled and not to be in a constant state of nervous excitement.” The phrase σλυῆα ἀὸτῦνό which is not found elsewhere in the Gk. Bib., suggests that the readers were driven from their sober sense like a ship from its moorings. The word νῦ frequent in Paul (cf. Rom. 1:45), means here not “opinion” (Grot.) but, as elsewhere in the N. T., “mind,” the particular reference being not so much to the organ of thought as to the state of reasonableness, “their ordinary, sober, and normal state of mind” (Ell.). Thus driven from their mind, they fell into a state of alarm, agitation, nervous excitement which, as the present tense (θοῖθ) shows, was continuous.
On the analogy of πρκλῖ εςτ (I 2:12) or τ μ (I 3:3) and δῖθιεςτ (I 3:10) or τ μ (2Co_10:2), ἐωῶε εςτ μ is natural, and that too as an object clause (BMT 412). Parallel to this negative exhortation is the independent negative prohibition μ τςκλ(v. 3). Wohl., however, takes εςτ μ as final and finds the content of the exhortation in μ τςκλa construction which is smoother and less Pauline.—σλύι only here in Paul but common elsewhere in Gk. Bib., is used literally “of the motion produced by winds, storms, waves,” etc. (Thayer; cf. Psa_17:8 and σλ Luk_21:25), and figuratively of disturbance in general (Ps. 9:27, Psa_9:12:5; cf. especially Act_17:13 of the Jews in Berœ It is sometimes parallel to (Job_9:6, Nah_1:5, Hab_2:16) or a variant of (Isa_33:20, 1Mac. 9:13) σίι and it is construed with ἀοin the sense of “at” (Psa_32:8), “by” (1 Mac. 9:13 (A) Ps. Sol. 15:6), or as here “from” (cf. 1:9); Vulg. has a vestro sensu (cf. 4 Reg. 21:8 = 2Ch_33:8 Dan. (Th.) 4:11). DE add ὑῶafter νῦ cf. 1Co_14:14.—θοῖθ, indicating a state of alarm (cf. θο Sap. 1:10, 1 Mac. 9:39), occurs elsewhere in Gk. Bib. only Son_5:4, and Mar_13:37 = Mat_24:6, an apocalyptic word of the Lord which, so some surmise (Wohl., Mill., Dob.), Paul has here in mind. On θοῖθ, see Kennedy, Sources, 126, and Wrede, 48 f.—On μ …μδ cf. Rom_14:21; EKLP, et al., have μτdue probably to the following sequence where D has μδ, μδ, μτ and F μδ, μτ(corrected to μδ), μδ Though μτis common in Gk. Bib. (3 Reg. 3:26, Hos_4:4, etc.), it occurs only here in Paul; see Bl 77:10.
δὰπεμτςκλ The instrument or means (δαnot ὑο by which the σλυθν and θοῖθ are effected is specified in three parallel clauses standing together in negative correlation (the triple μτbeing due to μδ), δὰπεμτς δὰλγ and δʼἐιτλ In the light of I 5:19, πεμ(anarthrous as often in Paul) refers clearly to the operation of the Spirit in the charisma of prophecy; λγ, in the light of ἐιτλ, means probably an oral as contrasted with an epistolary utterance (v. 15, Act_15:27); and ἐιτλ is probably an allusion not to a forged or an anonymous letter, but to I.
Chrys. apparently understands πεμeither of the spirit of prophecy or of false prophets who deceive by persuasive words (δὰλγ; cf. Ephr.). λγ is sometimes understood of the “reckoning” of times and seasons, or of a real or falsified λγςκρο(see Lü but it is usually explained as an oral utterance inspired (=δδχ 1Co_14:6. 1Co_14:26; cf. λγςσφαand γώε 1Co_12:8) or uninspired.
ὡ δʼἡῶ “As if said by us.” Since this clause is separated from the construction with the triple μτ it is not to be construed with the infinitives σλυῆαand θοῖθ; and since the three preceding phrases with δαare closely united in negative correlation, ὡ δʼἡῶis to be connected not with ἐιτλ alone, not with both ἐιτλ and λγ, but with all three prepositional phrases. The reference is thus not to the unsettlement and agitation as such, and not to the instruments of the same, but to the unsettling and agitating cause conveyed by these instruments, the statement, namely, “that the day of the Lord is present.” While it is possible that some of the converts, perhaps the idle brethren, had themselves said in the Spirit, or in an address, that the day had actually dawned, and had supported their assertion by a reference to an anonymous letter attributed innocently to Paul, it is probable, in view of the unity of the negative correlation with the triple μτ that an actual utterance of Paul in the Spirit, or in an address, or in his first epistle (cf. Jerome, Hammond, Kern and Dob.) had been misconstrued to imply that Paul himself had said that “the day of the Lord is present,” thus creating the unsettlement and nervous excitement.
That the three instruments specified do not exhaust the number of actual instruments about which Paul was informed, or of possible instruments which he thinks may have been employed, is a natural inference from v. 3: “let no one deceive you in any way,” the ways mentioned or other possible ways. In writing ὡ δʼἡῶ Paul does not deny that he has used such instruments, or that he has expressed himself in reference to times and seasons; he disclaims simply all responsibility for the statement: “the day of the Lord is present.” The context alone determines whether or not ὡ(1Co_4:18, 1Co_4:7:25, 1Co_4:9:26, 2Co_5:20, etc.) indicates an erroneous opinion.
That ὡ δʼἡῶis to be joined with all three substantives is regarded as probable by Erasmus, Barnes, Lft., Mill. ,Dob., Harnack, Dibelius, et al. (1) Many scholars, however (from Tertullian to Moff.), restrict the phrase to ἐιτλ, and interpret it as meaning ὡ δʼἡῶ γγαμν (Thayer, 681), or ὡ ἡῶ γγαόω ατ (Bl 74:6; P reads πρ ἡῶ According to this construction, some of the converts either (a) ἐ πεμτ(or ex falsis visionibus quas ostendunt vobis, Ephr.), or (b) in an oral address (Chrys.; cf. Ephr. ex commentitiis sophismati vesbis quae dicunt vobis) or in the charisma of δδχ, or (c) in a forged letter (Chrys., Theodoret, Ell. and many others; cf. Ephr. per falsas epistolas minime a vobis scriptas tamquam per nos missas) asserted that the day is present. But while some of the converts might innocently make such an assertion in the Spirit or in an address, inspired or not, they could not innocently forge a letter. And if they had done so, Paul would scarcely have written as he now writes. Hence, many commentators content themselves with the supposition that an anonymous letter had been attributed, innocently or wilfully, to Paul; or that Paul suspected that a letter had been forged. (2) Still other scholars (Theodoret, Grot., De W., Lü Lillie, Ell., Schmiedel, Vincent, et al.), influenced doubtless by v. 15, join ὡ δʼἡῶwith both λγ and ἐιτλ According to this view, πεμis understood of an utterance of some of the converts in the Spirit, λγ of a pretended oral word of Paul, and ἐιτλ of an anonymous or a forged letter. (3) A more recent theory (Dods, Askwith in his Introd. to Thess. Epistles, 1902, 92 ff., and Wohl.) connects ὡ δʼἡῶclosely with the infinitives, and explains that Paul is here disclaiming not the Spirit, or word, or letter, but simply the “responsibility for the disturbance which has arisen”; and that ὡ δʼἡῶmeans “as if such disturbance came through us.” This attractive suggestion seems to overlook the evident detachment of ὠ δʼἡῶfrom the negative correlation with the triple μτ(cf. Dibelius).
ὡ ὅιἐέτκνκλ The actual statement of some of the converts, based on a misconstruction of Paul’s utterance by Spirit, by word, or by his first epistle, is now given: “that the day of the Lord is present.” That this statement is not a word of Paul has already been indicated by ὡ δʼἡῶThe second ὠmay be separated from ὅ, in which case the judgment of the first ὡis reiterated, “as if we said that”; or ὡ ὅ may be equivalent to a simple ὅ “that,” in which case the utterance is quoted without further qualification: “to wit that the day of the Lord is present” (cf. 2Co_5:19). ἐέτκ means not “is coming” (ἔχτ I 5:2), not “is at hand” (ἤγκ Rom_13:12), not “is near” (ἐγςἐτ Php_4:5), but “has come,” “is on hand,” “is present.” The period indicated by ἠέ has dawned and the Lord is expected from heaven at any moment. Paul of course had not expressed any such opinion; and it is with a trace of impatience that, after noting what first must come, he asks: “Do you not remember,” etc. (v. 5). It is this misleading assertion that accounts both for the increased discouragement of the faint-hearted to encourage whom Paul writes 1:3-2:17, and for the increased meddlesomeness of the idle brethren to warn whom Paul writes 3:1-18.
ὡ ὅ occurs elsewhere in Gk. Bib. 2Co_5:19, 2Co_5:11:21, 2Co_5:2 Reg. 18:18 (A B omits ὡ Est_4:14. (B A omits ὡ for other examples, mostly late (since recent editors no longer read ὠ ὅ in Xen. Hellen. III, 2:14; Dion Hal. Antiq. 9:14; Josephus, Apion, I, 58), see Wetstein on 2Co_5:19, 2Co_11:21. In late Gk. ὡ ὅ = ὅ = “that” (Sophocles, Lex. sub voc.). Moulton (I, 212), however, urges that this usage appears “in the vernacular at a rather late stage” and so takes ὡ ὅ = quasi with most interpreters. But while the sense “as if,” “on the ground that” would fit most of the instances in Gk. Bib., it does not fit 2Co_5:19. Since ὡ ὅ cannot mean “because,” and since the reading ὅ (Baljon, Schmiedel) for ὡ ὅ in 2Co_5:19 is pure conjecture, there remains only the sense “to wit that” (so Dob. here, and Bernard, EGT on 2Co_5:19, 2Co_11:21).—ἐίτμis used in N. T., apart from 2Ti_3:1, Heb_9:9, only by Paul; in Rom_8:38, 1Co_3:22, ἐετ is contrasted with μλω“The verb is very common in the papyri and inscriptions with reference to the current year” (Mill.; cf. Est_3:13 τῦἐεττςἔο). Lillie cites Josephus, Ant. XVI, 6:2 ο μννἐ τ ἐεττ κιῷἀλ κὶἐ τ ποεεηέ “where the former reference equally with the latter excludes all idea of future time.” That ἐέτκ = “is present” is recognised by many commentators (e. g. Cumenius, Kern (jetz eben vorhanden), Riggenbach, Alford, Ell., Lillie, Find., Wohl., Mill.). Many other interpreters, however, perhaps “from the supposed necessity of the case rather than from any grammatical compulsion” (Lillie), are inclined to explain “is present” to mean “is at hand.” Grot. notes that it is “common to announce as present what is obviously just at hand” and interprets, nempe hoc anno; Bengel defines by propinquitas; Schmiedel and Dob., on the assumption that the Thess. could not have meant “is present,” understand έέτκ of the future which is almost present. Against all such restrictions, see Lillie’s exhaustive note in defence of the translation “is present.”—On ἡἡέατῦκρο(1Co_5:5), see I 5:2; D omits ηand GFP omit τυ K, et al., read Χιτυfor κρο
3-8a. Allow no one, Paul continues, to delude you into such a belief whatever means may be employed (v. 3a). Then, choosing to treat the question given him (v. 1) solely with reference to the assertion (v. 2), and having in mind the discouragement of the faint-hearted, he selects from the whole of his previous oral teaching concernin times and seasons only such elements as serve to prove that the assertion (v. 2) is mistaken, and proceeds to remind them that the day of the Lord will not be present until first of all the apostasy comes and a definite and well-known figure, variously described as the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction, etc., is revealed,—allusions merely with which the readers are quite familiar, so familiar, indeed, that the Apostle can cut short the characterisation (v. 4), and appeal, with perhaps a trace of impatience at their forgetfulness, to the memory of the readers to complete the picture (v. 5). Then, turning from the future to the present, he explains why the apostasy and the revelation of the Anomos are delayed, and so why the day of the Lord is not yet present. To be sure, he intimates, the day of the Lord is not far distant, for there has already been set in operation the secret of lawlessness which is preparing the way for the apostasy and the concomitant revelation of the Anomos; but that day will not actually be present until the supernatural spirit which detains the Anomos (or, which is holding sway) for the very purpose that the Anomos may be revealed only at the time set him by God, or the supernatural person who is now detaining the Anomos (or, who is now holding sway), is put out of the way (vv. 6-7). And then there will be revealed the lawless one (v. 8a).
3. ὅιἐνμ ἔθ. The ὅ introduces the reason why the readers should not be alarmed or excited (v. 2), or, more directly, why they should not allow themselves to be deceived about the time of the day of the Lord in any way whatever, the ways mentioned in v. 2 or in any other way; and at the same time it starts the discussion of the theme (v. 1) “concerning the advent and the assembling unto him.” However, in the treatment of the theme, only such points are brought to the memory of the readers as make clear (1) that the Parousia will not be present until first of all there comes the apostasy and there be revealed the Anomos (vv. 3-4); (2) why the day of the Lord is not yet present (vv. 5-8); and (3) what the significance is of the advent of the Anomos,—points selected with a view to the encouragement of the faint-hearted. The clause with ὅ remains unfinished; from v. 2 we may supply after ὅ “the day of the Lord will not be present” (ἡἡέατῦκρο οκἐσήεα
On the rare prohibitory subj. in the third person (1Co_16:11), see BMT 166; in view of 1Co_16:11, 2Co_11:16, it is unnecessary to construe μ τ with ἐωῶε and to take εςτ μ (v. 2) as indicating purpose. The clause with μ τ is quite independent; it is not probably parenthetical, although ὅικλmay be connected directly with vv. 1-2.—As θοῖθ (v. 2) suggests the μ θοῖθof Mar_13:7 = Mat_24:6, so ἐααή recalls the βέεεμ τςὑᾶ παήῃof Mar_13:5 = Mat_24:4. ἐααά frequent in Lxx, is in the N. T. used chiefly by Paul.—On κτ μδν τόο “evidently a current phrase” (Mill.), which strengthens μ τ, cf. 3 Mac. 4:13, Mal_4:4 Mac. 4:24, 10:7; also κτ πνατόοRom_3:2. Though κτ (v. 9, 1:12, 3:6) is common in Paul, it does not appear in I.
ἡἀοτσ. The article suggests that “the apostasy” or “the religious revolt” is something well known to the readers; in fact, instruction upon this and cognate points had already been given orally by Paul (vv. 5 ff., I 5:1). The term itself is at least as old as the time of Antiochus Epiphanes who was “enforcing the apostasy” (1 Mal_2:15), that is, of Judaism to Hellenism; thereafter, as one of the fearful signs of the end (cf. Eth. En. 91:7), it became a fixed element in apocalyptic tradition (cf. Jub. 23:14 ff. 4 Ezr_5:1 ff. Mat_24:10 ff.). Paul, however, is probably thinking not of the apostasy of Jews from Moses, or of the Gentiles from the law in their hearts, or even of an apostasy of Christians from their Lord (for Paul expects not only the Thessalonians (I 5:9, II 2:13 ff.) but all believers (1Co_3:15) to be saved), but of the apostasy of the non-Christians as a whole, of the sons of disobedience in whom the prince of the power of the air, the evil spirit, is now operating (cf. Eph_2:2). This apostasy or religious revolt is not to be identified with “the mystery of lawlessness” (v. 7), for that mystery, already set in operation by Satan, precedes the apostasy and prepares the way for it; it is therefore something future, sudden, and final, like the revelation of the Anomos with which apparently it is associated essentially and chronologically. Whether this definitive religious revolt on earth synchronises with the revolt of Satan (Rev_12:7 ff.) in heaven, Paul does not say.
On the term, see Bousset, Antichrist, 76 ff., and Volz. Eschat. 179. That the revolt is not political, whether of all peoples (Iren. V, 25:2) or of Jews (Clericus, et al.) from Rome, and not both political and religious (see Poole, ad loc., and Wohl.), but solely religious, is probable both from the fact that elsewhere in the Gk. Bib. ἀοτσ is used of religious apostasy (Jos_22:22 (B) 3 Reg. 20:13 (A) 2Ch_29:19, 2Ch_33:19 (A) Jer_2:19, Jer_2:1 Mal_2:15, Act_21:21), and from the fact that in vv. 3-12, as elsewhere in the apocalyptic utterances of Paul, there is no evident reference to political situations. (It is not evident that τ κτχ and ὁκτχνἄτin vv. 6-7 refer to Rome). Furthermore, it is unlikely (1) that heresy is in mind, since “the doomed” here (v. 10) and elsewhere in Paul are outside the Christian group, “the saved” (Hammond and others (see Poole) find the prophecy fulfilled (cf. 1Ti_4:1 ff.), while Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. 15:9) sees the fulfilment in the heresies of his own day); or (2) that ἡἀοτσ = ὁἀοττ (cf. Iren. V, 25 apostata, and Augustine, de civ. dei, 20:21, refuga), the abstract for the concrete (so Chrys. and others); or (3) that Belial is meant, on the ground that this word is rendered once in Lxx by ἀοτσ (3 Reg. 20:13 A) and several times in the later Aquila (e. g. Deu_15:9, Jdg_19:22, Jdg_19:1 Reg. 2:12, 10:27, 25:17, Ps. 16:27, Nah_1:11).—Whether πῶο(without a following ἔετI 4:17 or δύεο1Co_12:28) belongs to both ἔθ and ἀοαυθ, indicating that the coming and revelation are contemporaneous,—“the day will not be present until, first of all, these two things happen together” (Schmiedel, Dob.); or whether κιat is consecutive (Ell., Find., Mill.), pointing out the result of the coming, is uncertain (cf. Mt.). In any case, the two things are not identical, although they are apparently associated both essentially and chronologically.
ἀοαυθ The Anomos, described in the following words, is indeed in existence, concealed, perhaps imprisoned, somewhere, as ἀοαυθ intimates; but the place of concealment, whether in heaven (cf. Eph_6:12), in the firmament, on earth, or in the abyss, is not stated. That he is influencing “the doomed” from his place of concealment is nowhere suggested; it is hinted only (vv. 6-7) that at present (that is, in the time of Paul) there is a supernatural spirit or person that directly by detaining him (or keeping him in detention) or indirectly (by holding sway until the appointed time of the coming of the Anomos) prevents his immediate revelation. This function of τ κτχor ὁκτχνἄτis not, however, permanent; indeed, it is exercised for the purpose (God’s purpose) that the Anomos may be revealed in his proper time, the time, namely, that has been appointed by God. Not until then will the Anomos be revealed, then when the supernatural spirit or person is removed.
Since Paul does not describe the place or conditions of concealment, it is impossible to ascertain precisely what he means. His interest is not in the portrayal of the movements of the Anomos but is in his character (vv. 3-4) and his significance for the unbelievers (vv. 9-12). Paul uses φνρ (Col_3:3) and ἀοάυι(1:7, 1Co_1:7) of the advent of Christ, but not ἀοαύτι(contrast Luk_17:30, Luk_17:4 Ezr_7:28, 13:22). The revelation or Parousia of the Anomos (v. 9) is perhaps intended as a counterpart of that of the Messiah (1:7); but whether Paul is responsible for the idea or is reproducing earlier Christian or Jewish tradition is uncertain. In the later Asc. Isa. 4:18, the Beloved rebukes in wrath “all things wherein Beliar manifested himself and acted openly in this world.”
ὁἄθωο τςἀοί = ὁἄοο(v. 8), for ἄθωο ἀοί like υό ἀοί (Ps. 88:23) is a Hebraism, designating a person as belonging to a lawless class or condition. This phrase, like ὁυὸ, τςἀωεα, ὁἀτκίεο κὶὑεαρμνςκλ and ὁἄοο is not a proper name but a characterisation of a person, and that too a definite person, as the article in each of the four phrases makes plain. It is evident that the figure in question is not Satan but a man, a unique man, however, in whom Satan dwells and operates. Chrys. observes: “Who is this person? Satan? Not at all; but ἄθωό τςπσνατῦδχμνςτνἐέγιν So complete is the control of Satan over his peculiar instrument that it is natural to hold with Th. Mops. that the parallel between the incarnation of Christ and the indwelling of Satan in the Anomos is all but complete.
While (ο ἄθωο(τυ θο is quite frequent in the Lxx (cf. also 1Ti_6:11, 2Ti_3:17), ἄθωοwith an abstract gen. (Sir. 20:26, 31:25, Luk_2:14) is less frequent than ἀήFor the equivalence of ἄθωο, ἀή and υόin this construction, cf. ἄθωο αμτ (Sir. 31:25) with ἁὴ αμτ (2 Reg. 16:7 f. and often in Psalms; see Briggs, ICC on Psa_5:7); and cf. υὸ θντ (1 Reg. 20:31, 2 Reg. 12:5) with ἀὴ θντ (3 Reg. 2:26).—Instead of ἀοί (Bא Tert. et al.), the majority of uncials (ADEGFKLP, et al.) read ἁαταIn the Lxx, A frequently reads ἁατ where B reads ἀοί(e. g. Exo_34:7, Isa_53:12, Eze_16:51, Eze_29:16); occasionally A has ἀοίwhere B (Eze_36:19) or א(Ps. 108:14) has ἁατ As these variants and the parallelism in Job_7:21, Psa_31:5, Isa_53:5 show, the two words are similar in meaning, ἁατ being the more general (cf. 1Jn_3:4). Though common in Lxx, both ἀοί(Rom_4:7, Rom_4:6:19, 2Co_6:14) and ἄοο(1Co_9:21) are rare in Paul. Unless Bאrevised in the light of vv. 7-8 (Weiss), or substituted ἀοί for ἁαταin the light of an exegesis which understood “the man of sin” to be Belial, the more specific ἀοί is the preferable reading.—It is tempting to identify the figure described in the four phrases with Belial (Beliar), though we cannot be sure (cf. Dob. Dibelius) that Paul would assent to this identification. This identification seems probable to Bousset (Antichrist, 1895, 99) and “all but certain” to Charles (Ascension of Isaiah, 1900, lxii; cf. also Mill. and Moff.). The origin and meaning of the word Belial are alike uncertain; Moore (ICC on Jdg_19:22) observes: “The oldest etymology of the word is found in Sanhedrin, 111 f. …‘men who have thrown off the yoke of Heaven from their necks’ (על+ בי So also Jerome in a gloss in his translation of Jdg_19:22: filii Belial, id est absque iugo”; but the word is “without analogy in the language” (ibid.); see further, Cheyne in EB 525 ff. In the Hebrew O.T. Belial is not certainly a proper name, though in Psa_18:5 = 2Sa_22:5 “torrents of Belial” (Briggs) is parallel to “cords of sheol” and “snares of Death.” In the Lxx בילis rendered by υο βλά(Jdg_20:13 A), ἀοτσ (3 Reg. 20:13 A so frequently in the later Aquila), πρνμ (frequently; cf. Jdg_20:13 B, where A has βλά Jdg_19:22, where Th. has βλάἀόη (Deu_15:9), ἀοι(2 Reg. 22:3, Psa_17:5, parallel with θντ and ᾅη etc.; see Moore, loc. cit. In the Test. xii (see Charles on Reub. 2:1), Jub. (see Charles on 15:33 “sons of Beliar”), and Asc. Isa. (see Charles on 1:8), Belial or Beliar is definitely a Satan or the Satan (cf 2Co_6:15).
Charles (Asc. Isa lxi ff.) not only identifies “the man of lawlessness” with Belial but elaborates an hypothesis to account for the Antichrist as he appears in Paul and in later N. T. literature. The Anomos of Paul, a god-opposing man, a human sovereign armed with miraculous power, is the resultant of a fusion of two separate and originally independent traditions, that of the Antichrist and that of Beliar. The Antichrist is not, as Bousset supposes, originally the incarnate devil but a godopposing being of human origin. The first historical person to be identified with Antichrist is Antiochus Epiphanes; and the language applied to him “recalls, though it may be unconsciously, the old Babylonian saga of the Dragon’s assault on the gods of heaven.” Beliar, on the other hand, is a purely Satanic being. “It is through the Beliar constituent of the developed Antichrist myth that the old Dragon saga from Babylon gained an entrance into the eschatologies of Judaism and Christianity.” This fusion of Antichrist with Beliar “appears to have been effected on Christian soil before 50 a.d.,” and is attested by 2Th_2:1-12. The subsequent history of Antichrist was influenced by the incoming of the Neronic myths; for example, Rev. xiii betrays the fusion of the myth of Antichrist with that of Nero Redivivus; Sib. Orac. III, 63-74, reflects the incarnation of Beliar as Antichrist in Nero still conceived as living; and Asc. Isa_4:2-4 (88-100 a.d.; Harnack and Bousset put the passage much later) suggests the incarnation of Beliar as Antichrist in the form of the dead Nero: “Beliar …will descend from his firmament in the likeness of a man, a lawless king,” etc.
ὁυὸ τςἀωεα= ὁἀολμοο a Hebraism indicating the one who belongs to the class destined to destruction (v. 10 of ο ἀολμν as opposed to the class destined to salvation (1Co_1:18 ο σζμν) The same description is applied to Judas Iscariot in Joh_17:12.
Abaddon is in Lxx rendered by ἀώε, and appears in parallelism with ᾅη(Job_26:6, Pro_15:11), θντ (Job_28:22) and τφ; cf. ἀοί(Belial) with θντ and ᾅηin Psa_17:5. Bousset (Antichrist, 99) calls attention to the angel of the abyss in Rev_9:11 whose name is Ἀαδin Hebrew and Ἀολωin Greek. The abyss is apparently “the abode of the ministers of torment from which they go forth to do hurt” (Taylor in ERE. I, 54). It is not, however, probable that ὁυὸ τςἀωεαrefers to the demonic angel of the abyss, for (1) Paul’s usage of ἀώε is against it (Rom_9:22, Php_1:28, Php_1:3:19; cf. Isa_57:4 τκαἀωεα, σέμἄοο Pro_24:22a υὸ ἀωεα Jub. 10:3 Apoc. Pet. 1:2); and (2) in Rev_17:8, the beast that ascends from the abyss is to go off ultimately εςἀώεα
4. ὁἀτκίεο κλ In the further characterisation of Satan’s peculiar instrument, three points are prominent (1) his impious character, “the one who opposes and uplifts himself against every one called God or an object of worship”; (2) the tendency of his spirit of opposition and self-exaltation, “so that he sits in the sanctuary of God”; and (3) the blasphemous claim, intended by the session, “proclaiming that he himself is really God.” The words of the first clause are evidently reminiscent of a description already applied to Antiochus Epiphanes by Daniel (Th. 11:36 ff.): κὶὑωήεα ὁβσλὺ κὶμγλνήεα ἐὶπναθό, κὶλλσιὑέοκ(i. e. ἐὶτνθὸ τνθῶ Lxx) …κὶἐὶπνθὸ ο σνσι ὅιἐὶπνα μγλνήεα In alluding to this passage and in quoting ἐὶπναθό Paul inserts λγμν to prevent the possibility of putting the would-be gods on a level with the true God; but whether λγμν refers solely to the would-be gods designated as such, “so-called” (cf. Iren. V, 25:1 super omne idolum, Wohl., Dob.), or whether it embraces both the would-be gods and the true God, “which is called God,” rightly or wrongly (so most interpreters), is uncertain.
Since both ἀτκίεοand ὑεαρμν are united by one article, it is probable but not certain (De W., Lü Ell.) that the former is not a substantive referring to Satan (1Ti_5:14 1Ti_5:1 Clem. 51:1) or ὁδάοοwho stands at the right hand of Joshua in Zec_3:1 τῦἀτκῖθιατ —Apart from Paul (2Co_12:7) ὑεαρσαis found in Gk. Bib. Psa_37:4, Psa_71:16, Pro_31:29, 2Ch_32:23, Sir. 48:13, 2 Mac. 5:23; the construction with ἐι(only here in Gk. Bib.; cf. ὑέin Psa_71:16 and the dat. in 2 Mac. 5:23) is due, perhaps, to the allusion in ἐὶπναθόSince ἀτκῖθ (common in Gk. Bib.; cf. the substantive participle in Isa_66:6, 1Co_16:9, Php_1:28) is regularly construed with the dative, a zeugma is here to be assumed, unless the possibility of ἀτκῖθιἐι= “against” be admitted (Schmiedel, Dob.).—The rare σβσ (Act_17:23 Sap. 14:20, 15:17 Dan. (Th.) Bel 27; cf. Sap. 14:20 with 14:12 εδλ 14:15 εκ, and 14:16 τ γυτ) indicates not a divinity (numen) but any sacred object of worship.—On λγμν, cf. 1Co_8:5, Col_4:11, Eph_2:11.—The omission by א of κὶὑεαρμν is not significant.
ὥτ ατνκθσικλ The session in the sanctuary of God is tantamount to the assumption of divine honours, “proclaiming that he himself is really (ἔτ) God.” The attempt to sit in the sanctuary of God is made quite in the spirit of the king of Babylon (Isa_14:13 ff.) and the prince of Tyre (Eze_28:2); but whether the attempt is successful or not (cf. Luk_4:29 ὥτ κτκηνσιατ) is not indicated certainly by ὥτwith the infinitive.
τννὸ τῦθσ. This is apparently the earliest extant reference to the session of the Antichrist in the temple of God (Bousset, Antichrist, 104 ff.). It is, however, quite uncertain whether the temple is to be sought in the church (on the analogy of 1Co_3:16 ff. 1Co_3:6:19, 2Co_6:16), in Jerusalem (Psa_5:8, Psa_78:1, Psa_137:2), “in the high mountains toward the north” (Isa_14:13), “in the heart of the sea” (Eze_28:2), or in the holy heavenly temple where God sits enthroned; cf. Psa_10:4 κρο ἐ νῷἁί ατῦ κρο ἐ ορν ὁθόο ατυ(see Briggs, ad loc., and cf. Isa_66:1, Mic_1:2, Hab_2:20, Psa_17:7). If the reference is to the heavenly temple, then there is a reminiscence, quite unconscious, of traits appearing in the ancient saga of the Dragon that stormed the heavens, and (beginnings being transferred in apocalyptic to endings) is to storm the heavens at the end (cf. Bousset, loc. cit.). In this case ὥτwith the infinitive will indicate