Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 2 Thessalonians 2:1 - 2:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Instruction and Exhortation in regard to the antichristian consummation of evil
1. 2Th_2:1-12
1Now [But] we beseech you, brethren, by [concerning, ὑðÝñ ] the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our [and our] gathering together unto Him, 2that ye be not soon [quickly] shaken in mind [from your mind], or [nor yet] be troubled [alarmed], neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from 3[by, äéÜ ] us, as that the day of Christ [the Lord] is at hand [is present]. Let no man [no one, ìÞ ôéò ] deceive you by any means [in any way]: for [because, ὅôé ] that day shall not come, except there come a falling away [the apostasy, ἡ ἀðïóôáóßá ] first, and that [the, ὁ ] man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 4who opposeth, and exalteth himself above [against] all that is called God or that is worshipped [every one called God or an object of worship], so that he as God sitteth [sitteth down, êáèßóáé ] in the temple of God, showing himself 5[showing himself forth] that he is God. Remember ye not that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6And now ye know what withholdeth, that he might be revealed [may be rev.] in his [his own] time. 7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work [For the m. is already working of lawlessness], only he who now letteth will let, until he [only until he, who with-holdeth for the present,] be taken out of the way; 8and then shall that Wicked be revealed [shall be rev. the lawless one], whom the Lord [Lord Jesus] shall consume with the spirit [breath] of His mouth, and shall destroy with the 9brightness [appearing] of His coming: even him, whose coming is after [according to] the working of Satan, with [in, ἐí ] all power and signs and 10lying wonders [wonders of falsehood], and with [in, ἐí ] all deceivableness [deceitfulness, ἀðÜôῃ ] of unrighteousness in them that perish [for those who are perishing]; because they received [accepted] not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11And for this cause God shall send [doth God send] them strong delusion [a working of delusion, ἐíÝñãåéáí ðëÜíçò ], that they should believe a lie [the falsehood, ôῷ øåýäåé ]; 12that they all might be damned [may be judged] who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
The import of this deceptive pretence was: as that the day of the Lord is present [so Alford. Ellicott: is now come.—J. L.]. ὡò before ὅôé expresses what is supposed; 2Co_11:21; Winer, § 65. 9; ἐíÝóôçêåí denotes a standing at the door, immediate presence (Rom_8:38; 1Co_3:22; Gal_1:4). The emphatic position of the verb in front shows, that the Apostle does not intend generally to put far away the expectation of the last day; we are merely not to let ourselves be surprised by the cry: Here it is now! Probably the fresh outbreak of singularly violent persecutions was explained in Thessalonica to this effect: Here is the beginning of the last day.
2. (2Th_2:3-5.) Let no one deceive you in any way; be not deluded (Eph_5:6); in none of those three specified ways? or, in no other way? Both views are possible; at 1Th_5:3 he had described the deception of a careless drowsiness, and now he points to the opposite snare, when a conscientious vigilance is perverted into an unwholesome excitement, which is then likely, in consequence of the exposure that follows, to threaten faith itself with shipwreck. Against this delusion, as against every other, they are to be on their guard.—Because, he thus confirms the warning. The protasis with ἐÜí has no apodosis, as often happens with Paul; so Rom_2:17, according to the best reading; he lost sight of it in the course of the long description; sometimes also (Rom_9:22) there lies in the ellipsis a certain reserve of judgment. Here the very obvious supplement is ïὐ ìὴ ðÜñåóôáé ἡ ἡìÝñá , or ïὐ äýíáôáé ἐëèåῖí ä êýñéïò , or some such expression. [Webster and Wilkinson: “The omission arises from the fact that he is reminding them of communications previously made concerning two future events, and wishes to fix their attention upon that which must precede the other. It may also be regarded as rhetorical, supplied in the Apostle’s dictation by a solemn pause, a gesture, and the significant and emphatic delivery of the words ἐὰí … ðñῶôïí , or as suggesting the sentiment, I am sorry to have it to say it will not come before; and so Bengel, abstinet verbis quæ non libenter audiret amator adventus Christi.”—J. L.] Altogether unsuitable is any thought of the oath-formula, àִí ìֹà , certissime [Storr], besides that this also needs explanation as an ellipsis.—Except there come the apostasy first ( ἀðïóôáóßá , later Greek for the older ἀðüóôáóéò ); this is erroneously applied by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Augustine, to Antichrist, as if it meant an apostasy in one individual, whereas the two verbs suffice to distinguish also the two subjects; nor yet is it to be understood politically or semi-politically, but according to universal biblical usage it denotes apostasy from the faith or from God [Act_21:21. Comp. 1Ti_4:1; Sept. Jer_29:32.—J. L.]. Hofmann, correctly: 2 Thessalonians 1 having commended their steadfastness in the faith, the apostasy can only be one from the faith in Christ; and this is acknowledged also by Calvin. Indeed, the article denotes that apostasy known to the Thessalonians by oral instruction from the prophets; comp. Dan_8:23; Dan_11:30; the spreading apostasy from the faith. Then in ἀíïìßá of 2Th_2:1 we find an intimation of the further result, that the revolt from God leads to the rejection of all Divine order. Already in those times of fresh faith is this foreseen and foretold by Paul.—And the Man of Sin be revealed; frightful counterpart to the revelation from above (2Th_1:7); when there is a disclosure of that which is maturing as the wicked consummation of the evil principle in humanity—of that which at present is still ìõóôÞñéïí , the counterpart of the heavenly (2Th_2:7), but shall one day have its ðáñïõóßá (2Th_2:9). The Man of Sin, again with the article, the one already known to them; plainly a single personality; if Zwingli after some of the ancients explains it collectively, as if it stood for filii perditi, there is no warrant for this in the context. The complete opposite to Christ is not a spiritual tendency, but a person. Nor is he called merely ἁìáñôùëüò , but the Man of Sin, in contrast with Jesus, the Man of obedience; so to speak, the incarnate Sin, wherein the entire nature of sin is concentrated, incorporated, culminates; just as what follows marks the opposite pole to Genesis 3. There the desire came up, but still in childish form, to wish to be their own God; what began there will here be fully ripened. Thus is his nature described; and in connection with that his final destiny: the son of perdition, like Judas, his type, Joh_17:12. With the fact, that he wholly belongs to sin, coheres as fruit the fact, that he falls a prey to perdition; out of perdition springs his life in death; åἰò ἀðþëåéáí ὑðÜãåé (Rev_17:11). Others would take it actively, or at least unite the two ideas [Theodoret]: one who is a sinner and falls into perdition, and also drags others down into sin and perdition; according to 2Th_2:9 sqq. he really does that; but in the phrase, son of perdition, there is rather a designation of the power to which he belongs; Estius: quasi ex perditione tanquam matre genitus; as if it were even said, a child of death. The mention of his fate is followed by a description of his manner of working (as 2Th_2:8 by 2Th_2:9); it is said of him: who opposeth, like Satan, Zec_3:1, Sept.; what the latter is for the world of spirits, that the Man of Sin is for the world of men; no incarnation, therefore, of Satan. We can take ὁ ἀíôéêåßìåíïò absolutely, and in thought supply of God or of Christ; the former, because he assails not merely the redemptive work of Christ, but the foundation of all fear of God; and for the second it may be said, that in an altogether peculiar sense he will be the antagonist, adversary, caricature of Christ; according to John’s expression, the ἀíôß÷ñéóôïò (1Jn_2:18), the Antichrist; fain would he destroy Christ’s kingdom, and opposes him, as Bengel says, corde, lingua, stilo, factis, per se, per suos. But considering that the article is not repeated before the second participle, and that thus the two predicates are combined into one idea (negative and positive), we might prefer to refer the ἐðß by an easy zeugma to both participles. Who exalteth himself above all that is [against every one] called God or an object of worship; against the true God, and every one so called, comp. 1Co_8:5; to this the Apostle adds (every) óÝâáóìá , that is, object of worship, numen; Luthardt: whatever is holy to men, and passes amongst them as an object of fearful reverence; comp. Act_17:23. To think of the defamation of the imperial majesty (the Óåâáóôüò ) is still more inappropriate, than of angels; it was done in the interest of the interpretation which saw in Antichrist the Pope, as the despiser of worldly sovereignty. We have rather to understand it thus: above all that is called God and is divinely honored. He will thus no longer act as the old kings, Pharaoh and Sennacherib, acted, who indeed blasphemed the God of Israel, but still worshipped their heathen gods; he will despise also the gods of the heathen. To adore these was a profound corruption; still even in that caricature the need of worship announced itself. But the Man of Sin, being the consummmate ἀíôßèåïò , as Chrysostom calls him, will worship nothing any more, bow before nothing any more. All religion he treads under his feet. Herein consists the ripe poisonous fruit of evil, that with full consciousness self sets up to be the centre of all power, wisdom, and glory. The Apostle’s brief picture reminds us of (though it still transcends) Dan_7:8; Dan_7:11; Dan_7:20 sqq.: the horn with man’s eyes and a mouth speaking great things, which makes war with the saints and overcomes them till the judgment breaks forth. The modern interpreters see in this for the most part Antiochus Epiphanes; more correctly we shall recognize in this little horn of the 7th chapter the yet future adversary, of whom Antiochus, described in similar terms, is but a type (see Auberlen’s Daniel). Antiochus, the Old Testament Antichrist, is meant in Dan_8:9 sqq., Dan_8:23 sqq.; Dan_11:36 sqq. The last passage, in particular, depicts him as speaking presumptuous things against the God of gods, and as despising also the gods of his fathers; only on the God of strongholds, that is, on military power, does he rely. Still, self-deification is not expressly asserted of him; Antiochus even turned the Temple of Jerusalem into a temple of the Olympian Zeus. Paul adheres to Daniel’s description, and can do so, just because Antiochus is a type of the last adversary. For the further stroke, with which he goes beyond Daniel, the self-deification of the Roman Emperor furnished him with a ready example.—So that he sitteth down in [ åἰò ôὸí íáüí , pregnant: intrudes into, and sits down in, &c.—J. L.] the temple of God; êáèßóáé is intransitive; áὺôüí (not áὑôüí ) is not redundant (Pelt), but emphatic; he, the audacious; he in person sits down enthroned in the temple; does not merely have his image set up; in the temple of God, the article and the addition, of God, showing that at any rate no heathen temple is to be thought of, but, if one of stone, then no other than that of Jerusalem, which, if the Epistle is genuine, was not yet destroyed. That that one is not to be thought of in an Epistle to a church of Gentile Christians (Von Gerlach), is a groundless objection. The temple which Christ had cleansed, and in which the first Christians prayed, and likewise Paul himself, that house of prayer for all people was an object of interest to every Christian church. Still, one can just as little perceive, why the sitting in the temple must be interpreted with all the rigid literality that, amongst others, Wieseler (Chronol. des apostol. Zeitalters, p. 258) and Döllinger (Christenthum und Kirche, p. 282) assert. We do not at once say with Chrysostom and others, that the temple signifies the Church in all lands, or with Hilgenfeld (p. 253), that the writer means figuratively the consummation of heresy establishing itself in the spiritual temple of Christendom (it then concerns him to show the feasibility of the Epistle having been composed under Trajan); but we suppose that, proceeding on a sensuous way of viewing the matter, and painting, as a prophet (Eze_28:2), in colors of his own time, Paul depicts an act which, as a symbol of permanent spiritual significance, is confined to no locality, and means to say: He places himself in God’s room, and forces himself on mankind as a Divine ruler. See the Exegetical Note 3.—Showing himself forth that he is God, as described more at large in Rev_2:13. What belongs to Christ, this impious person arrogates to himself, advancing the claim, that for those on the earth he is God; and thus wickedness becomes frantic. The self-exhibition we understand, with Chrysostom and most, not merely of assertions in words or proclamations, but of manifestations which should confirm the point by deeds; for the lying wonders, 2Th_2:9 sqq., shall deceive many. We cannot see why Lünemann finds in this a contradiction of êáèßóáé .—Gently chiding them, the Apostle finally reminds them of the instruction which he had orally imparted to them. So far had he gone during the three weeks into the details of eschatology. But to the Apostle this same point of doctrine was of more importance than to our moderns; comp. Paul at Athens, Act_17:31. [Notice here also the force of ἕëåãïí , I was telling, used to tell.—J. L.] Even the mediæval missionaries laid very great stress on the judgment. As the Thessalonians had to endure peculiar afflictions, Paul would seem to have led them into a special acquaintance with Daniel.
3. (2Th_2:6-8.) And now ye know what withholdeth; êáὶ íῦí is taken by Bengel, Storr, Kern, Hilgenfeld and others as a temporal adverb in opposition to ἕôé of 2Th_2:5. Lünemann’s objection, that in that case it must have been said: ôáῦôá ìÝí ἔôé — íῦí äὲ êáß , does not amount to a great deal, except, indeed, that one does not exactly know how the point in contrast should be conceived of. Are we to understand it thus: Now, since you have learned the beginning of that matter, you know it as you did not previously? But what, then, had occurred, that could give them such information, even without the Apostle’s explanation? Here Roos and Brandt think of the recent expulsion of the tumultuous Jews from Rome, and similar facts, which might show them how the pseudo-Messianic element was held down by the Roman power. But that would be at least very obscurely expressed, in a case especially where they needed a renewal of their earlier instruction; and now would he in such an altogether disguised manner announce the new topic, which present circumstances supplied in contrast with his oral instruction? This has little to recommend it. Still more arbitrary is Hilgenfeld’s inference, that in this opposition the later date of the Epistle betrays itself, as if êáὶ íῦí could only be understood thus: and now, some 40 years after the Apostle’s death! De Wette, Lünemann, Ewald [Alford, Ellicott] see in êáὶ íῦí the indication of a logical advance to a new thought: And now ye know surely (Lünemann: by way of passing on to a further point). They appeal to Act_7:34; Act_10:5; Act_13:11; Act_20:25; but in all these places íῦí may also be taken temporally, whereas in our text it is not apparent why the simple êáß should not have been used. Olshausen, Wieseler, and others assume an inversion, as in the case of ἕôé in Rom_5:6 (various reading), Winer, § 61. 4. Of course, it would have been easy to write: êáὶ ôὸ íῦí êáôÝ÷ïí ; but it is true that we most naturally expect in the first member of the verse an, offset to ἐí ôῷ ἑáõôïῦ êáéñῷ . This Hofmann would obtain by taking also 2Th_2:6 interrogatively, and the ïὐ of 2Th_2:5 as still operative: Remember ye not—, and know (ye not) now (when his time has not yet arrived), what withholdeth, &c.? This, however, is too artificial.
On the contrary, we obtain a very simple explanation of íῦí as a particle of time, if we understand it thus: And now, when ye recall my oral instruction, ye know. And so it follows also, what must have been probable beforehand (against Hilgenfeld), that the oral instruction already extended to the êáôÝ÷ïí , on which account he can speak of it the more briefly in writing. The meaning of the latter word is not, as Döllinger supposes, what possesses, controls, but, as in Rom_1:18, what restrains, hinders; Chrysostom: ôὸ êùëýïí ; Calvin: impedimentum, causa moræ; but not: what hinders me from expressing myself freely; that were an altogether arbitrary interpretation, and is thoroughly confuted by 2Th_2:7; but: what still retards the outbreak and manifestation of Antichrist. The neuter in 2Th_2:6 denotes the power, the principle; the masculine in 2Th_2:7, a personality at the head of that power; at least, this is a priori the most natural suggestion. Moreover, åἰò ôü denotes, not so much the duration (until), as the purpose of God in the êáôÝ÷åéí : that he may be revealed in his [own] time; he, none other than the Man of Sin, is to step forth from his concealment in his time, the time fixed for him, measured out to him as his own; a time will come, that belongs to him, as the present does not yet; measured out, indeed, to him also only by God; comp. Luk_22:53; the counterpart of the fulness of the time, Gal_4:4. With the for that follows Paul accounts for his having spoken of the restraining of the Man of Sin, and of his revelation as still future. The ungodly element was really present already, and had a strong desire to break forth, but must still work as a dark mystery; not exactly in secret, but so that the wickedness does not yet expose its full nature. ÌõóôÞñéïí forms an antithesis to ἀðïêáëõöèῆíáé of 2Th_2:6; there is an emphasis in its being put first, and separated from its genitive, as in Gal_2:6; Gal_2:9. The latter is a genitive either of apposition [De Wette, Lünemann, Alford]: the mystery which consists in lawlessness, or of possession: which belongs to it; ungodliness also having its mystery, the frightful counterpart to that of godliness, 1Ti_3:16; comp. the âÜèç ôïῦ óáôáíᾶ , Rev_2:24, over against the âÜèç ôïῦ èåïῦ , 1Co_2:10. Hofmann would understand it merely thus: the confounding, incomprehensible, inconceivable extreme of wickedness; but the contrast with the revelation should not be set aside. Olshausen goes beyond Scripture, when on account of the antithesis he speaks of an incarnation of Satan, when it will be said: ὁ äéÜâïëïò ἐöáíåñþèç ἐí óáñêß ; there is nothing of that here, and even Joh_6:70 is rather against than for it. Estius correctly: non diabolus, sed diaboli præcipuum organum est. Antichrist is, indeed, depicted as the caricature of Christ. But 2Th_2:7 does not yet treat of his person, but of the principle of lawlessness now already in action privately. Thereby is denoted the profligacy which violates every Divine law, knows nothing but a complete autonomy, endures no will over it; Dan_11:36 may be compared: He will do êáôὰ ôὸ èÝëçìá áὑôïῦ . Here the remark is not convincing, that the expressions ἀíïìßá and, 2Th_2:8, ἅíïìïò point us for Antichrist to the Gentile domain (Rom_2:12; 1Co_9:21); still more groundlessly others say, to the Jewish. When Hofmann, starting from Daniel, remarks that the faithless will fall a prey to Antichrist, as the apostate Jews did to Antiochus, that is no doubt true; only it does not necessarily follow that he himself will proceed from among the Gentiles. Rather we may say that the result of apostasy from the gospel will be a new and consummate heathenism, the rejection not merely of faith, but of every Divine ordinance. At the height of the Antichristian wickedness, however, the differences between Jews and Gentiles disappear, as they do on the other hand under the gospel. The mystery is already working ( ἐíåñãåῖôáé never passive, but middle); ἥäç is in opposition to 2Th_2:6, in his [own] time, and then ἅñôé answers to ἥäç , and the ôüôå of 2Th_2:8 to in his [own] time. Paul regards the phenomena of the time with the eyes of the Spirit; in the opposition to the moral order of things, but especially in resistance to Christ, he perceives the beginning of the final rebellion against final grace. This is to him the working of a terrible mystery, such as not many yet recognize. He sees before him (De Wette) the scattered, shapeless mass of ungodliness, which is first to gain form and personality in Antichrist, and by which his appearance is prepared and introduced, as is the case with every historical personage. In Thessalonica especially he had lived to see the fanatical hostility of the Jews prove false amongst the heathen to their Messianic hope (Act_17:7). The self-deification of the Emperor, and perhaps also already the false Gnosis of a Simon, were other features of that depravity.
In the sequel ìüíïí belongs not to what precedes [thus Jowett suggests as possible a connection with ìõóôÞñéïí : only as a hidden mystery; Wordsworth connects with ἐíåñãåῖôáé : worketh inwardly only;—both constructions equally untenable.—J. L.], which is already defined by ἥäç , but to what follows; the clause introduced by it limits in a certain way the preceding statement. As the Vulgate translates: tantum ut qui tenet nunc teneat, so many supply out of êáôÝ÷ùí a verb, êáôÝ÷åé , êáèÝîåé , êáôå÷Ýôù , or even (Bengel), from the following ἐê ìÝóïõ ãÝíçôáé , an in medio est. [Many supply simply the verb of existence, and with that Webster and Wilkinson connect ἅñôé : is now.—J. L.] Zwingli understands it thus (an interpretation already known to Augustine): “only he, who now holds aught, should hold it fast (whatever he has apprehended of the truth), till he (Antichrist) is taken out of the way.” But all these supplements are arbitrary. Calvin, who construes correctly, is just as mistaken in his explanation: until he (Antichrist), who now (that is, in the future for a short time) holds sway, is removed; and then he must refer the ôüôå to 2Th_2:6. This view has simply everything against it; I urge only the one point, that he thus takes ὁ êáôÝ÷ùí in a totally different sense from ôὸ êáôÝ÷ïí , 2Th_2:6; whereas the remark cannot be avoided, that the one must correspond to the other, only that the masculine indicates a personality standing at the head. If again there are not two clauses but one, we have merely to recognize an inversion, namely, that as regards the sense ἕùò ought to be first, whereas ὁ êáô . is put first for the sake of emphasis; comp. Gal_2:10 [and so the clause is now generally construed; see Revision.—J. L.]. Accordingly: The mystery is already working, only until (so long must it remain a mystery), only until he, who withholdeth for the present, is out of the way. That the latter phrase might denote a violent death, is not to be denied; that it must do so, is not to be asserted; indeed, comparing Col_2:14, and not even reading here áἴñåóèáé , but ãåíÝóèáé (comp. 1Co_2:2; 1Ti_2:14), we perceive that as to the manner, in which the êáôÝ÷ùí gets out of the way, the expression says absolutely nothing; by a peaceful withdrawal on his part, we shall of course not say, since there is a judgment in his being called off. Who now is the êáôÝ÷ùí , is really the darkest point in the whole passage, now that we have no longer the oral interpretation; a proof, what oral tradition would amount to without a written record. Comp. the Doctrinal Note 3.—And then shall be revealed the Lawless one; the ἀíïìßá in person, the Head of wickedness in full expression; certainly none other than the Man of Sin, 2Th_2:3.—From the mention of the revelation, 2Th_2:3; 2Th_2:6; 2Th_2:8, and of the ðáñïõóßá , 2Th_2:9, Hofmann finally infers (die Heilige Schrift neuen Testaments, I, p. 330 sqq.), that there is here described a counterpart of Christ, that cannot be fully understood unless we recognize Antichrist also as already in existence, so that he will enter into the world anew from the supermundane sphere. It is not said, he suggests, that the ἀíïìßá , but that the ἄíïìïò will be revealed. This is the reason why Hofmann was so bent on setting aside the antithesis between ìõóôÞñéïí and ἀðïêáë . Antiochus Epiphanes himself, he thinks, may again be expected. This, however, is an exaggeration of the Scriptural statements, that lapses into extravagance. The Man of Sin will come ( ðáñïõóßá ) and be revealed (will discover himself to be what he is, and what from a child he was not taken for) in and by the complete disclosure of the ἀíïìßá , which previously kept working as ìõóôÞñéïí ;—this surely is sufficient for us to find in him the counterpart of Christ. Even Hofmann will not go so far as to assume an incarnation of Satan. Comp. Auberlen, Daniel , 2 d edition, p. 456 sq., and Luthardt, die Lehre von den letzten Dingen, p. 150. The latter properly refers to Mal. 3:23 [Mal_4:5], where there is a promise of the sending of Elijah, which, however, is afterwards explained, in Luk_1:17; Mat_11:14; Mat_17:11-12, of John, the new Elijah, just as Rev_11:6 holds out no prospect of the return of the former Elijah. It is not the Elijah of history, says Luthardt, that we have to expect, but the Elijah of prophecy; comp. also Eze_34:23. Such literal interpretation as that practised by Hofmann should be left to the popular fancy of the Jews (Mat_16:14).—Whom the Lord (Jesus) shall consume; he thus becomes íἱὸò ἀðùëåßáò ; the consolation that he is to be destroyed, is attached by Paul immediately to the mention of his appearance. The Godless one comes at the time appointed for him by God, and is consumed by Jesus; his tyranny, therefore, is no sign of weakness on the part of God. Isa_11:4 has not merely had an influence on the reading, but it is also a parallel for the subject matter.—With the spirit [breath] of His mouth, &c.; in German we do not have, as in Hebrew and Greek, the same word for spirit and breath. We must not with a coarse sensuousness think of a fiery wind, nor yet at once idealize the matter, as if what is meant were a word, shout, word of command; why in that case should not ëüãïò have been used? The explanation of the old Protestants was, that the word of God has inwardly, spiritually slain Antichrist (namely, the Pope), and the Advent will make a full end of him. The glowing parallelism of the clauses, however, intends not two acts, but only one. It is a counterpart to the description of creation in Psa_33:6 Sept. The view proceeds on the ground of sense Nothing is required but the breath of the Lord, which has power, as being the spirit of life, quickening for them that are His (Joh_20:22), but, amongst His enemies, who can bear it? One breath of the Lord scatters haughty power. Comp. Rev_19:15; Rev_19:21, the sharp word out of His mouth; Grotius refers also to Hos_13:3. Equally sublime is the second clause: and (shall) destroy (him) with the appearing of His coming; êáôáñãåῖí , to destroy, abolish (1Co_2:6; 1Co_15:24), does not imply the utter annihilation of his personal existence, for indeed he is cast into the lake of fire (Revelation). Elsewhere the Lord’s coming is denoted either by ðáñïõóßá , or by ἐðéöÜíåéá , 2Ti_4:8; here the two are combined: by the appearing, the visibleness of His coming; He could, of course, come also invisibly. Zwingli’s application of this to the daily coming of His word into the hearts of believers must be rejected. Mere caprice also is the Irvingite distinction between the parousia [coming], by which believers from among the Gentiles shall be caught away to the Lord, and the subsequent appearing of the parousia [coming], in which the Jews are concerned (comp. the Doctrinal and Ethical Notes on 1Th_4:17, and also Luthardt, p. 37 sqq., especially 43). Bengel’s remark might be more worthy of attention, that the expression denotes the first gleam of the Advent, as distinguished from the final judgment; though here also somewhat too great stress is put upon it. But this much is true, that there is needed merely the first outburst of the Advent, nothing but that He show Himself [Psa_94:1], no organs for the exertion of His power; Bengel: prima ipsius adventus emicatio. An earnest of this in Joh_18:6.
4. (2Th_2:9-12.) Whose coming is, &c.; ïὗ , as well as the ὅí of 2Th_2:8, referring again to the ἄíïìïò of that verse. Only now, after he has already by way of consolation shown the end of the wicked one, is the description of his agency resumed. It will be terrible and destructive, but for that very reason will end in a holy judgment, and therefore the description can again resolve itself into thanksgiving, 2Th_2:13 sqq., that the Thessalonians do not belong to the apostates. Hofmann accordingly takes 2Th_2:9-17 together, there being here shown, he thinks, as in 2 Thessalonians 1, that punishment of unbelief, in which the appearance of the Lawless One will issue, in opposition to the salvation which will be for the Church the result of the proclamation of the apostolic message. It is true that the theme of 2Th_2:3 (the Lord comes not, till Antichrist has appeared) is discharged at 2Th_2:8; but the description of his working, 2Th_2:9 sqq., serves still for the completion of the picture, and indirectly for the warning of the readers: his power will be in the highest degree seductive; let every one, therefore, beware of the first beginnings of apostasy (2Th_2:2-3); for whosoever believes the lie is lost (2Th_2:10-11). But ye, thank God, are of those who believe the truth, and are chosen to salvation (2Th_2:13); therefore abide therein, stand fast, and hold fast what ye have received (2Th_2:15). The appearance of the Lawless is, takes place, says the Apostle in the present tense, doctrinally, without regard to the time; comp. 1Co_15:35.—According to the working of Satan, êáôÜ , as in Col_1:29. Satan gives him power, as the Father does to Christ (Rev_13:2); it is the most perfect mimicry of Christ: salvation (in wonders) without repentance and the cross. But it is asked, whether êáôὰ , &c. is a definition of the ἐóôßí , or of ἐóôὶí ἐí , &c.; whether his appearance is already of itself in the might of Satan, or rather his appearance with wonders. Hofmann prefers the former view; that his coming Isaiah 1. according to the working of Satan, and 2. a coming in wonders. But it is better, with Lünemann and others, to understand his coming as attended with wonders to be that, the source of which is assigned by êáô ’ ἐíÝñã . There will be in it a putting forth of every power; ðᾳóῃ without the article belonging by zeugma to all the three substantives. Äýíáìéò denotes the root of the operations; óçìåῖá , signs, in their significance as indicating the divinity of him who performs them—here of course deceptive; lastly, ôåñáôá , portenta, the marvelousness of these indications. The three terms are often used of the deeds of Christ and the Apostles. Here we have the caricature; comp. the wonders of the false prophets, Mat_24:24, whereby even the elect would be deceived, were that possible. These prophets are, as it were, Antichrist’s apostles; in Rev_13:13 sqq. it is the false prophet in the singular, who represents hypocritical, Godless wisdom, and by his signs procures homage for the first beast (the Godless despot). Paul does not yet say by whom (as distinct from the ἄíïìïò himself) the wonders shall be wrought.—The wonders are called wonders of falsehood ( øåýäïõò again belonging to all the three words) in opposition to the wonders of truth in the case of Christ and His Apostles (as Paul asserts that he had wrought wonders, 2Co_12:12). To find in the genitive øåýäïõò a designation simply of the origin, or simply of the object, or simply of the quality of those wonders, is an unwarrantable separation of what belongs all together. Moreover, Augustine is already aware of a double interpretation, what is meant being either a deception of the senses by empty illusions without reality (so Theodoret), or real miracles misleading to a false belief in them as performed by Divine power. Augustine, referring to Job, prefers the second view, and so with reason most others. To this conclusion we are at once led by the emphatic description by means of three synonyms. We also expect as counterparts to the miracles of Christ real operations, which yet are called miracles of falsehood (Roos), because men who regard them as proofs of the divintity of the unrighteous One are thereby miserably deceived. Performed by dark, gloomy powers, they are indeed at bottom nothing really creative, but assumptions, imitations, manifestations of a sham strength which at last is a wretched impotence, monstrosities without any saving object, but not, therefore, mere juggleries. The Bible throughout treats sorcery in a more serious way than as if it were empty legerdemain.—What follows likewise: and in all deceitfulness of unrighteousness, &c., does not mean an idle illusion, but an agency which has the glittering show of righteousness, and yet is full of unrighteousness, proceeding from that, and leading to it; the absolute culmination of unrighteousness is in robbing God of His glory. (The oldest authorities omit the article at ἀäéêßáò , as well as at øåýäïõò ). The Apostle shows us as a mark of the Man of Sin, besides the false miracles, the profanity also of his spirit and walk, and, besides lying (which again is an intentional falsification of knowledge), the wickedness also of his will generally; both in contrast with the ἀëÞèåéá . This influence he has, however, only amongst those who are perishing, in their circle (if ἐí were genuine; comp. 2Co_2:15; 2Co_4:3); but the oldest authorities give simply the dative (incommodi): for the perishing (not a dative of judgment, as in 1Co_1:18; 1Co_9:2). It belongs also to what is said at 2Th_2:9. The ἀðïëëýìåíïé (1Co_1:18) are not those who have already perished, nor yet those who deserve to perish, but such as are perishing, are actually on the way to perdition, and that through their own fault, as is said in the next clause: because they accepted not; ἀíè ’ ὧí , equivalent to ἀíôὶ ôïýôùí ὅôé , úַּçַúּ àֲùֶׁø , Luk_1:20. He does not say: they received not the truth, but: the love of the truth. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact err in supposing that by this Christ is meant, who has truly loved us (in that case the phrase should rather have been, the truth of love). The Apostle rather gives us to understand, that the natural man by himself is not merely destitute of the truth, but has not so much as the love of the truth; even this must first be implanted in him. The sentence is to be understood comprehensively of all truth, wherever and however it comes to men. Its introductory stages are shown in Romans 1, 2, and in Christ it culminates. In like manner, the want of love for the truth reaches its consummation in obduracy against Christ, when clearly revealed to us by the Holy Spirit. For a long while a man may go along undecided; Antichrist will drive him to a decision. God does not force the truth on a man, who suffers it not to grow up in his heart. What hinders a man from receiving the truth? That is indicated by the profound opposition between truth and unrighteousness; comp. Rom_1:18, and the Doctrinal and Ethical Note, 5.—[That they might be saved; åἱò ôὸ óùèῆíáé áὐôïýò , in order to their being saved; the end and result of a reception of the love of the truth, which reveals a Saviour, and brings His salvation near.—J. L.]—And for this cause doth God send them; ( êáß is wanting. only in D.1 67) for this cause—as a punishment—we refer rather to what precedes than to what follows (so that åἰò ôὸ , &c. would be epexegetical). He sends it to them—according to the best authorities the present, like ἐóôßí of 2Th_2:9; but it does not signify already now, but is to be taken doctrinally, irrespective of time. Again, Luther’s translation is, strong errors [kräftige Irrthümer]; more correctly: strength or working of delusion. Does God do that? Or does He merely permit it to come, as the Greek interpreters and others soften the expression? No, indeed; the Apostle describes the mighty act of the Judge, punishing evil by evil. Not to believe the truth is sin [to refuse the love of the truth, still darker sin.—J. L.]; to have to believe the lie is the punishment of sin, the exposure of nakedness, like the abandonment to vice in Rom_1:24; in the lusts ( ἐí ), wherein they are ensnared, He gives them up unto uncleanness ( åἰò ), lets them slide down on the sloping path of their own desires, and that because they would not have it otherwise. The object of the sending is, that they should believe the falsehood; not merely the error, but the conscious, wilful, God-defying untruth. The singular with the article denotes, not a single lie, but the entire force, the entire element of the devilish perversion of all truth (Joh_8:44). Grotius compares Pro_1:29-31.—That they may be judged, object of the