Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Thessalonians 2:12 - 2:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Th_2:12. Ἵνα ] dependent on εἰς τὸ πιστεῦσαι κ . τ . λ ., not on πέμπει , as Hofmann thinks. A statement of the further or higher design.
ἵνα κριθῶσι ] in order that they may be judged, i.e. according to the context, condemned.
The truth is the Christian truth, and the unbelief, shown against it, is the consequence of the love for the truth in general being wanting (2Th_2:10).
I. The Church Fathers belong to the representatives of the first view (Irenaeus, adv. haer. v. 25, 29, 30; Tertullian, de resur. carn. c. 24; Chrysostom in loco; Cyril. Hierosolym. Catech. 15; Augustine, de civit. dei, xx. 19; Theodoret in loco, and epit. decret. div. c. 23; Theodorus Mopsuestius, and others). They correctly agree in considering that by the advent (2Th_2:1; 2Th_2:8), or the day of the Lord (2Th_2:2), is to be understood the personal advent of Christ for the last judgment and for the completion of the Messianic kingdom. Also it is correctly regarded as proved, that the Antichrist here described is to be considered as an individual person, in whom sin will embody itself. Yet Augustin already remarks, that “nonnulli non ipsum principem, sed universum quodam modo corpus ejus i. e. ad eum pertinentem hominum multitudinem simul cum ipso suo principe hoc loco intelligi Antichristum volunt.” The restraining power by which the appearance of Antichrist is delayed, is usually considered to be the continuance of the Roman Empire ( τὸ κατέχον ) and its representative the Roman emperor ( ὁ κατέχων ). Some, however, as Theodorus Mopsuestius and Theodoret, understand by it τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν ὅρον , i.e. more exactly, the counsel of God to keep back the appearance of Antichrist until the gospel is proclaimed throughout the earth. This latter interpretation is certainly unsuitable enough. For although the difference of gender τὸ κατέχον and ὁ κατέχων may be to distinguish God’s counsel and God Himself, yet ἐκ μέσου γίνεσθαι is not reconcilable with the masculine ὁ κατέχων . Chrysostom chooses a third interpretation, that by the restraining power is meant the continuance of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. But he directly refutes this by the fact that if so, Antichrist must have already appeared, as those gifts have long since disappeared in the Christian church. The temple of God, in which Antichrist will place himself, is referred either to the Christian church (so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Augustin), the expression being taken figuratively, or to the actual temple of Jerusalem (so Irenaeus and Cyril); in which latter case the objection, that this temple was already destroyed, is met by the shift that a new temple rebuilt in place of the old one by Antichrist is to be thought on. Lastly, some, as Chrysostom,[52]—although in contradiction to the chronology of the Epistle,—interpret the ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ Τῆς ἈΝΟΜΊΑς , which already begins to work, of Nero, the forerunner and type of Antichrist in St. Paul’s time; and others, as Theodoret, of the outbreak of heresies.
[52] Νέρωνα ἐνταῦθά φησιν , ὡσανεὶ τύπον ὄντα τοῦ Ἀντιχρίστου · καὶ γὰρ οὗτος ἐβούλετο νομίζεσθαι Θεός . Καὶ καλῶς εἶπε τὸ μυστήριον · οὐ γὰρ φανερῶς ὡς ἐκεῖνος , οὐδὲ ἀπηρυθριασμένως . Εἰ γὰρ πρὸ τοῦ χρόνου ἐκείνου ἀνευρέθη , φησίν , ὃς οὐ πολύ τοῦ Ἀντιχρίστου ἐλείπετο κατὰ τὴν κακίαν , τί θαυμαστόν , εἰ ἤδη ἔσται ;
The common and grave error in the explanations of the Fathers, by means of which they run counter to the Pauline representation, consisted in their not doing sufficient justice to the point of nearness of the event predicted by Paul. It is incontestable, as the result of correct exegesis, that Paul not only considered Antichrist as directly preceding the advent, but also regarded the advent as so near, that he himself might then be alive. It was natural that the Fathers, as the prophecy of the apostle had not been fulfilled in their times, should disregard this point; but they held that in this prophecy a picture of the last things, fully corresponding to the reality in the future, must have been given. They therefore satisfied themselves with the consideration that the prediction had already begun to be fulfilled in the apostolic times, but that the apostle could not possibly give an exact statement of time, as he only says that Antichrist will be revealed in his appointed time.[53]
[53] Comp. Augustin, Epist. 80 (Ep. 199, ed. Bened.): … ita sane obscure sunt et mystice dicta, ut tamen appareat, eum nihil de statutis dixisse temporibus, nullumque eorum intervallum spatiumque aperuisse. Ait enim: ut reveletur in suo tempore, nec dixit, post quantum temporis hoc futurum sit.
The view of the Fathers remained in the following ages the prevalent one in the Christian church. It was necessary, however, partially to change and transform it, the relation of Christianity to the Roman state having altered, as the Christian church, instead of being exposed to renewed hostilities from the secular power, had obtained the sovereignty of the state, and, penetrating larger portions of the world, represented itself as the kingdom of God on earth, and an imposing hierarchy was placed at its head. Whilst, accordingly, the idea of the advent stepped more and more into the background in the church generally, and especially with the hierarchy, on the other hand, those who had placed themselves in opposition to the hierarchy believed themselves obliged to apply to it the description of the apostle, as well as the figures in the Apocalypse of St. John. Thus arose—whilst the early view concerning the παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου was held with only the modification that its entrance was to be expected in the distant future—the view, first in the eleventh century, that the establishment and growing power of the Papacy is to be considered as the Antichrist predicted by Paul. At first this view was expressed in the conflict between the emperors and the popes by the partisans of the imperial power; but was then repeated by all those who had placed themselves in opposition with the hierarchy, because they wished, instead of the rigid ecclesiastical power, a freer spirit of Christianity to rule; thus by the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and the followers of Wickliffe and Huss. The empire—which was regarded as nothing else than a revival and renewal of the old Roman Empire—was considered as the restraining power which still delayed the destruction of the Papacy.
This reference[54] of Antichrist to the papal hierarchy became specially prevalent toward the time of the Reformation, and after that event was almost regarded as a dogma in the evangelical church. It is found in Bugenhagen, Zwingli, Calvin, Victorin Strigel, Hemming, Hunnius, Lucius and Andrew Osiander, Camero, Balduin, Aretius, Er. Schmid, Beza, Quistorp, Calixt, Calovius, Newton, Wolf, Joachim Lange, Turretin, Benson, Bengel, Macknight, Zachariae, Michaelis, and others. Accordingly it is expressed in the Lutheran symbolical books; comp. Articul. Smalcald. II. 4 (ed. Meyer, p. 189 f.): Haec doctrina praeclare ostendit, papam esse ipsum verum Antichristum, qui supra et contra Christum sese extulit et evexit, quandoquidem Christianos non vult esse salvos sine sua potestate, quae tamen nihil est, et a deo nec ordinata nec mandata est. Hoc proprie loquendo est se efferre supra et contra deum, sicut Paulus 2 Thessalonians 2 loquitur.
De pot. et prim. pap. (p. 210): Constat autem, Romanos pontifices cum suis membris defendere impiam doctrinam et impios cultus. Ac plane notae Antichristi competunt in regnum papae et sua membra. Paulus enim ad Thessalonicenses describens Antichristum, vocat eum adversarium Christi, extollentem se super omne, quod dicitur aut colitur deus, sedentem in templo dei tanquam deum. Also Luther’s powerful treatise against the papal bull bore the title: “Adversus exsecrabilem bullam Antichristi.” It was thought that the Papacy would go on more and more developing what was anti-Christian in it, and that then the last judgment would overtake it. The ἀποστασία was the falling away from the pure gospel to the traditions of men. The singular Ὁ ἌΝΘΡΩΠΟς Τῆς ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς Κ . Τ . Λ . is to be understood collectively as a series et successio hominum, inasmuch as the question is concerning an imperium monarchicum which remains one and the same, although its temporal head may be changed. The godlessness of Antichrist, described in 2Th_2:4, is historically proved by the pope placing himself above all human and divine authority, the words πάντα λεγόμενον Θεὸν κ . τ . λ ., in accordance to biblical usage, being referred to the princes and great men of the world, and an allusion being discovered in ΣΈΒΑΣΜΑ to the Roman imperial title ΣΕΒΑΣΤΌς . The objection, that there have been pious popes, is removed by the proverb: “a potiori fit denominatio.” ναὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ is referred to the Christian church, and the ΚΑΘΊΣΑΙ to the tyrannical power usurped over it. By ΤῸ ΚΑΤΈΧΟΝ is nearly universally understood the Roman Empire, and by Ὁ ΚΑΤΈΧΩΝ the Roman emperor, for which proof is deduced from history, that the papal power sprang from the ruins of the Roman Empire, whilst in reference to the continuation of the empire in Germany, it is observed that praeter titulum nihil fere remains. The declaration τὸ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας , 2Th_2:7, is considered as justified by the fact that at least the semina erroris et ambitionis, which paved the way for the Papacy, were present in the time of the apostle; for which Camero appeals to Galatians 1, 2, and others to other proofs. For an enumeration of τέρατα ψεύδους , 2Th_2:9, relics, transubstantiation, purgatory, etc., afford rich material. The annihilation of Antichrist by the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ ΤΟῦ ΣΤΌΜΑΤΟς of the Lord, is understood to denote the annihilation of his importance in the minds of men by the divine word of Scripture being again opened up and diffused in its purity by means of the Reformation; whilst the ΚΑΤΑΡΓΉΣΕΙ Τῇ ἘΠΙΦΑΝΕΊᾼ Τῆς ΠΑΡΟΥΣΊΑς ΑὐΤΟῦ denotes the final and material destruction of Antichrist by the coming of Christ to judgment.
[54] See against this view, Koppe, Excurs. II. p. 120 ff.
In the presence of such polemics used against them, the Catholics are certainly not to be blamed that in retaliation they interpreted ἀποστασία as the defection from the Roman church and from the pope, and Antichrist as the heretics, especially Luther and the evangelical church. Comp. Estius, Fromond., Bern. a Piconio.
Yet even before the reference of Antichrist to Popery was maintained, Mohammed[55] was already regarded by the divines of the Greek church (latterly by Faber Stapulensis and others) as the Antichrist predicted by Paul, and in the ἈΠΟΣΤΑΣΊΑ was seen the defection of several Oriental and Greek churches from Christianity to Mohammedanism. This interpretation at least so far exercised an influence on the evangelical church, that some of its theologians have assumed a double Antichrist—one Oriental, viz. Mohammed and the Turkish power, and the other Western, viz. the pope and his power. So Melancthon, Bucer, Musculus, Bullinger, Piscator, and Vorstius.
[55] See against this view, Turretin, p. 515 ff.
Related to this whole method of interpretation is the assumption,[56] made in our own century, that by the apostasy is to be understood the enormities of the French Revolution; by Antichrist, Napoleon; and by him that restraineth, the continuation of the German Empire—an interpretation which the extinction of the German Empire in 1806 has already condemned.
[56] See Leutwein, das Thier war und ist nicht, und wird wiederkommen aus dem Abgrunde. Eine Abhandlung für nachdenkende Leser, Ludwigsb. 1825.
In recent times it has often been considered as objectionable to determine exactly the individual traits of the imagery used by Paul. Accordingly the representation of the apostle has been interpreted in a general, ideal, or symbolical sense. To this class of interpreters belongs Koppe, according to whom Paul, founding on an old national Jewish oracle, supported especially by Daniel, would describe the ungodliness preceding the last day, which already worked, but whose full outbreak was only to take place after the death of the apostle; so that Paul himself was the κατέχων .[57] Similarly Storr (l.c.), who understands by the ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας “potestas aliqua, deo omnique religioni adversaria, quae penitus incognita et futuro demum tempore se proditura sit,” and by the preventing power the “copia hominum verissimo amore inflammatorum in christianam religionem.”
Further, Nitzsch (l.c.) thinks on the power of atheism first come to have public authority, or the contempt of all religion generally. Further, the opinion of Pelt is entirely peculiar, who in His Commentary, p. 204,[58] sums up his views in the following words: “Mihi … adversarius illi principium esse videtur sive vis spiritualis evangelio contraria, quae huc usque tamen in Pontificiorum Romanorum operibus ac serie luculentissime sese prodidit, ita tamen, ut omnia etiam mala, quae in ecclesia compareant, ad eandem Antichristi ἐνέργειαν sint referenda. Ejus vero ΠΑΡΟΥΣΊΑ i. e. summum fastigium, quod Christi reditum qui nihil aliud est, nisi regni divini victoria,[59] antecedet, futurum adhuc esse videtur, quum illud tempus procul etiamnum abesse putemus, ubi omnes terrae incolae in eo erunt, ut ad Christi sacra transeant. Κατέχον vero cum Theodoreto putarim esse dei voluntatem illud Satanae regnum cohibentem, ne erumpat, et, si mediae spectantur causae, apostolorum tempore maxime imperii Romani vis, et quovis aevo illa resistentia, quam malis artibus, quae religionem subvertere student, privati commodi et honoris augendorum cupiditas opponere solet.” Pelt thinks that the symptoms of the future corruption of the Christian church were already present in the apostolic age in the danger of falling away from Christian freedom into Jewish legalism, in the mingling of heathenism with Christianity, in the false gnosis and asceticism, in the worship of angels, and in the fastus a religione Christiana omnino alienus. To the same class belongs Olshausen,[60] who considers the Pauline description only as a typical representation of future events. According to him, the chief stress lies on ΤῸ ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ ἬΔΗ ἘΝΕΡΓΕῖΤΑΙ Τῆς ἈΝΟΜΊΑς . Antichrist is a union of the individuality and spiritual tendency in masses of individuals. The revolt of the Jews from the Romans, and the fearful divine punishment in the destruction of Jerusalem, Nero, Mohammed and his spiritual devastating power, the development of the Papacy in the Middle Ages, the French Revolution of 1789, with the abrogation of Christianity, and the setting up of prostitutes on altars for worship, in the external world, as well as the constantly spreading denial of the fundamentals of all religious truth and morality, of the doctrines of God, freedom, and immortality, and likewise the self-deification of the ego in the internal world,—all these phenomena are the real precursors of Antichrist; but they contain only some of his characteristics, not all; it is the union of all these characteristics which shall make the full Antichrist. The preventing power is to be understood of the preponderance of the Christian world in its German and Roman constituents over the earth; i.e. of the whole political condition of order, with which, on the one hand, there is the constant repression of all ἀποστασία and ἈΝΟΜΊΑ , and on the other hand, the continued and peaceful development of Christianity. Of this condition the Roman Empire, as the strongest and most orderly secular organization which history knows, is the natural type. Baumgarten-Crusius is also here to be named. According to him, the Pauline prediction contains no new teachings peculiar to the apostle, but only representations from the old Messianic pictures in the prophets, especially in Daniel. The apostle’s design is practical, to make the Thessalonians calmly observant, attentive to the times, prepared and strong for the future; the passage has a permanent value in this reference, and in the chief thought that the development and determination of these things can only gradually take place. The passage is indeed historical and for the near future, but Paul has no definite or personal manifestations, whether present or future, in view, at least not in ἈΝΤΙΚΕΊΜΕΝΟς , which he describes as still entirely concealed; and it is even doubtful whether he understood by it an individual person. Only ΤῸ ΚΑΤΈΧΟΝ has a definite reference, but not to a person; on the contrary, the new spirit of Christianity is meant. The difference in gender, Ὁ ΚΑΤΈΧΩΝ and ΤῸ ΚΑΤΈΧΟΝ , is used either only to correspond with ἈΝΤΙΚΕΊΜΕΝΟς , or Paul thinks on ΧΡΙΣΤῸς ἘΝ ΑὐΤΟῖς , Col_1:27! Lastly, to the same class belong Bloomfield and Alford.[61] According to the former, the μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας is something still continuing; the prediction of the apostle will obtain its complete fulfilment only at the end of time, when only then the preventing power—which is most probably to be understood, with Theodoret, of the council of divine Providence—will be removed. According to the latter (see Proleg. p. 67 ff.), we stand, though 1800 years later, with regard to the ἀνομός where the apostle stood; the day of the Lord not present, and not to arrive until the man of sin be manifested; the ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ Τῆς ἈΝΟΜΊΑς still working, and much advanced in his working; the preventing power not yet taken out of the way. All this points to a state in which the ἈΝΟΜΊΑ is working on underground, under the surface of things, gaining an expansion and power, although still hidden and unconcentrated. It has already partially embodied itself in Popery, in Nero and every Christian persecutor, in Mohammed and Napoleon, in Mormonism, and such like. The ΚΑΤΈΧΟΝ and the ΚΑΤΈΧΩΝ are to be understood of the fabric of human polity and those who rule that polity, by which hitherto all outbursts of godlessness have been suppressed and hindered in their course and devastations.
[57] To prove this view of the κατέχων by Koppe as the correct one by a closer exposition, is the object of the above-mentioned treatise of Beyer (on 2Th_2:7). Also Heydenreich, Schott, and Grimm (Stud. u. Krit. 1850, Part 4, p. 790 ff.) so far agree with Koppe, that they understand the neuter as the multitude of the truly pious and believers (Heydenreich), or as the veri religionis doctores (Schott), or as the apostolorum chorus (Grimm). For the removal of the objection, that Paul hoped to survive the advent, and that accordingly ἐκ μέσου γίνεσθαι would be unsuitable, Schott and Grimm consider it probable that by this expression we are to think not on death, but on “alia res externa, e.g. captivitas dura.” Akin to this interpretation of the κατέχων is Wieseler’s view (Chronologie des apost. Zeitalt., Götting. 1848, p. 272 f.), that Paul would denote with it the pious in Jerusalem, particularly the Christians, or in case κατέχων necessarily denoted an individual, the Apostle James the Just. Comp. also Böhme, de spe messiana apostolica, Hal. 1826, p. 30, according to whom the apostolic circle are denoted in general, and in particular the most prominent member, perhaps the Apostle James. Hofmann judges differently upon τὸ κατέχον and ὁ κατέχων , Schriflbeweis, Part 1, 2d ed. Nördling. 1857, p. 352 f., and in his h. Schr. N.T., Part 1, p. 318 ff., with whom Baumgarten, l.c. p. 609, Luthardt, l.c. p. 159 f., and Riggenbach coincide. According to Hofmann, as throughout the whole passage 2Th_2:5-7 Paul refers apparently to the visions of Daniel, he must have spoken to the Thessalonians of that which hinders the man of sin from coming sooner than his proper time with reference to these prophecies of Daniel. Therefore, in agreement with Daniel, a spiritual power is to be thought of which rules in the secular world and in the various governments in agreement with the divine will, and opposes the influences of the spirit of nations and kingdoms working contrary to the divine will. This power may be designated both as neuter and as masculine, as κυριότης and as κύριος , and the words μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μἑσου γένηται · καὶ τότε ἀποκαλυφθήσεται ὁ ἄνομος are sufficiently similar to those of Daniel: åÇàÂðÄé éåÉöÅà åÀäÄðÌÅä ùÒÇøÎéÈåÈï áÌÈà (Dan_10:20), in order to be recognised as a transfer of the same to those last times when the spiritual power which now preserves the earthly commonwealth in agreement with the kingdom of God entirely recedes, in order that every form of secular power may enter which will allow no more place for the church of God on earth. Still differently, Ewald, Jahrb. der bibl. Wissenschaft, Jahr. 3, Gött. 1851, p. 250 f. (comp. Sendschreiben des Ap. Paulus, Gött. 1857, p. 27): “We have here a mystery before us which in the early apostolic times only believers loved to talk over and to diffuse among themselves, so that Paul may have been unwilling to speak openly upon it. The appearance of Antichrist was expected according to Mat_24:15 (?), and Paul here describes it, only more openly and freely than it is there indicated in the prophecy of Christ; but an opinion must have been formed in the bosom of the mother church at Jerusalem why Antichrist had not as yet appeared, which was imparted only to believers. We may, however, pretty nearly guess what it was from other signs. If we reflect that, according to Rev_11:3 ff., Antichrist was not to be considered as coming until the two martyrs of the old covenant had appeared, and their destruction was the true beginning of his extreme rage; further, that instead of these two assumed martyrs, it was also, or rather originally, still more commonly supposed that only Elijah must return before Christ, and accordingly also before Antichrist. Elijah’s return is not actually denied in that passage, where this expectation is treated of in the freest manner (Mat_17:11 f., comp. Mat_11:13 f.), so it is most probable that by that which hindereth the appearance of Antichrist the coming of Elijah is meant (Sendschr. des Ap. Paulus, p. 27: the tarrying of Elijah in heaven); and by him who hitherto hindered, and who must be taken out of the way before the last atrocious wickedness of Antichrist, is meant Eljiah himself.” Still otherwise Noack (Der Ursprung des Christenthums, vol. II., Leipz. 1857, p. 313 ff.), who by him that hindereth—arbitrarily identifying the same with the man of sin—understands Simon Magus and his machinations. Still differently Jowett, according to whom (after the suggestion of Ewald, Jahrb. X., Gött. 1860, p. 235) τὸ κατέχον is designed to indicate the Mosaic law.
[58] In only an unessentially modified form Pelt has latterly maintained the same view in the Theolog. Mitarbeiten. Jahrg. 4, Kiel 1841, H. 2, p. 114 ff.
[59] Comp. Pelt, p. 185: … “tenentes, illum Christi adventum a Paulo non visibilem habitum.”
[60] Bisping follows him in all essential points.
[61] Comp. also Düsterdieck, die drei johanneischen Briefe, Bd. I., Gött. 1852, p. 306: “John, as Paul (2Th_2:1-12), in conformity to the instruction of the Lord, recognises in the powerful errors of the present the signs of an approaching decision. The last hour is present, the advent is at hand. The last hour is the concluding period of αἰὼν οὗτος , the period of travail, which continues in an unbroken connection from its commencement, the destruction of Jerusalem, even to the end, to which the advent directly succeeds.” John has not erred in that he soon expected the real commencement of the crisis, continually carried on throughout the whole historical development of the kingdom of Christ; for that generation, as our Lord had predicted, survived the destruction of the holy city, an event of whose importance in the history and judgment of the world there can be no doubt. Moreover, in reference to 1Th_4:15 ( ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες κ . τ . λ .), Düsterdieck (l.c. p. 308) recognises that there Paul has shortened the chronological perspective too much; but then he thinks, referring to 2Th_2:1 ff. and Rom_11:25 ff., that this is an imperfection which was gradually overcome in the apostle by the moral development of his life in God, and that it was changed for the real truth. But it is assumed, without right, that an entirely different view of things lies at the foundation of the section 2Th_2:1-12 than of the section 1Th_4:13 ff., as the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was written only a few months after the First; and besides, 2Th_2:5 points to the agreement of the written explanations there given with the oral instructions to the Thessalonians given even previously to the First Epistle. Further on, Düsterdieck (p. 330) concedes that because Paul in 1Th_4:13 ff. has abbreviated the interval to the advent, he was also in 2Th_2:1 ff. constrained to represent the personal appearance of the opponent incorrectly in point of chronology.
It is evident that all these explanations are arbitrary. The Pauline description is so definitely and sharply marked, and has for its whole compass so much the idea of nearness for its supposition, that it can by no means be taken generally, and in this manner explained away.
II. Others have regarded the apocalyptic instruction of the apostle as a prophecy already fulfilled. Thus Grotius, Wetstein, Hammond, Clericus, Whitby, Schoettgen, Noesselt, Krause, and Harduin.[62] The reference of the παρουσία τοῦ κυρίου to the coming of the Lord in judgment at the destruction of Jerusalem, is common to all these writers. In reference to the other chief points of the Pauline representation they differ as follows:—
[62] What is necessary to be said on Kern’s view has already been observed in the Introduction, sec. 3. Döllinger (l.c.), who like Kern understands by Antichrist Nero, thinks, however, that with this assumption the authenticity of the Epistle, and even its composition in the year 53, are perfectly reconcilable. According to Döllinger, the prophecy in all its essentials was fulfilled close upon the apostle’s days, although a partial fulfilment at the end of time is not excluded by this assumption. Already Paul has recognised the youthful Nero as the future Antichrist, whose public appearance was already prepared, but was yet prevented by Claudius as the then possessor of the imperial throne. The coming of Christ is His coming to execute judgment on Jerusalem. Nero, although he personally undertook nothing against the temple of Jerusalem, yet entrusted Vespasian with the guidance of the war, and accordingly brought—certainly only after his death—the abomination of desolation into the holy city. Lastly, the apostasy is the being led astray into the false doctrines of the Gnostics.
Grotius[63] understands by Antichrist the Emperor Caius Caligula, notorious for his ungodliness, who, according to Suetonius, Caligul. xxii. 33, ordered universal supplication to himself as the supreme God, and according to Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 8, and Philo, legat. ad Caj. p. 1022, wished to set up his colossal statue in the temple of Jerusalem; by the κατέχων , L. Vitellius, the proconsul of Syria and Judea, who dissuaded from the erection of the statue; and by the ἄνομος , Simon Magus.
This opinion is sufficiently contradicted, partly by the impossibility of distinguishing the ἄνομος from ἌΝΘΡΩΠΟς Τῆς ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς as a separate person, and partly by its incongruity with the period of the composition of the Epistle. See sec. 2 of the Introduction.
[63] See against him, Turretin, p. 483 ff.
According to Wetstein, the ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας is Titus, whose army, according to Joseph. de bello Jud. vi. 6. 1, brought idols into the captured temple of Jerusalem, sacrificed there, and saluted Titus as imperator. The κατέχων is Nero, whose death must precede the rule of Titus; and the ἀποστασία is the rebellion and murder of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. But how can Titus, the ornament of the Roman emperors, pass for Antichrist; and Nero, that monster in human form, the power which hinders the outburst of Antichrist?
Hammond[64] understands by the man of sin Simon Magus and the Gnostics, whose head he was. The ἐπισυναγωγὴ ἐπʼ αὐτόν , 2Th_2:1, is the “major libertas coeundi in ecclesiasticos coetus ad colendum Christum;” the ἈΠΟΣΤΑΣΊΑ is the falling away of Christians to the Gnostics (1Ti_4:1); ἈΠΟΚΑΛΥΦΘῆΝΑΙ denotes the casting off the mask of Christianity; 2Th_2:4 refers to the fact that Simon Magus “se dictitaret summum patrem omnium rerum, et qui ipsum Judaeorum deum creaverat.” ΤῸ ΚΑΤΈΧΟΝ is the circumstance that the apostles and orthodox Christians still preserved union with the Jews, and had not yet turned themselves to the Gentiles. The neuter ΚΑΤΈΧΟΝ and the masculine ΚΑΤΈΧΩΝ are equivalent; or if a distinction is to be maintained, Ὁ ΚΑΤΈΧΩΝ must be regarded as the same as Ὁ ΝΌΜΟς . The ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ Τῆς ἈΝΟΜΊΑς is the “duplicis generis scelera horum hominum, libidines nefariae et odium in Christianos.” 2Th_2:8 refers to the contest of Peter and Paul with Simon Magus in Rome, which ended in the death of the latter.
The exegetical and historical monstrosity of this interpretation is at present universally acknowledged.
[64] Comp. against him, Turretin, p. 493 ff.
The interpretations of Clericus, Whitby, Schoettgen, Noesselt, Krause, and Harduin have a greater resemblance between them.
According to Clericus,[65] the apostasy is the rebellion of the Jews against the Roman yoke; the man of sin is the rebellious Jews, and especially their leader, Simon the son of Giora, of whose atrocities Josephus informs us. πᾶς λεγόμενος Θεὸς κ . τ . λ . denotes the government. ΤῸ ΚΑΤΈΧΟΝ is whatever hindered the open outbreak of the rebellion, partly the fear of the proceres Judaeae gentis, who mistrusted the war because they expected no favourable result, partly the fear of the Roman army; ὁ κατέχων on the one side “praeses Romanus,” on the other side “gentis proceres, rex Agrippa et pontifices plurimi.” The ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ Τῆς ἈΝΟΜΊΑς which already works consists in the rebellious ambition which conceals itself under the pretext of the independence of the Jewish people, yea, under the cloak of a careful observance of the Mosaic law, until at length what strives in secret is openly manifested.
[65] See against him, Turretin, p. 501 ff.
Whitby[66] considers the Jewish people as Antichrist, and finds in the apostasy the rebellion against the Romans, or also the falling away from the faith; and in the ΚΑΤΈΧΩΝ the Emperor Claudius, during whose life the Jews could not possibly think of a rebellion, as he had shown himself favourable to them.
[66] See against him, Turretin, p. 508 ff.
According to Schoettgen, the Jewish Pharisees and Rabbis are Antichrist. The ἀποστασία is the rebellion excited by them, of the Jews against the Romans; πᾶς λεγόμενος Θεός refers likewise to the rulers; τὸ κατέχον and ὁ κατέχων are probably the Christians who by their prayers effected a respite from the catastrophe, until, in consequence of a divine oracle, they left Jerusalem, and betook themselves to Pella; μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας denotes ipsa doctrina perversa.
Noesselt, whom Krause follows, understands Antichrist of the Jewish zealots, but interprets the preventing power, as Whitby does, of the Emperor Claudius.
Lastly, Harduin explains the ἀποστασία of the falling off of the Jews to heathenism. He considers the high priest Ananias (Act_23:2) as the ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας , and his predecessor in office as the κατέχων , who must first be removed by death in order to make place for Ananias. At the beginning of his high-priesthood the ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας will appear as a deceitful prophet, and be destroyed at the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.
All these interpretations of the second class avoid, it is true, the common error of the interpretations of the first class, as they give due prominence to the point of the nearness of the catastrophe described by Paul; but, apart from many and strong objections which may be brought against each, they are all exposed to this fatal objection, the impossibility of understanding the coming of the Lord, mentioned by Paul, of the period of the destruction of Jerusalem.
Tychsen (l.c.) has endeavoured to divest the Pauline representation of its prophetic character, by assuming that the apostle follows step by step the course of an Epistle received from Thessalonica, from which he perceived that the church had been led astray into the erroneous notion that the advent of Christ was already at hand. The apostle cites passages from that writing, and adds each time his refutation. For the statement of this opinion, which only claims attention on account of its strangeness, it will be sufficient to give the translation from 2Th_2:3 and onwards, in which Tychsen (p. 184 f.) sums up the view he has already stated at length. It is as follows: “You certainly wrote to me, ‘This day cannot come until the great apostasy will occur; when a thoroughly lawless and corrupt man will publicly appear, who in hostile pride exalts himself above all that man calls divine and honourable, who also intrudes even into the temple of God, and gives himself out as a god.’ But do you not remember that I, when I was with you, told you something of this? and besides, you know what is in the way of that lawless one, so that he can only appear in his time, not yet at present. ‘This wickedness,’ you say further, ‘even now secretly works.’ Only that hindrance must first be removed out of the way! ‘And when this is removed,’ ye think, ‘the wicked one will soon fearlessly show himself.’ Now let him do it! The Lord Jesus will annihilate him with His divine power, and destroy him by His solemn appearance. ‘When this lawless one comes,’ ye continue, ‘so will his appearance be accompanied by the assistance of Satan with deceiving miracles, delusions, and everything which can lead to blasphemy.’ Yet all this cannot seduce you, but only those unhappy persons who have no love for true religion, and accordingly are helplessly lost by their own fault. God for a punishment to them permitted seducers to rise up, that they might believe the lie. A merited punishment for all friends of vice who are prepossessed against true doctrine!”
For a correct judgment of the apocalyptic instruction of the apostle, it is firmly to be maintained that Paul could not possibly wish to give a representation of the distant future. On the contrary, the events which he predicted were for him so near, that he himself even thought that he would survive them. He hoped to survive even to the personal return of the Lord for judgment and for the completion of His kingdom; His return shall be preceded by the appearance of Antichrist, whom he considered not as a collective idea, but as an individual person, and not in the political, but in the religious sphere, and specially as a caricature of Christ and the culmination of ungodliness; but Antichrist can only appear when the preventing power, which at present hinders his appearance, will be removed. As, now, these circumstances, which Paul thinks were to be realized in the immediate future, have not actually taken place, so it is completely arbitrary to expect the fulfilment of the prophecy only in a distant future; rather it is to be admitted, that although, as the very kernel of Paul’s representation, the perfectly true idea lay at the bottom, that the return of the Lord for the completion of the kingdom of God was not to be expected until the moral process of the world had reached its close by the complete separation of the susceptible and the unsusceptible, and accordingly also until the opposition to Christ had reached its climax, yet Paul was mistaken concerning the nearness of the final catastrophe, and, carried along by his idiosyncrasy, had wished to settle more exactly concerning its circumstances and moral conditions than is allotted to man in general to know, even although he should be the apostle, the most filled with the Spirit of Christ. Comp. Mat_24:36; Mar_13:32; Act_1:7.
We can thus only determine the meaning and interpretation which Paul himself connected with his prophecy, and how he came to the assertion of such a prophecy. It rests on the apocalyptic views of the Jews. It was a prevalent opinion of the Jews in the time of Christ, that a time of tribulation and travail and an Antichrist were to precede the appearance of the Messiah. Comp. Gfrörer, das Jahrhundert des Heils, Part 2, p. 256 ff., 300 ff., 405 ff. The description of Antiochus Epiphanes in Dan_8:23 ff; Dan_11:36 ff., and the apocalyptic representation of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38, 39, were esteemed as types of Antichrist. From these passages it is further explicable how Paul conceived Antichrist as a personality, as an individual.
Accordingly, it remains only still to determine, for the explication of the Pauline prophecy, what is to be understood by the preventing power, which still delayed the appearance of Antichrist. Without doubt, the Fathers have already correctly recognised by τὸ κατέχον the Roman Empire, and—in another form of expression for it—by ὁ κατέχων the Roman emperor, as the representative of the empire. This is the more probable as, according to the Book of Daniel, the whole history of the world was to fall within the four monarchies of the world, but the fourth was by Josephus and others regarded as the Roman Empire, whose impending ruin the apostle might not without reason think himself justified in inferring from many symptoms.