2Th_2:4.
Ὁ
ἀντικείμενος
] is not to be united by zeugma with
ὑπεραιρόμενος
, so that out of
ἐπὶ
πάντα
κ
.
τ
.
λ
. the dative
παντὶ
λεγομένῳ
Θεῷ
ἢ
σεβάσματι
is to be taken (Benson, Koppe, Krause, Rosenmüller, Flat, Pelt, Bloomfield, Hofmann, Riggenbach), but is absolute, in the sense of a substantive—the opposer. It has been erroneously maintained by Pelt, that the article being only put once necessitates the assumption of a zeugma. But all that follows from the single insertion of the article is only that the two statements,
ἀντικεῖσθαι
and
ὑπεραίρεσθαι
, must contain something related to each other, which is summed up in a common general idea. This general idea is extremely evident from what follows. Accordingly, the person of whom Paul speaks was designated according to his internal nature by
ὁ
ἄνθρωπος
τῆς
ἁμαρτίας
, then characterized according to his ultimate fate by
ὁ
υἱὸς
τῆς
ἀπωλείας
, and now—whilst Paul in his delineation takes a step backward (comp. 2Th_2:8 and 2Th_2:9)—the mode and manner of his public external appearance and conduct is described.
But if
ὁ
ἀντικείμενος
denotes simply and absolutely the opposer, the question is asked, whom does he oppose? Baumgarten and Michaelis erroneously answer: the human race; for this interpretation has no point of contact in the context, and would explain away the form so definitely brought before us by Paul by a vague generality. De Wette and others more definitely answer: God and Christ. And certainly the description that immediately follows shows that the opposer opposes himself in the highest degree to God. But this fact does not justify such a wide meaning, if another is opposed to it in the context. Now the context specially points to the opposer of Christ (thus Heydenreich, Schott, and Kern). For the man of sin stands in the closest and strictest parallelism with Christ. He is the forerunner of Christ’s advent, and has, as the caricature of Christ, like Him an advent and a manifestation: he raises the power of evil, which exalts itself in a hostile manner against Christ and His kingdom, to the highest point; his working is diametrically the opposite of the working of Christ, and it is Christ’s appearance which destroys him. Accordingly, the opponent can be none other than the Antichrist (
ὁ
ἀντίχριστος
, 1Jn_2:18). This Antichrist is not the devil himself (Pelagius and others), for he is distinguished from him (2Th_2:9); but according to 2Th_2:9 he is an instrument of the devil.
In
καὶ
ὑπεραιρόμενος
κ
.
τ
.
λ
. he is further described as he who, in frivolous arrogance, exalts himself above all that is called God. With this description the delineation of Antiochus Epiphanes, in Dan_11:36-37, was before the mind of the apostle, where it is said:
καὶ
ὁ
βασιλεὺς
ὑψωθήσεται
καὶ
μεγαλυνβήσεται
ἐπὶ
πάντα
Θεόν
,
καὶ
λαλήσει
ὑπέρογκα
…
καὶ
ἐπὶ
πάντας
θεοὺς
τῶν
πατέρων
αὐτοῦ
οὐ
συνήσει
…
καὶ
ἐπὶ
πᾶν
Θεὸν
οὐ
συνήσει
,
ὅτι
ἐπὶ
πάντας
μεγαλυνθήσεται
Comp. Dan_7:25 :
καὶ
λόγους
πρὸς
τὸν
ὕψιστον
λαλήσει
.
ἐπὶ
πάντα
λεγόμενον
Θεόν
] includes the true God as well as the false gods worshipped by the heathen; but
λεγόμενον
is a natural addition from Christian caution, as
πάντα
Θεόν
would have been a senseless and indeed blasphemous expression for a Christian.
ἢ
σέβασμα
] serves for a generalization of the idea
Θεόν
. Accordingly the meaning is: or whatever else is an object of adoration, sc. of divine adoration (= numen).
ὥστε
κ
.
τ
.
λ
.] The arrogant wickedness of Antichrist proceeds so far that he claims divine adoration for himself.
καθίσαι
] intransitive, seats himself; accordingly not
αὑτόν
(Grotius, Koppe, Pelt), but
αὐτόν
is to be written.
αὐτόν
is placed for the sake of emphasis: he, who has lost all reverence for the divine, in whose form he wishes to appear.
ὁ
ναὸς
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
] is not, as Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Musculus, Hunnius, Estius, Lucius and Andrew Osiander, Aretius, Vorstius, Calixt, Calovius, Wolf, Benson, Moldenhauer, Bolten, and others, also Heydenreich, Pelt, Olshausen, Bloomfield, Alford, Bisping, and Hilgenfeld (l.c. p. 253) assume, a figurative representation of the Christian church, but, on account of the definite expression
καθίσαι
, cannot be otherwise understood than in its proper sense. But on account of the repetition of the article can only one definite temple of one definite true God—that is, the temple of Jerusalem—be meant (Grotius, Clericus, Schöttgen, Whitby, Kern, de Wette, Wieseler, v. Döllinger, l.c. p. 282).[45]
ἀποδεικνύντα
ἑαυτὸν
ὅτι
ἘΣΤῚΝ
ΘΕΌς
] exhibiting himself that he is a god, i.e. whilst he not only actually takes possession of the temple of the only true God as his own, as a dwelling-place belonging to him, but also publicly predicates of himself divine dignity, and accordingly requires to be adored. The interpretation of Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and others, also Heydenreich, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, Bisping, and Riggenbach: “who shows himself or seeks to show himself as a god by deceitful miracles” (2Th_2:9), agrees not with the preceding
καθίσαι
.
[45] Schrader certainly finds in
ὁ
ναός
a heathen temple; and by the addition
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
its interior is denoted, the place where the god had its seat!