2Th_2:7.[48] An explanatory justification of
εἰς
τὸ
ἀποκαλυφθῆναι
αὐτὸν
ἐν
τῷ
ἑαυτοῦ
καιρῷ
, but not a parenthesis (Hemming). The mystery of wickedness is certainly even now active, but Antichrist cannot be manifest until the power preventing him be overcome.
μυστήριον
] is contrasted with
ἀποκαλυφθῆναι
, and
ἤδη
with
ἐν
τῷ
ἑαυτοῦ
καιρῷ
. But the chief emphasis of the sentence lies on
μυστήριον
, which on that account is not only placed first, but is besides separated from its further definition
τῆς
ἀνομίας
by the verb and adverb. Comp. Gal_2:6; Gal_2:9; Arrian, Exp. Al. i. 7. 16:
καὶ
εὑρέσθαι
συγγνώμην
τῷ
πλήθει
τῶν
Θηβαίων
τῆς
ἀποστάσεως
.
ἀνομία
] means lawlessness, then ungodliness or wickedness generally. The expression corresponds to
ἀποστασία
, 2Th_2:3. For the
ἄνθρωπος
τῆς
ἁμαρτίας
was mentioned in 2Th_2:3 as the historical crown of the
ἀποστασία
; whilst here, in like manner,
ἀνομία
appears as its forerunner (
ἤδη
). The genitive
τῆς
ἀνομίας
is not a genitive of the working cause—wickedness, which lays its concealed snares (Theodoret), or which works under the appearance of good intentions, but uses secret unworthy means for its object (Flatt); or the plan of ungodliness (Baumgarten-Crusius); or the secret counsel of the supernatural power of darkness (
κατʼ
ἐνέργειαν
τοῦ
σατανᾶ
, 2Th_2:9), which is placed in parallelism with God’s eternal counsel or
μυστήριον
in reference to Christ and His kingdom (Kern); but is the genitive of apposition. But neither is Antichrist himself meant, who, as Christ, because God manifest in the flesh, is called in 1Ti_3:16 :
τὸ
τῆς
εὐσεβείας
μυστήριον
, is likewise named
τὸ
μυστήριον
τῆς
ἀνομίας
, because he is an incarnation of the devil (Olshausen); nor is
μυστήριον
a mere intensification of the idea
ἀνομία
, so that a hitherto unheard of, unexampled godlessness was designated (Krebs, Hofmann, comp. also Heydenreich, p. 41, and Schott, p. 22).[49] Rather, taking into consideration the emphatic antithesis which
ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ
forms to
ἈΠΟΚΑΛΥΦΘῆΝΑΙ
, the natural meaning of the words can only be the mystery of wickedness, i.e. wickedness in so far as it is still a mystery, something concealed, not yet publicly brought to light. Paul thinks on the detached traces of wickedness, recognisable in their true import only to a few as to himself, which already appeared, but which only at a later period will concentrate themselves, and reach their climax in Antichrist.
ἐνεργεῖται
] is not passive, as Estius, Grotius, Kypke, Nösselt, Storr, Schott, Bloomfield, and others assume, but middle, is active, begins to bestir itself or to develope its activity. The subject of
ἐνεργεῖται
is
ΤῸ
ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ
, not Antichrist, as Zeger thinks.
ΜΌΝΟΝ
] is still by Heinsius[50] and Kypke connected with the preceding, and separated from what follows by a comma. Erroneously, as
μόνον
is irreconcilable with
ἬΔΗ
in the same clause. But also
ΜΌΝΟΝ
does not begin a protasis to which
ΚΑῚ
ΤΌΤΕ
, 2Th_2:8, introduces the apodosis (Koppe). Rather a comma is to be put after
ἈΝΟΜΊΑς
, and a colon after
ΓΈΝΗΤΑΙ
. Accordingly 2Th_2:7 is divided into two halves, of which the first forms a concession, and the second a limitation. The meaning is: as a mystery wickedness certainly works even now, only, before Antichrist can be manifested, we must wait until, etc.
ἕως
] until that, should properly stand before
ὁ
κατέχων
; but it is placed after, in order to bring forward more emphatically
Ὁ
ΚΑΤΈΧΩΝ
as the chief idea. Comp. Gal_2:10 :
μόνον
τῶν
πτωχῶν
ἵνα
μνημονεύωμεν
. See Winer, p. 485 [E. T. 688]. Erroneously Tychsen: the construction is “somewhat distorted;” it should have been
ΜΌΝΟΝ
Ὁ
ΚΑΤΈΧΩΝ
ἝΩς
ἌΡΤΙ
. Others, equally erroneously, assume that for the completion of the sentence an additional verb is to be taken from the participle
Ὁ
ΚΑΤΈΧΩΝ
. Thus, in conformity with the Vulgate (tantum ut qui tenet nunc, teneat, donec de medio fiat), Nicolas de Lyra, Erasmus, Zwingli, Zeger, Camerarius, Estius, Lucius and Andrew Osiander, Balduin, Menochius, Cornelius a Lapide, and others, who supply
ΚΑΤΕΧΈΤΩ
; Jac. Cappellus, Beza, Calixt, Joachim Lange, Whitby, who supply
ΚΑΘΈΞΕΙ
; Bengel, Storr, Pelt, who supply
ΚΑΤΈΧΕΙ
. Not less arbitrarily do Knatchbull, Benson, and Baumgarten proceed, who would add
ἘΣΤΊΝ
after
ΜΌΝΟΝ
. For not the mere copula
ἐστίν
, but the emphatic and independent
ἔστιν
, would warrant the sense assumed by them; but a word which has the emphasis cannot be left out.
ὁ
κατέχων
] must be essentially the same as what was designated in 2Th_2:6 by the neuter
τὸ
κατέχον
. For the same function is ascribed to both, whilst in a similar manner as
τὸ
κατέχον
formerly, so now also
Ὁ
ΚΑΤΈΧΩΝ
(comp. 2Th_2:8) appears as that by which the
ἈΠΟΚΆΛΥΨΙς
of Antichrist is still delayed. The restraining power, on which Paul thought, must accordingly have been so constituted that it can be brought under a twofold form of description, and be represented both as a thing and as a person. To make
ὁ
κατέχων
denote the ruling power (qui obtinet, i. e. rerum potitur, Beza, and so also Whitby, Noesselt, and others) is as contrary to the context as it would be to supply fidem as an accusative to it (Nicolas de Lyra: “qui tenet nunc fidem catholicam, teneat eam firmiter”), or fidem atque caritatem (Zeger), or Christum et veram ejus religionem (Estius), or Christi adventum (Vatablus), or
τὴν
ἀνομίαν
(Flatt, Heydenreich, Schott), and the like.
ἌΡΤΙ
] is closely connected with
Ὁ
ΚΑΤΈΧΩΝ
, and brings specially forward the reference already contained in the present participle to the immediate present time of the writer. Schott, after Flatt and Pelt, thinks that if
ἌΡΤΙ
is to be limited to the time of the speaker, it is not suitable to the view of the apostle (see on 1Th_4:15); that it may accordingly be understood generally: “tempus efficientiae
ΤΟῦ
ΚΑΤΈΧΟΝΤΟς
opportunum, quod porro elapsurum sit ad initium usque temporis illi oppositi i. e. donec, remoto
Τῷ
ΚΑΤΈΧΟΝΤΙ
, palam sit proditura
Ἡ
ἈΠΟΣΤΑΣΊΑ
.”
ἘΚ
ΜΈΣΟΥ
ΓΊΝΕΣΘΑΙ
] is not necessarily to be considered of death or violence (Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius). It can denote any removal or being taken out of the way, however it may happen. Comp. 1Co_5:2; Col_2:14; Plutarch, Timol. p. 238:
ἔγνω
ζῆν
καθʼ
ἑαυτὸν
ἐκ
μέσου
γενόμενος
. The opposite of
ἘΚ
ΜΈΣΟΥ
ΓΊΝΕΣΘΑΙ
or
ΑἼΡΕΣΘΑΙ
is
ἘΝ
ΜΈΣῼ
ΕἾΝΑΙ
, to be in the way, or to be obstructive. Comp. Xenoph. Cyrop. v. 2. 26:
καὶ
σφόδρʼ
ἂν
εἴ
πῃ
γε
δύναιντο
συμμίξαι
.
Τί
δʼ
ἐν
μέσῳ
,
ἔφη
,
ἐστὶ
τοῦ
συμμίξαι
;
Ἀσσύριοι
,
ἔφασαν
,
τὸ
αὐτὸ
ἔθνος
,
διʼ
οὗπερ
νῦν
πορεύῃ
.
[48] Comp. C. Th. Beyer, de
κατέχοντι
τὴν
ἀνομίαν
, 2Th_2:7, commentatio, Lips. 1824.—J. Grimm, the
κατέχων
of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (Regensburger Lyceal-Programm), 1861.
[49] For this meaning an appeal is made to Joseph, de bello Jud. i. 24. 2 Thessalonians 1 :
καὶ
τὸν
Ἀντιπάτρου
βίον
οὐκ
ἂν
ἁμάρτοι
τις
εἰπὼν
κακίας
μυστήριον
.
[50] Heinsius finds the thought expressed: what was only begun in the time of Nero, Antichrist will at a later period bring to a conclusion.