2Th_2:8. What was left to the readers themselves to supply to
μόνον
, 2Th_2:7, from the conclusion of 2Th_2:6, is now, in its essence, although in an altered form, expressly indicated by
καὶ
τότε
ἀποκαλυφθήσεται
ὁ
ἄνομος
.
καὶ
τότε
] and then, namely, as soon as the
κατέχων
is taken out of the way. The emphasis is on
καὶ
τότε
, not on
ὁ
ἄνομος
(Grotius), nor on
ἀποκαλυφθήσεται
.
ὁ
ἄνομος
] the lawless one, is not a different person from
ἄνθρωπος
τῆς
ἁμαρτίας
(Grotius), but identical with him. For
καὶ
τότε
ἀποκαλυφθήσεται
points back to
μόνον
, 2Th_2:7, and by this to
ἀποκαλυφθῆναι
αὐτόν
, 2Th_2:6. The expression
ἀνομία
, just used, afforded the easily explained occasion for calling Antichrist
ἄνομος
.
With the relative sentence
ὃν
ὁ
κύριος
…
παρουσίας
αὐτοῦ
(which is incorrectly enclosed in a parenthesis by Benson, Moldenhauer, Schott, and Kern) the apostle immediately adds the ultimate fate which Antichrist has to expect. That Paul so directly passes over to this, although he has it yet in view to speak of the working of Antichrist before his destruction (comp. 2Th_2:9-10), is an involuntary impulse of his Christian heart which causes him immediately to resolve the horror which the announcement of such an event as the
ἀποκάλυψις
τοῦ
ἀνόμου
has into comfort and consolation, as a discord into harmony, comp. 2Th_2:3-4.
In a soaring and poetical form of expression, the members of which have their Hebrew parallels, Paul describes the fate of Antichrist. Not improbably Isa_11:4 was present to his mind, where it is declared of the promised Deliverer of the seed of Jesse:
καὶ
πατάξει
λῆν
τῷ
λόγῳ
τοῦ
στόματος
αὐτοῦ
,
καὶ
ἐν
πνεύματι
διὰ
χειλέων
ἀνελεῖ
ἀσεβῆ
.
ἀναλίσκειν
] to consume, to destroy.
τῷ
πνεύματι
τοῦ
στόματος
αὐτοῦ
] describes the power and irresistible might of the reappearing Christ, the breath of whose mouth suffices to bring His opponents to nothing. More definite interpretations, as the sentence of condemnation (Vatablus, Cornelius a Lapide), or a command or address (Theodoret:
φθέγξεται
μόνον
; Theodore Mopsuestia, ed. Fritzsche, p. 148:
μόνον
ἐπιβοήσας
…
τοῦτο
γὰρ
λέγει
τὸ
τῷ
πνεύματι
τοῦ
στόματος
αὐτοῦ
ἀντὶ
τοῦ
τῇ
φωνῇ
,
ἀπὸ
τοῦ
παρʼ
ἡμῖν
αὐτὸ
εἰρηκώς
,
ἐπειδὴ
ἡμεῖς
τῷ
πνεύματι
συνεργῷ
κεχρήμεθα
πρὸς
τὴν
ἔναρθρον
λαλιάν
), are to be rejected; for they destroy or weaken the picturesque directness and strength of the figure. Comp. moreover, Eurip. Med. 588:
ἓν
γὰρ
οὖν
κτενεῖ
σʼ
ἔπος
.
καταργεῖν
] to overthrow, to annihilate. On account of Rev_19:20, Calovius and Olshausen interpret the verb of a mere “rendering inefficient,” depriving Antichrist of his influence; but the parallel
ἀναλώσει
decides against this meaning, and a comparison of the Pauline form of expression with that of the Apocalypse is useless labour.
τῇ
ἐπιφανείᾳ
τῆς
παρουσίας
αὐτοῦ
] by the appearance of His presence. The majestic brightness of the advent is not described by
ἐπιφάνεια
(Musculus, Hemming, Bullinger, Heinsius, Andrew Osiander, Cornelius a Lapide, Erasmus Schmid, Calixt, Clericus, Bernard a Piconius, Sebastian Schmid, Schoettgen, Turretin, Whitby, Benson, Macknight, Koppe, Krause, Bolten, Heydenreich, Pelt, Schott, Kern, Wieseler, and others); also
παρουσία
and
ἐπιφάνεια
are not to be distinguished, as Olshausen strangely thinks, as objective and subjective, i.e. as “the actual fact of the appearance of Christ,” and “the contemplation of it on the part of man, the consciousness of His presence;” but the placing the two together has the same design as formerly,
τῷ
πνεύματι
τοῦ
στόματος
αὐτοῦ
, namely, vividly to represent the power of Christ, inasmuch as the mere advent of His presence suffices to annihilate His adversaries. Comp. Bengel: “apparitio adventus ipso adventu prior est, vel certe prima ipsius adventus emicatio, uti
ἐπιφάνεια
τῆς
ἡμέρας
.”