2 Thessalonians 2

CHAPTER II

The Burden of the Letter

The Great Apostasy and the Revelation of the Antichrist Precede the Parousia

2 Thessalonians 2:1

1 Δέ passes on to the new subject which ὑπέρ (very much like περί) names: “concerning the Parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto him.” Now, however, the point is the one that recently became acute in Thessalonica where some imagined ὅτιἐνέστηκενἡἡμέρα, “that the day of the Lord is present,” and sought to support this strange idea by supposed testimony of Paul’s and his assistants’ themselves. The writers inform the Thessalonians that all such alleged testimony is false, and that two dreadful things must precede the coming of the Lord, the great apostasy and the great Antichrist. We see why in 1:7, etc., “the revelation of the Lord Jesus” is described as bringing the final judgment upon the godless and disobedient—the Antichrist is the climax of this opposition. The first two chapters of this epistle plainly stand in the closest connection to each other. The supposition that 2:1–12 is an interpolation is not borne out by the facts.

We see still more. In 1 Thess. 4:13–5:12 the writers comfort the Thessalonians with the thought of the Parousia by showing what the Parousia means for them and for their beloved dead; now the writers correct those of the Thessalonians who were erring in regard to the date of the day of the Lord and were drawing dangerous conclusions from this error regarding their lives. Thus our passage supplements First Thessalonians. What First Thessalonians says about the godly at the time of the Parousia is again summarized in 2 Thess. 1:10; in fact, 1 Thess. 4:15–17 is summarized in a particular way in the first verse of the present section where the subject is not merely “the Parousia” but also “our gathering together unto him,” i.e., when all the blessed shall meet the Lord in the air. All this shows the connection between these two letters as well as their chronological order.

Now we request you, brethren, in regard to the Parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto him that you be not easily shaken from your mind nor be troubled either by spirit or by word or by letter as (claiming to come) through us, that the day of the Lord is (already) present. Do not let anyone deceive you in any way!

Ἐρωτῶμεν is used as it was in 1 Thess. 4:1: “we request” (not “beseech”); it is at once dignified and kindly, the address “brethren” helps to bring out the kindly spirit of this request, and, like the address in 1:3, helps to introduce a particular section of the letter. This request deals with the Lord’s Parousia (see 1 Thess. 2:19), in particular with the great moment when we shall be gathered together unto him as has already been set forth in 1 Thess. 4:17. There is no need to stress the force of “our” so as to make it mean that the writers and the readers would live to see the Parousia; we have discussed this matter in connection with 1 Thess. 4:17. Whoever lives and whoever has died will be in this ἐπισυναγωγή at the time of the Parousia. If the writers were writing today they could use this same pronoun “our.”

The matter to be noted in regard to this subject is taken up after 1:5–10. In 1 Thess. 4:13–5:11 the fate of the wicked at the time of the Parousia is touched upon only briefly (in 5:3); in order to understand the great apostasy and the great Antichrist, the judgment upon the wicked at the Parousia must be fully understood, for this judgment will destroy also the Antichrist; hence 2 Thess. 1:8, 9 properly precedes. We shall be received by the Lord, the rest shall be damned, the apostasy and the Antichrist together with them. All that Paul says about their fate accords with what Jesus himself said so clearly in Matthew 24 and elsewhere.

2 Thessalonians 2:2

2 The εἰςτό states the contents of the request. The writers ask their readers to keep their mental balance (εἰςτό introduces an object clause just as it does in 1 Thess. 2:12 and 3:10). The aorist infinitive σαλενθῆναι, which is followed by the present infinitive θροεῖσθαι, is graphic, the first expresses the momentary shock to the mind, the second the agitation that results and continues. The first suggests the impact of a blast or of a wave, the second the dangerous disturbance that follows. When the Thessalonians first heard the cry that the day of the Lord is already present, this came as a shock to the mind and then left them in the greatest mental agitation. Note that Christians are to keep their heads against error and fanatic notions; they are to use their νοῦς or “mind.” The truth of God is sane and never unbalances the mind. In Matt. 24:4–6 Jesus himself says: “See to it, let no one deceive you,” and uses the same verb θροεῖσθαι: “See to it lest you be shaken!” It seems fair to conclude that Paul is practically quoting Jesus.

The means that cause this shock and this disturbance are named by the three διά phrases (R. 582 makes them agents—agencies would be better): “spirit—word—letter,” any or all of these “as διʼ ἡμῶν,” coming through us. Some interpreters refer to 1 Thess. 5:19; but there we have τὸΠνεῦμα, “the Holy Spirit,” here only πνεῦμα, “spirit.” The idea is expressed that this word refers to ecstatic utterances that were made by somebody among the Thessalonians themselves who had the spirit of prophecy. This first phrase is said to be complete in itself, and “through us” is applied only to one or to both of the other phrases. We deem this unsatisfactory. Μήτεδιὰπνεύατος is no more complete in itself than μήτεδιὰλόγου or μήτεδιʼ ἐπιστολῆς; all three leave unsaid whose spirit, word, and letter are referred to. Moreover, the three form a gradation: spirit is the ultimate means—word or statement the intermediate—letter the direct means. All are referred to “us” as being the personal means, yet this means is only alleged (ὡς).

Somebody in Thessalonica had spread the news that one or the other of the writers (Paul, Silvanus, Timothy) had made the assertion “that the day of the Lord is already present,” made it “by spirit,” as a divine communication received from God by his spirit, made it by a statement to someone, yea, made it by a letter to someone. The thought is that the news had been derived only at thirdhand, had, perhaps, traveled through even more hands—we, however, Paul, Silvanus, Timothy, our spirit, word, or letter being the supposedly original medium. Those who believed this report very likely made use of all three expressions, some using one, others the other.

We reject the view that Paul himself was not a prophet whose spirit could receive divine communications, and that Silvanus was such a prophet, from whom Paul received prophecies at secondhand. There is no record that a prophecy was revealed directly to Silvanus, but regarding Paul we have Gal. 1:12 and a number of other direct revelations made to him by the Lord.

The charisma of prophecy is often not properly understood. It did not come as a sudden seizure that threw the recipient into an ecstatic state and made him utter direct revelations. ALL Christians were to seek the charisma of prophecy as the highest of all charismatic gifts (1 Cor. 14:1); in the congregation they were to exercise this gift in decent order (1 Cor. 14:26, 29–35) and “according to the analogy of faith” (Rom. 12:6). This charisma consisted only in properly transmitting the Word of God as this had been learned from the Old Testament and from the apostles. The transmission was never made while the speaker was in an ecstatic state. The apostles were prophets in a higher sense: they received direct revelations from the Lord.

When they uttered them they, too, spoke naturally and not in ecstasy. A few others, like Agabus, received minor direct revelations; in Acts 21:10, etc., we see how they delivered them.

“Letter” cannot refer to First Thessalonians, for there is nothing in First Thessalonians that can be construed so as to mean that the day of the Lord is already present. Moreover, the Thessalonians have this letter and can see for themselves that it contains no statement of this kind. This is a supposed letter, one that someone was supposed to have received or was supposed only to have seen or to have heard about.

In the Koine ὡςὅτι = ὅτι (R. 1033), and we may regard it so here (compare 2 Cor. 11:21). Yet here it follows a ὡς that denotes unwarranted allegation. We thus may translate: “as if through us, as if the day of the Lord is already present.” Both are unfounded allegations, both are here denied as being wholly untrue. B.-D. 425, 4; 396, Vulgate quasi. Note how both the verb and the subject become emphatic by being transposed. The perfect of ἵστημι is always used in the sense of the present. But does ἐνέστηκεν mean “is at hand” (A. V.), “is imminent” (Lightfoot and others), or “is present” (R. V.)? There is no question as to the meaning of the verb: it means the latter (see B.-P. 414: ever since Xenophon, in Polybius, in the inscriptions, and in the papyri).

The question as to the meaning of the word is raised by the commentators because of the context. They think that the Thessalonians could not mean that the day of the Lord “is present,” could mean only “is imminent,” “is at hand” (A. V.), i.e., is very near. So these commentators say that the verb has another meaning here and thus change all that follows and regard Paul as saying that the day of the Lord is not near—a thing he could not say because he did not know.

Compare Rom. 8:38; 1 Cor. 3:22; Gal. 1:4; 1 Cor. 7:26. When ἐνεστῶτα, is used with μέλλοντα, “present things—future things,” “the present eon—the future eon,” it is μέλλω that designates what impends, what is about to arrive. If the Thessalonians meant that the day is nearly present they could have used this verb μέλλω or some adverb like ἐγγύς but not the verb ἐνέστηκεν, especially not this strong compound with ἐν. The commentators seem to assume that “the day of the Lord” and “the Parousia” are practically identical, which is not the case. The false allegation in Thessalonica was not “that the Parousia of the Lord is present” (Παρουσία and ἐνέστηκεν, “Presence” and “is present,” cannot be combined: the Presence is present), but “that the day of the Lord is present”—“the day” is a wider term. When the apostle describes this day he does not mean a day of twenty-four hours but a timeless day when the clock of time has ceased to run, when time is no more.

One ought not to think of the judgment as taking place in twenty-four hours, nor to think of a period. “The day” is a human word, the best that human language affords. Matt. 24:29, etc., should correct our thinking of that day as being a day that is composed of twenty-four hours or of time in any sense. When the allegation about “the day” was made in Thessalonica, it was half-right and half-wrong, right in not thinking of a day of twenty-four hours, wrong in still thinking of time. How long these people imagined “the day” to be we can only guess, they probably thought of a few weeks or a few months at the end of which the Parousia would occur.

Here is the place to remember that the Lord himself was detaining Paul in Corinth (Acts 18:9–11) by a direct revelation, which the Lord could not have done if “the day” (as this Thessalonian allegation claimed) were already present. Moreover, in Paul’s answer to the Thessalonians he says nothing about “the day” but confines his answer to “the Parousia” alone (v. 1).

2 Thessalonians 2:3

3 “Do not let anyone deceive you in any way!” re-echoes Jesus’ warning given in Matt. 24:4. It brands the allegation as a “deception,” and “in any way” refers to the three forms of the allegation already indicated as well as to any other forms that may yet appear. The idea that the subjunctive with μή is less peremptory is not grammatically justifiable; negative commands with the aorist regularly use the subjunctive. And why should this warning be toned down and be made less peremptory?

Ὅτι substantiates the warning: because … except there first come the apostasy, and there be revealed the man of the lawlessness, the son of the perdition, the one opposing and exalting himself against everyone called God or (every) object of worship, so that he seats himself in the sanctuary of God, showing himself off that he is God.

We have an ellipsis; the apodosis of the ἐὰνμή protasis is omitted because it is unnecessary for the Greek mind. Those expositors who call this an anacoluthon (a break in construction) confuse anacoluthon and ellipsis; and when it is said that Paul “forgot” to write the apodosis, his forgetting is overrated and the fact is overlooked that Paul’s scribe and Paul, too, read the letter before it was sent. Many think that it is essential to supply the omitted apodosis and generally supply: οὐκἐνέστηκενἡἡμέρατ. Κ. But the omission implies that the apodosis is immaterial to the Greek mind, and that the whole thought deals with the protasis. It is only because the English mind is more pedantic that our versions feel it necessary to supply something, it being quite immaterial what they supply.

The first thing on the program is the arrival of the apostasy and the revelation of the man of the lawlessness. The article designates these two as being the only ones of their kind, and v. 5 indicates that Paul and Silvanus had mentioned this apostasy and this man of the lawlessness when they first worked in Thessalonica. Πρῶτον is to be construed with both verbs as the thought also indicates: these two events precede. The verbs are placed before their subjects, not in Hebrew, but in good Greek fashion, which makes them emphatic; this is also done because they are aorists. The fact that this apostasy will occur in the Christian Church is beyond question; it would otherwise not be an “apostasy.” The man of the lawlessness will be its head. Yet some have thought of a Jewish apostasy, the Jewish national rejection of Christ, and also of the Jewish political apostasy from imperial Rome. Others think of a general moral falling away from such standards of morality as existed in the pagan world or of an anarchical apostasy from the established governments of the world. None of these interpretations are satisfactory.

While ἔλθῃ suffices to describe the apostasy, ἀποκαλυφθῇ applies to the man of the lawlessness: “he shall be revealed,” this verb recalls the noun used in 1:7, “the revelation of the Lord Jesus.” This man does not merely “come” as does the apostasy. While he at first remains hidden, he at last gets “to be revealed,” as what he really is. These two revelations are undoubtedly opposites, for which reason we may speak of Christ and of Antichrist although the latter term does not occur in this epistle. The readings vary between the more precise ἀνομίας and the broader ἁμαρτίας: “of the lawlessness” —“of the sin”; there is not much difference in substance between them, the former is probably textually correct. The genitive is qualitative: the man marked by the lawlessness; both articles are most definite: there is no other man, no other lawlessness like this. For “the lawlessness” is not lawlessness in general but the special, unprecedented lawlessness that marks this man and accompanies this apostasy.

The same is true with regard to the apposition: “the son of the perdition”; perdition marks him from the start, and there is only one such perdition. This is exactly what Jesus called Judas in John 17:12; he, too, was an apostate in an eminent sense. The Antichrist is thus the antitype of Judas. To say that “the son” of the perdition means no more than “the man” and is no more than a Hebraism, is to undervalue the term “son.” When it is used in Hebraic literature, “son” means even more than “child” in connections like this, for a child only belongs and still develops (“children of wrath,” Eph. 2:3), a son is fully developed and has a standing accordingly. So “the son of the perdition,” than whom there is no other. These first two epithets evidently belong together just as “the lawlessness” tends toward “the perdition.” Ὁἄνθρωπος states that the Antichrist is not Satan but a human being and thus ὁυἱός, “the son of the perdition.”

2 Thessalonians 2:4

4 The next apposition, two middle present participles substantivized by one article and modified by the final phrase, describes this man and son still farther: “the one opposing and exalting himself against everyone called God or (every) object of worship,” etc. This is “the lawlessness” that connects him with “the perdition.” We at once see that no lawlessness such as this has ever existed in the world. Pharaoh was not like this; Antiochus Epiphanes (the Illustrious, whom the Jews called Epimanes, the Raving) was only this Antichrist’s type, Dan. 11:36. The ἐπί phrase modifies both participles, otherwise we should have ὑπέρ to match the last one (ὑπεραιρόμενος); thus it does not mean “above” (A. V.), which would not be true, but “against” (R. V.), which is suitable with both participles.

Those who translate ἐπί “above” put a limit upon “every God called so and (every) object of worship” by excepting the true God since no one could exalt himself above this God. So they refer λεγόμενον to pagan deities who are only “said” to be gods while they are in reality nothing. But why should opposition and exaltation above every merely “so-called” god and every merely “so-called” object of worship (σέβασμα) be the pinnacle of lawlessness that deserves utter perdition when these are only “said” to be what they are not in fact? Instead of minimizing by leaving out the true God, this participle particularly includes him as also the next clause shows which twice names the true God. This preposition means “against.” The phrase points out what the extreme of lawlessness is: opposition and self-exaltation against no less than every God “said” to be God plus every reverenced object “said” to be reverenced. Πάντα and λεγόμενον are masculine because of Θεόν, but both words are likewise construed ad sensum with the neuter σέβασμα.

By saying “everyone called God,” etc., the Antichrist’s lawlessness is described as being worse than that of the worst pagans. Pharaohs and Roman emperors were deified and claimed divine honors, but never for one moment did they do this “against” any of their pagan gods, temples, altars, etc. Antiochus desecrated the Jewish Temple, but he did it by erecting an altar to Zeus. About thirteen years before the writing of this epistle Caligula, the Roman emperor, did the same by trying to have his own statue erected in the Jewish Temple, but even he was in no way opposing and exalting himself against the Roman gods and objects of worship; quite the contrary. The very nature of polytheism permitted the addition of new gods and of deified human rulers. But the Antichrist shall be worse, much worse, than these deified rulers. The verypoint of this description is broken off when ἐπί is understood in the sense of “over” and not “against” and the true God is excepted.

The result clause introduced with ὥστε should be regarded as a part of the participial apposition, the whole being a unified thought, for it states what the Antichrist actually does when he opposes and exalts himself against every God and every object of worship that are said to be such: “so that he seats himself into the sanctuary of God as showing himself off that he is God.” Εἰς indicates that he is depositing himself “into” this sanctuary; ναός is not “temple” but “sanctuary.” In pagan temples this sanctuary was the place reserved for the god’s statue, in the Jewish Temple it was the building made up of the Holy and the Holy of Holies. The ἱερόν was the entire Temple complex with all its buildings and courts.

The emphasis is on the phrase “into the sanctuary of God.” The aorist καθίσαι is to indicate the one act: “he seats himself” (intransitive), but it has the idea of permanency. The thought is still incomplete although we already perceive that the sanctuary of God is intended to have God and God alone as its permanent occupant. Yet God does not sit in his sanctuary. In the Holy of Holies of the Tabernacle of Moses and of the Temple of Solomon God was in the glory-cloud between the cherubim of the Shekinah. The lid of the ark of the covenant should not be conceived as a seat because of our English word “mercy seat”; this is a translation of ἱλαστήριον (see Rom. 3:25). This infinitive is pagan and thus is suitable to the Antichrist, his is a pagan act.

Many statues of pagan gods represent the god in a sitting posture. Even when the figure of the god is in an upright position, the statue is said to sit in the pagan sanctuary.

The thought is thus completed by the addition of the predicative participle “showing himself off that he is God.” Those who refer the previous phrase ἐπὶπάνταλεγόμενονΘεόν only to so-called pagan gods encounter insuperable difficulties in their efforts to interpret this result clause, for they can think only of the Antichrist’s sitting in a pagan god’s sanctuary, exhibiting himself as a pagan god. The whole action would thus transpire in the world of paganism. And since there is a large number of pagan sanctuaries, the Antichrist would occupy only one of them and would dwindle down to one figure in the pagan pantheon.

Θεός is without the article only because it is the predicate as in John 1:1: Θεὸςἧνὁλόγος. To add the article would change the meaning, for it would make the subject and the predicate identical and interchangeable (R. 768) so that the meaning would be: the Antichrist is the one true God beside whom none is God. ὍτιἐστὶΘεός, without the article, does not mean this. To say that Θεός is a proper name and thus may or may not have the article stresses one point of Greek diction in order to remove another, namely that the presence or the absence of the article with predicates does make a difference. Thus with τὸνναόν we have τοῦΘεοῦ but not with this predicate Θεός; yet both mean “God” in the Christian and not in the pagan sense.

The sense is plain to the ordinary reader whether he be Greek or English. This Antichrist reveals himself as the Antichrist by this pagan act of seating himself in the true God’s own sanctuary. He does not deny the true God, he is neither atheist nor agnostic; in fact, he worships the true God. But he does it by this pagan act, the climax of all anti-Christianity. He sits in God’s own place as if he, too, were God and shows and exhibits himself to all Christendom with the claim “that he is God,” that no less than deity belongs also to him. The very idea of extending deity in this way is utterly pagan.

The great apostasy accepts this claim and honors this Antichrist with divine honor. That is what constitutes this apostasy. When Paul wrote, the people of God had never seen an apostasy and an Antichrist like this; nor has there been another who is comparable to this one since that time.

2 Thessalonians 2:5

5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you I kept telling you these things? Paul is merely refreshing the memory of the Thessalonians. He had told them “these things” when he and Silvanus first worked in Thessalonica; this letter merely recalls these things. He employs the singular in the verb ἔλεγον, but it is without the ἐγώ used 1 Thess. 2:18 and 3:5; in a perfectly natural way he thus refers to his own former teaching. As far as Silvanus is concerned, he, too, had received these facts from Paul and taught them, for they are facts that were made known to the apostle by direct revelation.

We do not find “impatience” in this question. This question is a reminder just as one often says, “Do you not remember?” We often let matters become dim that should remain bright and effective. Some of the Thessalonians had allowed a good part of Paul’s teaching on the Antichrist to fade from their minds and were entertaining the foolish supposition that the day of the Lord was already here. There is a tinge of reproof in this question. Do the Thessalonians not know that the first event to be expected is the revelation of the Antichrist? If any forget this, should not the rest remind them?

Some of the newer commentators have a new way of interpreting this whole section, but they have discarded the doctrine of inspiration. But this section offers no problem in inspiration; it is a matter of revelation. The question is: “Where did Paul get this information about the Antichrist?” He undoubtedly got it by direct revelation from God. These commentators deny this. They state that Paul remolded and reworked old Jewish apocalyptic ideas, some of which appear in the Old Testament prophets, for instance, Isa. 14:13, etc., Ezek. 28:2, perhaps also Daniel. The origin of these ideas is said to be lost in the dim prehistoric past, for these prophets, too, could not have spoken by divine revelation.

These apocalyptic, eschatological ideas originated spontaneously, nobody knows just how. Paul elaborated them, taught them as being vital to the gospel, and developed them more and more as occasion required.

But the test of the matter, we are told, is the fact that these prophecies of Paul’s “were never fulfilled and could never be fulfilled.” In plain language, Paul is a false prophet, one who foretold what has never happened, what can never happen. We may then ask: “Why do these commentators write their books and waste their learning on these words of Paul’s?” If Paul offers nothing but supposition in this chapter, why bother with it? And if Paul is, indeed, a false, self-deluded prophet who predicted something that has not come and can never come to pass, can the rest of his” writings be taken seriously? According to their own logic these commentators have nothing worth-while left to comment on; they themselves have destroyed the value of this material.

Since Paul’s wards are not divinely revealed, these commentators treat them in the scientific way, namely zeitgeschichtlich, in the light of what men thought at that time. Paul was a child of his time. We therefore search through the old apocalyptic writings to discover the sources of his ideas. The pagan world had some of these ideas, but they are found especially in the Jewish world where they may be traced back to a few of the Old Testament prophets, back of whom lies the prehistoric source.

The results are rather strange. “The sanctuary of God” is the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. This Antichrist is Caligula and his unsuccessful attempt to erect his statue in the Jewish Temple. Similarly, Antiochus Epiphanes and his desecration of the Jewish Temple are referred to. This monster was to return “from the realm of the dead” in order to repeat and to exceed his former desecration. The commentators who deny that Paul wrote this epistle and ascribe it to a late forger secure still other material for their zeitgeschichtliche exposition. First, the notion that the Jewish Temple which had been destroyed by the Romans would be rebuilt so that Paul’s Antichrist might seat himself in it as God. Again, the monster Nero may be this Antichrist; he, too, will return from “the realm of the dead.”

Of course, such a prediction never was and never could be fulfilled. These commentators present it as such a preposterous prediction that no one will today take it seriously, no one will even attempt to find its fulfillment. The fulfillment that has come to pass is thus regarded as something that Paul could not possibly have foreseen inasmuch as he was both without revelation and without inspiration.

We see what this makes of Paul, of Christ, and of the Old Testament prophets. We see what an absurd thing Paul did by writing these untrue prophecies to the Gentile Thessalonians. He tried to correct one error by another that was equally extravagant. He may have meant well but blundered nevertheless.

Paul has written about “the ναός or sanctuary of God” a number of times. “Do you not know that you are God’s ναός (sanctuary), and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destroys the ναός of God, him shall God destroy; for the ναός of God is holy, since of such kind are you,” 1 Cor. 3:17. “Or do you not know that your body is a ναός of the Holy Spirit in you, whom you have from God?” 1 Cor. 6:19. This is “a holy ναός in the Lord,” Eph. 2:21, 22. “We on our part are the living God’s ναός; even as God said: ‘I will dwell in them, and will walk about in them, and will be their God, and they shall be my people,’ 2 Cor. 6:16. This statement refers to Lev. 26:11, 12; Ezek. 27:27; Hos. 2:23; Jer. 24:7; 30:32; 31:33; 32:38; etc. Compare also 1 Pet. 2:5: “a spiritual house.” Scripture is expounded by Scripture, historically by considering Paul’s own words about this ναός and not zeitgeschichtlich according to what Jews and pagans thought in early times. This ναός or sanctuary of God is his church, which is sacred to him as his dwelling. God and his Spirit do not sit in it, God dwells there as the living God; only pagan idols sit in their temples.

Thus it is plain what the Antichrist would do, he would seat himself in the church like a pagan god and show himself off that he is God. He does not say that God and Christ are no longer God, that this “sanctuary” is no longer theirs, but that he, this man, has the right to sit there as a divine being. Anti-Christianity can go no farther. The history of the church during these hundreds of years presents only one phenomenon of this type, the papacy.

What Daniel foretold about Antiochus presents him as a type of the Antichrist; every antitype exceeds its type. In Matthew 24 Jesus does not mention the Antichrist, and while Paul’s revelation goes farther, it agrees in toto with that of Jesus. So does 1 John 2:18: “Little children, it is the last time, and as you heard that Antichrist is coming, even now there have come to be many antichrists; whence we know that it is the last time.” John had received the same revelation that Paul had; he even distinguishes between what we have come to call the little antichrists, of whom there were many already in John’s day, and the great Antichrist who also in John’s day was yet to come. The whole question as to whether this would be a pagan or a Jew is beside the point; also his political claims and power are not the real point but his depositing himself in God’s sanctuary as God.

2 Thessalonians 2:6

6 And the thing now holding up you know, so that he is revealed in his season, for the mystery of this lawlessness is already operating only until the one holding (it) up now shall get out of the way. And then shall be revealed the lawless one whom the Lord Jesus shall make away with by the breath of his mouth and shall abolish by the epiphany of his Parousia.

The debate regarding νῦν, as to whether it modifies the participle or the verb, is settled by B.-D. 474, 5: it is to be construed with the participle; examples show that such a modifier may be placed before, after, or between the article and the participle with practically no difference in emphasis. The Thessalonians know the thing now holding up the revelation of the Antichrist. Paul had pointed out to them what this κατέχον (neuter participle) is. The idea that the Thessalonians themselves know this thing so that they need not be told about it is not suggested, especially since v. 5 precedes. The Thessalonians know because Paul had told them long before this time.

The εἰςτό is generally regarded as introducing a purpose clause; it is so regarded in our versions: “in order that he may be revealed in his season,” i.e., according to God’s purpose. But we deem a result clause more in order after “you know,” “so that he is revealed in his season.” There is no need for debate. There is no question about the sense, for the words are quite simple: something is now holding up the revelation of the Antichrist so that this revelation will occur in its proper season. This answers the idea which was spread in Thessalonica to the effect that the day of the Lord is already present. The revelation of the Antichrist (v. 3) comes first, and not until then the Lord’s day; and this revelation of the Antichrist has not yet occurred.

Three times we have the passive ἀποκαλυφθῆναι (v. 3, 6, 8); in 1:7 we have the noun ἀποκάλυψις which indicates an action and refers to the Lord; both shall be revelations, that of the Antichrist being forced upon him by God, that of the Lord being effected by himself. As regards “the times and the seasons” (καιροί) or even any one of them, these the Father has placed in his own authority (Acts 1:7), nor has Paul a further revelation on this point. Things may move so rapidly that he may live to see this “season,” the seasons may move slowly so that Paul will be dead before the season of the Antichrist arrives. Paul does not know, does not pretend to know.

2 Thessalonians 2:7

7 This thought lies in the explanation introduced by γάρ: the mystery of this lawlessness is now already (ἤδη) operative. How rapidly it is operating Paul does not know or pretend to say. Again we say that Paul does not present this fact as a deduction of his own reason or as a mere opinion of his own or as a speculation based on Jewish apocalyptic ideas but as a piece of divine revelation. This “lawlessness” (the ἀνομία of v. 3) is still veiled in mystery, no one is as yet able to see it because something is holding it up. The term “mystery” matches “shall be revealed.” The damnable thing is not merely dormant but is already operative (ἐνεργεῖται) although as yet unseen. It is like a viper in its shell that will presently crawl out and then be blasted.

This revelation is exactly like the great Old Testament prophecies; it offers a succession of events, but the intervals of time are omitted. The whole is one view that is flat and without perspective. We have a plain example in the case of the Baptist (Matt. 3:7–12) who saw the grace of Christ and his final judgment as one. We even have the Baptist’s puzzlement regarding it when he saw only the grace in Jesus and as yet nothing of the terrible judgment (Matt. 11:2–6); the great interval between these two was not revealed to him. We have a similar situation here with regard to Paul and the Antichrist. He did not see whether ten or ten thousand years were involved.

In the μόνονἕως clause the subject is placed before the conjunction as in Gal. 2:10 it is placed before ἵνα: “only the one holding (it) up until (this one) shall get out of the way” (out from between). As the flexible Greek can separate “the mystery … of the lawlessness,” a noun and its genitive, each thereby receiving an emphasis, so it may transpose the subject and the conjunction and give the subject an emphasis. Our versions supply something and make two clauses of the thought, but this is not necessary; nor is there a “letting” (A. V.). The Koine does not need an ἄν; the subjunctive is also perfectly regular (even classic) when ἕως refers to the future (R. 976), this subjunctive does not present a thought of wish (“must,” Luther) or of condition. The aorist marks a point of time: “get out of the way.”

The neuter τὸκατέχον is now replaced by the masculine ὁκατέχων. These terms are, however, not parallel to “the apostasy” and “the man of the lawlessness” mentioned in v. 3. For “the apostasy” is an abstract term and refers to the many who turn away from the true gospel while “the man of the lawlessness” is one and refers to the leader in the lawless apostasy. Nor does Paul write “the man of the apostasy.” The case of τὸκατέχον and ὁκατέχων is different, we merely have a change in gender in the word: “the thing that holds up—the one that holds up” (we say “up,” the Greek κατά, “down”). This thing and this one are evidently a unit, a certain power (thus neuter), a certain person exercising this power (thus masculine). R. 409 remarks that the neuter leaves the person involved concealed.

R. 411 adds: “The neuter singular in the collective or general sense to represent persons is not peculiar to the New Testament.” Robertson means that the collective or general sense of the neuter (here τὸκατέχον) refers to all the elements or powers in the hands of the persons involved who are here named by the masculine ὁκατέχων. This explains the use of the two genders.

Those who search the Jewish apocalytic literature for the source of Paul’s statements are disappointed: no κατέχον or κατέχων, neuter or masculine, appears anywhere in this literature. It should, therefore, be evident that Paul does not use such sources but presents the Lord’s direct revelation. Some men are, of course, not ready to admit the patent fact that Paul was a true prophet of God. We are told that, while Paul’s sources were these Jewish apocalyptic writings, he was the man to “create” this κατέχον and κατέχων, in other words, Paul was the man to invent this thing and this man that were holding up the apostasy and the revelation of the Antichrist. But no true apostle of Christ could be carried away by such apocalyptic tradition, nor would he himself add to it.

Γάρ explains. It adds by way of explanation that “the mystery of this lawlessness is already operating,” ἐνεργεῖται, is already actively at work. It is compelled to work under cover; this lawlessness is still held down, its cover has not yet been stripped away by the Lord. The latter will not happen until he who holds this evil force down gets out of the way. The reason that ὁκατέχων, the subject of the clause, is placed before ἄρτιἕως has been explained above.

It should be noted that “this lawlessness” with its article of previous reference repeats “the lawlessness” mentioned in v. 3. At the time of Paul’s writing it was still “the mystery of this lawlessness” and had not yet come to an open head in “the man of the lawlessness.” The Antichrist had not yet appeared, but the lawlessness he would represent was already active. In due season it would develop a personal head, the one described in v. 3, 4.

2 Thessalonians 2:8

8 “And then (when that καιρός or season arrives) shall be revealed (the same verb that was used in v. 6) the lawless one,” ὁἄνομος, who is called “the man of the lawlessness” in v. 3. The three expressions ὁἄνθρωποςτῆςἀνομίας—τὸμυστήριοντῆςἀνομίας—ὁἄνομος Undoubtedly refer to the same lawlessness which marks the apostasy and thus the Antichrist. It is now, at the time of Paul’s writing, working in secret because it is still being held down; but the restraining power and its agent will eventually be removed, but Paul does not know how soon this will occur. And then, when this season arrives, the secret lawlessness will be revealed together with its head, “the man of this lawlessness,” the Antichrist.

What Paul writes is not new to the Thessalonians. He is merely recapitulating his former teaching, note v. 5 and also “you know” in v. 6. This explains his brevity and conciseness. While we may wish that Paul had written with greater fulness for our sakes we have an advantage which the Thessalonians did not have, namely the long history of the church, which has brought the first great fulfillment of Paul’s prophecy, we see the mystery of the lawlessness unveiled, the restraining power removed, “the man of this lawlessness,” “the lawless one,” revealed. The fulfillment which we have the Thessalonians had only in the form of prophecy.

Paul could not date τότε: “then shall be revealed the lawless one.” The agent of this passive verb ἀποκαλυφθήσεται, “shall be revealed,” is the same as the one of the passive infinitive occurring in v. 6; it is the Lord. Paul indicates how he will end the mystery surrounding the lawlessness: the one holding up the full development of this lawlessness will get out of the way, i.e., will cease to hold up. Ἐκμέσουγένηται does not mean “be taken out of the way” (passive, our versions) but “get out of the way.” He will no longer be in the way in order to continue the holding up. The decisive restraint will be removed, the lawlessness will have free course to develop and to show itself. It will then produce “the man of the lawlessness,” “the lawless one will be revealed.” We need not be told that all this will occur under divine providence; “be taken out of the way” may pass as being substantially correct.

The relative clause: “whom the Lord Jesus (the better reading has Jesus) shall make away with … and shall abolish,” should not lead us to think that the moment the lawless one is revealed he will also at once be destroyed. This clause states only the final fate of the Antichrist. We have no dates but only a succession; the intervals of time, as we have already indicated, are wanting. Paul does not say how long it will be until the Antichrist is revealed. He does not say how long after he has been revealed the Antichrist will be allowed to remain until the Lord Jesus strikes him with the breath of his mouth. Paul does not even say that there will be an interval, nor does he state how long a period of time there will be between the making away with the Antichrist and the abolishing of him.

Paul did not know whether he might or might not live to see this, it might come to pass with great swiftness. We now know that it is a matter of centuries, and that the end of this development has not even now been reached. We stand where Paul stood. The final end may come swiftly, yet it, too, may still be a long time off (Acts 1:7).

In these two letters Paul repeatedly uses “the Lord Jesus” and does so here. Ἀνελεῖ is the future of ἀναιρέω; the readings vary, and some (like the A. V.) prefer ἀναλώσει (from ἀναλόω = ἀναλίσκω), “shall consume.” We prefer ἀνελεῖ and note that “to make away with” is the verb so often used to designate murder (Luke 22:2; Acts 2:23; 5:33; 7:28; 9:23, 29; 22:20; 23:15, 21; 25:3). The dative of means is here added: “shall make away with by means of the breath of his mouth.” Because of the genitive τοῦστόματοςαὐτοῦ we do not take πνεῦμα in the sense of “spirit” (A. V.); the word is used in its first sense: “the breath of his mouth.” The breath of the Lord’s mouth is his Word. This explains “make away with.” The Lord will not go to war against the Antichrist with great armament, he will merely blow his breath upon this lawless one, that will blast him. The Word is poison to the Antichrist.

There are evidently two acts because the two verbs have two different datives of means attached: 1) the Lord shall make away with the Antichrist by means of the breath of his mouth (his Word); 2) the Lord shall abolish the Antichrist by means of the epiphany of his Parousia. One might think that these two acts may come in quick succession like two blows that are almost simultaneous. The fact that there shall be two acts is plain; also that, since this is prophecy, no reference to an interval of time, whether this be short or long, is found. This the fulfillment shall reveal.

Καταργεῖν is one of Paul’s favorite words: “to abolish,” “to put out of commission,” and the various connections show just what is meant. Here vertilgen, beseitigen, complete abolition is meant (B.-P. 652). This is indicated by the mighty dative which is vastly greater than the preceding “breath of his mouth”: “by the epiphany of his Parousia.” On the Parousia see 1 Thess. 2:19; it is the Presence at the last day for the purpose of the final judgment. Here this term is enhanced by the ἡἐπιφανεία which is more than “the manifestation” (R. V.), more also than “the brightness” (A. V.).

Some refer to the Hellenistic “appearance of the gods”; some think of the first burst of glory in the Parousia or of “the sign of the Son of man” mentioned in Matt. 24:20; Deissmann (Light, etc., 374, note 4, and 378) refers to pagan sources (but see C.-K. 1111); the ancients thought of the overwhelming glory of the Parousia. This word “epiphany” goes back to the Old Testament manifestations of God.

It is in contrast with “the breath of his mouth” (the Word). While the Word blasts the lawless one, “the epiphany of the Parousia,” the actual appearance of the Lord himself, will abolish him completely. “The epiphany” is vastly more than “the breath” or Word. On the last day the Lord himself will appear in his Presence (Parousia) for the judgment. The idea of “epiphany” is added to the Lord’s Parousia because the lawless one also has a parousia (v. 9). It is described in v. 4, but only as “a showing off” (ἀποδεικνύνταἑαυτόν), a display of pretense of being God; the description is completed in v. 9, 10; it will be a “parousia” or “presence” in accord with Satan’s working in connection with all power and signs and wonders of lying and in all deceit of unrighteousness, etc. We might call all this the epiphany of the parousia of the lawless one. When the epiphany of the Parousia of the Lord descends upon this lawless one it will, indeed, destroy him forever.

Paul writes about the Antichrist’s ἀνομία, “lawlessness” (v. 3, 7) three times, the third time he plainly calls him ὁἄνομος, “the lawless one.” We at once note the stress that is laid upon this term. We do not accept the reference to the Gentiles as being ἄνομοι, people without the law of Moses, with only the moral law engraved in their hearts. The Antichrist is not classed with the Gentiles as also being “lawless.” In the whole history of the church there is to be only one who bears the designation “the lawless one.” His description as here given shows him to be not merely without the law, as the Gentiles did not have the law of the Mosaic code, and not merely without the moral law in general as this is written in the hearts. The nomos here referred to is “the Law” in the sense of the Word; and “lawlessness,” “the lawless one” are intensive: not merely without but contrary to the Law or Word. While v. 4 might lead us to think of the First Commandment of the Mosaic law, namely of idolatry, and certainly this is a part of the divine Word, Paul’s description of “the lawless one” evidently goes much farther and includes the height of opposition to the gospel: deceit of unrighteousness—not receiving the love of the truth that saves—working of error to believe the lie—not believing the truth—pleasure in unrighteousness (v. 10–12). All this constitutes “the lawlessness.” All this shall proudly exalt itself, not outside of the sanctuary of God in the world, but in the sanctuary, in the church, the head of it all displaying himself as himself being God (v. 4).

No wonder the breath of the Lord’s mouth (his Word) smites this lawless one who is enthroned in opposition to the Word; and no wonder the epiphany of the Parousia of the Lord annihilates and ends forever the parousia of this lawless one and all his contradiction of the Word.

2 Thessalonians 2:9

9 Paul continues with a relative clause, but this is introduced by one of those demonstrative relatives (Rom. 2:29; 3:8, 30; plus others) and is exceedingly weighty and has causal force: because this lawless one is lawless in the way now described he shall receive the doom just indicated. Our versions are correct in translating: “even him, whose,” etc. (A. V.); “even he, whose,” etc. (R. V.): he the one whose parousia is according to Satan’s working in connection with all power and signs and wonders of a lie and in connection with all deceit of unrighteousness for those perishing because they received not the love of the truth that they be saved.

Οὗ, like ὄν in v. 8, has ὁἄνομος as its antecedent so that we translate: “he (not: him) whose,” etc. It is plain that παρουσία does not mean “coming” (our versions) but “presence” (A. V. margin) although the duration of this presence is not indicated. How long the parousia or presence of the Antichrist will be endured by the Lord depends on the Lord. By ascribing a parousia to the Antichrist a parallel is drawn between him and Christ. But when a second parallel is drawn between the revelation of Christ and the revelation of the Antichrist, we should note the difference: Christ’s revelation is active (1:7), made by himself, the Antichrist’s is passive (2:3, 6, 8), one that is made by the Lord. The Antichrist’s revelation is an exposure.

When Paul writes “is” and not “shall be” he merely states the fact without reference to the time when this fact will take place. The three predicative phrases are not coordinate, for the two introduced with ἐν specify what the one beginning with κατά contains, and hence no καί follows the first phrase: “is according to … in connection with … and in connection with.” To say that ἐστίν is Hebraistic is to overlook the extensive and the varied uses of this preposition in the Greek.

The parousia of the lawless one is “in accord with Satan’s working” or operation; it is normated by Satan’s way of working. What is this norm? Lying, deception, error, and their result, eternal destruction (John 8:44). The whole parousia of the Antichrist is defined by this norm (κατά). We see it in the deception of Eve and in the story of the fall. The climax appears in the Antichrist, beyond whom the lie and the destruction cannot go.

Two specifications follow: 1) the means employed; 2) the inner motive followed. “In connection with all power and signs and wonders of a lie (or lying).” Some regard the three terms as a reference to miracles; but in Acts 2:22; 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:4 all three are plurals while here “all power” is singular, and only “signs and wonders” are plurals. The difference is material. When miracles are called δυνάμεις, “powers” in the sense of “power works,” they are designated as works of divine omnipotence. Such works are beyond Satan and the Antichrist who follows Satan’s norm. Satan has power, and his power works with this greatest tool of his, but his power is not omnipotence, nor can it perform δυνάμεις, genuine “power works,” genuine miracles. So many are ready to attribute real miracles to Satan and to his agents; the Scriptures never do.

In accord with Satan’s working the Antichrist operates with all kinds of power, but that is all; this is creative power and no more. This triad: “all power and signs and wonders” is diverse. Such limited power as Satan has the Antichrist uses for his signs and miracles.

These are also limited by the genitive which we regard as a modifier of the two plurals “(all) signs and wonders”; these two terms are so often combined. Our versions make the genitive adjectival and construe it only with “wonders”: “lying wonders.” But Paul means: “lie-signs and lie-wonders.” The genitive is qualitative and stronger than an adjective. It does not denote source: “derived from what is lie”; nor effect: “producing what is lie”; or a combination of these two ideas. These signs and wonders are themselves, in their own quality, “lie.” Nothing is more deadly and damnable than what is “lie”; nothing more satanic than to make men believe that lie is truth. We may translate: “pseudo-signs and pseudo-wonders.” All the destructive power of Satan and of his agents lies in this “lie,” a pretense of reality, a sham of truth and genuineness. Note that “all deceit of unrighteousness” follows. This explains Matt. 24:24: “pseudo-Christs and pseudo-prophets (none of them real) and they shall give great signs and wonders so as to deceive,” etc.; none of these great signs and wonders are real, all of them are deception only, or, as Paul qualifies: “lie-signs and wonders.” This is the extent of Satan’s power.

“Sign” is the higher word and is thus also used alone. A sign points beyond itself, it signifies something. But a lie-sign tries to signify something as being real and true that is neither; it thus deceives and wrecks. “Wonder” is the lesser word and is never used alone in the New Testament, for the pagan world also had wonders or portents, the word meaning something that astonishes and dumfounds. Not all signs are also wonders although real miracles are both. Here the two words apply equally to the Antichrist’s pretended miracles. The papal apostasy is full of lie-signs and wonders. This mark alone is sufficient to identify the papacy as being the great Antichrist.

2 Thessalonians 2:10

10 The second phrase: “and in connection with all deceit of unrighteousness for those perishing,” reveals the inwardness of the Antichrist’s parousia (preence) in its accord with Satan’s working. Anything that accords with Satan’s working is full of “deceit” or “deception” (“deceivableness,” A. V., less good), and the presence of the Antichrist who is governed by Satan is most certainly so. Ἀδικία = unrighteousness, Unrecht, as having the norm of right and the right judgment of God against it (C.-K. 338), here it is used in the full religious sense. But this genitive cannot be qualitative or adjectival: “unrighteous deceit,” for all deceit is unrighteous, there is no other kind of deceit. Some think of effect: “deceit that leads to unrighteousness,” a kind of objective genitive. But neither this nor a genitive of source is adequate.

This is the possessive genitive: alle Taeuschungskuenste, wie sie der Ungerechte ersinnt (B.-P. 26), all the different kinds of deception which unrighteousness employs. Nor is this the common unrighteousness of men generally as it is delineated in Rom. 1:18, etc., coupled with their “ungodliness.” This is the unrighteousness already described in v. 4, which opposes self and exalts self against everyone called God, or against what is sacred, to the extent of sitting in God’s own sanctuary and showing off as God. This is the pinnacle of all unrighteousness which is satanic in the highest degree and successful only in connection with proportionate deceit.

The thought is that by means of all this deceit this unrighteousness palms itself off as righteousness. As all this power, these signs and wonders are necessary, so all this deceit is necessary to make the Antichrist appear as the true exponent of Christ, rightfully sitting in the sanctuary of God. Yet Paul adds the dativus commodi aut incommodi “for those perishing,” i.e., for those of the great apostasy (v. 3) and thus not for the true part of Christendom (Matt. 24:24). The present participle is timeless and merely describes these people according to what is happening to them. The present participle is often used in this way. The ἀπολλύμενοι are the opposite of the σωζόμενοι, those being saved.

Ἀνθʼ ὧν = “because” in the sense of “in return for these things,” i.e., the things involved in the power, in the signs and wonders, and in the deception of unrighteousness. We say simply, “Because they did not receive the love of the truth that they be saved.” This is the reason for their perishing. The aorist presents their fate as having occurred in the past; this is often done in prophecy when the prophet contemplates the fulfillment as being already accomplished. Not to receive “the love of the truth” says more than not to receive “the truth,” for it adds the subjective idea of “the love,” which always accompanies the reception of “the truth.” Note the articles, not love in general for truth in general, but this definite love for this definite truth that saves, i.e., the gospel. The apostasy (v. 3) consists in the loss of the love of the saving gospel truth. Hence the perishing.

Compare John 3:19. We decline to accept the older interpretation which refers this love to God’s or Christ’s love which appeared in the gospel truth. Some regard this as a characterizing genitive: they did not receive “the true love” (God’s love in Christ Jesus). We do not find a rhetorical correspondence between “all deceit of unrighteousness” and “the love of the truth,” for in the one expression the articles are absent, in the other they are used; besides, the genitives also differ, the one is possessive, the other objective.

The thought is that the saving gospel truth was brought to them so that they might see and love it and might thus accept it. This they would not do. They perish because of their own guilt. The infinitive clause is not “epexegetical purpose of ‘the truth’ if they had heeded it” (R., W. P.); it denotes simple result: “that they be saved.” Receiving the love of the truth effects salvation; not to receive this love loses this result.

Note well that this is applicable to the papacy and Romanism, for the papacy ever repudiates the truth and the love of the truth. The decrees of the Council of Trent word the truth with great exactness in doctrine after doctrine and then append to this truth the awful anathema. Travel in the Holy Land and view the so-called sacred sites—fakes upon fakes; the relics in great papal churches—fakes; the story of saint after saint—faked tales, faked wonders. The love of historical truth disappears when it is thought that lies, deception, shams may serve the pope.

2 Thessalonians 2:11

11 And because of this God sends them error’s working so that they believe the lie in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth but had good pleasure in the (i.e., this) unrighteousness.

These plurals point to the Antichrist and to his apostate following. First Paul states the guilt (v. 9, 10) and then the judgment and the penalty for that guilt. The two match as they must in the righteousness of a just God. Whereby men sin, thereby they are punished. “Because of this” refers to v. 9, 10, namely to all that is said about the guilt of the lawless one and the guilt of those perishing. They did not receive the love of the gospel truth but preferred the lie. As a judgment “God sends them error’s working so that they believe the lie.” The present tense is like that used in v. 9, it is a statement of fact without regard to time.

In v. 10 we have the aorist. Prophecy may use all three tenses, present, aorist, future, when it is describing coming events. This sending of error’s working is not a mere permission, an allowing error to work in the Antichrist’s apostasy; on the other hand, it is not a production of error by God. The working of Satan (v. 9) produces ever new errors, for Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44). When these errors are, however, produced by Satan they do not work merely when Satan pleases. It is God who rules.

He sends them where he wills. He uses them when he is executing his righteous judgments upon those who scorn his saving truth.

It is significant that Paul does not say that God sends merely error or errors but “error’s working,” compare “Satan’s working” in v. 9. Error works, and its working always destroys souls. The idea that error is harmless is deceptive. Many have their pet errors; but every one of them is dangerous. The result clause states what error does by its working: “so that they believe the lie” (effective aorist), so that they definitely put their trust in what is not true as if it is true. “The lie” with its article is the opposite of “the truth” occurring v. 10 although some think that the article indicates previous reference (“of lie” in v. 9). Πιστεύειν with the dative means to believe what the lie says. The lie of the Antichrist says many things, all of them are not true.

All the false doctrines of the papacy are referred to. The A. V. translates “error’s working” as “strong delusion,” as if ἐνέργειαν were adjectival; but the governing noun is never adjectival, only the genitive may be, thus here the meaning is not “energetic error” (“strong delusion”) but “erroneous energy.” This will, however, not do, for the sense is evidently the energy or working that belongs to error (possessive genitive). On “error” compare Eph. 4:14.

2 Thessalonians 2:12

12 The fact that God’s purpose is judgment upon the anti-Christian apostasy the ἵνα clause states in so many words: “in order that they may all be judged, they that did not believe the truth but had good pleasure in the unrighteousness.” The A. V. translates “might be damned,” which is substantially correct although κρίνειν is a vox media and means “to judge”; κατακρίνειν = “to judge adversely,” “to damn.” “All” is added so as to include all who are in this apostasy, in fact, this “all” seems to extend farther so as to include any and all who may belong to the church outwardly and who do what is here stated.

The apposition: “they that did not believe the truth,” etc., justifies God’s judgment. He sent them his saving gospel truth; these people did not believe what this truth told them, they treated it as though it were a lie and not true. The papacy has branded the saving facts of the gospel truth with its “anathema,” than which nothing more anti-Christian can be done. The dative is to be understood in the same sense as the one used in the infinitive clause. “But had good pleasure in the unrighteousness” increases the charge against this apostasy by adding the positive guilt to the negative. This is the same “unrighteousness” as that mentioned in v. 9 (which see), love for what is said about the Antichrist in v. 3, 4 and for what is added in v. 9. In v. 9 “all deceit of unrighteousness” might lead us to think of poor victims who were drawn into unrighteousness by deceit; but here we see that these people had the truth and refused to believe it, and that they not only accepted the Antichrist’s unrighteousness but made it their good pleasure.

The apostasy of the papacy boasts of its error and its unrighteousness. The two participles are aorists, not to express past action, but to indicate the simple fact.

---

Many commentators offer a survey of the interpretations of this famous portion of Second Thessalonians and begin with those of the early church fathers and come down to recent efforts. We deem it needless to offer a new survey. We have already sufficiently indicated what the latest commentators have to say. The writer offers the following:

(1) Paul and his associates utter a prophecy.

(2) They have received this prophecy by divine revelation.

(3) The fulfillment down to the very letter is beyond question.

We are today in a position that is similar to that of the Jews who had the Old Testament prophecies regarding the first coming of Christ and clung to their own apostasy. Those prophecies were literally fulfilled; Christ came, the Jews became apostate, Jerusalem fell, their nation was abolished and made a sign of God’s judgment for all time. The scribes had this mass of Old Testament prophecy; they refused to believe, refused most obdurately, especially when the fulfillment came to its culmination. Prophecy and fulfillment agreed to the letter. They would not see it. The Jewish doom has continued during all these centuries; the Jews still refuse to see.

The period of this fulfillment was brief. From Bethlehem to Christ’s ascension was a period of thirty-three years; Jerusalem fell in the year 70. We have already pointed to the Baptist who saw Christ’s work of grace and his work of judgment in one view, the interval of time being omitted. So Paul saw the Antichrist and his apostasy; revelation withheld the καιροί (Acts 1:7). The course of this prophecy might have been as rapid as that regarding Christ’s first coming and the apostasy of the Jews. The time was not revealed to Paul. We who live today know that nearly nineteen centuries have passed, and the Parousia has not yet become a reality. But much of the fulfillment has occurred.

This is an apostasy (v. 3). It is, therefore, to be sought in the church visible and not outside of the church, not in the pagan world, in the general pagan moral decline, in Mohammedanism, in the French Revolution, in the rise and spread of Masonry, in soviet Russia, or in lesser phenomena. We should not confuse the little antichrists with the great Antichrist, the antichrists outside of the visible church with the great Antichrist inside of it.

The secret beginnings were actively stirring in Paul’s own time (v. 7). We may debate as to what or who still held these beginnings down at that time (τὸκατέχον—ὁκατέχων). In the writer’s opinion the best view is that this was the Roman imperium, a force (neuter), and this force was represented in the person (masculine) of the pagan emperors. This got out of the way (v. 7) when Constantine, the first Christian emperor, came to the throne. Only then did the papacy become possible. The great apostasy is Romanism, its head is the papal succession, which is called “Antichrist” in 1 John 2:18 in distinction from “many antichrists,” the lesser anti-Christian powers.

All that Paul says agrees with the papacy and Romanism down to the present day. We need not repeat the details. The pope’s divine self-exaltation in God’s own sanctuary appears not only in arrogating to himself divine titles but also in handing down his false doctrines and decisions as though this were done with divine authority and anathematizing all who will not submit. We are pointed to “good” popes, but these, too, held to the papal authority, to the false Romish doctrines, to the false Romish worship. These things constitute the ἀνομία whether a pope is personally moral in the Romish sense or not. As the papacy emerged and the Romish system developed, the Antichrist’s parousia and revelation occurred.

During nineteen centuries no greater apostasy has ever appeared in the visible church. Nor can a still greater one appear. The climax has been reached in the papal system.

What causes some to deny that the pope is the Antichrist is the fact that they have not themselves experienced that justification by faith alone is the soul and center of all that is true Christianity. All other true doctrines have their roots in this one. We quote Franz Pieper: “It is true, the open unbelievers are raging enemies of the church. But what Christians are to think of pronounced unbelievers they know. By these they are not deceived. How does it then come about that men are today disinclined to recognize the pope as the Antichrist?

Whence this strange and deplorable fact that nearly all late ‘believing’ theologians hunt about for the Antichrist while he does his great and mighty work in the church right before their eyes? They are not established in the living knowledge of the doctrine of justification and in the importance of this doctrine for the church. From my own experience I must confess that in my own conscience I was not vitally convinced that the pope is the Antichrist until, on the one hand, I realized what the doctrine of justification is and what its significance is for the church, and, on the other hand, that the papacy has its real essence in denying and cursing the doctrine of justification and by its show of piety and its claim to be the only saving church binds to itself men’s consciences.” Christliche Dogmatik II, 669, etc.

Beyond the curse pronounced by the Council of Trent, sessio 6, canon 11, nothing can go in the way of anti-Christianity in the official church: Si quis dixerit, homines justificari vel sola imputatione justitiae Christi, vel sola peccatorum remissione, exclusa gratia et caritate quae in cordibus eorum per Spiritum Sanctum diffundatur atque illis inhaerit, out gratiam qua justificamur esse tantum favorem Dei, anathema sit. The same curse is pronounced in the same official way and with the same finality upon one doctrine after another that radiates from and rests on justification by faith alone.

The confessional statement of the Smalcald Articles II, Article IV, 10–11 (C. Tr. 475) is true: “This teaching shows forcefully that the pope is the very Antichrist who has exalted himself above and opposed himself against Christ because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing and is neither ordained nor commanded by God. This is, properly speaking, to exalt himself above all that is called God’ as Paul says, 2 Thess. 2:4. Even the Turks or the Tartars, great enemies of Christians as they are, do not do this; but they permit whoever wishes to believe in Christ and take bodily tribute and obedience from Christians. The pope, however, prohibits this faith, saying that to be saved a person must obey him.” Read all the rest.

Paul’s prophecy does not point to a double Antichrist, one being Oriental (Turkish), the other Occidental (papal). The debate as to whether the Antichrist is to be of Jewish or of Gentile origin is pointless. Will the papacy produce a superpope, the final one, the Antichrist in the eminent sense of the word and as such to be struck down at the last day by the Lord’s Parousia? An affirmative answer cannot be based on the fact that Paul uses the singular in v. 3, 4, 8 as little as on the claim that ὁκατέχων in v. 7 refers to only one individual. As the succession of pagan Roman emperors held up the great apostasy and the actual appearance of the papacy, so “the man of the lawlessness” and “the lawless one” denotes a succession of popes.

The “Scarlet Woman” of Revelation, “Babylon the Great, the Mother of the Whores,” is not the great Antichrist, the Roman papacy, but the symbolized anti-Christian seduction of the entire world in all the departments of life and not only in the church although it also includes this domain. See the author’s Interpretation of Revelation.

Let me venture to state my personal opinion regarding v. 8: the papacy received its mortal blow by “the breath of the Lord’s mouth” (the Lord’s Word) during the Reformation and has shown the effects ever since without prospect of recovery. Until the time of the Reformation the papacy ruled practically the entire church with its fearful deceit; this is not true since that time. The Reformation cast a blight upon the papal rule, a blight that has continued unchecked during the past four hundred years. Who is able to say what the future, prior to the Parousia, will bring as a further fulfillment of Paul’s prophecy? We cannot go beyond Matt. 24:12 and Luke 18:8. I look for no superpope at the end, for no pope who shall wield supreme secular power over the world’s states and governments.

What about the Thessalonians as regards These Coming Events?

2 Thessalonians 2:13

13 The writers thank God for the state of the Thessalonians (v. 13, 14), urge them to maintain it (v. 15), and pray for them (v. 16, 17). The third section of the letter does not begin at this point as some have thought. The prayerful wish expressed in v. 16, 17 marks the end of the second section of the letter just as does the prayerful wish in 1 Thess. 3:11–13 and another prayerful wish at the end of the last section in (1 Thess. 5:23, 24). The third section begins at 3:4.

Although some have tried to agitate the Thessalonians by telling them on the basis of fake authority that the day of the Lord is already here (1:2), Paul and his associates are not worried about them. They once more point out to the Thessalonians that the apostasy and the Antichrist will precede that day and the Lord’s Parousia; this will settle whatever disturbing thoughts the Thessalonians may have on the whole subject. As far as the writers are concerned, they can only thank God for the blessed state of their readers, admonish them to stand fast, and pray that God may encourage and establish them. These verses round out the renewed instruction (v. 3–12) in the most appropriate and natural way.

Now we on our part are obliged to thank God concerning you, brethren beloved of the Lord, that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in connection with sanctification of spirit and faith in truth, for which he called you by means of our gospel for obtaining our Lord Jesus Christ’s glory.

Δέ is transitional and not adversative. “We on our part” is emphatic, but only in the sense of “as far as we writers are concerned because of our special relation to you Thessalonians.” We have already explained why “we are obliged” is inserted (see 1:3). The writers cannot but thank God as regards the Thessalonians; God has done too much for the Thessalonians so that Paul and his associates should let anything prevent them from expressing the most fervent thanks to him. The wording is purposely the same as in 1:3, the thanksgiving with which the first section of the letter begins is to be the same as that with which the second section ends. Like two arms these two thanksgivings embrace all that they encircle and hold it all up to God in deep gratitude.

In 1:3 “brethren” suffices; but now the much richer address “brethren beloved of the Lord” is in place, “having been loved by the Lord” and thus still being loved by him. How far back this love reaches is not stated. Time does not limit the Lord; the next clause takes us back to the world’s beginning. The Lord’s love for his own goes back to eternity. See how he speaks of his “other sheep” in John 10:16, all those of future ages, some of them having as yet not even been born. As “brethren” the Thessalonians belong with the three writers, all of them being embraced by this love. This is the love of full comprehension and corresponding blessed purpose.

The answer to the question as to why the Lord thus loves lies in the nature of the Lord’s own being; his love is the infinite attribute which is to be blessed for his loved ones, ever to be worshipped and adored by them, but beyond their fathoming. “Lord” is Christ, the second person, and not God, the first. Many note this and also that “God” precedes and follows; but they do not note that in the word “Lord” there lies not only Christ’s deity but also all his saving work by which he has purchased and won us and made himself our Lord and us his own.

Ὅτι states the object of the thanksgiving and not the cause (A. V.): “that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation,” etc. Only the middle of αἱρέω is used in the New Testament (Phil. 1:22; Heb. 11:25) and only the simplex. The sense is much the same as though Paul had used ἐκλέγεσθαι or προορίζειν although each verb has its own connotation. Here εἵλετο means no more than that God “took you for himself,” took you for his own, in that sense “chose you.”

“From the beginning” (no article is needed in such phrases in the Greek) dates this act of God’s, but not at the beginning when time began; ἀπό, “from the beginning,” dates from that extreme point of time (the Greek always thinks forward from the farther point) because beyond that no point of time exists. The sense is thus the same as “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4), in eternity. God created time but is not bound by time; all that exists in time from the first moment until the last lay before him in the timelessness of eternity, save that eternity has no past tense like “lay.” The matter is really inconceivable to our finite minds which are chained to terms denoting time. The same is true regarding Eph. 1:4. By stressing ideas of time we only misconceive this and other divine acts, note Rev. 13:8. The variant reading ἁπαρχήν, “as first fruits” is not authenticated.

The whole clause expresses one thought: “God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in connection with sanctification of spirit and faith in truth.” There is no other choice or election save this one for salvation in connection with sanctification and faith. Some think only of final salvation (heaven), i.e., of the “glory” mentioned in v. 14; but sanctification and faith point to “salvation” both here and hereafter. In connection with 1 Thess. 4:3 (see also 4:4, 7) we have already explained ἀγιασμός as being an activity on God’s part and thus not the state expressed by ἁγιωσύνη. The salvation to which God chose the Thessalonians is wholly “in connection with God’s sanctifying work” and thus also “in connection with the Thessalonians’ faith.” The fact that this sanctification signifies the whole work of setting the Thessalonians apart for God is self-evident. Καί is explicative. After naming God’s activity it adds the main factor in our reception of that activity, which is “faith.” So also Christians are called “saints (whom God sanctifies) and believers” (who by faith receive this sanctification), Eph. 1:1. The idea is the same.

We differ with our versions and with all those commentators who regard the genitive as the subjective genitive: “sanctification of the Spirit.” Both datives have objective genitives. The fact that God, i.e., his Spirit, does the sanctifying need not be stated, for this lies in the word “sanctification” which is itself a term that expresses action. It is our “spirit” that God sanctifies just as it is “truth” that our faith trusts. It should not be said that πνεῦμα always means the Holy Spirit. In Gal. 5:16, 17, 18, 22, 25 (twice); 6:8 (twice) our “spirit” is referred to. To be sure, Πνεῦμα does not always need the article in order to refer to God’s “Spirit”; the question is not linguistic, it is exegetical, the thought and the context decide.

Nothing especial is at stake here, for in any case it is the Spirit that sanctifies, and it is our spirit that is sanctified. Yet where two datives have genitives, the assumption is that the genitives are not diverse but alike. In v. 10 and 12 “the truth” has the article; here all four nouns are without the article in order to stress their quality. This also helps to make the two objects of ἐν alike even as the one preposition treats them as being only one object. The fact that this “truth” is the same as “the truth” mentioned in v. 10 and 12, namely the gospel, need scarcely be said. What Paul prophesies concerning the Lord’s Parousia is a part of this “truth.” Note the chiasm: “sanctification (God’s) of spirit (ours)—faith (ours) in truth (God’s).”

The ἐν phrase modifies all that precedes it in this clause and not merely the verb. This ἐν is not instrumental, for choosing requires no instrument. Ἐν does not mean in der Weise und dadurch dass; “through” in the A. V. is incorrect, for the Greek word for this would be διά. Ἐν does not mean “in view of” or “in the foreknowledge of.” It does not mean “unto,” the Greek for which would be εἰς. Ἐν has its first and original meaning: “in connection with sanctification and faith.” None were chosen by God without this connection. F. Pieper says well that sanctification and faith belong to the act of choosing and not merely to the execution of the act as Calvinists teach (Christliche Dogmatik III, 538). Grammatically stated, ἐν modifies “God chose you from the beginning unto salvation” and states no separate thought.

We note that the choice was not abstract or general but concrete and definite: “God chose you.” The idea that, when this choice was made, “you” were “unbelievers” is excluded by the ἐν phrase. We usually say that the choice is not absolute; also that it is not conditional. It is ordinate: “in connection with,” etc. This is as near as our finite minds can approach God’s timeless act. For in no way does time limit God as it always does our minds. As God saw “you” in the act, so he saw the whole “salvation” to which he chose “you” and also the “sanctification of spirit” and the “faith in truth.” There is no limit at which God halted unless we in some way bind God as we ourselves are bound to succession in time, which we should never do. This statement pertains to all the timeless acts of God as we poor mortals now attempt to rethink them; all of them are beyond us, and we may easily go astray.

2 Thessalonians 2:14

14 Εἰςὅ makes the next clause subordinate: “for which he called you by means of our gospel for obtaining our Lord Jesus Christ’s glory.” Καί would coordinate and place the choice and the call side by side; but the latter is already involved in the “salvation, sanctification, and faith” mentioned in v. 13. We remember that εἰςὅ is the equivalent of a particle: dazu or wozu, warum (B.-P. 356), it is much like διό. or διʼ ὅ. It is thus not necessary to search for an antecedent (one or the other of the preceding nouns, a combination of them, or the whole preceding statement, R. 714). What God did for the Thessalonians in time rests on his timeless act: if no choice, then no call, etc. “Wherefore he called you” refers to the successful call; the verb and the noun are always used thus in the epistles.

“By means of our gospel” does not refer to a peculiar form of the gospel that was preached by Paul and by his assistants; it refers to these men only as being the ones who preached the gospel to the Thessalonians, who brought the Thessalonians to faith by God’s gospel grace. Those who regard εἰςὅ as a relative with an antecedent consider εἰςπεριποίησιν epexegetical: “unto which he called you, namely unto obtaining,” etc. They justify the epexegesis by saying that in v. 13 only salvation in general is mentioned while now its consummation is introduced, the final glory. But what ordinary reader would connect the two εἰς phrases in this manner? We cancel the comma in our versions and read the whole clause as one thought. Our call through the gospel is for one purpose only: “for obtaining our Lord Jesus Christ’s glory” (Phil. 3:21). “Obtaining” is better than “possessing” or “possession.” The genitive is objective: we are to obtain Christ’s glory. Luther strangely makes “glory” the adjectival and “our Lord,” etc., the subjective genitive: zum herrlichen Eigentum unseres Herrn, etc., the Thessalonians are called to be “Christ’s glorious possession.” Paul now repeatedly uses the full title “our Lord Jesus Christ” and not “Lord Jesus.”

2 Thessalonians 2:15

15 An admonition is added to this thanksgiving: Accordingly, then, brethren, keep standing fast and holding fast the traditions which you were taught, whether by means of our discourse or by means of our letter!

On Paul’s favorite double connective ἄραοὖν see Rom. 5:18. In accord with all that v. 13, 14 state regarding the blessed state and the prospect of the Thessalonians, and in the light of all that the Thessalonians know about the Lord’s Parousia and about the apostasy and the Antichrist that will precede the Lord (v. 1–12), the one thing the Thessalonians themselves must do is ever to keep standing fast and holding fast to what they have been taught. Both imperatives are present tenses and thus durative. Courageous, manly standing, combined with masterful, strong holding, both of which are wrought by the grace received, constitute the response of the Thessalonians, there is to be no letting themselves be shaken or disturbed (v. 2). This is the same standing fast which 1 Thess. 3:8 expects.

The use of παραδόσεις does not contain something rabbinic, for this term is used in the Gospels and also by Paul in Gal. 1:14 and Col. 2:8 to denote Jewish and human “traditions.” Here and in 3:6 and in 1 Cor. 11:2 the word = the gospel teachings, “truth” (v. 13), “the truth” (v. 10, 12), the plural to indicate the different parts of the gospel truth. The word itself points only to transmission: the things given or handed over from teacher to pupil. Romanists have appropriated it and refer it to teachings handed down in the church and not recorded in the Scriptures; but this late Romish use has nothing to do with Paul’s use. In 1 Cor. 11:2 Paul also has the corresponding verb.

Εἴτε—εἴτε is not disjunctive but conjunctive, and ἡμῶν is to be construed with both “discourse” and “letter,” the oral teaching of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, and the letter the three had sent (First Thessalonians). The latter is especially mentioned because of an alleged other letter which purported to teach contrary things (2:2). The Thessalonians are to cling to the things they have personally heard from the lips of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, and have personally received in the authentic letter sent by these three.

The admonition is properly brief and fits exactly all that precedes in this chapter.

2 Thessalonians 2:16

16 Thanks to God, admonition to the Thessalonians, and now prayer for them, intercessory prayer, a prayer-wish because it is written to the Thessalonians and thus couched in the third person; recall 1 Thess. 3:11–13. Now may he, our Lord Jesus Christ, and God, our Father, he who did love us and did give (us) eternal encouragement and good hope in grace, encourage your hearts and stablish (them) in every good deed and word!

Here ends the main burden of the letter, the rest is supplementary. As was the case in 1 Thess. 3:11 and 5:23, αὐτός is not reflexive (“himself”) but merely emphatic. Both divine persons are named in the full liturgical and solemn way. The two “our” are confessional and include both the writers and the readers. In two other instances, Gal. 1:1 and 2 Cor. 13:14, Paul names Christ first for no special reason. By naming the two persons together he places them on an equality. Αὐτός applies also to “God, our Father,” and thus justifies the singular verb. The same is true with regard to the apposition: “he who did love us,” etc. The two divine persons act as one, which causes no difficulty for those who know John 10:30; 12:45; 14:9.

There is no need to debate about the punctiliar force of the aorist participles and to date them so as to apply to some special act of love and giving; let them be constative, summarizing what both of these persons have done in loving and in giving. Compare v. 13 on love. The giving is the product of the loving. Παράκλησις = Zuspruch; the following verb = zusprechen; this may be admonitory, encouraging, or comforting as the context may require. The noun and the verb ought to have the same meaning; one may debate as to whether to choose: “gave us eternal comfort—or eternal encouragement; may comfort—or may encourage your hearts.” If this were 1 Thess. 4:13–5:11, “comfort” would be correct. Since they are here joined with hope, we prefer “encouragement” and “encourage.” Both are, however, not subjective states in us but objective gifts: encouragement spoken and given to us; hope, that for which we are to hope. This explains the added adjectives which also lend fulness to the expression: “eternal encouragement” = the effect of which is eternal; “good hope” = the realization of which will prove it valuable. “In grace” does not name a third gift of love but brings to mind the fact that the love which prompts these gifts is wholly the undeserved favor of God (1:2). All this giving and these gifts are “in connection with grace” and with grace alone.

2 Thessalonians 2:17

17 The participial apposition brings the past up to the present; the two optatives of wish reach into the future. This double wish (the aorists are again constative) asks for nothing new. For “may encourage your hearts” refers to the same “encouragement” that was mentioned in v. 16, the two words are the same. The same is true with regard to the hope and the wish: “may stablish your hearts,” for one must be firm and solid in clinging to this hope (objective). This will show itself “in every good deed and word,” in all that we do and say, in all our daily activity of life. We will act as though our life belongs to heaven. “Word” does not here mean “doctrine.” A few texts transpose: “word and deed” (A. V.), which is the more regular order.

R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition..

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.

C.-K Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.