2 Thessalonians 2:3

In these words the apostle confutes the error against which he had cautioned them, and gives the reasons why they should not expect the coming of Christ as just at hand. There were several events previous to the second coming of Christ; in particular, he tells them there would be,

I. A general apostasy, there would come a falling away first, Th2 2:3. By this apostasy we are not to understand a defection in the state, or from civil government, but in spiritual or religious matters, from sound doctrine, instituted worship and church government, and a holy life. The apostle speaks of some very great apostasy, not only of some converted Jews or Gentiles, but such as should be very general, though gradual, and should give occasion to the revelation of rise of antichrist, that man of sin. This, he says (Th2 2:5), he had told them of when he was with them, with design, no doubt, that they should not take offence nor be stumbled at it. And let us observe that no sooner was Christianity planted and rooted in the world than there began to be a defection in the Christian church. It was so in the Old Testament church; presently after any considerable advance made in religion there followed a defection: soon after the promise there was revolting; for example, soon after men began to call upon the name of the Lord all flesh corrupted their way, - soon after the covenant with Noah the Babel-builders bade defiance to heaven, - soon after the covenant with Abraham his seed degenerated in Egypt, - soon after the Israelites were planted in Canaan, when the first generation was worn off, they forsook God and served Baal, - soon after God's covenant with David his seed revolted, and served other gods, - soon after the return out of captivity there was a general decay of piety, as appears by the story of Ezra and Nehemiah; and therefore it was no strange thing that after the planting of Christianity there should come a falling away.

II. A revelation of that man of sin, that is (Th2 2:3), antichrist would take his rise from this general apostasy. The apostle afterwards speaks of the revelation of that wicked one (Th2 2:8), intimating the discovery which should be made of his wickedness, in order to his ruin: here he seems to speak of his rise, which should be occasioned by the general apostasy he had mentioned, and to intimate that all sorts of false doctrines and corruptions should centre in him. Great disputes have been as to who or what is intended by this man of sin and son of perdition: and, if it be not certain that the papal power and tyranny are principally or only intended, yet this is plain, What is here said does very exactly agree thereto. For observe,

1. The names of this person, or rather the state and power here spoken of. He is called the man of sin, to denote his egregious wickedness; not only is he addicted to, and practises, wickedness himself, but he also promotes, countenances, and commands sin and wickedness in others; and he is the son of perdition, because he himself is devoted to certain destruction, and is the instrument of destroying many others both in soul and body. These names may properly be applied, for these reasons, to the papal state; and thereto agree also,

2. The characters here given, Th2 2:4. (1.) That he opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or is worshipped; and thus have the bishops of Rome not only opposed God's authority, and that of the civil magistrates, who are called gods, but have exalted themselves above God and earthly governors, in demanding greater regard to their commands than to the commands of God or the magistrate. (2.) As God, he sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. As God was in the temple of old, and worshipped there, and is in and with his church now, so the antichrist here mentioned is some usurper of God's authority in the Christian church, who claims divine honours; and to whom can this better apply than to the bishops of Rome, to whom the most blasphemous titles have been given, as Dominus Deus noster papa - Our Lord God the pope; Deus alter in terr - Another God on earth; Idem est dominium Dei et papae - The dominion of God and the pope is the same?

3. His rise is mentioned, Th2 2:6, Th2 2:7. Concerning this we are to observe two things: - (1.) There was something that hindered or withheld, or let, until it was taken away. This is supposed to be the power of the Roman empire, which the apostle did not think fit to mention more plainly at that time; and it is notorious that, while this power continued, it prevented the advances of the bishops of Rome to that height of tyranny to which soon afterwards they arrived. (2.) This mystery of iniquity was gradually to arrive at its height; and so it was in effect that the universal corruption of doctrine and worship in the Romish church came in by degrees, and the usurpation of the bishops of Rome was gradual, not all at once; and thus the mystery of iniquity did the more easily, and almost insensibly, prevail. The apostle justly calls it a mystery of iniquity, because wicked designs and actions were concealed under false shows and pretences, at least they were concealed from the common view and observation. By pretended devotion, superstition and idolatry were advanced; and, by a pretended zeal for God and his glory, bigotry and persecution were promoted. And he tells us that this mystery of iniquity did even then begin, or did already work. While the apostles were yet living, the enemy came, and sowed tares; there were then the deeds of the Nicolaitans, persons who pretended zeal for Christ, but really opposed him. Pride, ambition, and worldly interest of church-pastors and church-rulers, as in Diotrephes and others, were the early working of the mystery of iniquity, which, by degrees, came to that prodigious height which has been visible in the church of Rome.

4. The fall or ruin of the antichristian state is declared, Th2 2:8. The head of this antichristian kingdom is called that wicked one, or that lawless person who sets up a human power in competition with, and contradiction to, the divine dominion and power of the Lord Jesus Christ; but, as he would thus manifest himself to be the man of sin, so the revelation or discovery of this to the world would be the sure presage and the means of his ruin. The apostle assures the Thessalonians that the Lord would consume and destroy him; the consuming of him precedes his final destruction, and that is by the Spirit of his mouth, by his word of command; the pure word of God, accompanied with the Spirit of God, will discover this mystery of iniquity, and make the power of antichrist to consume and waste away; and in due time it will be totally and finally destroyed, and this will be by the brightness of Christ's coming. Note, The coming of Christ to destroy the wicked will be with peculiar glory and eminent lustre and brightness.

5. The apostle further describes the reign and rule of this man of sin. Here we are to observe, (1.) The manner of his coming, or ruling, and working: in general, that it is after the example of Satan, the grand enemy of souls, the great adversary of God and man. He is the great patron of error and lies, the sworn enemy of the truth as it is in Jesus and all the faithful followers of Jesus. More particularly, it is with Satanical power and deceit. A divine power is pretended for the support of this kingdom, but it is only after the working of Satan. Signs and wonders, visions and miracles, are pretended; by these the papal kingdom was first set up, and has all along been kept up, but they have false signs to support false doctrines; and lying wonders, or only pretended miracles that have served their cause, things false in fact, or fraudulently managed, to impose upon the people: and the diabolical deceits with which the antichristian state has been supported are notorious. The apostle calls it all deceivableness of unrighteousness, Th2 2:10. Others may call them pious frauds, but the apostle called them unrighteous and wicked frauds; and, indeed, all fraud (which is contrary to truth) is an impious thing. Many are the subtle artifices the man of sin has used, and various are the plausible pretences by which he had beguiled unwary and unstable souls to embrace false doctrines, and submit to his usurped dominion. (2.) The persons are described who are his willing subjects, or most likely to become such, Th2 2:10. They are such as love not the truth that they may be saved. They heard the truth (it may be), but they did not love it; they could not bear sound doctrine, and therefore easily imbibed false doctrines; they had some notional knowledge of what was true, but they indulged some powerful prejudices, and so became a prey to seducers. Had they loved the truth, they would have persevered in it, and been preserved by it; but no wonder if they easily parted with what they never had any love to. And of these persons it is said that they perish or are lost; they are in a lost condition, and in danger to be lost for ever. For,

6. We have the sin and ruin of the subjects of antichrist's kingdom declared, Th2 2:11, Th2 2:12. (1.) Their sin is this: They believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness: they did not love the truth, and therefore they did not believe it; and, because they did not believe the truth, therefore they had pleasure in unrighteousness, or in wicked actions, and were pleased with false notions. Note, An erroneous mind and vicious life often go together and help forward one another. (2.) Their ruin is thus expressed: God shall send them strong delusions, to believe a lie. Thus he will punish men for their unbelief, and for their dislike of the truth and love to sin and wickedness; not that God is the author of sin, but in righteousness he sometimes withdraws his grace from such sinners as are here mentioned; he gives them over to Satan, or leaves them to be deluded by his instruments; he gives them up to their own hearts' lusts, and leaves them to themselves, and then sin will follow of course, yea, the worst of wickedness, that shall end at last in eternal damnation. God is just when he inflicts spiritual judgments here, and eternal punishments hereafter, upon those who have no love to the truths of the gospel, who will not believe them, nor live suitably to them, but indulge false doctrines in their minds, and wicked practices in their lives and conversations.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

(3) Let no man . . . by any means.—“Whatever device they may adopt—spirit, letter, or what not—they are deceivers or deceived; do not be duped by them.” The form of warning is a mark of St. Paul’s style. (Comp. 1Co_3:18; Eph_5:6)

For . . . except.—The words between are rightly supplied in our version. Probably, St. Paul’s first intention was to turn 2Th_2:5 differently, as, for instance:” For, except that Man of Sin, &c, ye remember that I told you the day would not come.” The length of the sentence made him break off (as he often does) without regard for grammatical completeness.

A falling away.—A great change in the purpose of the sentence will be felt directly “the” is substituted for “a.” Only one insignificant MS. omits the definite article; the same article in our version is vigorously rendered “that” before “man of sin.” In both cases the purpose is by no means to utter a new, strange prophecy, or to add to the knowledge of the readers, but to remind them of careful teaching given during the first few weeks after their conversion. “That falling away” must undoubtedly imply that the persons so apostatising had formerly held (or, perhaps, still professed to hold) the Christian faith: men cannot fall from ground which they never occupied. This vast and dreadful Apostasy (see Luk_18:8), so clearly and prominently taught of to the ancient Church, and so mysterious to us, is further defined by the following words, as the Apocalypse or Manifestation of the Man of Sin. Of this revelation of Antichrist the same word (apocalypsis) is used which is often used of Christ, as, e.g., 2Th_1:7; Luk_17:30; and thrice in St. Peter; so that we may expect to recognise him when he comes as clearly as we shall recognise Christ. The conception of the Antichrist is not merely that of an opponent of the Christ, but of a rival Christ: there is a hideous parallelism between the two.

That man of sin.—It is not absolutely certain from the Greek, but the context makes it tolerably clear that the “Man of Sin” is the head and centre of the Apostasy itself, and does not form a separate movement from it. The “Man of Sin,” then, will have at one time formed (or will still profess to form) part of the Christian Church, and the Apostasy will culminate in him. Thus, for instance, the requirements of the passage would not be fulfilled by (with Hammond) interpreting the Apostasy to mean the early Gnostic movement, followed up by the independent appearance of Nero as the Man of Sin. The phrase, “the Man of Sin,” might, perhaps, be only a poetical personification of a movement, or of a class of men, or of a succession of men (as, e.g., Psa_89:22; Rev_2:20; Rev_17:3); but the analogy of the parallel passages in Daniel 8, 11 leads rather to the supposition that St. Paul looked for the coming of some actual individual man who should be the impersonation of the movement of Apostasy. The genitive (see Note on 1Th_1:3) is like a forcible epithet:” A man so wicked that, bad as other men are, wickedness should be his mark by which he is distinguished from all others; a man who belongs to sin, in whom the ideal of sin has become realised and incarnate.” What kind of sin will be most prominent in him is not expressed in the word itself; but the context points clearly to that which is, in fact, the crowning sin—spiritual pride and rebellious arrogancy (Eph_6:12).

The son of perdition.—The phrase which is used, in Joh_17:12, of the false Apostle; it suits well with the description of the Man of Sin, who, like Judas, will have “fallen away” from high Christian privileges: according to one popular interpretation, like Judas, from the privileges of the Apostolate itself. The expression signifies one who belongs by natural ties to perdition—who from his very birth chooses evil, and in such a sense may be said to be born to be lost (Mat_26:24; 2Pe_2:12). Both his malignity and his doom are thus implied in it.

EXCURSUS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROPHECY, 2Th_2:3-12

IN order to deal fairly with this difficult passage, it will be necessary sternly to exclude from our view all other passages of the New Testament which speak of a final manifestation of evil, and, reviewing the words simply as they stand, to consider what St. Paul himself meant when he so assiduously (2Th_2:5, Note) taught the Thessalonian Church on the subject, and what the Thessalonian Church was likely to gather from his Letter. For though such a passage as Heb_6:2 shows that the whole Apostolic Church was definitely at one in the eschatological instruction given to its converts at a very early stage of their Christian life; and though the language of 1Ti_4:1; Jas_5:3-7; 2Pe_3:1-2; 1Jn_2:18; 1Jn_4:3; Jud_1:17 (not to mention the Apocalypse)—passages representing the most different schools of thought in the early Church—fully bring out this agreement, so that Christians may fairly use those passages to explain each other, yet, on the other hand, we need to put ourselves in the position of the young Church of Thessalonica, which was expected by St. Paul to make out the significant hints of his Letter with no other help than the recollection of his oral teaching and the observation of events. We, therefore, ought to be able in like manner to catch the same significant hints by a like knowledge of the then history of the world, and of the sources from which St. Paul was likely to draw his doctrine of the “Last Things.”

I. Sources of the Apostolic Doctrine of the Last Things.—The prophecy of St. Paul does not appear to be—at least, exclusively—the result of a direct internal revelation of the Spirit. Such direct revelations were, when necessary, made to him, and we have seen him claim that kind of inspiration in 1Th_4:15. But God’s ordinary way of making prophets seems to be different. He gives to those who are willing to see an extraordinary insight into the things which lie before the most ordinary eyes; He throws light upon the meaning of occurrences, or of words, which are familiar to every one externally (see Maurice’s Prophets and Kings, pp. 141-145). Even for doctrines like those of the true divinity or the true humanity of our Lord, or of the indwelling of the Spirit, or the Church’s mission, the Apostles do not rest solely on direct revelation made to their own consciences, but rather dwell on the significance of historical facts (e.g., Rom_1:4; 2Pe_1:17), or, still more frequently and strongly, on the interpretation of Old Testament Scriptures (e.g., Heb_1:8; Heb_2:12-13; 2Pe_1:19). If, therefore, we can find material in the Old Testament which, taken in conjunction with our Lord’s own words, could have supplied St. Paul—or rather, the catholic consent of the early Church—with the doctrine of the Last Things as we find it stated in the apostolic writings, we shall be justified in using those Old Testament materials in the explanation of the New.

II. The Book of Daniel.—Such materials we find, not only in the general threatenings of Joel, Zechariah (Zechariah 14.), and Malachi, but most clear and definite in the Book of Daniel. Into the question of the date of that book it is not necessary here to inquire. It suffices for the present purpose to know that it was much older than St. Paul’s time, and was accepted as prophetic in the ordinary sense. In fact, there was, probably, no other book of the Old Testament which received so much attention among the Jews in the apostolic age (Westcott, in Smith’s Dict. Bible, Art. “Daniel”). It was regarded with full reverence as an inspired revelation; and our Lord Himself (according to Mat_24:15 and Mar_13:14) either drew from it (humanly speaking) His own doctrine of the Last Things, or at least used it emphatically for His disciples’ benefit as a corroboration. The taste for apocalyptic literature was at this time very strong, and the prophecies of Daniel attracted especial attention, inasmuch as the simplest interpretation of some of the most explicit of them pointed unmistakably to the time then present. Tacitus (Hist. v. 13) and Suetonius (Vesp. chap. 4), as is well known, speak of the certainty felt through the whole East, about that time, that universal empire was on the point of passing into the hands of men of Jewish origin. This belief, says Tacitus, was “contained in the ancient literature of the priests”—i.e., in the Scriptures, kept and expounded by them; and there can be no doubt that first and foremost of those Scriptures (for this purpose) stood the Book of Daniel. For every reason, then, we may well try to find what a believing Jew of the apostolic age would make out of the visions of Daniel, in order to throw light on this passage of St. Paul.

III. The Five Monarchies.—Now, in the Book of Daniel there are four main predictions of what was then the future history of the world. These predictions are contained in Daniel 2, 7, 8, 11. The first two visions, vouchsafed to Nebuchadnezzar and to Daniel respectively, both describe Five Monarchies, which were successively to arise and flourish in the world. Amidst a good deal which is matter of controversy, three facts remain agreed upon by all: first, that the Five Monarchies of the one vision are intended to correspond to the Five Monarchies of the other, each to each; secondly, that the earliest of these five represents the Babylonian empire, then standing, with Nebuchadnezzar at its head; thirdly, that the last of the series portrays the establishment of the Theocracy in its full development—that is, the “Kingdom of God” (which had been the main subject of St. Paul’s preaching at Thessalonica), or the visible government of the world by the Christ.

IV. The Fourth Monarchy.—But the question which most directly concerns us now is how to identify the Fourth of these monarchies. In Nebuchadnezzar’s vision it was to be “in the days of these kings”—i.e., the kings of the Fourth Monarchy, while the Fourth Monarchy was still standing—that the Kingdom of Heaven was to come (Dan_2:44). In Daniel’s vision this Fourth Monarchy (or rather, its continuation and development) was to exist side by side with the saints of the Most High, and between them and one outgrowth of the Fourth Monarchy a struggle was to take place before the final establishment of the Kingdom of the Saints (Dan_7:25). What, then, was this Fourth Monarchy intended by the Seer (or by “the Spirit of the Christ,” 1Pe_1:11) to represent? Or, to be still more practical, What was in St. Paul’s own day, among his own countrymen, the received interpretation of this part of Daniel’s prophecy? The question is not hard to answer. With irrefragable clearness Dr. Pusey has proved, in the second of his Lectures on Daniel the Prophet, the plausibility and minuteness with which the words concerning the Second and Third Monarchies may respectively be applied to the Medo-Persian and the Macedonian empires; and if even this point be established, there can be no hesitation in naming the Fourth. It can only be the empire of Rome. But Dr. Pusey shows, with the same force, how applicable the description itself is to the Roman empire. Whether, however, this interpretation has any ground in the original intention of the Prophet, or of Him who, we believe, spoke by him, is for our present purpose a matter of secondary importance. We have already mentioned an unimpeachable piece of evidence furnished by two great Roman historians. It was in their days a “long-established and uniform belief,” entertained not in Judæa only, but “in the whole of the East,” and drawn from the Jewish literature, that a great Jewish empire was destined to appear. But that is not all. Such a belief might have been drawn from Numbers or Isaiah. But Suetonius adds, Eo tempore, “at that time;” Tacitus adds, Eo ipso tempore, “at that very time.” From what Jewish literature could the date have been made out, except from the calculation of the Seventy Weeks in Daniel? And as the same prophecy spoke of a world-wide empire, in the days of whose kings this new Jewish power was to arise, that same “long-established and uniform belief” must have recognised in the Roman empire the Fourth Monarchy which was to be shattered by it. Hence, doubtless, the hopefulness, with which insurgent leaders one after another rose in rebellion against the Roman arms. It was not only that they themselves were the Lord’s own people. Was not this vast system, “dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly,” definitely doomed in Scripture to utter extinction before their arms? But we have, besides, a less indirect testimony than the foregoing. The Jew Josephus (Ant. x. 11, § 7) speaks at length of the prophecies of Daniel, and how he himself was watching their gradual verification. After mentioning the prophecy about Antiochus Epiphanes and its complete fulfilment, he adds:” In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the empire of the Romans, and that our country should be made desolate by them.” He then passes on to speak of the comfort afforded by seeing so plainly the Providence of God, with true Jewish irony not disclosing that his comfort lay in the promised revenge upon Rome as well as upon Antiochus. In another place (Ant. x. 10, § 4) he is recording the vision in the second chapter of Daniel, and after describing the universal dominion of the Iron Kingdom, he proceeds:” Daniel also declared the meaning of the Stone to the king, but this I do not think proper to relate, as I have undertaken to describe things past and present, not things that are future. Yet if any one be so very desirous of knowing truth as not to waive such curious points, and cannot refrain his desire to understand the uncertain future, and whether or no it will come to pass, let him give heed to read the Book of Daniel, which he will find among the Holy Scriptures.” No doubt can be entertained that this writer understood the Fourth Monarchy to be the Roman empire, and did not wish to be suspected of encouraging sedition by speaking openly of its predicted downfall. This, then, was the common interpretation which St. Paul must have learned from a child: that Daniel’s Fourth Monarchy, which was to break up before the Kingdom of God, was the Roman empire.

V. The Fifth Monarchy.—We may then assume that St. Paul believed Daniel to foretell the coming of the Kingdom of God in the days of the kings of the Roman empire. In one sense, indeed, the prophecy was already fulfilled. The Kingdom was already come. Heralded by the Baptist (Mat_3:2, et seq.), and expounded by our Lord (Mat_9:35, et seq.), it had been established by the Resurrection, the Ascension, and the Mission of the Holy Ghost, while the Roman empire actually stood (Psalms 2; comp. Act_4:25; Act_5:31; Act_13:33). St. John regards the world as already virtually subdued in his own lifetime (1Jn_5:4, Note). But the Church as at present constituted does not answer completely to Daniel’s prophecy of the Kingdom of the Saints. To the Christian there are two comings of the Kingdom, not only one. In the Prophets the two are fused into one. We may almost say the same of the words of Christ Himself. Even the apostolic writers do not separate the two so sharply as God has historically taught subsequent ages of the Church to separate them. The early Church lived in a daily expectation of the return of Christ. For them, therefore, there was no difficulty in interpreting Daniel’s prophecies as applying at the same moment to the First and Second Advent. It would not be unfair, therefore, to assume that St. Paul expected the Second Advent to take place, as the First had done, “in the days of these kings” of the Fourth or Roman Monarchy.

VI. What withholdeth.—Turning now to the statement of St. Paul, we see that he is cautioning the Thessalonians not to expect the Second Coming of Christ immediately, because, as they can see, a certain great power is still in the world, which (as they have been carefully taught) must be removed before the way for Christ’s return is open. This great power—with the aspect of which his readers are perfectly familiar, though they may have forgotten its significance (“Ye know that which withholdeth”)—is summed up in a person who wields it. This person is “he which with holdeth.” His removal “out of the midst” is still a matter of futurity, yet assuredly destined to take place; and the date, though unknown to men, is fixed. The great opponent, who cannot develop so long as “he that with holdeth” remains, is to be revealed “in his time”—i.e., at the time which Divine Providence has assigned to him. It seems impossible to doubt that this great opponent is the same as the “Little Horn” of Daniel (whose “time” is very definitely marked out in Dan_7:25), and that the power which withholds his development is the Fourth Monarchy of Daniel, and, therefore, the Roman empire. A few considerations will make the latter point clearer:—

(1) There was only one power in the world at that time, represented by a single person, in “the midst,” before all eyes, of sufficient importance to restrain the development of Antichrist. It was the Roman empire and the Roman emperor.

(2) The word rendered “withholdeth,” or “letteth,” does not necessarily imply that the obstruction actively, consciously, or designedly obstructs the way. His presence in the midst is quite sufficient for the requirements of the word. Indeed, it would, perhaps, not be necessary that Antichrist’s delay should even be directly caused by the obstruction; St. Paul might only mean that in prophecy the one thing was destined to come first, and that, therefore, so long as the first thing existed, it (in a manner) kept the second back. Now if Antichrist be the Little Horn of Daniel, and the obstruction the Fourth Monarchy, we get exactly what we want; for (unless the prophecy is to be falsified) before the Little Horn can spring up the Fourth Monarchy must have so totally changed its appearance as to have passed into ten simultaneous kingdoms: therefore, so long as the solid empire stood it was a sign that Antichrist must wait.

(3) Notice the extreme reserve with which St. Paul begins to speak on the subject. He does not teach, but prefers appealing to their memory of words already spoken: “Remember ye not?” His clauses become intricate and ungrammatical—in strange contrast with the simple structure which characterises these two Epistles. He names nothing, only hints. Nor can we account for this sudden ambiguity by saying that St. Paul is adopting the prophetic style; for his purpose is entirely practical, and he wishes not to awe his readers, but to recall to them plain facts which they knew and ignored. Now recollect the similar reticence of Josephus in speaking of the destiny of the Roman empire when it comes in contact with the Messianic Kingdom, and it will be felt almost impossible to doubt the truth of St. Chrysostoin’s shrewd observations: “A man may naturally seek to know what ‘that which letteth’ is; and after that, what possible reason St. Paul had for putting it so indistinctly. What, then, is ‘that which letteth’—i.e., hindereth—him from being revealed? Some say the grace of the Spirit, others the Roman empire. Among the latter I class myself. Why so? Because, had he meant to say the Spirit,’ he would not have said it indistinctly, but straight out; that now he is restrained by the grace of the Spirit, i.e., the supernatural gifts [presumably that of discerning of spirits in particular; comp. 1Jn_4:1-3]. Otherwise, Antichrist ought to have presented himself ere now, if he were to present himself at the failure of those gifts; for, as a matter of fact, they have long failed. But seeing that he says this of the Roman empire, he naturally put it enigmatically and very obscurely, for he had no wish to subject himself to unnecessary hostilities and unprofitable perils. For had he said that shortly after the Roman empire would be dissolved, they would soon have transfixed him for a miscreant, and all the believers with him, as living and fighting for this end.” Was it not, indeed, for expounding this very prophecy that he had fled for his life from Thessalonica?” These all do contrary to the decrees of Cæsar, saying that there is another emperor, Jesus.” Does not the history give startling point to his question, “Remember ye not that when I was with you I told you these things “?

VII. The Man of Sin.—We have stated our belief that “the Man of Sin” is not only to be identified with Daniel’s “Little Horn,” but that St. Paul consciously drew the doctrine from that passage. But it may be objected that some of the words in which St. Paul most narrowly describes him are taken, not from the description of the Little Horn in Daniel 7, but from that of the Little Horn of Dan_8:5, which represents quite a different person, viz., Antiochus Epiphanes.[7] It might be thought, therefore, that St. Paul was only borrowing Daniel’s language, and not adopting his prophecy. The answer is, that even those prophecies of Antiochus in many points do not suit Antiochus at all; and not only so, but the Jewish expositors themselves held that Antiochus had not exhausted the meaning of the prophecy. They themselves applied it to some Antichrist, whose coming should precede, and be defeated by the Christ’s. Even in St. Jerome’s time, “From this place onwards” (he is commenting on Dan_11:36) “the Jews think that Antichrist is spoken of, that, after the little help (Dan_11:34) of Julian, a king shall arise who shall do according to his own will, and lift himself up against all which is called God, and speak great things against the God of gods, so that he shall sit in the Temple of God and make himself god, and his will be performed, until the wrath of God be fulfilled: for in him shall the end be. Which we, too, understand of Antichrist.” Thus, according to the current explanation of the Jews, Antiochus was looked upon as a type of the Antichrist, whom they expected to arise (in fulfilment of Dan_7:8) at the overthrow of the Roman empire, whose coming was to precede the Christ’s. The only change made by the Christian Church is to apply to the Second Advent a prophecy which the Jews applied to the one Advent which they recognised. It is impossible not to do so when, in Dan_12:2, we have the Resurrection made to follow close upon the development of this Antiochus-Antichrist. So far, then, as St. Paul’s date is concerned, the doctrine is drawn from Daniel 2, 7; traits of character are added (in accordance with Jewish interpretation) from Daniel 8, 11.

[7] Sec Dan_8:11-12; Dan_8:23-25, and more particularly Dan_11:36-37.

VIII. St. Paul’s probable Personal Expectation.—Dr. Lightfoot argues, with great probability (Smith’s Dict. Bible, Art. “II. Thessalonians”), that, as a personal matter, St. Paul expected to witness in his own day the development of the Antichrist (whose “secret working” was already visible to him), and that he saw in the Jews the makings of the foe to be revealed. Theirs was the apostasy—professing to cleave to God and to Moses, but “departing from the living God, through an evil heart of unbelief,” and “making the word of God to be of none effect through their traditions.” Theirs was the lawlessness—setting the will of God at naught in the self-willed assertion of their privilege as the chosen people, and using the most unscrupulous means of checking those who preached the more liberal gospel of St. Paul. And if to St. Paul the final Antichrist was represented by the Jews, the Roman Government, which had so often befriended him, might well be called the withholder or restrainer. If such was the personal expectation of St. Paul, it was, indeed, literally frustrated; but if the Judaic spirit, of exclusive arrogance, carnal reliance on spiritual promises, innovating tradition, should pass into the Christian Church, and there develop largely, St. Paul’s expectation would not be so far wrong.

IX. The Development of the Horns.—The question naturally arises whether the prophecy has not been falsified. The Roman empire has disappeared, and Antichrist is not yet revealed. We do not need to answer with some interpreters that Roman law still rules the world. A closer observation of the two passages of Daniel already mentioned would in itself suggest the true answer. In Nebuchadnezzar’s vision, indeed, the Roman empire simply comes into collision with the Catholic Church, and falls before it. There is no hint of a protracted struggle between them. The long duration of the Roman empire is perhaps suggested by the words, “Thou wast gazing until that a stone” (Dan_2:34); the division into the Eastern and Western empires may be symbolised by the two legs of the colossal figure; the ten toes may bear the same interpretation as the ten horns of the later vision: these points, however, are not the most obvious or prominent points of the dream. But in Daniel’s vision all is quite different. There, the final triumph of the Church is won only after a long struggle, and that struggle is not with the Roman empire itself. Though the Beast which symbolises the Roman empire is said to continue throughout (Dan_7:11), it is only in the same sense, apparently, as the three other Beasts are said to have their lives prolonged (Dan_7:12). The empire itself has altogether changed its form, and developed into ten kingdoms, among which, yet after which (Dan_7:8; Dan_7:24), an eleventh has arisen, dissimilar from the other kingdoms, and uprooting some of them. With this power it is that the struggle which ends in the Church’s final victory takes place, and not with the old imperial power of Rome. If, therefore, the dream of Nebuchadnezzar may be said to have been fulfilled in the first coming of Christ, in the days of the Roman emperors, the vision of Daniel must wait for its fulfilment until the Roman empire has passed away into an even more different form than it has at present reached.

X. Characteristics of Antichrist.—(1) He is a human being. The title “Man of Sin” excludes Satan, as Chrysostom remarks: Satan acts through the man (1Th_2:9) to the full extent of his power—“enters into him,” as he entered into an earlier “Son of Perdition”—but does not destroy his humanity.

(2) He is a single person. This, too, is involved in the phrase “Man of Sin,” especially when followed by the “Son of Perdition.” It is not to be denied that poetically the first title, at any rate, might be a personification of a movement, or (as the “kings” in Daniel mean “kingdoms”) the title of a wicked power, the head of which might even be more innocent than his subjects. But not only is it simpler to understand the phrases themselves (especially the second) of a single person, but the sharp dramatic contrast between the Christ and the Antichrist seems to require a personal exhibition of evil. The Antichrist is to have a coming (2Th_2:9) and a manifestation (2Th_2:3), so as to be instantly recognised, and will display himself by significant acts (2Th_2:4), which all require a person. Besides, the types of him—Antiochus, Caligula, Nero, &c.—could hardly be said, according to Scriptural analogy, to be “fulfilled” in a mere headless movement. The application of the name “Man of Sin” to any succession of men (as, for instance, all the Popes of Rome) is peremptorily forbidden by the fact that the detection and destruction of the Man of Sin by the Advent of Christ follows immediately upon his manifestation of himself.

(3) This person, though single, heads a movement. He is the captain of “the Apostasy.” He has a large and devoted following (2Th_2:10). Indeed, though his dominion is “diverse” from other kingdoms, yet he is almost called a king in Dan_7:24 : the word, however, is (perhaps) carefully avoided. The diversity between his monarchy and theirs might, for instance, consist in its not being, like theirs, territorial or dynastic; it might be a spiritual or an intellectual dominion, interpenetrating the territorial kingdoms.

(4) The movement of Antichrist is not atheistic. The Man of Sin super-exalts himself, indeed, against every God, true or false, but it is not by denial of the Divine existence. On the contrary, he claims himself to be the true God, and exacts the homage due to the true God; thereby acknowledging the existence and working of God, which he avers to have become his own.

(5) The antichristian movement does not even break openly with the Catholic Church. It is an “apostasy,” indeed, but the same Greek word is used in Heb_3:12, and in 1Ti_4:1, in neither of which cases will it suit the context to understand the word of an outward leaving of the Christian Church. The persons must at any rate have been Christians, or they could not be apostates. And the apostasy is all the more terrible if, while the forms of the Church are kept to, there is a departure from the inward spirit. And in this case several points seem to indicate an apostasy within the Church. In the first place, as we have seen above, the movement is distinctly not an atheistic movement, like the German Socialism. Then, the act of session in the “Temple of God” cannot mean anything else than an attempt to exact divine homage from the Christian Church, which, of course, could only be hoped for through adopting Christian forms. The account of the Satanic miracles which the Man of Sin will work in attestation of his claim shows that the persons who follow him are duped into believing that he actually is the Lord. An atheistic materialism would deny miracles altogether. Now we may venture to say that, even if St. Paul had not (as Bishop Wordsworth supposes) St. Luke’s Gospel in his hands, yet he was familiar with the eschatological discourses of our Lord contained in the Synoptic Gospels. In these (which so frequently use the language of the Book of Daniel) our Lord holds up as the greatest terror of the last days, the constant danger, waiting even upon the “elect,” of being seduced into mistaking certain pretenders for Himself. An Antichrist (in its full meaning) expresses more than an opponent of Christ; like the compound Anti-Pope, it implies a rival claimant to the honours which he himself acknowledges to be due only to Jesus Christ. Antichrist pretends to be actually Jesus. Such pretensions would, of course, be meaningless and ridiculous to all except believers in Jesus Christ and His Church. (See Mat_24:4-5; Mat_24:10-12; Mat_24:23; Mat_24:26, and the parallel passages in Mark and Luke.) The same would even appear, on close inspection, to be the teaching of the Book of Daniel itself. The Church is “given into his hand” (Dan_7:25), a much more powerful expression, supposing the Church to be constitutionally bound to him, and not accidentally subject as to a Decius or a Galerius.

(6) Daniel’s Antichrist is characterised by ecclesiastical innovation. “He shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws” (Dan_7:25)—not to stamp Christianity out altogether, but arbitrarily to alter the Church’s worship (see Pusey, p. 81) and traditional constitution. The same departure from primitive tradition characterises him in Dan_11:37 : “Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers: a God whom his fathers knew not shall he honour.” The constant interpretation of “new gods” among the primitive Fathers is “new doctrines “: for, as a matter of fact, whatever materially alters our conception of God may be said to make us worship a different Being: the God of the extreme Calvinist, for instance, who creates millions of immortal beings for the express purpose of being glorified by their endless pains, can hardly be called the same as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. And this arbitrary innovation is, in fact, the very feature which St. Paul selects. It is the “lawlessness” or “rebellion” which marks both his movement (2Th_2:7) and himself (2Th_2:8)—which lawlessness, or sell-will, is perfectly compatible with exaggerated external reverence for laws and discipline, as is proved by Dr. Lightfoot, who thinks that St. Paul had the Jews specially in mind (Smith’s Bible Dict., Art. “II. Thessalonians”). Other more obvious kinds of “sin” can hardly be said to characterise the Man of Sin; for (not to mention 1Ti_4:1, which refers expressly to Daniel) in Dan_11:37 he is given an ascetic character. This spirit of innovation within the Church, implying as it does that his fiat is as good as God’s, which finally leads him to claim divine honours from the Church, is his characteristic sin.

(7) It may be added that the teaching of the Apocalypse is evidently drawn from Daniel, thereby corroborating our belief that St. Paul’s is also, and that such an interpretation as is here suggested has almost the catholic consent of the early Fathers, who almost all teach that the fall of the Roman empire will usher in the Antichrist, and that the Antichrist will be professedly Christian. Their testimony is valuable, inasmuch as some of them seem not merely to be offering an exegesis of particular texts of Scripture, but recording a primitive tradition coeval with the New Testament.

XI. Identification of the Man of Sin.—It is not solely a Protestant interpretation, but one which indirectly derives more or less support from several eminent names in past ages in communion with the Roman. See (for instance, St. Gregory the Great, and Robert Grosseteste), that the final Antichrist will be a Bishop of Rome. And the present writer does not hesitate to assert his conviction that no other interpretation will so well suit all the requirements of the case. This is by no means the same as the vulgar doctrine that the Pope—i.e., any and every Pope—is the Man of Sin. The Man of Sin has not yet made his appearance. But the diversity and yet resemblance between his kingdom and the kingdoms of the world; the firm hand over the Church; the claims made upon her homage; the unrecognised movement of rebellion against God while still He is outwardly acknowledged (the “mystery of lawlessness”); the restless innovation upon the Church’s apostolic traditions; the uncompromising self-assertion: all these are traits which seem to indicate a future Roman pontiff, more clearly than any other power which we could at present point to,—and this, without having recourse to those more superficial coincidences which may be found in the Notes of Bishop Wordsworth’s Greek Testament, or Dr. Eadie’s Commentary on these Epistles. To those who are familiar with the way in which modern Reman dogmas have been formed—exaggerations, at first condemned, becoming more and more popular, till they acquired the consistency of general tradition, and were then stamped with authoritative sanction—and who now watch the same process at work in the popular theology of Italy and France, there would be nothing surprising in the literal fulfilment of the prophecies of Antichrist in some future Pope. Already one Divine attribute has been definitely claimed by and conceded to the occupant of the Roman See, in defiance of primitive tradition, and yet so plausibly as to suggest rather an implicit faith in God than an explicit denial of Him. Comparisons ex aequo between the Life and Passion of our Lord and that of Pius the Ninth formed a large proportion of the spiritual diet of foreign Papists towards the close of his pontificate. Even eminent prelates of the Roman obedience are reported not to have scrupled already to use of the Papacy such phrases as “Third Incarnation of the Deity “; and it would be only following analogies of “development,” if, in process of time, these last exaggerations also should be formulated into dogma, as has been the case with the dogma of Infallibility, and some Pope to come should in some way claim to be actually identified with Jesus Christ.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2Th_2:3

Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first

Christ and Antichrist

The most marked Features in this passage are--

I.

A caricature of Christ; an exact counterpart and mockery of Christ in the man of sin. The latter has, like the former--

1. An apocalypse (2Th_2:8. cf. verses 6-8).

2. A solemn coming on the stage of human history (2Th_2:8).

3. An advent (2Th_2:9).

4. Power, signs, wonders (2Th_2:9).

5. Designation (2Th_2:4).

6. A definitely appointed season of His own (2Th_2:6).

II. A caricature of Christianity. As some of the leading glories of Christ are studiously travestied in the lawless one, and described in language which forces us to think of Christ; so several of the leading features of the Christian system are powerfully travestied by imitative anti-Christianity. This latter is--

1. A mystery (2Th_2:7), imitative of the mystery of godliness.

2. Has an energy, an inworking (2Th_2:7; 2Th_2:11, cf. Eph_2:2), imitative of the energy and inworking of the Word of God (1Th_2:12; Heb_4:12), of God (Php_2:18; Gal_2:8), of the indwelling Spirit (Col_1:29). He shall work in them by such an energy as that of the Holy Ghost, who witnesseth in us concerning God; not a mere apprehension, but an inworking of error, a regeneration into the faith of the lie (E. Irving)

.

3. Has a faith--a solemn making of an act of faith--imitative of the faith of Christians (2Th_2:11).

4. The words eudokein, eudokia are used of Gods good pleasure in His sinless Son, and of His goodwill toward men (Mat_3:17; Mat_12:18; Mat_17:5; Luk_12:32; 1Co_1:21; Gal_1:15), or the good will of Christians in holiness and acts of love (1Th_2:8, etc.). The imitative good pleasure of anti-Christianity is in unrighteousness (2Th_2:12). (Bp. Alexander.)

Signs of the Second Advent

I. A caution: Let no man deceive you. A man may be deceived on this momentous subject.

1. All admit that Christ will come; but few invest it with sufficient importance. Paul thought so much about it that he made it the main subject of these Epistles, and the New Testament is full of it. Little is said about death but much about the Second Advent.

2. There were false teachers who preached that the event was at hand, and many were abandoning the ordinary duties of life, and were troubled and shaken in mind. False expectations were calculated to produce such results. What awful disturbance there would be in the mind of every unconverted man were it now infallibly announced that Christ would come tomorrow. But Paul was writing to the Church. How, then, could they be troubled who were encouraged to look for and hasten unto that event? It is one thing to live in quiet expectation of Christ, and another to feel that He will come tomorrow. We are forbidden to inquire into the day and hour. That is to keep the Church in a state of calm expectation. Think of the trouble many good people would be in were it known that Christ would come directly. Who would have any relish for work. And then there are many true believers whose evidence is not always clear; how it would trouble them. How agitated we should be about the condition of our friends. To prevent these evils, the hour is unrevealed.

II. The events which must transpire before Christ comes.

1. The gospel must be first preached to all nations as a witness, as our Lord said. His object was the formation of a Church as His witness. This Church, like a pilgrim, has gone from place to place. Churches have been formed, and then after a while the candlestick has been removed, as in the case of those of Asia. The effect of this has been the gathering of a people, generation after generation, to the general assembly of the first-born. This, too, is the work of every preacher. He does not convert congregations, but individuals. The net is cast and fish are gathered of every kind forming what we call Christendom. With this body our Lord will deal when He comes, and then the final severance will take place. But before then there will be a great moral separation, viz.

2. A great falling away. This will be of mere professors who, by withdrawing, will leave the whole body of believers sharply defined and intact (Rev_13:8). This apostasy will not be of one or two, here and there; that began in Pauls time, and has been going on ever since; but one of a great and striking character. The cause of this will be the portentous development of the mystery of iniquity which began the work one thousand eight hundred years ago, ripening into all sorts of sin, Romanism, infidelity, religious indifference and worldliness, preparing the visible Church for the reception of a great pretender who is--

3. The man of sin. Some have identified this character with the Pope in his official character but this can hardly be the case inasmuch as the Pope has never exalted himself above God, etc., (2Th_2:4), and has not been worshipped by the world (Rev_13:8). One of the marks of the beast is that all shall worship him but the elect; but surely every non-Papist is not a true believer. Whether a given Pope may yet appear as the man of sin is another matter, but it is quite certain that one has not yet been revealed as such. This individual will--

(1) be a man,

(2) be qualified for his work by the energy of Satan--

(3) be revealed by tribulation which shall sift and purify the elect, at the same time inviting to himself all the ungodly.

III. Then will come the end (2Th_1:7-10). (Capel Molyneux, M. A.)

The falling away

is either that of which he had spoken to them while he was yet with them, or that, which in his own mind was inseparable from the coming of Christ which was to follow. Of what nature was this falling away? What vision of apostasy rose before him as he wrote this? Was it within or without? permanent or passing? persecution of the heathen, or the disorganization of the body of Christ itself? Was it the transition of the Church from its first love to a more secular and earthly state, or the letting loose of a spiritual world of evil, such as the apostle describes in Eph_6:12? So ideal a picture cannot properly be limited to any person or institution. That it is an inward, not an outward evil, that is depicted, is implied in the very name apostasy. It is not the evil of the heathen world, sunk in grossness and unconsciousness, but evil rebelling against good, conflicting with good in the spiritual world itself. And the conflict is of the same nature, though in a wider sphere, as the strife of good and evil in the heart of the individual. It is that same strife, not as represented in Rom_7:1-25, but at a later stage when evil is fast becoming good, and the remembrance of the past itself is carrying men away from the truth. (Prof. Jowett.)

An evil and presumptuous one

The apostle speaks in the eighth verse of the revelation of that wicked, intimating the discovery, which should be made of his wickedness in order to his ruin: here he speaks of his rise, which should be occasioned by the general apostasy; and to intimate that all sorts of false doctrines and corruptions should centre in him.

I. The names of this person.

1. He is called that man of sin, to denote his egregious wickedness; not only is he addicted to and practises wickedness himself, but he also promotes, countenances, and commands sin and wickedness in others.

2. And he is the son of perdition, because he himself is devoted to certain destruction, and is the instrument of destroying many others both in soul and body.

II. The presumption of this person.

1. His towering ambition. He opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped. Thus he has not only opposed Gods authority, and that of the civil magistrates, who are called gods, but exalted himself above God and earthly governors, in demanding greater regard to his commands than to the commands of God or the magistrate.

2. His dreadful usurpation. He as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God! As God was in the temple of old, and worshipped there, and is in and with His Church now, so Antichrist is the usurper of Gods authority in the Christian Church, and the claimer of Divine honours, for, among the moat blasphemous titles, this one has been given to him, Another God on earth! (T. Scott, M. A.)

Apostasy and Antichrist

I. The general apostasy which must precede Christs coming.

1. Apostasy is any defection from that lord to whom we owe fealty. In religious matters it is defection from our right and proper Lord. The devil was an apostate (Jud_1:6; Joh_8:44); our first parents (Rom_5:19); their posterity (Zep_1:6; Isa_59:13).

2. The apostasy of the text was not civil, the falling away of many kingdoms from the Roman empire; but of the visible Church from its Lord. This is proved--

(1) From the fact that the Thessalonians did not intermingle with State affairs.

(2) From the use of the word in Christian doctrine (Luk_13:13).

(3) Because it was expressly foretold (1Ti_4:1).

(4) Because those who are most concerned to maintain the notion of civil apostasy are most notorious in this defection.

3. The proper Lord of the Christian Church is Christ (Rom_14:9; Eph_5:23).

4. Apostasy from Christ is determined by two things.

(1) By undermining His authority. This is done when others usurp His place without His leave, e.g., superinduce a universal head of the Church which Christ never appointed.

(2) By corrupting and destroying the interests of His kingdom, which is the case wherever there is a degeneration from the purity and simplicity of the gospel (2Co_11:3), such as when the faith of the gospel is turned into dead opinions and curious questions; and its worship corrupted into giving Divine honour to saints and angels and turned into a theatrical pomp of empty ceremonies; and its discipline transformed into temporal domination and carried on by sides and interests.

5. This apostasy is notable and discernible, not of a few or many in divers Churches. There have always been backsliders (1Jn_2:18-19; 1Jn_4:3; 1Jn_4:5); but the great apostasy is in some visible Church where these corruptions are generally received and defended. Who then are they--

(1) Who usurp Christs authority by setting up a universal head over all Christians?

(2) Who revive the worship of a middle sort of powers between God and man (1Ti_4:1; Col_2:18), and invent so many lies to defend it, when Christians should keep themselves from idols (1Jn_5:21), not contented with the only Mediator (1Ti_2:5; 1Co_8:5)?

(3) Who plead for indulgences and the supererogatory satisfaction of saints as profitable for the remission of sins?

(4) Who keep believers from reading the Scriptures when expressly enjoined to do so (Joh_5:39; Psa_1:2)?

(5) Who deny one part of the Lords Supper notwithstanding His institution to the contrary (1Co_11:25-26)?

II. The revelation of Antichrist as--

1. The man of sin.

(1) The Jews gave this name to Antiochus (1Ma_2:48; 1Ma_2:62), and it is given to Antichrist because he is a man given up to sin eminently, and giveth excitements to sin. Now how much open sin is allowed in the Papacy their own stories tell Histories witness that the most abominable men have occupied the Papal chair; and no man can sin at so cheap a rate when, by dividing sins into mortal and venial, and these expiated by penance, faculties, licences, dispensations, indulgences until sin is distinguished out of conscience.

(2) Because he is called the man of sin it does not follow that he is an individual. One is often put for a society and succession of men as kings (Dan_7:8; Isa_10:5; Isa_14:9); so the man of God is put for all faithful ministers (2Ti_3:17); high priest (Heb_9:25); the king (1Pe_2:17). So one person represents that succession of men that head the revolt against Christ.

2. The son of perdition. Wherein he is likened to Judas (Joh_17:12). The term may be explained passively as one condemned to everlasting destruction (2Sa_12:5; Eph_2:3), or actively as bringing destruction on himself and others (Rev_9:11, cf. Heb_5:9). Note the parallel.

(1) Judas was not a stranger, but a pretended friend and apostle (Act_1:17). Turks and infidels are enemies to Christ, but Antichrist seeks to undermine Him under a pretence of friendship. There is no mystery in open enmity (verse 7).

(2) He sold Christ for a small matter; Antichrist makes a market of religion.

(3) Judas betrayed Christ with a kiss, and where is there apparently such friends of Christ as at Rome? They are ready to worship the Cross, and yet they are its enemies, because they mind earthly things.

(4) Judas was a guide to those who came to take Christ, and the main work of Antichrist is to be a ringleader in persecuting for religion.

(5) Judas was covetous, and England to its bitter cost knows the exactions of the Papacy. (T. Manton, D. D.)

The development of Antichrist

I. It begins in a falling away--

1. From the power and practice of godliness, though the profession be not changed.

(1) Because this disposes to the entertainment of error. When a people that are carried with great zeal for a while, lose their affections to good, and return to a worldly life, then the bias of their hearts easily prevails against the light of their understandings. And so unsanctified men may the sooner be drawn to apostasy; they never felt the quickening virtue of faith, and were never wrought by it to the true love of God or an holy life.

(2) Because if a lively Christianity had been kept up, Antichrist had never risen, and it is the way to keep him out still (Mat_13:1-58). A sleepy religion and corruption of manners made way for corruption of doctrine, worship, and order (Son_5:2).

(3) Because there is such a compliance between the nature of Antichristianism and the temper of a carnal heart; for superstition and profaneness grow both upon the same root. To prevent this falling away from a lively godliness observe two things--

(a) Coldness in duties, when the will and affections grow more remiss, and the worship of God, which keepeth up the remembrance of Him, is either omitted or performed in a careless and stupid manner (Jer_2:32; Job_27:10; Isa_43:22). When you seldom think or speak of God and do not keep up a delightful communion with Him, there is a falling away.

(b) Boldness in sinning. When men lose their tenderness and strictness, and the awe of God is lessened in their hearts, and they do not only sin freely in thought, but in act, have not that hatred of sin and watch fulness they had formerly, but more abandon themselves to a carnal life, they are falling off from God apace (2Pe_2:20).

Consider the cause of it--

(a) Want of faith in God (Heb_3:12).

(b) Want of love to God (Rev_2:4-5).

(c) Want of a due sense of the world to come (Heb_10:39).

(d) Love of the present world (2Ti_4:10; 1Ti_6:10; 2Ti_3:4).

2. From a true religion to a false, which may be done two ways.

(1) Out of weakness of mind as those do who were never well grounded in the truth (Eph_4:14; 2Pe_3:16). Therefore we need to be established; but the forsaking of a truth we were bred in usually comes from some falseness of heart. Some errors are so contrary to the new nature, that they discern them by the unction (1Jn_2:20).

(2) Out of vile affection, when they forsake the truth for the advantages of a fleshly, worldly life, some places to be gotten by it, etc., and as the whore of Babylon hath a golden cup, riches, and preferments, wherewith it inviteth its proselytes. Now these are worse than the former, for they sell the birthright (Heb_12:16). O Christians! take heed to yourselves. Apostasy brought Antichrist into the Church. Let it not bring him back again into the land, or into your hearts.

II. The next step is the man of sin. As the first apostasy of Adam and Eve brought sin into the world, so this great apostasy brought in a deluge of sin into the Church, and defiled the holy society which Christ had gathered out of the world. Idolatry is often called adultery or fornication; spiritual uncleanness disposeth to bodily, and bodily to spiritual. Usually a corrupt state of religion and corrupt manners go together; otherwise the dance and the fiddle would not suit. The world cannot lie quiet in a course of sin, if there be not some libertine, atheistical doctrine, and carnal worship to countenance it (Rev_11:10).

III. The man of sin is also the son of perdition.

1. Actively. False religions strangely efferate the mind (Jud_1:11; Hos_5:2). Men think no cruelty nor dishonesty unlawful which serveth to promote the interests of their sect, and lose all charity to those that are not of their way.

2. Passively, shall be destroyed. Sometimes grievous judgments come in this world for the corruptions of religion; but in the world to come, dreadful is the end of apostates (2Pe_2:20-21). (T. Manton, D. D.)

The man of sin

Mark--

I. That moral evil on earth is represented in human nature. Sin is connected with man in contradistinction to--

1. Abstract systems.

2. Super-earthly sinners.

II. That it is often found usurping the perogatives of God, such as--

1. Proprietorship in human life.

2. The taking away of human life.

3. Dominion over conscience.

4. The absolving from sin.

5. Infallibility of character.

III. That it is subject to restraint in this world, arising from--

1. Civil law.

2. Social intelligence.

3. The monition of conscience.

4. Physical inability.

IV. That it is associated, with the mysterious (verse 7). Evil is mysterious on account of--

1. The darkness that enfolds its introduction.

2. The mask under which it works.

3. Its wonderful results.

V. That it is satanic in its operations (verse 9). These operations are--

1. Sensuous.

2. Marvellous.

3. Deceptive.

4. Unrighteous.

5. Destructive.

VI. that it is destined to be destroyed by the agency or christ.

1. By His Word.

2. By His manifestation. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

Judas a type of the Papacy

The term son of perdition occurs but once elsewhere, and that on our Lords lips in reference to Judas. The parallel between His character and conduct and the Papacy--not any individual Pope, but the whole system--is most close. We conceive the Papacy to be here intended, because the features of type and prophecy here delineated fit no other subject.

I. Judas and the bishops of Rome alike were ministers--official men in the Church. The antiquity of the Church of Rome, and the dignity, authority, and vast influence of its bishops is undisputed.

II. Both betrayed the trust reposed in them. How fearfully Judas did this we all know; and has not the Papacy? The trust committed to it was the mystery of godliness, the maintenance of the gospel in its purity and simplicity, the care of Christs flock, example not lordship. How was this trust fulfilled by successive bishops of Rome? They gradually began to seek for ascendancy, to accommodate the Scriptures to their own purpose, to vitiate the purity and simplicity of the gospel by tradition, ecclesiastical decisions, fables, and legends as of Divine authority, to set themselves more aloft, and to set the Saviour aside, usurping His preeminence by assuming the title of His vicars, as though He were not with His Church always.

III. Both betrayed him into the hands of his enemies to death. Judas literally, the Papacy in the persons of His persecuted representatives. Judas betrayed Christ into the hands of the civil power, and has not the wretched policy of Rome ever been to screen its own cowardice and heartlessness behind the pretended power of civil authority, to whom her victims after sham trials have been handed over for death?

IV. Both betrayed the Lord with a kiss. The Papacy makes a vain pretence of showing special homage to Christ. Witness its caricature of Christs example when the Pope washes the feet of a few selected beggars, and the spurious honour given to Christs dignity by the mediatorship of Mary and the Saints.

V. Both betrayed the Lord for money. The covetousness of Judas gives point to the apostolic injunction to ministers not to be lovers of filthy lucre; but history is witness that the Papacy from the first has been given to filthy lucre. The requirements and ordinances which Rome has substituted for the ordinances of the gospel have been so many channels for wealth to flow into her treasury. Almost as soon as the Papacy rose on the ruins of the Pagan Empire she imposed the impious tax known as Peters pence. But this is not all. Merchandize is made of Christ. Rome professes that her priests, in the mass, transubstantiate the wafer into Christ, and the mass is offered for the sins of men, for money; so that the priests must be paid as Judas for offering up the Lord Incarnate. And then she sells indulgences, deliverances from penance, prayers, etc., making salvation a matter of money.

VI. Both betray Christ at the instigation of Satan. We could not account for the structure of the Papacy except on this hypothesis.

1. If you trace back the policy of Satan to the beginning you find it to be threefold.

(1) It was to blot out the idea of God. Hence we find no idolatry on the part of the ungodly before the flood.

(2) Failing, then, to set aside religion altogether he corrupted it. No sooner was there knowledge of the true God than he introduced gods many; side by side with prophets, miracles, the Word of God, he set up soothsayers, magic, lying oracles and legends.

(3) When Christianity was set up, and his pagan throne in Rome overthrown, he set up his Papal throne, and repeopled the deserted pantheon with idols for Christians to worship. So exactly has this come to pass that there is scarcely a pagan ceremony that has not its shadow in Popery, and its mission abroad is to paganize Christianity rather than to Christianize paganism.

2. Note the satanic characteristics of the Papacy.

(1) There is no doubt that Satan has much to do with the lying wonders of heathenism, and the strange appearances of power with which Rome caricatures the miracles of Christ. Did not the Pope know that the winking picture which he sent crowns to adorn, and which he endorsed as a miracle, was a most barefaced imposture?

(2) Satan fell by pride, and we need scarcely to be reminded of the awful arrogance of the Papacy. Look at the servile homage the Pope receives when men kiss his feet; and when on the day of his installation he is borne on the shoulders of bishops, and thrice adored; and when on the pontifical throne he is placed on the high altar where the Divine wafer rests, thus sitting in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God and is worshipped.

VII. Both fulfil Scripture and accomplish what God in His determinate counsel and foreknowledge declared should be done. How these and other instances in which the wrath of man praises God is a mystery; but the existence of such a system of despotism, delusion, superstition, and cruelty, would be an intolerable burden on any ether hypothesis. But when we see it all foretold in revelation, and that it shall at last serve to magnify Christ, and tend to the glorification of His Church, we bow submissive and tarry the Lords time. VIII. Both are branded the son of perdition, because of their fearful doom (verse 8). (Canon Stowell.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2Th 2:3-4. Let no man deceive you by any means — By any of these ways fore-mentioned, or any other; for that day shall not come, unless a falling away, η αποστασια, the apostacy, come first — The article here is emphatical, denoting both that this was to be a great apostacy, the apostacy, by way of eminence, (the general, grand departure of the whole visible church into idolatrous worship,) and that the Thessalonians had been already apprized of its coming. Although the Greek word here used often signifies the rebellion of subjects against the supreme power of the country where they live, or the revolt of soldiers against their general, or the hostile separation of one part of a nation from another; yet in Scripture it commonly signifies a departure, either in whole or in part, from a religious faith or obedience formerly professed, Act 21:21; Heb 3:12. Here it denotes the defection of the disciples of Christ from the true faith and worship of God, enjoined in the gospel. Accordingly, the apostle, foretelling this very defection, (1Ti 4:1,) says, αποστησονται τινες, some shall apostatize from the faith. See the note on that verse. And that man of sin — The head of this apostacy, given up to all sin himself, (Rev 13:5-6,) and a ringleader of others unto sin, 2Th 2:12; 2Th 2:14. If this idea be derived from any ancient prophet, it must be from Daniel, who hath described the like arrogant and tyrannical power, Dan 7:25; He shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws. See also Dan 11:26. Any man may be satisfied that St. Paul alluded to this description by Daniel, because he hath not only borrowed the ideas, but hath even adopted some of the phrases and expressions. The man of sin may signify either a single man, or a succession of men; the latter being meant in Daniel, it is probable that the same is intended here also. Indeed, a single man appears hardly sufficient for the work here assigned; and it is agreeable to the phraseology of Scripture to speak of a body, or a number of men, under the character of one. Thus a king (Dan 7:8.; Revelation 17.) is often used for a succession of kings, and the high-priest, (Heb 9:7; Heb 9:25,) for the series and order of high-priests. A single beast, (Daniel 7, 8.; Revelation 13.) often represents a whole empire or kingdom, in all its changes and revolutions. The woman clothed with the sun, (Rev 12:1,) is designed as an emblem of the true church, as the woman arrayed in purple and scarlet, (Rev 17:4,) is the portrait of a corrupt communion. This man of sin is said to be revealed when he enters on the stage, and acts as he is described. The son of perdition — One who brings destruction upon others, both spiritual and temporal, (Rev 17:2; Rev 17:6,) and is devoted to destruction himself, 2Th 2:8. Thus the Papacy has caused the death of numberless multitudes both of opposers and followers, has destroyed innumerable souls, and will itself go to destruction. The son of perdition is also the denomination of the traitor Judas, (Joh 17:12,) which implies that the man of sin should, like Judas, be a false prophet, should betray Christ, and be devoted to destruction.

Who opposeth — Or shall oppose, (the prophets speaking of things future as present,) and exalt himself above all — Greek, επι παντα, above every one, that is called God — This is manifestly copied from Daniel; He shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, and speak marvellous things against the God of gods. Or that is worshipped — Εεβασμα, alluding to the title of the Roman emperors, σεβαστος, august, or venerable. He shall oppose and exalt himself, not only above inferior magistrates, who are sometimes called gods in holy writ, but even above the greatest emperors, and shall arrogate to himself divine honours; so that he, as God — Assuming the authority of Christ; sitteth in the temple of God — Exercises supreme and sovereign power over the visible church, as head thereof, even over all that profess Christianity. By the temple of God, the apostle could not well mean the temple of Jerusalem, because he knew very well that would be totally destroyed within a few years. It is an observation of the learned Bochart, that after the death of Christ the temple at Jerusalem is never called by the apostles the temple of God; and that when they mention the house or temple of God, they mean the Christian Church in general, or every particular believer; which indeed is very evident from many passages in their epistles: see 1Ti 3:15; 1Co 6:19; 2Co 6:16; Eph 2:19-22; 1Pe 2:5. Besides, in the Revelation by St. John, which was written some years after the destruction of Jerusalem, there is mention made of men’s becoming pillars in the temple of God, (Rev 3:12,) which is a further proof that the sitting of the man of sin in the temple of God, by no means implies that he was to appear in the temple of Jerusalem. In short, the meaning of the verse is, that the wicked teachers, of whom the apostle speaks, would first oppose Christ by corrupting the doctrine of the gospel concerning him, and after that they would make void the government of God and of Christ in the Christian Church, and the government of the civil magistrate in the state, by arrogating to themselves the whole spiritual authority which belongs to Christ, and all the temporal authority belonging to princes and magistrates; showing himself that he is God — Exercising all the prerogatives of God, accepting such titles, and doing such things, as, if they indeed belonged to him, would show him to be God: an exact description certainly of the Papal power.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2:3 Two events will precede that day of the Lord (2:2). • Both Jewish and Christian theology predicted a great rebellion against God before the end (Matt 24:11-14; 1 Tim 4:1). • The man of lawlessness is without or against law; his character is defined by sin. • the one who brings destruction (or the one destined for destruction): The emphasis is on the lawless man’s own destruction (2 Thes 2:8) rather than on the destruction he brings.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

2Th 2:3. Κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον, by no means) He indicates three means in which they might be deceived, 2Th 2:2.—ὅτι, because) Supply from what goes before, the negative particle with the substantive verb, it does not come to pass (that day shall not come), unless, etc. But this ellipsis shows εὐλάβεια, pious, reverent caution. He is εὐλαβὴς, reverently cautious, who comprehends well, and receives in a right spirit, the matter set before him, not with an unseasonable and foolhardy rashness, sachte, scheu, etc. Εὐλάβεια is shown in the fact, that Paul does not expressly say: The day of Christ does not come, unless, etc. He speaks mildly (moderately); he abstains from words to which the lover of the coming of Christ would not willingly listen.—ἐὰν μὴ, unless) What we read in 2Th 2:3-8 demands a fuller consideration. And, first, we shall look closely into this paragraph by itself; then we shall compare the Apocalypse with it. The former aspect of it comprehends something like the following positions:—

I. The object of Paul is to admonish the Thessalonians not to think the day of Christ nearer than it really is.—The expectation of future events, which is supposed to rest upon Divine testimony, and which after all is discovered in the end to be false, occasions great offence (raises a great stumblingblock in the way of religion). Such an expectation of the day of Christ might occasion very great offence: wherefore Paul anxiously obviates it. The Thessalonians had been prepared to receive the Lord with joy, ch. 2Th 1:11; 1Th 1:10: and indeed a desire of that sort presupposes hope and faith; but yet this very desire may be out of due order. It is therefore reduced to order.

II. Paul especially teaches, that some great evil will first come.—Paul does not enumerate all the events which were to intervene between that age and the day of Christ; but he points out a certain one thing, especially remarkable, the explicit declaration of which was even already at that time seasonable and salutary to the Thessalonians. He therefore describes the apostasy, the Man of Sin, etc.

III. Not only does the apostle point out the evil, but also the check upon it.—He who hindereth or checketh, ὁ κατέχων, is made mention of, the person who checks or holds back the Man of Sin. That check is in some measure prior to the evil itself, and therefore the announcement of it appertains much (in a great degree) to the design of the apostle, which is, that the time may be defined, though with a proper latitude, when the adversary is to be revealed.

IV. The evil extends itself from the times of Paul, even up to the appearance of the coming of Jesus Christ.—That evil is not only most widely extended, 2Th 2:4; 2Th 2:10; 2Th 2:12, but also very long continued; and although it rises up by various degrees, yet it is also continuous from its first beginnings (staminibus, threads in weaving the web) even to its end. Now already, says the apostle, the mystery of iniquity is working. It already wrought in the time of the apostles, but more after their death, most of all after the death of the men who were the contemporaries and immediate successors of the apostles (i.e. the apostolic fathers). They do not arrive at the best and wisest conclusion, who entertain the opinion, that the ideal and rule of the Church lie in the ancient practice (the antiquity) of some of the earliest ages, rather than in the truth itself, seeing that those ages merely rebuke the greater declension of posterity [and do not, by the fact of their antiquity, establish their own complete coincidence with the truth].

V. There was also a check in the time of Paul, and that check then, and not till then, ceases to exist in the way, when the evil breaks out in all its force.—He who now holdeth (the evil) back [“letteth,” Old Engl.], says Paul, until he be taken out of the way. Hence it is evident, that the restraining check was not the preaching of the Gospel, either universal or apostolical. The check remained even after the time of the apostles, who finished their course long before the check ceased to act as a check; but the preaching of the Gospel is never wholly taken from among men [“out of the way”].

VI. The evil is described first in the abstract, then in the concrete.—The mystery of iniquity is said to be now already working; but after an interval, that Iniquitous one (Wicked) himself[10] shall be revealed. The event turned out corresponding with this order. Not dissimilar is the fact, that in 2Th 2:3, previously, the appellation given is first apostasy, then the Man of Sin. In preaching of Christ, it was said first, in the abstract, the kingdom of heaven is at hand; then Christ Himself, with His glory, was more openly manifested. So, on the opposite side, the testimony is similarly framed concerning [the coming] evil. The vicious humour is drawn together, and breaks out at length in one abscess.

[10] ὁ ἄνομος, ver. 8, the embodiment and incarnation of the previous ἀνομία.—ED.

VII. The apostasy and the mystery of iniquity are a great evil.—The description of the evil in the abstract and concrete has different parts, and these mutually explain each other. Apostasy is a falling away from the faith, and is clearly described, 1Ti 4:1. This apostasy is not determined in its extent by any particular place;—as widely as the faith extended, so widely, for the most part, does the apostasy extend;—yet it prevailed in the greatest degree among the Jews. There is also the apostasy of those to whom faith had been offered, although they did not receive it. Some of those who had received it [11]drew back [“departing from the living God”]: comp. Heb 3:12. The people is treated as equivalent to one man, whether regard is had to the Divine grace, which offers itself, or to man’s refusal of it, under whatever circumstances. It was apostasy in the people who refused to enter into the promised land, LXX. Num 14:31. The bitterness of the Jews was excessive, especially at Thessalonica, Act 17:5; Act 17:11; Act 17:13; and Judaism at Rome occasioned great damage to Christianity. In like manner, iniquity, the mystery of which was then already working, is not iniquity of any kind whatever, although it be manifold, Mat 24:12, but that from which the Iniquitous one (‘Wicked:’ ὁ ἄνομος) himself is denominated, 2Th 2:8, with which comp. 2Th 2:3-4. The mystery of this iniquity was then already working (comp. Deu 31:21; Deu 31:27), and was so concealed, that it crept in among men almost without themselves being conscious of it, and went on increasing for many ages. But even yet it is working, until the working of Satan shall bring forth the Iniquitous one himself (“that wicked”): 2Th 2:9. Judaism, infecting Christianity, is the fuel; the mystery of iniquity is the spark.

[11] Perhaps the italicised resilierunt of Beng. refers to the ὑποστείληται and ὑποστολῆ of Heb 10:38-39, which see; also Psa 78:57.—ED.

VIII. The Iniquitous one (‘Wicked’) himself is the greatest evil.—He is the Man of Sin, the son of perdition, opposed to and exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he sits himself as God in the temple of God, and declares himself to be God (a god). He is the very Iniquitous (‘Wicked’) one, whose coming is according to the working of Satan, etc. These points we shall afterwards consider one by one.

IX. The check is used indifferently in the masculine and neuter gender [ὁ κατέχων and τὸ κατέχον]: unless the neuter be put first in the text for this purpose, namely, in order that ὁ κατέχων, He who holdeth back (‘letteth,’ viz. the evil), may be afterwards opposed to the adversary, who is described in the singular [2Th 2:8].—HE WHO NOW holdeth back (‘letteth’), says he, will cease to be in the way (to be among men); and a little before, Now ye know THAT WHICH withholdeth (holds back), so as that he may be revealed in HIS TIME [and not sooner; but for τὸ κατέχον, he would be revealed sooner than the proper time].

X. That check, whatever it is, does not restrain the apostasy and the mystery of iniquity—but the Man of Sin himself that iniquitous, or wicked one.—The mystery of iniquity, and he who holdeth back (‘letteth’), fall upon one and the same time [are coincident in time]; but, when he who holdeth back, and that which holdeth back (‘withholdeth’), have ceased to be in the way, then the Iniquitous one (Wicked) is revealed.

XI. At length out of the apostasy arises the Man of Sin; moreover, the political power of Rome, as a check, holds this very person back.—We clearly see, from the mutual comparison of the evil and the check upon it, and of the qualities of each, what both are. That Iniquitous one (‘Wicked’), besides marks of falsehood, has also a certain degree of majesty, set off under a spiritual disguise, as if he were a god. The civil authority acts as a check upon him; and this authority was assuredly in the hands of the Romans in the time of Paul, and comprehended Jerusalem; Rome, and Corinth, from which he was writing, as also Thessalonica, to which he was writing, etc.

XII. The date of this epistle in no small degree helps the interpretation.—It was written in the time of Claudius; comp. Act 18:2; Act 18:5, with 1Th 3:1; 1Th 3:6: and this very circumstance utterly refutes Grotius’ attempt to interpret the prophecy of Paul concerning Caligula. The ancients were of opinion, that Claudius himself was absolutely this check; for from this circumstance, as it appears, it came to pass, that they considered Nero, the successor of Claudius, to be the Man of Sin; and when the wickedness of Nero, how furious soever it might be, had not, however, filled up that measure, they accounted Domitian, and the other emperors of a similar character, as a kind of complement to make up the full measure of the evil. They certainly did not by this interpretation exhaust the prophecy; but yet they attained to some part of the truth, namely, that something connected with Rome is here intended, whatever might be the mode of its exhibition.

Let us go a little closer. The check is something with which the Thessalonians were unacquainted when Paul had been with them not long before: and ‘now,’ when the same apostle wrote these things, they ‘knew’ it, from the fact of the beginnings of the events corresponding [to his words] more than many, a little before, would have thought. This is evident from the antithesis between the fifth and sixth verses. The epistle was written about the eighth year of Claudius, 48 of the Dion. æra, as we show in Ordo temporum p. 278. At that period Claudius had expelled from Rome the Jews, whether believers or unbelievers, and this because the latter were constantly raising tumults; and in Judæa itself, too, Cumanus was grievously oppressing them. Therefore, in the provinces, the prefects and procurators, in Italy and at Rome the Emperor himself, was holding back the evil. It is a remarkable proof of this fact, that the Jews did not kill James until after the death of Festus, and before the arrival of Albinus. Whatever they did on that occasion, they would willingly have done on other occasions against Christ, but could not for the Romans. So Gallio held them back at Corinth, Claudius Lysias at Jerusalem, Act 18:14; Act 18:21; Act 18:23. In the time of Paul, the Roman power certainly held back the evil; not immediately (directly): therefore it must have been mediately (indirectly). Moreover, the instrumentality or medium of holding it back was severity towards the Jews, who would have proceeded farther, if they had been permitted by the Romans. I shall willingly listen to an easier and simpler (I should be glad to hear a more ready and probable) interpretation.

XIII. When the check ceased to be in the way, that Iniquitous one [‘Wicked’] is revealed.—This position agrees with the fifth, and yet it also differs from it. The former marks the long continuance of the check; the latter, the time of revealing the Iniquitous one [‘Wicked’]. The coming of the Iniquitous one [‘Wicked’] is according to the working of Satan in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, etc. This coming has not yet taken place, although its preludes are for a long time not wanting; therefore the check still exists. And it is evident from this most powerful argument, that the political power in the hands of the Romans is the check. For no other check, so powerful and so long-continued, will anywhere be found. This check, however, did not restrain the working of Satan, but the setting up of the dominion of the Iniquitous one [‘Wicked’]; and when it is removed, Satan lends his aid to the Iniquitous one [‘Wicked’].

We shall now take the assistance of the Apocalypse.

XIV. That Iniquitous one [‘Wicked’] is the beast ascending out of the bottomless pit.—So long and so continuous is the evil described by Paul, § iv., that it cannot but fall in at some period with the times of the apocalyptic beast; and the resemblance between the Iniquitous one [‘Wicked’] and the beast is so great, the power so widely spread and so exalted, that they can only be one subject [they must be one and the same person or existence]. The Iniquitous one [‘Wicked’] will not finally perish [his destruction will be deferred] until after the destruction of the beast; for in that battle, which is described in Revelation 19, the Lord’s enemies are so completely destroyed, that the calamity described by Paul cannot be extended to a period farther on. Moreover also the Iniquitous one [‘Wicked’] will not perish previously [before the destruction of the beast, etc., in Revelation 19]: for he remains even till the appearing of the coming of the Lord, [2Th 2:8.]

XV. Therefore the whole evil described by Paul is strictly and intimately connected with the Roman empire.—What tie of relationship the apostasy and the Man of Sin himself had with the city Rome, could not be known by the Thessalonians, unless Paul taught them it face to face. The Apocalypse and the event teach us, and will teach posterity more and more fully. We then, according to our present ability, will institute a comparison.

XVI. That Iniquitous one [‘Wicked’] is yet to come.—It is one and the same beast which ascends first from the sea, then from the bottomless pit. That beast has very much to do with the woman, who is Babylon, Rome. Sometimes it carries the woman, at length it destroys her with the assistance of the ten horns [Rev 17:16]. The beast out of the sea is the papacy of Hildebrand; but the beast from the bottomless pit, excepting the succession in the papacy (which does not take away the ancient tradition concerning the rise of Antichrist from the Jews, but leaves it in its own place [just as it finds it]), will have a quite new and singular character of wickedness, on account of which he is called the Man of Sin, etc. All these observations are demonstrated in my German and Latin interpretation of the Apocalypse. Antichrist, or the Man of Sin, as being about to come in the nineteenth century, could not be retarded by the Roman power of the first and following centuries, on which comp. Rev 8:9. Therefore the Roman Emperor will be among the ten kings; and when he, with the nine others, shall give his power to the beast, he will be taken out of the way, and will give place to the Man of Sin. The Roman power is the check even up to the time of the rising of the Iniquitous one [‘Wicked’], who, after he has arisen, makes the whore desolate, with the assistance of the ten horns.

XVII. Rome is, notwithstanding, the channel in which the apostasy and the mystery of iniquity have flowed for many ages.—Claudius did not long exclude the Jews, and along with them the Christians, from Rome; a short time after, they returned, and with the good the evil also obtained abundant opportunity of being increased. The two parts of the evil are, the apostasy [“falling away”], and the mystery of iniquity. Apostasy from the faith, and διχοστασίαι or divisions, which lead men to forsake the doctrine of the apostles, are very closely connected; and the latter already at that time were arising at Rome on the part of some, who were under the influence of Satan; Rom 16:17, with which comp. Rom 2:20. Moreover, apostasy from the faith, bringing in doctrines concerning the worship of intermediate divinities (intercessors),[12] concerning the avoiding of marriage under pretence of spiritual perfection, and abstinence from meats, only indeed some kinds of meat, 1Ti 4:1; 1Ti 4:3, is peculiarly applicable to Rome, although it was long untainted by other heresies. The iniquity [ἀνομία 2Th 2:7] chiefly consisted in the most deadly sin of pride, 2Th 2:3-4. The beginning of man’s pride was his apostatizing from God; since his heart withdrew itself from Him who made him. For pride is the beginning of all sin.[13] Sir 10:14-15. The seeds and commencing fibres lay concealed in the elevation of human authority, in Petrism [“I am of Cephas”]; 1Co 1:12, note. Hence by degrees arose the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and the whole system of the papacy.

[12] Alluding to the “doctrines of δαίμονες” 1Ti 4:1, not ‘devils,’ as Engl. Vers.; but inferior divinities, genii, etc.—ED.

[13] The Wisdom of Sir 10:12-13; Ἀρχὴ ὑπερηφανίας, ἀνθρώπου ἀφισταμένου ἀπὸ Κυρίου, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ποιήσαντος αὐτὸν ἀπέστη ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ, Ὅτι ἀρχὴ ὑπερηφανίας ἁμαοτία.—ED.

XVIII. Also, now and then, the Pope very closely approaches the characteristics of the Man of Sin himself.—The Pope is in some respects the Man of Sin, while he eagerly promotes the transgression of the Divine law and the Divine commandments, and greatly impedes the observance of them, but defends with the utmost severity his own decrees: he is the son of perdition, in that (whilst) he has plunged innumerable souls into destruction, and has delivered to death immense multitudes of men either devoted to himself or in any way resisting him: he is opposed [2Th 2:4] to the majesty of Cæsar, formerly his master, and is exalted above all that is called God or worshipped, by the fact of his claiming as his right the highest authority, the highest worship, by his commanding angels, and subjecting the Emperor to himself. It is not merely once that the paroxysm of pontifical pride has broken out to such degree, that he called, or permitted himself to be called, god or vice-god [vicegerent of God]; and the solemn titles, Most Holy Lord (for godhead and holiness are synonymous in the language of Scripture), and, Most Blessed Father, have the same meaning: comp. Mat 19:17. Sometimes the Pope, as if he were the divine image[14] [or pageant representing God], is placed with his chair [comp. sitteth, 2Th 2:4] upon the altar [comp. in the temple, 2Th 2:4], by princes acting as bearers. Their due praise remains undiminished to the first bishops of Rome; but yet in the progress of time, by gradual advances in spiritual and civil authority, according to the order in the text, the lineaments are to be seen of that form which will put itself forth before the world as palpably as possible in that Iniquitous one [‘Wicked’] in its own time.

[14] The Latin word is ferculum, one of whose meanings is, “bearing in the hands the images of the gods.” Cæsar had a ferculum decreed to him, which implies, that his statue was to receive the same honour as those of the gods. If I understand this passage aright, it means, that the Pope, as the earthly image or representative of God, was to be placed on the altar of God, to receive the same honour as God—TRANSL.

XIX. First he who withholdeth, next that which withholdeth, ceases to be in the way.—We have mentioned this circumstance already, § 9: but here it comes to be repeated more strictly. He who withholdeth, is he who hath Rome under his sway; that is, heathen, or Christian emperors at Rome, or Constantinople; the kings of the Goths, and Lombards; again the Carlovingian and German emperors, from whom comes the wound of the sword, Revelation 8. This is He that withholdeth, going far into the middle of the times of the beast that arose out of the sea. Those princes so held back the papacy, as even notwithstanding to give it help; they so helped it, as notwithstanding to hold it back also. In the last time that which withholdeth is the power of Rome itself, when the beast carries the woman, and itself is not [Rev 17:8]. When that shall be removed out of the way, the Iniquitous one [‘Wicked’] will be revealed.

XX. The Iniquitous one [‘Wicked’] is revealed, when he begins to act with open wickedness.—Revelation is opposed to mystery, and the former is thrice mentioned, 2Th 2:3; 2Th 2:6; 2Th 2:8. Therefore that is not called ‘revelation’ by which the Iniquitous one [‘Wicked’] is convicted through the testimony of the truth; but that by which he himself, after the check is removed, acts with open wickedness, although few perceive (see through) the wickedness.

XXI. The appearance of the coming of Jesus Christ, by which the Iniquitous one [‘Wicked’] will be destroyed, will precede the actual coming itself, and the last day.—This appearance, with the destruction of the beast, or the Iniquitous one [‘Wicked’], is described, Rev 19:11, etc.: where these two, the beast and the false prophet, are cast alive into the lake of fire, that burns with brimstone; moreover the kings of the earth and their armies are slain, Rev 19:20-21. Lastly, the captivity of Satan and the kingdom of the saints follow. For the Apocalypse clearly interposes a thousand years between the destruction of the beast and the last day. But how will these years be reconciled with the language of Paul? Ans. Paul, looking back (referring here) to Daniel, as we shall afterwards see, at the same time implies those things, which are marked by the same prophet as about to happen between the destruction of the little horn and the end of the world, Dan 7:7; Dan 7:9; Dan 7:14; Dan 7:22; Dan 7:26-27. Many things long prior to the destruction of the beast, as well as also the entrance of Jesus Christ through suffering into glory, are connected with His coming in the clouds; Mat 26:64; Joh 21:22, notes. Therefore the same coming might be connected with the destruction of the adversary, which is a matter of very great importance between the two comings of Christ. And as the end of the world admitted of being (was able to be) connected with the destruction of Jerusalem, because the revelation of the intermediate events was not yet mature; so Paul might connect the coming of Christ with the destruction of the adversary, because [the revelation of] the thousand years were reserved for (against the time of giving) the Apocalypse, which much more clearly explains these points, so that the prophecy of Daniel itself may obtain light from the Apocalypse subsequently given. However, Paul appropriately [skilfully] terms it, the appearance of the coming, not the coming itself. It was not yet the time for more special information, and yet the Spirit of truth dictated those words to Paul, that they might exactly agree with the very things, which were afterwards to be more particularly revealed. The prophecy proceeds gradually. The Apocalypse speaks more explicitly than Paul; and Paul in this passage speaks more explicitly than the Lord Himself, before He was glorified; Mat 24:29: where see the notes. Moreover we ought to interpret the more ancient and more involved expressions by such as are most recent and most distinct, and not abuse the former for the purpose of weakening and eluding the latter. Nay, even in actual fact the destruction of the adversary coheres (is connected) with the coming of Christ; for there are two things especially illustrious in the glory of Christ, namely, that He is the Son of God, and that He is coming to judgment. Concerning each of these the Scripture has a similar mode of speaking, which we should carefully observe. It alleges the generation of the Son as a thing then present [then vividly realized], as often soever as anything very worthy of the only-begotten of the Father occurs; Act 13:33, note. And thus it also represents [vividly presents to us] the glorious coming under the aspect of the judgments, which are altogether worthy of the Judge of the living and the dead; comp. Rom 2:16, note. The beast and the false prophet are first of all cast into the lake of fire at the appearance of the coming of the Lord Jesus; and when He actually comes, all who are not found written in the book of life are cast into the lake of fire. The first judgment is a prelude and altogether peculiar specimen of the second judgment; nay, it is in reality one and the same judgment, only separated by time, and out of the whole period [Rev 8:2 to Rev 11:15], falling under that portion which is marked now by the trumpet of the seventh angel.

The principal points of the subject-matter have been, I think, cleared up; and we shall now proceed to illustrate what remains, viz. the phrases or particular expressions.—ἡ ἀποστασία, the apostasy [falling away]) The Greek article is frequent in this paragraph, ἡ ἀποστυσία—ὁ ἄνομος, and it is to be referred (ascribed) either to what Paul had previously said, or to the prophecies of the Old Testament.—ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, the Man of Sin) who is the greatest enemy of true righteousness. Paul so describes him, as to allude by way of contrast to Jesus Christ, and especially to the passage, Zec 9:9-10: for the King of Zion is, 1) Righteous; 2) Full of salvation; 3) Meek, and riding on an ass: in short, He is the author of peace. But His enemy is, 1) The Man of Sin; 2) The son of perdition; 3) He opposes and exalts himself: in short, he is the Iniquitous one [Wicked]. For where justice and equity [as opposed to the Iniquitous one: nefarius, fas] flourish, peace flourishes. The whole benefit derived from Christ is indicated by peace. But the Iniquitous one [Wicked] occasions all misery and calamity. The law is holy and just and good; the ἄνομος, on the other hand, is profane and unjust and evil. Moreover, what Paul principally declares elsewhere concerning Jesus, he declares the exact reverse concerning the enemy, ascribing to him revelation and mystery, coming signs, etc.—ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, that son of perdition) who will both consign as many as possible headlong to destruction, and will himself go away to the deepest perdition, Rev 17:8; Rev 17:11.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2Th_2:3-4. An emphatically-repeated exhortation, and the reason of it. The readers were by no means to be misled into the fancy, that the day of the Lord was now to dawn; for the apostasy and the appearance of Antichrist must precede it.

ἐξαπατᾶν] does not precisely convey the idea of a deceit occurring from wicked intention, whilst it may be correctly imagined that nothing evil was seen in the mode of deception mentioned in 2Th_2:2rather it was considered as an excusable vehicle for the diffusion of views which were believed to be recognised as true; only the idea of delusion, i.e. of being misled into a false and incorrect mode of contemplation, is expressed by the verb.

When, then, the apostle says, Let no man befool you, it is, similar to a form of representation usual to him, in the meaning of suffer yourselves to be befooled by no one. Comp. Eph_5:6; Col_2:16; Col_2:18.

κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον] not only recapitulates the three modes of misleading mentioned in 2Th_2:2 (Bengel, Baumgarten-Crusius), but is an absolute expression, so that accordingly it may be supposed that some other mode of deception might be employed.

The sentence 2Th_2:3-4 is grammatically incomplete. The finite verb to ὅτι is wanting, which Paul intended to accompany the conjunction, but easily forgot as he added to ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας a longer description. It is perfectly clear from the connection that οὐκ ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου from 2Th_2:2 is to be supplied to ὅτι. In a very forced manner Knatchbull attempts to remove the incompleteness of the construction by placing a comma after ὅτι, supplying ἐνέστηκεν to ὅτι, and uniting it with μή τις … τρόπον into one sentence. Suffer yourselves to be deceived by no one that (the day of the Lord is at the door), unless first there shall have come, etc. To maintain this meaning ἐνέστηκεν must necessarily be added to ὅτι. But still more arbitrary is the attempt of Storr and Flatt to remove the ellipsis by explaining ἐὰν μή as analogous (!) to the Hebrew אִם לֹא, in the sense of most certainly, most positively.

ὅτι] is to be separated from the preceding by a colon, and does not denote indeed (Baumgarten-Crusius), but for.

ἀποστασία] a later Greek form for the older ἀπόστασις. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 528. The expression is to be left in its absoluteness, not, with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Augustin (de civitate dei, xx. 21), and Bolten, to be taken as abstractum pro concreto, so that Antichrist himself is to be understood. But not apostasy in the political sense, but entirely religious apostasythat is, a falling away from God and true religioncan have been meant by ἀποστασία. (1) What is said of the ἄνθρωτος τῆς ἁμαρτίας in direct internal connection with the apostasy, (2) the characteristic of the ἀποστασία, 2Th_2:3, by ἀνομία, 2Th_2:7, and (3) the constant biblical usage, constrain us to this view. Comp. LXX. 2Ch_29:19; Jer_2:19; 1Ma_2:15, etc.; Act_21:21; 1Ti_4:1. Accordingly, also, Kerns view (comp. already Aretius and Vorstius) is to be rejected as inadmissible, that we are to think of a mixture of political and religious apostasy.

Moreover, the apostle speaks of ἡ ἀποστασία (with the article), and also ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας κ.τ.λ., either because the readers had already been orally instructed concerning it (comp. 2Th_2:5), or because the Old Testament prophets had already foretold the apostasy and the appearance of Antichrist. But the apostasy is not the consequence of the appearance of Antichrist, so that Paul by καὶ ἀποκαλυφθῇ κ.τ.λ. goes backwards from a statement of its effect to a specification of its author (so Pelt and de Wette, appealing to 2Th_2:9-10); but it precedes the appearance of antichrist, so that this is the historical climax of the ἀποστασία, and serves for its completion (2Th_2:7-10).

The apostle considers Antichrist as a parallel to Christ; therefore he here speaks of an ἀποκάλυψις (comp. 2Th_1:7), a revelation of what was hitherto concealed, as well as, in 2Th_2:9, of an advent of the same.

ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας] the man of sin, i.e. in whom sin is the principal matter, and is, as it were, incorporatedwho thus forms the climax of wickedness.

ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας] the son of perdition, i.e. who on account of his wickedness falls a prey to perdition. Comp. Joh_17:12. See Winer, p. 213 [E. T. 298]. Schleusner and Pelt erroneously take the expression as transitive: who will be the cause of perdition to others. Equally erroneously Theodoret, Oecumenius, and others; also Heydenreich and Schott: the transitive sense is to be united with the intransitive.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2Th 2:3 . καὶ ἀποκ ., the apostasy and the appearance (so of Beliar, Asc. Isa. , iv. 18) of the personal anti-Christ or pseudo-Christ form a single phenomenon. From the use of ἡ ἀποστασία as a Greek equivalent for Belial (LXX of 1Ki 21:13 , A, and Aquila), this eschatological application of the term would naturally flow, especially as אישׁ בליעל might well be represented by ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας on the analogy of 2Sa 22:5 (LXX) = Psa 17 (18):4. Lawlessness was a cardinal trait in the Jewish figure of Belial, as was persecution of the righteous (2Th 1:4 , 2Th 2:7 , see Asc. Isa. , ii. 5, etc.). The very order of the following description ( ἀπωλείας set between ἀνομίας and ὁ ἀντικείμενος , etc., unchronologically, but dramatically) suggests that this incarnation of lawlessness was a doomed figure, although he challenged and usurped divine prerogatives. He is another Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan 11:36 , καὶ ὑψωθήσεται ἐπὶ πάντα θεὸν καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν τῶν θεῶν ἔξαλλα λαλήσει , though Paul carefully safeguards himself against misconception by inserting λεγόμενον in his quotation of the words). This conception of a supernatural antagonist to Jesus Christ at the end is the chief element of novelty introduced by Paul, from Jewish traditions, into the primitive Christian eschatology. The recent attempt of Caligula to erect a statue of himself in the Temple at Jerusalem may have furnished a trait for Paul’s delineation of the future Deceiver; the fearful impiety of this outburst had sent a profound shock through Judaism, which would be felt by Jewish Christians as well. But Paul does not identify the final Deception with the Imperial cultus, which was far from a prominent feature when he wrote. His point is that the last pseudo-Messiah or anti-Christ will embody all that is profane and blasphemous, every conceivable element of impiety; and that, instead of being repudiated, he will be welcomed by Jews as well as pagans ( cf. Act 12:21-22 ).

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. της ανομιας, in אB with ten minn., cop sah arm, Tert Amb Ambrst: της αμαρτιας, ADGLP &c. latt vg syrr. The consistency of the former reading with της ανομιας and ο ανομος in 2Th 2:7 f., which are not very likely to have influenced the copyist at this earlier point (as these expressions might have done if preceding our text), lends intrinsic probability to the well-attested reading of אB and the Egyptian versions. If ανομιας be rightly preferred, αμαρτιας must be set down as a Western paraphrase; it is curious that the three Latin Fathers above-named here oppose themselves to the reading of the Latin versions. Ανομια is a comparatively rare word in the N.T.

3 b. ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ ἡ ἀποστασία πρῶτον—, because (it will not be) unless there come the apostasy first: “first,” i.e. before the Lord comes. Πρῶτον, for πρότερον, of two events, in 1Th 4:16; Luk 6:42, &c. The ellipsis is natural, the matter of deception, stated in 2Th 2:2 b, being in every one’s mind; after 2Th 2:3 a a formal contradiction of the announcement ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα is needless. Probably the writer meant to insert the contradiction after the ἐάν clause; but this sentence so runs on that its intended apodosis drops out of mind. We shall find a similar lapse in 2Th 2:7. St Paul is liable to grammatical anacolutha (incoherences) in passages of excited feeling: cf. Gal 2:4; Gal 2:6; Gal 5:13; Rom 4:16; Rom 5:12 ff.; see Winer-Moulton, p. 749. His style is that of a speaker, not of a studied writer; such broken sentences are inevitable, and explain themselves, in animated conversation.

Judging from the difference of contents in the two members of the ἐὰν μή clause, it seems likely that the Apostles conceived of two distinct and closely connected historical conditions precedent to the Lord’s παρουσία, both of which St Paul had set forth in his original teaching at Thessalonica (2Th 2:5). First, the “coming” of “the apostasy”: the definite article marks this out as a known futurity, defined by evidence either from the O.T. or from current Christian prophecy,—the latter, if we must be guided by analogy (cf. 2Th 1:8-12), being grounded upon the former. Ἀποστασία in classical Greek denotes a military or political revolt, defection; in the O.T., specifically, a revolt from the theocracy (from “the Lord”): see e.g. Jos 22:22 (ἐν ἀποστασίᾳ … ἔναντι τοῦ κυρίου, בְּמֶרֶד … ביהיה); also 1Ma 2:15 (οἱ καταναγκάζοντες τὴν ἀποστασίαν … ἵνα θυσιάσωσιν); so in Act 21:21, “thou teachest apostasy from Moses”; and the verb ἀφίσταμαι in 1Ti 4:1; Heb 3:12 (τὸ ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ζῶντος). Correspondingly, in the Christian Church the term (here first appearing) signifies revolt from Christ, the defection of men “denying the Lord that bought them” (2Pe 2:1). “The apostasy” is surely no other than that foretold by Jesus in His great prophetic discourse (so much in St Paul’s mind when he wrote these Letters): see Mat 24:10-13; Mat 24:24: “Then shall many stumble … Many false prophets shall arise (cf. διὰ πνεύματος above), and shall mislead many … Because iniquity (ἡ ἀνομία) shall abound, the love of the many shall wax cold … There shall arise false Christs and false prophets … so as to lead astray, if possible; even the elect”; cf. Mat 13:24-30, the parable of the Wheat and Tares. This sad forecast of their Lord weighed on the hearts of the early Christians; the presentiments arising from it grew in distinctness in St Paul’s mind as time went on, and were expressed with increasing emphasis: see Rom 16:17-20; Act 20:29 f.; Eph 4:14. In his last Letters (1Ti 4:1-3; 2Ti 3:1-9; 2Ti 4:3 f.) he defines “the apostasy” as it took shape toward the close of his own career, in language portending a full development, which he seems to have thought might not be far distant. The false teachers portrayed in the Pastoral Epistles as belonging to “the last times,” supply a link between St Paul’s ἡ ἀποστασία and the ἀντίχριστοι πολλοί of St John (see Appendix, pp. 223 f.). Such words as those of 1Co 12:3; 1Co 16:22, Col 2:19, show that, in the Apostle’s view, personal loyalty to Christ was the safeguard of Christianity. “Apostasy” leads the way in the supreme manifestation of evil here predicted, as though the infidelity of Christians supplied the occasion for the final eruption of wickedness; see, by contrast, Mat 5:13-16. Ἠ ἀποστασία gave the Latin translators much trouble: abscessio (Tertullian); discessio (Vulg.); defectio (Ambrosiaster, Beza, Estius); refuga (Augustine), as if for ἀποστάτης.

3 c, 4. καὶ ἀποκαλυφθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἤ σέβασμα: and there be revealed the man of lawlessness, the son of perdition, the adversary and exalter of himself against every one called god or (that is) an object of worship (aut numen, Beza). The emphatically prefixed ἀποκαλυφθῇ (substituted for ἔλθῃ of the parallel clause), which is repeated in 2Th 2:6; 2Th 2:8 (see notes; and cf. note on ἀποκάλυψις in 2Th 1:7), gives to the coming of ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας a superhuman stamp (cf. 2Th 2:9). He is identified in 2Th 2:7 (see note) with τὸ μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας; he comes κατʼ ἐνέργειαν τοῦ Σατανᾶ—ἄνθρωπος τὴν φύσιν, πᾶσαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ τοῦ διαβόλου δεχόμενος τὴν ἐνέργειαν (Theodore)—and attended with manifold miracles (2Th 2:9). The terms describing his appearance and action are borrowed throughout from those belonging to the Parousia of the Lord Jesus, whose ἀντικείμενος he is to be,—a Satanic parody of Christ, His counterpart in the realm of evil.

This fearful personality is described by three epithets, the last of the three consisting of a double participle, and all three Hebraistic in form: (a) ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας (see Textual Note)—“the man” in whom “lawlessness” is embodied, “in quem recapitulatur sex millium annorum omnis apostasia et injustitia et dolus” (Irenæus), who takes this for his rôle (cf. “man of God,” “man of Belial [worthlessness],” “man of war,” &c., in O.T. idiom); more simply named ὁ ἄνομος in 2Th 2:7. As “the man of lawlessness,” Antichrist concentrates into himself all that in human life and history is most hostile to God and rebellious to His law; he is the ne plus ultra of τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός (Rom 8:7). (b) The first epithet refers to the nature, the second to the doom of Antichrist; he is ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας: cf. υἱὸς θανάτου, 1 Sam. (Kingd.: LXX) 1Sa 20:31; similarly in Deu 25:2 the man “worthy of stripes” is called, in Hebrew, “a son of smiting”; in Isa 57:4 the LXX reads τέκνα ἀπωλείας, σπέρμα ἄνομον, for “children of transgression, a seed of falsehood” (in the Hebrew). To Judas Iscariot alone this name is elsewhere given in Scripture (Joh 17:12); but “whose end is perdition” (Php 3:19), and “he goeth to perdition” (εἰς ἀπώλειαν ὑπάγει, Rev 17:8; Rev 17:11; said of the seven-headed Wild Beast), affirm virtually the same thing. (c) Of the two terms of the third title, ὁ ἀντικείμενος (cf. 1Co 16:9, 1Ti 5:14) is familiar, being equivalent to הַשָּׂטָן, ὁ Σατανᾶς, Satan, whom this “man of lawlessness” is to represent and whose power has its ἐνέργεια in him (2Th 2:9 f.): see note on 1Th 2:18; cf. also Zec 3:1 (LXX), ὁ διάβολος εἱστήκει … τοῦ ἀντικεῖσθαι αὐτῷ. This participle might be complemented, along with the following ὑπεραιρόμενος, by ἐπὶ πάντα κ.τ.λ.; but it is a quasi-substantive, with a recognized and complete sense of its own. It is Christ to whom “the adversary” ἀντίκειται.

In the second and extended participial clause of (c)—identified with ὁ ἀντικείμενος by the single article—ὑπεραιρόμενος has a parallel in 2Co 12:7 (“exalted above measure”: St Paul is fond of ὑπερ-compounds). Ἐπί as distinguished from ὑπέρ, and in this context, is against. Πάντα λεγόμενον θεόν (illustrated by 1Co 8:5 b) embraces the entire Pan-theon of mankind, deposed by this Great Usurper in favour of himself; while καὶ σέβασμα extends the previous term, already so wide, by way of including every conceivable object of religious reverence. So σεβάσματα in Act 17:23 embraces the religious monuments and emblems of Athens generally—shrines, altars, images, and the like: the only other N.T. instance of the word, which occurs besides in Wis 15:17.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Apostle foretelleth that before the coming of the Lord, there shall be a throne set up clean contrary to Christ’s glory, wherein that wicked man shall sit, and transfer all things that appertain to God, to himself, and many shall fall away from God to him.

By speaking of one, he pointed out the body of the tyrannous and persecuting Church.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

by any means--Greek, "in any manner." Christ, in Mat 24:4, gives the same warning in connection with the same event. He had indicated three ways (Th2 2:2) in which they might be deceived (compare other ways, Th2 2:9, and Mat 24:5, Mat 24:24).

a falling away--rather as the Greek, "the falling away," or "apostasy," namely, the one of which "I told you" before (Th2 2:5), "when I was yet with you," and of which the Lord gave some intimation (Mat 24:10-12; Joh 5:43).

that man of sin be revealed--The Greek order is, "And there have been revealed the man of sin." As Christ was first in mystery, and afterwards revealed (Ti1 3:16), so Antichrist (the term used Jo1 2:18; Jo1 4:3) is first in mystery, and afterwards shall be developed and revealed (Th2 2:7-9). As righteousness found its embodiment in Christ, "the Lord our righteousness," so "sin" shall have its embodiment in "the man of sin." The hindering power meanwhile restrains its manifestation; when that shall be removed, then this manifestation shall take place. The articles, "the apostasy," and "the man of sin," may also refer to their being well known as foretold in Dan 7:8, Dan 7:25, "the little horn speaking great words against the Most High, and thinking to change times and laws"; and Dan 11:36, the wilful king who "shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods; neither shall he regard any god."

the son of perdition--a title applied besides to Judas (the traitor, Joh 17:12), and to none else. Antichrist (the second "beast" coming up out of the earth); therefore he shall at first be "like a lamb, while he speaks as a dragon" (Rev 13:11); "coming in peaceably and by flatteries," "working deceitfully," but "his heart shall be against the holy covenant" (Dan 11:21, Dan 11:23, Dan 11:28, Dan 11:30). Seeds of "the falling away" soon appear (Ti1 4:1-3), but the full development and concentration of these anti-Christian elements in one person are still to appear. Contrast the King of Zion's coming as JESUS: (1) righteous or just; (2) having salvation; (3) lowly; whereas Antichrist is: (1) "the man of (the embodiment of) sin; (2) the son of perdition; (3) exalting himself above all that is worshipped. He is the son of perdition, as consigning many to it, and finally doomed to it himself (Rev 17:8, Rev 17:11). "He whose essence and inheritance is perdition" [ALFORD]. As "the kingdom of heaven" is first brought before us in the abstract, then in the concrete, the King, the Lord Jesus; so here, first we have (Th2 2:7) "the mystery of iniquity," then "the iniquitous one" (Th2 2:8). Doubtless "the apostasy" of Romanism (the abstract) is one of the greatest instances of the working of the mystery of iniquity, and its blasphemous claims for the Pope (the concrete) are forerunners of the final concentration of blasphemy in the man of sin, who shall not merely, as the Pope, usurp God's honor as vicegerent of God, but oppose God openly at last.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 3. Except there come a falling away first] We have the original word αποστασια in our word apostasy; and by this term we understand a dereliction of the essential principles of religious truth-either a total abandonment of Christianity itself, or such a corruption of its doctrines as renders the whole system completely inefficient to salvation. But what this apostasy means is a question which has not yet, and perhaps never will be, answered to general satisfaction. At present I shall content myself with making a few literal remarks on this obscure prophecy, and afterwards give the opinions of learned men on its principal parts.

That man of sin] Ὁ ανθρωπος της ἁμαρτιας· The same as the Hebrew expresses by איש און ish aven, and איש בליעל ish beliyaal; the perverse, obstinate, and iniquitous man. It is worthy of remark that, among the rabbins, Samael, or the devil, is called איש בליעל ואיש און ish beliyaal veish aven, the man of Belial, and the man of iniquity; and that these titles are given to Adam after his fall.

The son of perdition] Ὁ υἱος της απωλειας· The son of destruction; the same epithet that is given to Judas Iscariot, Joh 17:12, where see the note. The son of perdition, and the man of sin, or, as some excellent MSS. and versions, with several of the fathers, read, ανθρωπος της ανομιας, the lawless man, see 2Th 2:8, must mean the same person or thing. It is also remarkable that the wicked Jews are styled by Isaiah, Isa 1:4, benim mashchithim, "children of perdition;" persons who destroy themselves and destroy others.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

3 Let no man deceive you. That they may not groundlessly promise themselves the arrival in so short a time of the joyful day of redemption, he presents to them a melancholy prediction as to the future scattering of the Church. This discourse entirely corresponds with that which Christ held in the presence of his disciples, when they had asked him respecting the end of the world. For he exhorts them to prepare themselves for enduring hard conflicts, (Matthew 24:6,) and after he has discoursed of the most grievous and previously unheard of calamities, by which the earth was to be reduced almost to a desert, he adds, that the end is not yet, but that these things are the beginnings of sorrows. In the same way, Paul declares that believers must exercise warfare for a long period, before gaining a triumph.

We have here, however, a remarkable passage, and one that is in the highest degree worthy of observation. This was a grievous and dangerous temptation, which might shake even the most confirmed, and make them lose their footing — to see the Church, which had by means of such labors been raised up gradually and with difficulty to some considerable standing, fall down suddenly, as if torn down by a tempest. Paul, accordingly, fortifies beforehand the minds, not merely of the Thessalonians, but of all the pious, that when the Church should come to be in a scattered condition, they might not be alarmed, as though it were a thing that was new and unlooked for.

As, however, interpreters have twisted this passage in various ways, we must first of all endeavor to ascertain Paul’s true meaning. He says that the day of Christ will not come, until the world has fallen into apostasy, and the reign of Antichrist has obtained a footing in the Church; for as to the exposition that some have given of this passage, as referring to the downfall of the Roman empire, it is too silly to require a lengthened refutation. I am also surprised, that so many writers, in other respects learned and acute, have fallen into a blunder in a matter that is so easy, were it not that when one has committed a mistake, others follow in troops without consideration. Paul, therefore, employs the term apostasy to mean — a treacherous departure from God, and that not on the part of one or a few individuals, but such as would spread itself far and wide among a large multitude of persons. For when apostasy is made mention of without anything being added, it cannot be restricted to a few. Now, none can be termed apostates, but such as have previously made a profession of Christ and the gospel. Paul, therefore, predicts a certain general revolt of the visible Church. “The Church must be reduced to an unsightly and dreadful state of ruin, before its full restoration be effected.”

From this we may readily gather, how useful this prediction of Paul is, for it might have seemed as though that could not be a building of God, that was suddenly overthrown, and lay so long in ruins, had not Paul long before intimated that it would be so. Nay more, many in the present day, when they consider with themselves the long-continued dispersion of the Church, begin to waver, as if this had not been regulated by the purpose of God. The Romanists, also, with the view of justifying the tyranny of their idol, make use of this pretext — that it was not possible that Christ would forsake his spouse. The weak, however, have something here on which to rest, when they learn that the unseemly state of matters which they behold in the Church was long since foretold; while, on the other hand, the impudence of the Romanists is openly exposed, inasmuch as Paul declares that a revolt will come, when the world has been brought under Christ’s authority. Now, we shall see presently, why it is that the Lord has permitted the Church, or at least what appeared to be such, to fall off in so shameful a manner.

Has been revealed. It was no better than an old wife’s fable that was contrived respecting Nero, that he was carried up from the world, destined to return again to harass the Church by his tyranny; and yet the minds of the ancients were so bewitched, that they imagined that Nero would be Antichrist. Paul, however, does not speak of one individual, but of a kingdom, that was to be taken possession of by Satan, that he might set up a seat of abomination in the midst of God’s temple — which we see accomplished in Popery. The revolt, it is true, has spread more widely, for Mahomet, as he was an apostate, turned away the Turks, his followers, from Christ. All heretics have broken the unity of the Church by their sects, and thus there have been a corresponding number of revolts from Christ.

Paul, however, when he has given warning that there would be such a scattering, that the greater part would revolt from Christ, adds something more serious — that there would be such a confusion, that the vicar of Satan would hold supreme power in the Church, and would preside there in the place of God. Now he describes that reign of abomination under the name of a single person, because it is only one reign, though one succeeds another. My readers now understand, that all the sects by which the Church has been lessened from the beginning, have been so many streams of revolt which began to draw away the water from the right course, but that the sect of Mahomet was like a violent bursting forth of water, that took away about the half of the Church by its violence. It remained, also, that Antichrist should infect the remaining part with his poison. Thus, we see with our own eyes, that this memorable prediction of Paul has been confirmed by the event.

In the exposition which I bring forward, there is nothing forced. Believers in that age dreamed that they would be transported to heaven, after having endured troubles during a short period. Paul, however, on the other hand, foretells that, after they have had foreign enemies for some time molesting them, they will have more evils to endure from enemies at home, inasmuch as many of those that have made a profession of attachment to Christ would be hurried away into base treachery, and inasmuch as the temple of God itself would be polluted by sacrilegious tyranny, so that Christ’s greatest enemy would exercise dominion there. The term revelation is taken here to denote manifest possession of tyranny, as if Paul had said that the day of Christ would not come until this tyrant had openly manifested himself, and had, as it were, designedly overturned the whole order of the Church.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

3. Let no man deceive you by any means] beguile you,—as the Revisers commonly render this Greek verb, and the A. V. in 2Co_11:3; 1Ti_2:14, and Rom_7:11 (comp. Gen_3:13, “the serpent beguiled Eve”). It implies a thorough, commonly a wicked deception; comp. also Rom_16:18. The kindred noun (deceit) appears in 2Th_2:10.

in any wise (R. V.) points to the variety of ways (“by spirit, word,” &c., 2Th_2:2) in which the readers were being plied with this delusion.

for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first] The R. V. supplies the ellipsis more simply: for it will not be. The Apostle’s mind becomes absorbed in his description of “the Man of Lawlessness” (2Th_2:4), and he forgets to complete the sentence; but his meaning is clear enough. For a similar dropped, or broken sentence comp. 1Th_2:11 (see note, and Introd. Chap. VI, on the Style of St Paul). His manner is that of a speaker rather than a studied writer, and such lapses are natural in the freedom of conversation.

“A falling away” is a mistranslation. The Apostle uses the definite article; he refers to the apostasy of which he had spoken distinctly to his readers (2Th_2:5). This word in common Greek denotes a military or political revolt, a defection; then in the LXX it is applied to revolting from God—e.g. in Jer_29:32 (“rebellion against the Lord”), 1Ma_2:15 (“revolt,” consisting in sacrificing to idols): so the corresponding verb in Heb_3:12; comp. Act_21:21 (“thou teachest apostasy from Moses”), 1Ti_4:1. Here this ominous expression appears for the first time within the Christian Church, as signifying revolt from Christ, the faithless defection of men “denying the Lord that bought them” (2Pe_2:1). It is sad to find such a prediction in the earliest writings of the N. T. It originated, doubtless, in the words of Christ, Mat_24:10-13 : “Then shall many stumble … Many false prophets shall arise, and shall lead many astray. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of the many shall wax cold.” Comp. the mournful prophecy of Moses concerning the future of his people (Deu_31:28-29, &c.). This presentiment of St Paul grew in distinctness and was expressed with increasing emphasis, as time went on; comp. Rom_16:17-20; Act_20:29-30; Eph_4:14; 1Ti_4:1, &c. Such words as those of 1Co_16:22 (“If any man love not the Lord, let him be anathema”), and Col_2:19 (“not holding fast the Head”), shew that in his view personal loyalty to Christ was the safeguard of Christianity.

As to the particular form and direction of the apostasy, nothing is said, nor as to the time of its rise or duration. Disloyalty to Christ confronted St Paul in his later years in many forms; and ever since the Church has had to straggle with inward corruption, as well as with outward foes. The Apostle anticipates this conflict; he foresees that tares will spring up along with the wheat, and “both” must “grow together until the harvest” (Mat_13:24-30). Such development of internal evil had not yet taken place, and by this the Thessalonians might be sure that the Day of the Lord had not dawned.

and that man of sin be revealed] Lit., and there be revealed the man of sin; or, according to the reading of the Greek preferred by Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, in agreement with the two oldest MSS, the man of lawlessness. In 2Th_2:7 the writer speaks of “the mystery of lawlessness,” as of something present to his readers’ minds; and in 2Th_2:8 this same “man” is styled “the lawless one.” Throughout St Paul lays the utmost stress upon this attribute of the system of evil, with which he apprehends that the Kingdom of Christ must have a final and conclusive struggle. Lawlessness is the essence of that system, and “the man of lawlessness” its complete impersonation (comp. 1Jn_3:4).

Now “lawlessness” is in the Apostle’s eyes a characteristic of the Gentile world, which “knew not God” (ch. 2Th_1:8; 1Th_4:5) and had cast off moral restraint. But he looked beneath the formal and outward possession of God’s law in the letter, and recognized in the Jewish people the like lawlessness of spirit (Rom_2:1; Rom_2:17-19); while “Gentiles not having law,” sometimes “shewed the work of the law written in their hearts” (Rom_2:14-15). “The man of lawlessness” is therefore one in whom St Paul sees the lawlessness of a godless world culminating—the ne plus ultra of “the carnal mind” that is “enmity against the law of God,” which “is neither subject to His law nor can be” (Rom_8:7). And he is emphatically “the man of lawlessness” (with no distinction of Jew or Gentile; comp. Rom_3:19; Rom_3:23), being the person in whom human nature, in so far as it is separated from and opposed to God (see next ver.), finds its ultimate realisation.

We must distinguish, then, between “the apostasy” and “the man of lawlessness,” in that the former is the corruption of the church, while the latter is the culmination of the evil of the world. (Comp. “the wild beast” of Rev_13:1, “rising out of the” murmuring and restless “sea” of the nations, the “many waters” of ch. Rev_17:1; Rev_17:15.) But the two influences, though not identical, are in combination. The former naturally contributes to the latter, an apostate Church paving the way for the advent of an atheistic world-power. We shall find in the next verse an echo of the prophecies of Daniel, so clear as to justify us in regarding these two evil powers as analogous to those of Dan_8:23 : “When the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance shall arise;” where, as it proved in the Maccabean times, the apostasy within Israel gives the signal for the rise of the heathen despot.

“The man of lawlessness” is “the son of perdition,” being the one to whom this doom peculiarly belongs, who like Judas Iscariot (Joh_17:12) in going to “perdition” will “go to his own place” (Act_1:25). For the Hebraistic phrase “son of” comp, 1Th_5:4, and note.

Perdition is synonymous with destruction, ch. 2Th_1:9; there it falls on the godless, here on the Lawless One—lawlessness being the moral counterpart of godlessness, and both fatal to man’s true life.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Let no man deceive you by any means,.... By any of the above means; by pretending to a revelation from the Spirit; or to have had it from the mouth of anyone of the apostles; or to have a letter as from them, declaring the day of Christ to be instant; or by any other means whatever; do not be imposed upon by them for the following reasons, for there were things to be done before the coming of Christ, which were not then done, and which required time: for that day shall not come,

except there come a falling away first; either in a political sense, of the nations from the Roman empire, which was divided into the eastern and western empire; for which, way was made by translating the seat of empire from Rome to Byzantium, or Constantinople; the former of these empires was seized by Mahomet, and still possessed by the Turks; and the latter was overrun by the Goths, Huns, and Vandals, and torn to pieces; Italy particularly was ravaged by them, and Rome itself was sacked and taken: or rather in a religious sense, of the falling of men from the faith of the Gospel, from the purity of Gospel doctrines, discipline, worship, and ordinances; and this not of some Jews who professed faith in Christ, and departed from it, or of some Christians who went off to the Gnostics; but is to be understood of a more general defection in the times of the Papacy; when not only the eastern churches were perverted and corrupted by Mahomet, and drawn off to his religion, but the western churches were most sadly depraved by the man of sin, by bringing in errors of all sorts in doctrine, making innovations in every ordinance, and appointing new ones, and introducing both Judaism and Paganism into the churches; which general defection continued until the times of the reformation, and is what the apostle has respect to in Ti1 4:1 where he manifestly points out some of the Popish tenets, as forbidding marriage to priests, and ordering abstinence from meats on certain days, and at certain times of the year: this was one thing that was to precede the coming of Christ, another follows, which should take place at the same time;

and that man of sin be revealed; who was now hid, though secretly working; by whom is meant not only any particular person or individual; not the devil, for though he is the wicked one, a damned spirit, an opposer, an adversary of God and Christ, and his people, and who has affected deity, and sought to be worshipped, and even by Christ himself; yet the man of sin is here distinguished from Satan, Ti2 2:9 nor is any particular emperor of Rome intended, as Caius Caligula, or Nero, for though these were monsters of iniquity, and set up themselves as gods, yet they sat not in the temple of God; nor is Simon Magus designed, who was a very wicked man, a sorcerer, and who gave out himself to be some great one, and was called the great power of God, before big profession of faith in Christ; and afterwards affirmed that he was God, the Father in Samaria, the Son in Judea, and the Spirit in the rest of the nations of the world; and, because of his signs and lying wonders, had a statue erected by the Roman emperor with this inscription, "to Simon the holy god"; but then this wicked man was now already revealed: nor is this to be understood of a certain Jew, that is to be begotten by the devil on a virgin of the tribe of Dan, and who is to reign three years and a half, and then to be destroyed by Christ, which is a fable of the Papists; but a succession of men is here meant, as a king is used sometimes for an order and succession of kings, Deu 17:18 and an high priest for that whole order, from Aaron's time to the dissolution of it, Heb 9:7 so here it intends the whole hierarchy of Rome, monks, friars, priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and especially popes, who may well be called "the man of sin", because notoriously sinful; not only sinners, but sin itself, a sink of sin, monsters of iniquity, spiritual wickednesses in high places: it is not easy to reckon up their impieties, their adulteries, incest, sodomy, rapine, murder, avarice, simony, perjury, lying, necromancy, familiarity with the devil, idolatry, witchcraft, and what not? and not only have they been guilty of the most notorious crimes themselves, but have been the patrons and encouragers of others in sin; by dispensing with the laws of God and man, by making sins to be venial, by granting indulgences and pardon for the worst of crimes, by licensing brothel houses, and countenancing all manner of wickedness; and therefore it is no wonder to hear of the following epithet,

the son of perdition; since these are not only the Apollyon, the king of the bottomless pit, the destroyer, the cause of the perdition of thousands of souls, for the souls of men are their wares; but because they are by the righteous judgment of God appointed and consigned to everlasting destruction; the devil, the beast, and the false prophet, will have their portion together in the lake that burns with fire, Rev 20:10 the same character as here is given of Judas, the betrayer of Christ, Joh 17:12.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Ver. 3. Except there come a falling] Gr. αποστασια, an apostasy, viz. of people from the truth, when the whole world went a wondering and a wandering after the beast, Rev 13:3. To the fathers these prophecies of Antichrist were riddles. The prophecy is sealed to the end, Dan 12:9, till unsealed by event. Austin saith ingenuously, he understood not this text. And herein he did better than those other of the Latin Fathers that interpreted it of the falling away of various nations from the Roman empire. Daniel set forth Antichrist typically, in that little Antichrist, Antiochus; Paul topically, in this chapter. John writeth the mystery of Antichrist, in his Revelation; Paul sets a commentary upon him, and graphically describeth him, calling him apostasy in the abstract here, as some will have it; and in the next verse, "that man of sin," that is, meram scelus, sheer wickedness, as Beza hath it.

And that man of sin] That breathing devil, so portentously, so peerlessly vicious, Ut eius nomen non hominis, sed vitii esse videatur (as Lipsius saith of one Tubulus, a Roman praetor), that sin itself can hardly be more sinful.

The son of perdition] Destined to destruction, even to be cast alive into the "lake of fire burning with brimstone," Rev 19:20. Well might Pope Marcellus II strike his hand upon the table, and say, Non video quomodo qui locum hunc altissimum tenent, salvari possunt, I see not how any pope can be saved. (Onuph. in Vita.) When I was first in orders (said Pope Pius Quintus) I had some good hopes of salvation; when I was made a cardinal, I doubted; but now that I am pope, I do almost despair. (Cornel. a Lapide in Num 11:11)

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Let no man deceive you by any means - That is, respecting the coming of the Lord Jesus. This implies that there were then attempts to deceive, and that it was of great importance for Christians to be on their guard. The result has shown that there is almost no subject on which caution is more proper, and on which men are more liable to delusion. The means then resorted to for deception appear from the previous verse to have been either an appeal to a pretended verbal message from the apostle, or a pretended letter from him. The means now, consist of a claim to uncommon wisdom in the interpretation of obscure prophecies of the Scriptures. The necessity for the caution here given has not ceased.

For that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first - Until an apostasy (ἀποστασία apostasia) shall have occurred - the great apostasy. There is scarcely any passage of the New Testament which has given occasion to greater diversity of opinion than this. Though the reference seems to be plain, and there is scarcely any prophecy of the Bible apparently more obvious and easy in its general interpretation; yet it is proper to mention some of the opinions which have been entertained of it.

Some have referred it to a great apostasy from the Christian church, particularly on account of persecution, which would occur before the destruction of Jerusalem. The “coming of the Lord” they suppose refers to the destruction of the holy city, and according to this, the meaning is, that there would be a great apostasy before that event would take place. Of this opinion was Vitringa, who refers the “apostasy” to a great defection from the faith which took place between the time of Nero and Trajan.

Whitby also refers it to an event which was to take place before the destruction of Jerusalem, and supposes that the apostasy would consist in a return from the Christian to the Jewish faith by multitudes of professed converts. The “man of sin,” according to him, means the Jewish nation, so characterized on account of its eminent wickedness.

Hammond explains the apostasy by the defection to the Gnostics, by the arts of Simon Magus, whom he supposes to be the man of sin, and by the “day of the Lord” he also understands the destruction of Jerusalem.

Grotius takes Caius Caesar or Caligula, to be the man of sin, and by the apostasy he understands his abominable wickedness. In the beginning of his government, he says, his plans of iniquity were concealed, and the hopes of all were excited in regard to his reign; but his secret iniquity was subsequently “revealed,” and his true character understood.

Wetstein understands by the “man of sin,” that it referred to Titus and the Flavian house. He says that he does not understand it of the Roman Pontiff, who “is not one such as the demonstrative pronoun thrice repeated designates, and who neither sits in the temple of God, nor calls himself God, nor Caius, nor Simon Gioriae, nor any Jewish impostor, nor Simon Magus.”

Koppe refers it to the King mentioned in Dan 11:36. According to him, the reference is to a great apostasy of the Jews from the worship of God, and the “man of sin” is the Jewish people.

Others have supposed that the reference is to Muhammed, and that the main characteristics of the prophecy may be found in him.

Of the Papists, a part affirm that the apostasy is the falling away from Rome in the time of the Reformation, but the greater portion suppose that the allusion is to Antichrist, who, they say, will appear in the world before the great day of judgment, to combat religion and the saints. See these opinions stated at length, and examined, in Dr. Newton on the Prophecies, Dissertation xxii.

Some more recent expositors have referred it to Napoleon Bonaparte, and some (as Oldshausen) suppose that it refers to some one who has not yet appeared, in whom all the characteristics here specified will be found united.

Most Protestant commentators have referred it to the great apostasy under the papacy, and, by the “man of sin,” they suppose there is allusion to the Roman Pontiff, the Pope. It is evident that we are in better circumstances to understand the passage than those were who immediately succeeded the apostles.

Eighteen hundred years have passed (written circa 1880’s) away since the Epistle was written, and the “day of the Lord” has not yet come, and we have an opportunity of inquiring, whether in all that long tract of time any one man can be found, or any series of men have arisen, to whom the description here given is applicable. If so, it is in accordance with all the proper rules of interpreting prophecy, to make such an application. If it is fairly applicable to the papacy, and cannot be applied in its great features to anything else, it is proper to regard it as having such an original reference. Happily, the expressions which are used by the apostle are, in themselves, not difficult of interpretation, and all that the expositor has to do is, to ascertain whether in any one great apostasy all the things here mentioned have occurred. If so, it is fair to apply the prophecy to such an event; if not so, we must wait still for its fulfillment.

The word rendered “falling away” (ἀποστασία apostasia, apostasy), is of so general a character, that it may be applied to any departure from the faith as it was received in the time of the apostles. It occurs in the New Testament only here and in Act 21:21, where it is rendered “to forsake” - “thou teachest all the Jews which are among us to forsake Moses” - apostasy from Moses - ἀποστασίαν ἀπὸ Μωῦσέως apostasian apo Mōuseōs. The word means a departing from, or a defection; see the verb used in 1Ti 4:1, “Some shall depart from the faith” - ἀποστήσονται apostēsontai; compare the notes on that passage; see also Heb 3:12; Luk 8:13; Act 5:37. The reference here is evidently to some general falling away, or to some great religious apostasy that was to occur, and which would be under one head, leader, or dynasty, and which would involve many in the same departure from the faith, and in the same destruction. The use of the article here, “the apostasy” (Greek), Erasmus remarks, “signifies that great and before-predicted apostasy.” It is evidently emphatic, showing that there had been a reference to this before, or that they understood well that there was to be such an apostasy. Paul says 2Th 2:5, that when he was with them, he had told them of these things. The writers in the New Testament often speak of such a defection under the name of Antichrist; see Rev 13:14; 1Jo 2:18, 1Jo 2:22; 1Jo 4:3; 2Jo 1:7.

And that man of sin - This is a Hebraism, meaning a man of eminent wickedness; one distinguished for depravity; compare Joh 17:12; Pro 6:12, in Heb. The use of the article here - ὁ ἄνθρωπος ho anthrōpos - “the man of sin,” is also emphatic, as in the reference to “the falling away,” and shows that there is allusion to one of whom they had before heard, and whose character was well known; who would be the wicked one by way of eminence; see also 2Th 2:8, “that wicked” - ὁ ἄνομος ho anomos. There are two general questions in regard to the proper interpretation of this appellative; the one is, whether it refers to an individual, or to a series of individuals of the same general character, aiming at the accomplishment of the same plans; and the other is, whether there has been any individual, or any series of individuals, since the time of the apostle, who, by eminence, deserved to be called “the man of sin.” That the phrase, “the man of sin,” may refer to a succession of men of the same general character, and that it does so refer here, is evident from the following considerations:

(1) The word “king” is used in Dan 7:25; Dan 11:36, to which places Paul seems to allude, to denote a succession of kings.

(2) The same is true of the beast mentioned in Dan. 7; Dan. 8; and Rev. 13, representing a kingdom or empire through its successive changes and revolutions.

(3) The same is true of the “woman arrayed in purple and scarlet” Rev 17:4, which cannot refer to a single woman, but is the emblem of a continued corrupt administration.

(4) It is clear that a succession is intended here, because the work assigned to “the man of sin,” cannot be supposed to be that which could be accomplished by a single individual. The statement of the apostle is, that there were then tendencies to such an apostasy, and that the “man of sin “would be revealed at no distant period, and yet that he would continue his work of “lying wonders” until the coming of the Saviour. In regard to this “man of sin,” it may be further observed:

(1) That his appearing was to be preceded by “the great apostasy;” and,

(2) That he was to continue and perpetuate it. His rise was to be owing to a great departure from the faith, and then he was to be the principal agent in continuing it by “signs and lying wonders.” He was not himself to originate the defection, but was to be the creation, or result of it. He was to rise upon it, or grow out of it, and, by artful arrangements adapted to that purpose, was to perpetuate it. The question then is, to whom this phrase, descriptive of a succession of individuals so eminent for wickedness that the name “the man of sin” could be applied, was designed by the spirit of inspiration to refer. Dr. Newton has shown that it cannot refer to Caligula, to Simon Magus, to the revolt of the Jews from the Romans, or to the revolt of the Jews from the faith, or to the Flavian family, or to Luther, as some of the papists suppose, or to one man who will appear just before the end of the world, as others of the Romanists suppose; see his Dissertations on the Prophecies, xxii, pp. 393-402; compare Oldshausen, in loc. The argument is too long to be inserted here. But can it be referred to the papacy? Can it denote the Pope of Rome, meaning not a single pope, but the succession? If all the circumstances of the entire passage can be shown to be fairly applicable to him, or if it can he shown that all that is fairly implied in the language used here has received a fulfillment in him, then it is proper to regard it as having been designed to be so applied, and then this may be numbered among the prophecies that are in part fulfilled.

The question now is on the applicability of the phrase “the man of sin” to the Pope. That his rise was preceded by a great apostasy, or departure from the purity of the simple gospel, as revealed in the New Testament, cannot reasonably be doubted by any one acquainted with the history of the church. That he is the creation or result of that apostasy, is equally clear. That he is the grand agent in continuing it, is equally manifest. Is the phrase itself one that is properly applicable to him Is it proper to speak of the Pope of Rome, as he has actually appeared, as “the man of sin?” In reply to this, it might be sufficient to refer to the general character of the papacy, and to its influence in upholding and perpetuating various forms of iniquity in the world. It would be easy to show that there has been no dynasty or system that has contributed so much to uphold and perpetuate sins of various kinds on the earth, as the papacy. No other one has been so extensively and so long the patron of superstition; and there are vices of the grossest character which have all along been fostered by its system of celibacy, indulgences, monasteries, and absolutions. But it would be a better illustration of the meaning of the phrase “man of sin,” as applicable to the Pope of Rome, to look at the general character of the popes themselves. Though there may have been some exceptions, yet there never has been a succession of men of so decidedly wicked character, as have occupied the papal throne since the great apostasy commenced.

A very few references to the characters of the popes will furnish an illustration of this point. Pope Vagilius waded to the pontifical throne through the blood of his predecessor. Pope Joan (the Roman Catholic writers tell us) a female in disguise, was elected and confirmed Pope, as John VIII. Platina says, that “she became with child by some of those that were round about her; that she miscarried, and died on her way from the Lateran to the temple.” Pope Marcellinus sacrificed to idols. Concerning Pope Honorius, the council of Constantinople decreed, “We have caused Honorius, the late Pope of Old Rome, to be accursed; for that in all things he followed the mind of Sergius the heretic, and confirmed his wicked doctrines.” The Council of Basil thus condemned Pope Eugenius: “We condemn and depose Pope Eugenius, a despiser of the holy canons; a disturber of the peace and unity of the church of God; a notorious offender of the whole universal church; a Simonist; a perjurer; a man incorrigible; a schismatic; a man fallen from the faith, and a willful heretic.”

Pope John II, was publicly charged at Rome with incest. Pope John XIII usurped the Pontificate, spent his time in hunting, in lasciviousness, and monstrous forms of vice; he fled from the trial to which he was summoned, and was stabbed, being taken in the act of adultery. Pope Sixtus IV licensed brothels at Rome. Pope Alexander VI was, as a Roman Catholic historian says, “one of the greatest and most horrible monsters in nature that could scandalize the holy chair. His beastly morals, his immense ambition, his insatiable avarice, his detestable cruelty, his furious lusts, and monstrous incest with his daughter Lucretia, are, at large, described by Guicciardini Ciaconius, and other authentic papal historians.” Of the popes, Platina (a Roman Catholic) says: “The chair of Saint Peter was usurped, rather than possessed, by monsters of wickedness, ambition, and bribery. They left no wickedness unpracticed;” see the New Englander, April, 1844, pp. 285, 286. To no succession of men who have ever lived could the appellative, “the man of sin, be applied with so much propriety as to this succession. Yet they claim to have been the true “successors” of the apostles, and there are Protestants who deem it of essential importance to be able to show that they have derived the true “succession” through such men.

Be revealed - Be made manifest. There were, at the time when the apostle wrote, two remarkable things:

(1) That there was already a tendency to such an apostasy as he spoke of; and,

(2) There was something which as yet prevented the appearance or the rise of the man of sin; 2Th 2:7. When the hindrance which then existed should be taken out of the way, he would be manifested; see the notes on 2Th 2:7.

“The son of perdition.” This is the same appellation which the Saviour bestowed on Judas; see it explained in the notes on Joh 18:12. It may mean either that he would be the cause of ruin to others, or that he would himself be devoted to destruction. It would seem here rather to be used in the latter sense, though this is not absolutely certain. The phrase, whichever interpretation be adopted, is used to denote one of eminent wickedness.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

First, &c.[2] What is meant by this falling away, (in the Greek this apostacy) is uncertain, and differently expounded. St. Jerome and others understand it of a falling off of other kingdoms, which before were subject to the Roman empire; as if St. Paul said to them: you need not fear that the day of judgment is at hand, for it will not come till other kingdoms, by a general revolt, shall have fallen off, so that the Roman empire be destroyed. The same interpreters expound the sixth and seventh verses in like manner, as if when it is said, now you know [3] what withholdeth, &c. That is, you see the Roman empire subsisteth yet, which must be first destroyed. And when it is added, only that he ho now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way; the sense, say these authors, is, let Nero and his successors hold that empire till it be destroyed, for not till then will the day of judgment come. A. Lapide makes this exposition so certain, that he calls it a tradition of the fathers, which to him seems apostolical. But we must not take the opinion of some fathers, in the exposition of obscure prophecies, where they advance conjectures (which others at the same time reject, or doubt of) to be apostolical traditions, and articles of faith, as the learned bishop of Meaux, Bossuet, takes notice on this very subject, in his preface and treatise on the Apocalypse, against Jurieux. St. Jerome indeed, and others, thought that the Roman empire was to subsist till the antichrist’s coming, which by the event most interpreters conclude to be a mistake, and that it cannot be said the Roman empire continues to this time. See Lyranus on this place, St. Thomas Aquinas, Salmeron, Estius, and many others; though A. Lapide, with some few, pretend the Roman empire still subsists in the emperors of Germany. We also find that divers of the ancient fathers thought that the day of judgment was just at hand in their time. See Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory the Great, &c. And as to this place, it cannot be said the fathers unanimously agree in their exposition. St. John Chrysostom [4], Theodoret, St. Augustine in one of his expositions, by this falling off, and apostacy, understand antichrist himself, apostatizing from the Catholic faith. And they who expound it of Nero, did not reflect that this letter of St. Paul was written under Claudius, before Nero’s reign. According to a third and common exposition, by this revolt or apostacy, others understand a great falling off of great numbers from the Catholic Church and faith, in those nations where it was professed before; not but that, as St. Augustine expressly takes notice, the Church will remain always visible, and Catholic in its belief, till the end of the world. This interpretation we find in St. Cyril[5] of Jerusalem. (Catech. 15.) See also St. Anselm on this place, St. Thomas Aquinas, Salmeron, Estius, &c. In fine, that there is no apostolical tradition, as to any of the interpretations of these words, we may be fully convinced from the words of St. Augustine[6], lib. xx. de Civ. Dei. chap. 19. t. 7. p. 597. Nov. edit. where he says: For my part, I own myself altogether ignorant what the apostle means by these words; but I shall mention the suspicions of others, which I have read, or heard. Then he sets down the exposition concerning the Roman empire. He there calls that a suspicion and conjecture, which others say is an apostolical tradition. In like manner the ancient fathers are divided, as to the exposition of the words of the sixth and seventh verse, when it is said you know what hindereth; some understand that antichrist must come first. Others, that the beforementioned apostacy, or falling off from the Church, must happen before. And when St. Paul says, (ver. 7.) that he who now holdeth, do hold; some expound it, let him take care at the time of such trials, to hold, and preserve the true faith to the end. When the expositions are so different, as in this place, whosoever pretends to give a literal translation ought never to add words to the text, which determine the sense to such a particular exposition, and especially in the same print, as Mr. N. hath done on the seventh verse, where he translates, only let him that now holdeth the faith, keep it until he be taken out of the way. --- And the man of sin [7] revealed, the son of perdition, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. He is called again, (ver. 8.) that wicked one....whom the Lord Jesus Christ shall kill with the spirit of his mouth. By all these words is described to us the great antichrist, about the end of the world, according to the unexceptionable authority and consent of the ancient fathers. It is as ridiculous as malicious to pretend, with divers later reformers, that the pope, and all the popes since the destruction of the Roman empire, are the great antichrist, the man of sin, &c. Grotius, Dr. Hammond, and divers learned Protestants, have confuted and ridiculed this groundless fable, of which more on the Apocalypse. It may suffice to observe here that antichrist, is to be one particular man, not so many different men. That he is to come a little while before the day of judgment. The he will make himself be adored, and pretend to be God. What pope did so? That he will pretend to be Christ, &c. (Witham) --- St. Augustine (de Civ. Dei. book xx. chap. 19.) says, that an attack would be made at one and the same time against the Roman empire and the Church. The Roman empire subsists as yet, in Germany, though much weakened and reduced. The Roman Catholic Church, notwithstanding all its losses, and the apostacy of many of its children, has always remained the same. (Calmet) The two special signs of the last day will be a general revolt, and the manifestation of antichrist, both of which are so dependent on each other, that St. Augustine makes but one of both. What presumptive folly in Calvin and other modern reformers, to oppose the universal sentiments of the fathers both of the Latin and Greek Church! What inconsistency, to give such forced interpretations, not only widely different from the expositions of sound antiquity, but also widely different from each other! The Church of God, with her head, strong in the promises of Jesus Christ, will persevere to the end, frustra circumlatrantibus hæreticis. (St. Augustine, de util cred. chap. xvii.) --- In the temple. Either that of Jerusalem, which some think he will rebuild; or in some Christian Church, which he will pervert to his own worship; as Mahomet has done with the churches of the east. (Challoner)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Nisi venerit discessio primum, Greek: e apostasia. St. Jerome (Ep. ad Algasiam. q. 11. t. 4. p. 209) Greek: Apostasia, inquit....ut omnes Gentes, quæ Rom. Imperio subjacent, recedant ab eis.

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

St. John Chrysostom (Greek: log. d. p. 235) says that by these words, you know what hindereth, is probably understood the Roman empire, &c. and Tertullian (lib. de Resur. Carnis. chap. xxiv. p. 340) on those words, till taken out of the way, donec de medio fiat, Quis nisi Romanorum status?

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

St. John Chrysostom (Greek: log. g. p. 232) Greek: ti estin e apostasia autoi kalei ton Antichriston. See Theodoret on this place.

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. xv) says, this apostacy is from the true faith and good works: Greek: aute estin e apostasia. St. Anselm and others mention both expositions, i.e. from the Roman empire, or from the faith.

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

St. Augustine: Ego prorsus quid dixerit, me fateor ignorare....suspiciones tamen hominum, quas vel audire, vel legere potui, non tacebo, &c. Quidam putant hoc de Imperio dictum esse Romano, &c.

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Greek: O anthropos tes amartias, o uios tes apoleias, o antikeimenos, &c. ille homo peccati, ille filius perditionis: the Greek articles sufficiently denote a particular man.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Let no man deceive you: here the apostle urgeth again his charge against this error, though in other words, and begins his arguments to refute it. He had adjured them not to be shaken, and here he cautions them against being deceived, for the one makes way for the other; so also not to be troubled, 2Th 2:2, for troubled minds are apt to be made a prey to seducers. And the caution in the text proves that their shaking and trouble did arise from some deceivers that were amongst them, rather than any misunderstanding of their own of what he wrote in the former Epistle about Christ’s coming. To be shaken in mind is bad, hut to be deceived is worse, for it is a going out of the path, as the word signifies; and thercfin’e his caution against it is universal, both as to persons and ways: Let no man deceive you, though he pretend to revelations, or be of the greatest reputation in the church.

By any means; either of era craft, flattery, pretending love, or plausible arguments, or misrepresenting our words, or forging of letters, or misintering our Epistle to you or any other part of Scripture, or feigned miracles, &c. Then he enters the arguments to confute it, which are.

1. The general apostacy.

2. The revelation of the man of sin.

Neither of these are yet, nor will be in this age; and yet that day shall not come till these both first come.

For that doth shall not come, except there come a falling away first; there is a supplement in our translation, for in the Greek it is only,

for, except there come a falling away first, & c., or an apostacy, a recession, a departing, or a standing off, as the world imports; so that apostacy may be either good, when it is from evil to good, or evil, when it is from good to evil: it is always used in this latter sense in Scripture. Again, it is either civil or spiritual: civil, as when people fall off from the civil government they were under, and so some would interpret the text of the defection from the Roman empire, the east part from the west, and the ten kingdoms that arose out of it; which was the opinion of Hierom, Epist. ad Algasiam. But the apostle writing to the church speaks not of civil government, and the affairs of state, and speaks of such an apostacy which would give rise to the man of sin, and the revelation of him. And this man of sin riseth up in the church, not in the civil state; and the consequence of this apostacy is giving men up to strong delusions to believe a lie, and then follows their damnation; and the cause of it is said to be, not receiving the truth in the love of it; so that it is not a civil, but a spiritual apostacy, as the word in Scripture is always (I suppose) so taken. And it is not of a particular person, or of a particular church, but a general apostacy of the church, though not of every individual; that church that is afterwards called the temple of God, where the man of sin sitteth, and is exalted above all that is called God; which cannot be in any particular church; and would not the apostle have specified that particular church? Neither is it some lesser apostacy which may befall the best church; but such as would be eminent, called η αποστασια, that apostacy, greater than that of some believing Jews to Judaism, or of some Christians to Nicolaitanism, which some think is meant. Much less can it be Caius Caesar, as Grotius interprets, or any one person, for the apostle saith not apostate, but apostacy; else a man of sin could not rise out of it, and exalt himself above all that is called God, and worshipped. It is an apostacy from sound doctrine, instituted worship, church government, and true holiness of life, as may be further considered afterwards. Neither is the apostacy all at once, but gradual; for out of it ariseth a man of sin, who grows up to this manhood by degrees; and sin and wickedness are not completed at first, as well as holiness. Much less is this apostacy a falling off from the Church of Rome, as some papists affirm, and make the Reformation to be the apostacy, which was a return from it. Doth the man of sin rise out of the Reformation? Did any of the first Reformers oppose and exalt themselves above all that is called God, or is worshipped? Or, as God sat in the temple of God, &c.? Was any of their coming with all power, and signs, and lying wonders? Or did any of them forbid to marry, and to abstain from meats, &c.? Which is the character our apostle gives of this apostacy, 1Ti 4:1-3. Neither is the Mahometan religion this apostacy, for Mahomet sitteth not in the temple of God. Neither is it in the falling of the converted Jews from the Jewish church to the gospel church; the apostle would never call that an apostacy. And that man of sin be revealed: the next argumnent is from the revelation of the man of sin; this is also to precede Christ’s last coming: it is a Hebraism. A warlike man is styled a man of war; a bloody man, a man of bloods; a deceitful man, a man of deceit, &c.: so a man eminent in sin is here called a man of sin; not only personally so, but who doth promote sin, propagate it, countenance it, command it. See Platina, Sigebert, Blonetas, Beuno Uspregensis, Matt. Paris. In sins of omission, forbidding what God requireth; in sins of commission, requiring or allowing what God hath forbidden. In sins of the first table; corrupting God’s worship by superstition and idolatry, taking God’s name in vain by heartless devotion, dissembling piety, dispensing with perjury and false oaths, taking away the second commandment and the morality of the fourth commandment, and making men’s faith and obedience to rest upon a humau authority, &c. In sins of the second table; to dispense with duties belonging to superiors and inferiors; with murder, adultery, fornication, incest, robbery, lying, equivocation, &c. And besides all these, promoting a false religion, and destroying the true, by fines, imprisonments, banishments, tortures, poisons, massacre, fire, and faggot. And this man of sin is not a single person, but a company, order, and succession of men; because all are acted by the same spirit, therefore called a man; as the man of the earth, Psa 10:18, is all men of an earthly spirit, and a man of the field, Gen 25:27, is men whose minds and employments are in the field. Or, it is a sinful state. As the civil state of the four monarchies in Daniel is represented by four single beasts, and the antichristian state by a beast rising out of the sea, Rev 13:1; so by man of sin is meant a sinful state, which though it consisteth of many people and nations, yet, being under the influence and government of one man, may be also styled the man of sin upon that account; impietatis Coryphaeus. Moulin. And because the sin of the whole community is chiefly centred in him, and springs out from him; a man in whom is the fountain of all sins. Hierein ad Algasiam. And the sin of this state is called a mystery of iniquity, 2Th 2:7, and so differing from the sin in all other political states; and therefore may well be judged to be the same with the whore sitting on many waters, that hath mystery written in her forehead, Rev 17:1,5. And as no expositor takes the whore to be meant of a single woman, and the true apostolic church is represented by a woman in travail, Rev 12:1,2, why then should we take the man of sin to be a single man, as the papists do? viz. a Jew of the tribe of Dan, that shall erect his kingdom and temple in Jerusalem, seduce the Jews, continue three years and a half, make great havoc of the church, to be opposed by Enoch and Elias, and is to come a little before the end of the world. Ridiculous! Neither call this man of sin be Simon Magus and his followers, for he was revealed in the apostle’s time, seeing the mystery of iniquity belonging to this man of sin began to work in the apostle’s days, as 2Th 2:7, and he is the same whom St. John calls antichrist, 1Jo 2:18; and the spirit of antichrist began to be in the world in his time, 1Jo 4:3; and the nations are to be made drunk with the cup of his fornication, and to serve and obey him, &c., Rev 13:8; 17:4; all which requires more time than is allotted by them: but they set him a great way off, that none may suspect him to be among themselves; but he that will compare the Church of Rome in the apostle Paul’s times with what it is now, and the doctrine of the council of Trent with that laid down in his Epistle to the Romans, may say: How is the faithful city become a harlot! And this man of sin is to

be revealed also, which shows that he is not a single person, not yet born: revealing relates not so much to a person, as a thing; in particular to the mystery of iniquity, mentioned 2Th 2:7; his revealing is either quoad existentiam, or apparentiam. The former is meant here, and the latter 2Th 2:8. He grows up into an existence, as the apostacy grows, as vermin grows out of putrefaction. As the church’s purity, faith, love, holiness declined, and as pride, ambition, covetousness, luxury prevailed, so he grew up: and which was the direct point and time of his full revelation in this first sense is conjectured by many, but determined by none; it is most generally referred to the tithe of Boniface the Third, to whom Phocas granted the style of oecumenical bishop, and to the Church of Rome to be the mother church. But as the apostacy brings forth this man of sin, so as he riseth he helps it forward; so that he both causeth it, and is caused by it. As corruption in doctrine, worship, discipline, and manners brought him forth, so he was active in corrupting them more and more.

The son of perdition; another Hebraism, where sometimes that which any way proceeds from another, as its cause, is called its son, as sparks the sons of the coal, Job 5:7, and branches sons of the tree, Gen 49:22, and the learner the son of the teacher, Pro 3:1; and sometimes that which a man is addicted to, as a wicked man is the son of wickedness, Psa 89:22. Again, that which gives forth what it hath in itself, as the branches of the olive trees giving oil are called the sons of oil, Zec 4:14; and in the text, the man of sin is

the son of perdition, as Judas is called, Joh 17:12; and he is so either actively, as he brings others to destruction, and so may be called Apollyon, Rev 9:11; or rather passively, as devoted to perdition; as Rev 19:20, the beast and false prophet are both cast into the lake of fire and brimstone; and the beast that was, and is not, is said to go into perdition, Rev 17:11. The destroyer of others both in soul and body will be destroyed himself: first, morally, by the word and Spirit, as 2Th 2:8; and then judicially, by God’s revenging justice in this world, and that to come. The apostle, at the very first mentioning him, declares his destiny; at his first rising and revealing, mentions his fall and ruin.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

3. No man deceive you—Words very similar to those of our Lord.

Mat_24:4. Deceive does not necessarily imply a deceptive purpose in the man.

By any means—The three above enumerated means, or any other.

That day shall not come—Critics agree that the italicised words, though not in the Greek, are properly supplied by our translators. A (or rather, the definite article the) falling away—The apostasy—the well-known apostasy. Not a political rebellion or revolt. The whole passage indicates that it is a religious apostasy from Christ, led by antichrist, the man of sin, leading to the most blasphemous opposition to God.

Man of sin—Not merely sinful man, but man made up of sin. He is concrete wickedness. A deep allusion to the Satanic character lying at the base of antichrist.

Son of perdition—Applied by Christ to the antichrist among his apostles, Judas. Joh_17:12.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Let no man deceive you by any means; in any way, not only in any of the foregoing methods, "by spirit, or word, or letter," but in any way whatever. For (that day shall not come). The bracketed words are not in the original, but are correctly supplied for the completion of the sense. Except there come a falling away; or, the apostasy; namely, that apostasy about which the apostle, when in Thessalonica, had instructed his readers. The falling away here alluded to is evidently religious, not political. Hence it cannot be the revolt of the Jews from the Romans, or any of those revolts and disturbances which then occurred in the political world. Nor must we conceive that the man of sin himself is here meant; for this apostasy precedes his coming prepares the way for his advent; it is not the result, but the cause, of his appearance. The word, then, is to be taken generally to denote that remarkable "falling away" from Christianity concerning which Paul had instructed the Thessalonians. (comp. 1Ti_4:1-3) First; namely, before the coming of the day of the Lord. And that man of sin; in whom sin is, as it were, personified, as righteousness is in Christ. Be revealed. The apostle considers the man of sin as the counterpart of Christ; as Christ was revealed, so shall the man of sin be revealed. The son of perdition; whose sin necessarily conducts to perdition; not here the perdition of his followers, but his own perdition. The same name which was applied by our Lord to Judas Iscariot. (Joh_17:12)

Importance of religious knowledge.

We are surrounded by many influences tending either to lead us into error and delusion, or into scepticism and infidelity. We must add to our faith knowledge, and seek to be rooted and grounded in the faith. The truth ought to be the great subject of inquiry. Let us cultivate the love of the truth; let us pursue the truth wherever it leads, lest we should render ourselves liable to the condemnation of those who believe not the truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness; and lest we should be led from error to error, and be lost in a perfect maze of falsehood.

Vers. 3-9.

The doctrine of antichrist.

Antichrist is the caricature or counterpart of Christ.

1. He is the man of sin, the personification of iniquity; whereas Christ is therighteous One, the personification of righteousness.

2. He is the mystery of iniquity; whereas Christ is the mystery of godliness.

3. His advent is announced by the same word as the advent of Christ.

4. His coming occurred in its proper season; so also Christ came in thefulness of time.

5. His coming is after the working of Satan; whereas Christ"s coming is inthe power of the Holy Ghost.

6. He performs miracles of falsehood, a counterpart of the real miracleswhich Christ performed.

7. He sitteth in the temple of God, thus occupying the proper seat of Christ.

8. He shows or exhibits himself as God, whereas Christ is the truemanifestation of the Godhead. In short, the kingdom of light which Christ has established has its counterpart in the kingdom of darkness.

Vers. 3-8.

The rise of the apostasy and the revelation of the man of sin must precede the second advent.

This fact would assure them that a period of time of at least indefinite extent would intervene before the day of the Lord. "Let no man deceive you by any means.

I THE COMING OF THE APOSTASY. "Because the day will not set in unless there come the apostasy first.

1. The apostasy is so described because it was already familiar to their minds through his oral teaching. "Remember ye not, that, when I was with you, I was telling you of these things?

2. It points to a signal defection from the Christian faith. We imagine that the primitive Churches were signally free from error or fault of any sort. The apostle himself notes the signs of beginning apostasy even in his own day.

(1) "The mystery of lawlessness doth already work.

(2) There were for himself "perils from false brethren.

(3) There were in the Church itself "enemies of the cross of Christ.

(4) Later still "many deceivers had entered into the world.

(5) The apostle foresaw that the evil "would increase unto more ungodliness.

(6) This apostasy was to precede the revelation of the man of sin, not to be regarded as identical with it. Yet the two movements were not to be regarded as independent of each other, except in the order or time of their development.

(7) The signs of the apostasy in Christendom are to be seen principally in the Papacy, but likewise in the kindred errors and corruptions of the Greek Church as well as in the delusions of Mohammedanism. The elements of the apostasy were, however, to be gathered up and concentrated at last in a single person as their final embodiment.

II THE REVELATION OF THE MAN OF SIN. "And that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above every one called God, or an object of worship." His characteristics are here distinctly described.

1. He does not represent a system of error, like Romanism, or the papal hierarchy, or a succession of Popes, but a single person. The man of sin has not yet appeared. Yet Romanism, or the papacy, comprehends much that is involved in the idea of this terrible person, who, however, goes beyond it in the appalling extent of his wickedness. The passage is not symbolic, but literal. It is a literal person who is described.

2. He is "the son of perdition.

(1) Not because he brings ruin to others, but

(2) because he is himself doomed to ruin going literally to "his own place," like Judas, who may be regarded as a type of him.

3. His boundless and blasphemous assumptions.

(1) His opposition to every God, true and false.

(2) His self-elevation above every God, true and false. His action recalls the prophecy of Daniel: "The king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods". (Dan_11:36) This prophecy refers to a polytheistic king. The apostle refers to the man of sin as repudiating all worship, as if he represented a higher divinity than anything worshipped on earth.

(a) The description does not apply to the pope or the papacy:

(a) Because the pope, though the head of a system of idolatry, does notoppose God or exalt himself above him, but rather owns himself "a servant of servants of the most high God," and blesses the people, not in his own name, but in the Name of the Triune God.

(b) Because, instead of exalting himself above God or objects of worship,he multiplies the objects of worship by the canonization of new saints, and submits, like the humblest of his followers, to the worship of the very saints he has made.

(c) Because the pope, though guilty of arrogating almost Divine powers tohimself, does not supersede God so as to make himself God. The man of sin "sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." Though votaries of the papacy have often given Divine titles to the popes, the Popes have never assumed to be God, but only vicars of Jesus Christ on earth. They have claimed to be viceroys of God. The temple of God cannot be the Vatican; nor the Christian Church, which is an ideal building; nor can Rome be regarded as the centre of the Christian Church.

(d) Because this prophetic sketch contains no allusion to strictly papalpeculiarities, such as idolatry, either as to the Virgin Mary, saints, angels, or relics, the invention of purgatory, priestly absolution, bloody fanaticism, debased casuistry, lordship over the world of spirits.

(b) The description applies to the man of sin the lawless one for whom the Papacy prepares the way by a long course of apostasy from the truth.

(a) This terrible person is to oppose God and all worship of every sort, andmay therefore be regarded as an impersonation of infidel wickedness.

(b) He is to sit down in the vacated "temple of God" and claim all theattributes of divinity. He sits down in God"s place for the temple is God"s dwelling in some actual temple, and appropriates it to his own use. Wherever the scene of this marvellous usurpation may be, it signifies the obliteration of all Christian interests and the triumph of atheistic malignity. When the Lord comes, "shall he find faith in the earth?" We see how Positivism in our own day has forsaken the worship of a personal God and betaken itself to the worship of concrete humanity. The man of sin will use the papacy as Anguste Comte travestied it in constructing forms of Positivist devotion, by turning it into some darker shape and. making it the tremendous instrument of the world"s final ruin.

III THE CHECK TO THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE MAN OF SIN. "And now what restraineth ye know, in order that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of iniquity is already working only till he who now restraineth be taken out of the way." These words imply:

1. That the apostasy was already in being; for "the mystery of lawlessness is already working." The two, if not identical, are closely connected together.

(1) It antagonizes Christ, who is "the mystery of godliness". (1Ti_3:16) The mystery is a process, not a person, yet it works against the person of Christ.

(2) Many of the elements of the "apostasy" were in existence in the days of the apostles, at least in the germ state. The Epistle to the Colossians and the Second Epistle to Timothy point to an early development of Gnostic error which found its place in due time in the papal system. (Col 2 2Ti 3) The self-deifying Tendency was manifested in the conduct of several of the Caesars.

1. The words imply that the working of the apostasy was still undefined and as yet unguessed at. It was still "a mystery," to be revealed in due time. Nothing is more remarkable than the gradual growth of error in the patristic age. False opinions held by pious Fathers in one age were held by errorists in the next age to the exclusion o! the truth.

2. The words imply that, as the apostasy would last through ages, the check would likewise exercise a continuous effect. The common opinion is that the Roman empire was the restraining power upon the development of the man of sin. It was certainly such upon the course of the apostasy, which was to prepare the way for the man of sin. It held the Papacy in check till it was itself swept away by barbarian violence. Because it has passed away, it does not follow that the man of sin must have been revealed at once; for other checks have been supplied, and are being still continuously supplied, in the polity of nations and in the face of Divine truth, to restrain the last terrible manifestation of his power.

IV THE DOOM OF THE MAN OF SIN. "Whom the Lord Jesus shall consume with the breath of his mouth, and shall destroy with the appearance of his coming.

1. This does not refer to the Word and Spirit of Christ working in the minds of men for the destruction of antichristian error and antitheistic wickedness, but to the actual personal advent of Jesus Christ.

2. The language implies the suddenness and the completeness of theoverthrow of the man of sin, who thereby becomes "the son of perdition.

3. The picture presented may be identical with the Got and Magog conspiracy which is to follow the millennium. (Rev_20:7, Rev_20:8) The Lord puts the question, "When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith in the earth?". (Luk_18:8) Thus the apostle assures the Thessalonians that the day of the Lord cannot have come, because all the events here pictured must happen before that great and terrible day. T.C.

Vers. 3-12.

The man of sin.

I HE MUST COME BEFORE THE DAY OF THE LORD.

1. His revelation. He is antichrist the evil counterpart of the most holy Saviour; he has his revelation, his apocalypse. There must be an apostasy before the coming of the Lord a great, notable apostasy. The apostle had warned the Thessalonians of it; we need these warnings now. We must not be discouraged when we see scepticism, unbelief, rampant around us. These things must be; Holy Scripture has forewarned us. We must be prepared; we must be calm and steadfast, looking for the coming of the Lord. Such apostasies there have been; there have been precursors of the man of sin, such as Caligula shortly before the date of this Epistle, or Nero shortly after. There have been evil men among the popes of Rome who

2. have exhibited in their lives some of the characteristic features of the antichrist. But the apostasy is yet to come; the man of sin is yet in the future; the mystery of iniquity is working even now; it is working below the surface, in secret; hereafter, we know not when, it will burst forth into open day in the revelation of the man of sin. We must not look forward to a continual, unopposed progress of the gospel; we must not expect that religion will go on in ever-extended triumphs, with no checks, no defeats, overspreading the earth more and more with its blessed influences. Such an expectation is not warranted either by Scripture or by the signs of the times. Scripture tells us of the coming apostasy, of the revelation of the man of sin. And in the world the forces of unbelief and evil are evidently gathering themselves for a mighty conflict. In our own country, it is true, there has been a great revival of religious zeal, great love for Christ, much earnest, self-denying work for his sake. But alongside of this there has been a great outburst of infidelity, a widespread scepticism, a hatred of revelation, manifesting itself in the life and works of men of learning and culture; while elsewhere the revolt against all forms of authority, Divine and human, has been more outspoken and far more widely spread. The armies of God and Satan, the powers of good and evil, light and darkness, faith and unbelief, seem to be already marshalled in preparation for an awful struggle. It must come, Holy Scripture warns us; it will culminate in the revelation of the man of sin. He will be revealed out of previous obscurity; the apparition will be unveiled out of darkness.

3. His character. He is a person, a man of mighty intellect and giant strength of will, who will take advantage of a general development of unbelief and lawlessness, and gain for a time a widespread sovereignty. Sin fills his being; it becomes, as it were, incarnate in him; it dominates his entire personality. He is "a son of perdition" like Judas (compare the common Hebraism, "a son of death"), destined himself to eternal death, involving in utter death all who follow him. He is an adversary, a human Satan, filled with all the awful energy, the concentrated malice of the evil one. He is the antichrist, the avowed and bitter enemy of the holy Saviour, bringing with his intense wickedness the horrible cry of "Ecrasez l"infame!" into awful prominence. He exalts himself against every one that is called God; he sits in the temple of God, reviving the madness of Antiochus Epiphanes, the impious attempt of Caligula. Such a man the world has not yet seen. There have been many outbursts of wickedness, many evil men in the long course of history have risen to sovereign power; but no one yet has combined in himself all the characteristics ascribed to the man of sin in this Epistle. It is a fearful spectacle which is yet to come. St. Paul warned the Thessalonians that such things there would be, uprisings of malice and persecution, anticipations of the man of sin. He warns the whole Church throughout all time that such things are to be looked for; that sooner or later, before the end cometh, the man of sin himself shall be revealed in all the awful energy of unmingled wickedness, relieved by no one trace of goodness.

II THE OBSTACLE.

1. The Thessalonians knew what it was. St. Paul had told them of this during his short residence in Thessalonica. For some reason he had dwelt much on this awful subject; it must have been necessary for the Thessalonians in their special circumstances, though we know not why. They had knowledge which we have not; they knew precisely what we cannot find out for certain with all our searching. We may be satisfied that this knowledge, then good for them, is not now necessary for us, or it would have been more clearly revealed. "Ye have an unction from the Holy One," St. John says of believers, "and ye know all things all that we need to know for life and godliness.

2. What was it? The Roman empire, the power of Roman law, the emperor as embodying that power. This was the answer of most ancient writers; it seems to be the most common answer now. Then the power of Rome checked the outburst of anarchy and lawlessness. It is still the majesty of law, the authority of well ordered governments, that fulfils the same office. The mystery of lawlessness is working now; it has not reached its height, it has not embodied itself in the fearful personality of the man of sin. But it is working; and it is a mystery, the terrible counterpart of the mystery of godliness. There is a mystery in evil, a strange, fearful mystery, dark secrets not yet revealed; a mystery which suggests awful, heart-rending questionings questionings which can be quieted only in his presence who giveth rest to the troubled, anxious soul. This mystery of lawlessness was working even then in the world which the God of love created; it is working now; but it is held down by the restraining power; it cannot give birth to the man of sin till his time shall come, the time foreordained in the counsels of God. Then the restraining power will be taken out of the way; lawlessness will prevail, and its creature and embodiment, the lawless one, will come.

III HIS ACTIVITY.

1. It is but for a short time. The Lord Jesus shall destroy him, and that in an instant, when he cometh. He needs only to speak the word of power; the breath of his mouth shall sweep the adversary into that perdition to which he was appointed. The manifestation of his coming, the very sight of the awful Judge, shall slay the wicked one. This must be our consolation when the dark problems of life distress our souls Lord cometh." Then shall come the assured triumph of righteousness, the crowning victory over all the powers of evil.

2. But it is tremendous. As God is revealed in Christ, so is Satan revealed in the man of sin, the antichrist. The "miracles and wonders and signs" (Act_2:22) which God did by Christ are parodied by the power and signs and wonders which Satan will work through the agency of the man of sin. As Christ"s coming is with power, with his mighty angels in:flaming fire, so is the coming of the lawless one with all power according to the working of Satan. As God worketh in his saints both to will and to do of his good pleasure, so Satan worketh in this his representative with all the awful energy of diabolical wickedness. The antichrist, says Bengel, stands in the same relation to Satan as Christ to God. The antichrist will work miracles, but they are by the energy of Satan, wonders of falsehood. They are net mere deceptions, they are real miracles; but they are the works of him who is the father of lies; and they are lies, inasmuch as they are intended to mislead men into worshipping him as God who is the personation of Satan, the liar from the beginning. Lies, too, they are, because they are the signs of a power which is only a miserable imposture, which must soon end in death and ruin. Our Lord has warned us (Mat_24:24) of false Christs and false prophets whose signs and wonders should be so startling as to deceive, if it were possible, the very elect. The false prophet, the second beast, of the Revelation doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire to come down from heaven, and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he hath power to do. Then there may be, there will be, false miracles, lying wonders. Miracles alone do not always prove the agency of God, but miracles with holiness, works of faith issuing out of a life filled with the presence of God. The blessed life of Jesus Christ our Lord is a mightier miracle than the physical wonders which he wrought. A life of perfect purity and transcendent holiness in the weakness of human flesh, amid all the temptations of this wicked world, is to us a more convincing proof of the Divine mission of Christ than the signs from heaven would have been which the Jews so often asked for. The Church must expect the coming of lying wonders; she must stand unshaken amid all the developments of Satanic energy. The elect will not be deceived, for they will recognize the notes of antichrist, "all the deceivableness of unrighteousness;" they will remember the warnings of Holy Scripture: "Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God," "He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.

IV ITS RESULT.

1. He deceiveth them that dwell on the earth; not the elect the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God; but those who have not been sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise which is the earnest of our inheritance, the pledge of that seal of the living God which his angel shall one day set upon the foreheads of his chosen. But there are, alas! those that are perishing, who have not passed from death unto life through faith in the Son of God, but still abide in death. Such men the man of sin, the lawless one, deceives and engulfs in his own utter destruction.

2. Their own wilfulness is the cause of their ruin. "God is not willing that any should perish." The true light lighteth every man. It came to them, but they received it not. They received not Christ. He is the Truth, and he is Love. He came into the world that the world through him might be saved. But they received not him who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. They had no love for the truth, no desire for it. They were quite indifferent to the truth, though their conscience told them that it was the truth; they were worse than indifferent, they rejected it. They might have been saved; the truth would have made them free. They might have been sanctified through the truth; for the truth of God, received into the heart, hath power to cleanse, to purify, to save the soul. But they loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

3. It ends in judicial blindness. God"s Spirit will not always strive with man. In his awful justice he gives over to a reprobate mind those who persevere in disobedience. He sendeth them a strong delusion, a working of error. As virtue is its own reward, so sin is its own punishment. Eternal sin (see Mar_3:29 in the best-supported reading) is the fearful end of the obstinate sinner. That hardening of the heart, in which habitual sin must at last result, is ascribed in Holy Scripture sometimes to God, sometimes to the sinner himself, sometimes to the deceitfulness of sin. They are different modes of expressing the same law of God"s government. He has so ordered our moral nature, that sin, when it is full grown, bringeth forth death. He lets the rebel have his own will; he leaves him to be "lord of himself, that heritage of woe." The Spirit is withdrawn at last from those who vex, grieve, resist, his gracious influences. But there is something more awful still. Not only did the Spirit of the Lord depart from Saul, but "an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him." God himself sends at the last, in his most awful justice, the strong delusion, the inworking of error. It is the last state, worse than the first; after which comes that dreadful sentence, "It is impossible to renew them again unto repentance." This thought gives a most terrible significance to every act of wilful, unrepented sin; every such act brings a man nearer (how near he cannot tell) to that most awful state whence there is no repentance. Then comes judicial blindness; the light that was within them becomes darkness. They would not believe the truth of God, now they believe the lie of the man of sin. It is the judgment of God. We see indications of it from time to time in the credulity of unbelief. Men who reject the Bible are sometimes ready to believe anything except the Bible; they will greedily accept any legend, any scientific hypothesis, though evidently not more than a provisional hypothesis, which seems to contradict the Bible; they will deify humanity, they will worship the idol which is the creature of their own thoughts rather than the living God. This unbelief sprang out of sin; they "had pleasure in unrighteousness." There is such a thing as honest doubt; such were the doubts of Asaph, of Thomas. But unbelief in a very large measure comes from moral causes. Sin darkens the heart and the mind; sin always leads to practical, often to intellectual, unbelief. "Every one that doeth evil hateth the light;" he walketh in darkness; he seeth not the coming judgment.

LESSONS.

1. Be prepared for times of darkness they must come; be strong in faith.

2. If unbelief becomes dominant, still believe; God has forewarned us.

3. Anarchy, confusion, leads to the predominance of sin. "Give peace inour time, O Lord.

4. Even miracles may deceive. Christ remaineth faithful; trust always in him.

5. Hate sin with utter hatred; it ends in hardness of heart. B.C.C.

The man of sin.

The man of sin and his awful character and career, here described by St. Paul, are subjects of such deep and dreadful mystery, that we may well take warning from the intricate confusion of the interpretations put forth by those people who profess to expound the fulfilment of prophecy, and content ourselves with accepting the prediction as it stands without attempting to identify it with particular historical events. Though some of its terms apply well to certain explanations, and others to different explanations, no explanation has yet been furnished which fairly and without any straining of words covers the whole of them. From Nero to the pope, from the days of the siege of Jerusalem to those of the yet future millennium, certain odious persons and systems have been selected for a realization of the prophecy. Leaving these dubious identifications, let us look at the main outlines of the picture.

I THERE IS A MAN OF SIN. Whether he lived in the past or has yet to appear, a man to whom this awful name belongs is described in inspired Scripture. The Bible does not ignore the awful depths of human wickedness. It is dreadfully significant that this evil being is a man, not a devil. Humanity, which was created in the image of God and intended to be a temple of God, may be degraded into the image of Satan and become a haunt of iniquity. As good works through human sympathies, so does evil. A bad man is more dangerous than a fallen angel, because he is nearer to his fellow men.

II THE MAN OF SIN FOLLOWS AN APOSTASY.

1. Spiritual apostasy leads a man to moral corruption. The man who has forsaken Christ is tempted to fall into gross sin. Faith is the great preservative of morals.

2. Apostasy lays the Church open to attacks from her enemies. The "man of sin" could not arise before the Church had fallen, nor if he had appeared could he have had any power against a faithful Church.

III THE MAN OF SIN PRECEDES THE SECOND ADVENT OF CHRIST. It was a mistake on the part of the Thessalonian Church to suppose that "the day of the Lord" had arrived, because the dreadful appearance of the man of sin which was to precede that day had not yet been seen. St. Paul warns us that apostasy and the frightful life of this wicked man whoever he may be must come before Christ returns. He does not encourage us to look for a gradual, unbroken progress of Christianity. The growth of the harvest fruit is arrested and delayed by frost and storm. Christ even wondered whether he should find any faith left on the earth at his return. (Luk_18:8) The glorious consummation of all things to which the Christian looks forward is not to be expected as the result of quiet improvement without relapse. Between the present and that "great Divine event" dark chasms of iniquity yawn. Every age has thought it could detect signs of this evil in its midst. So the unbelief and corruptions of our own day are taken by some to be "signs." Unhappily the language of the apostle warns us to expect more terribly demonstrative signs than any yet seen.

IV THE APPEARANCE OF THE MAN OF SIN IS A SGN OF THE APPROACHING ADVENT OF CHRIST. Here is some encouragement for the Church to endure the trials of the darkest times. These times are to usher in the great and glorious day of the Lord. Evil, when most triumphant, is nearest defeat. Dreadful as may be its transient success, it will soon be swept away. When the horror of sin is blackest, the judgment which is to sweep it away is nearest at hand. Christ will come again when he will be most needed. W.F.A.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Unless the falling away - From the pure faith of the gospel, come first. This began even in the apostolic age. But the man of sin, the son of perdition - Eminently so called, is not come yet. However, in many respects, the Pope has an indisputable claim to those titles. He is, in an emphatical sense, the man of sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled, the son of perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers, destroyed innumerable souls, and will himself perish everlastingly. He it is that opposeth himself to the emperor, once his rightful sovereign; and that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped - Commanding angels, and putting kings under his feet, both of whom are called gods in scripture; claiming the highest power, the highest honour; suffering himself, not once only, to be styled God or vice-God. Indeed no less is implied in his ordinary title, "Most Holy Lord," or, "Most Holy Father." So that he sitteth - Enthroned. In the temple of God - Mentioned Rev. xi, 1. Declaring himself that he is God - Claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

for that day

The order of events is:

(1) The working of the mystery of lawlessness under divine restraint which had already begun in the apostle’s time 2Th 2:7

(2) the apostasy of the professing church 2Th 1:3; Luk 18:8; 2Ti 3:1-8.

(3) the removal of that which restrains the mystery of lawlessness 2Th 2:6; 2Th 2:7. The restrainer is a person--"he," and since a "mystery" always implies a supernatural element (See Scofield "Mat 13:11") this Person can be none other than the Holy Spirit in the church, to be "taken out of the way"; 2Th 2:7; 1Th 4:14-17.

(4) the manifestation of the lawless one 2Th 2:8-10; Dan 7:8; Dan 9:27; Mat 24:15; Rev 13:2-10

(5) the coming of Christ in glory and the destruction of the lawless one 2Th 2:8; Rev 19:11-21

(6) the day of Jehovah 2Th 2:9-12; Isa 2:12

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

As if the apostle had said, "Let no man deceive you in this article of your faith, by any pretence whatsoever; for before Christ’s coming there shall come a great falling away from the catholic faith, and by that means the man of sin will be revealed, who is the son of perdition:"--

Note here, 1. Such a proneness there is in the nature and mind of man to embrace and entertain error, when once vented, that there is need of repeated dissuasives from it, and to guard persons against the poison and infatuation of it. Let no man deceive you by any means.

Note, 2. A general apostasy or defection of the visible church from the faith of Christianity, must be before Christ’s coming to judgment; Except there come a falling away first. It is foretold as a thing that would certainly come to pass.

Note, 3. The revelation of Antichrist declared, That man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition; where by the man of sin, understand not a particular individual person, but a society and succession of men, such as is found in and amongst the papacy, where the sodomy, blasphemy, incest, adultries, sorceries, murders, treasons, which are not only committed, but countenanced; not only acted, but authorized; do most evidently declare that there never was such an apostasy from Christianity since it had a being in the world, as is found amongst them.

Note, 4. This man of sin is also styled the son of perdition.

(1.) Actively, a destroying son, one that brings others to destruction.

(2.) Passively, a son that shall be destroyed; Antichrist and all his adherents shall be destroyed, utterly destroyed, by Jesus Christ, and his kingdom shall perish without any hope of recovery; first destroying, and at last destroyed.

Where note, That our apostle at the first, the very first, mentioning Antichrist, doth declare his destiny; at his first rising he declares his fall and ruin. That man of sin, the son of perdition.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

ARGUMENT 5

THE MAN OF SIN, POPE AND ANTICHRIST

3. “Let no one deceive you in any way, because unless there may first come an apostasy and the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction may be revealed.” The spirit of prophecy on Paul reveals certain events, destined to transpire before the return of our Lord, though giving him no dates as to the time of the predicted interventions. The great apostasy here revealed transpired in the fourth century, as the immediate result from the great change in the attitude of the political and religious world toward the Church. During the first three centuries following the conflagration of Rome, martyrs’ blood flowed incessantly, each succeeding emperor enforcing the cruel edict of Nero, pursuant to which Paul was beheaded, Peter crucified; and an indiscriminate massacre of the saints, especially their ejectment to the wild beasts in the Coliseum, followed in ten great persecutionary epochs. at intervals of about thirty years, thus mowing down each succeeding generation with the bloody sword of martyrdom, till the conversion of Constantine, A.D. 325. This radically revolutionized the relation of the Church to the world. Constantine, by an imperial edict, proclaimed Christianity the religion of the empire, thus bringing the pagan millions into the visible Church; the effect of which was to paganize Christianity, and degenerate the Church into Roman Catholicism. Martyr blood and fire had kept the Church humble, poor, unpopular, and despised three hundred years. Meanwhile she had no creed but the Bible. Now that she was become popular, influential, and wealthy, the great Council of Nice in Bithynia convenes, the Emperor Constantine sitting in a golden chair, presiding over it, while they make the first human creed, which has been followed by others in subsequent ages, thus recognizing and inaugurating human authority, going off into ecclesiasticism, no longer content with New Testament simplicity, substituting the Antinomian heresies for the gospel of purity, thus turning over the nominal Christian dispensation to the devil as the Antediluvian, Patriarchal, and Mosaic. The “Man of sin” (E.V., is the man of lawlessness). Greek Anomia, lawlessness, is from alpha, not, and nomos, law. Hence, it means the man who ignores the law; i.e., treats it with contempt. The law of God says positively and repeatedly, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die;” “The wages of sin is death;” “He that committeth sin is of the devil.” Satan counterfeits all of God’s work, and thus dudes the world, making them believe that he is God, and in this way rules earth’s millions. As the result of the great apostasy, sinning religion sailed out under the cognomen of Christianity, boldly offering the world salvation in sin in contradistinction to the Bible, which offers salvation from sin. Before the apostasy, Christianity was unpopular and terribly persecuted. As the result of the Constantinian apostasy, a system of popular Christianity, congenial to the world and provoking no persecution, has been propagated in all lands. However, God has always had a true people on the earth, and always will till he takes up his Bride. These faithful few who survived the great apostasy, soon so provoked the animosity of popular religion as again to become the victims of blood and slaughter. No wonder this Antinomian heresy of the sinning religion is denominated by the Holy Spirit, “the Son of destruction;” because nothing but wholesale ruin, death, and damnation can follow in its tread. Every institution is abstract before it can become concrete. Satan, in Paul’s day, was busy sowing the seed of sinning religion in the hearts of the people; which in after ages, when martyrdom abated for a season, assumed a visible organization in the fallen Church, and concrete personality in the pope.

4. “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above everything called God, or Divinity, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself off that he is God.” This applies directly to the pope, whose deluded votaries actually call him our lord god the pope. He exalts himself above God, in that he claims that, as the vicar of Christ and vicegerent of God, the government of the world, political and ecclesiastical, has been turned over into his hands, Christ having retreated away to heaven, and left him in the rulership of the world, to reign in his room and stead. This is the very definition of antichrist, as anti means instead of; hence antichrist is a person in the place of Christ. While the pope is the antichrist, all the preachers of a sinning religion offer the people salvation independently of Christ and in opposition to him, and consequently practically fall under the cognomen of antichrist, as the subordinates of the pope. The Bible positively reveals that all in sin are lost, and salvation is only possible in the eradication of sin, which none but Christ can do. Hence, the man who offers you salvation, without going to Christ and having your sins exterminated by Omnipotent Grace, assumes the attitude of antichrist; i.e., a substitute for Christ. John said there were many in his day. The world is flooded with them at the present day, just as Christ is the personal head of all true soul-savers, who faithfully hold him up as the only One competent to impart actual salvation in the utter destruction of sin; even so the pope of Rome is the personal head of all who offer salvation to the people on various lines of human substitution. While the pope is, and always has been, the antichrist in the proper sense—i.e., the chief antichrist—there is no doubt but in prophetic fulfillment he will in a future day assume much greater prominence in the development and manifestation of the antichristhood. Doubtless the great tribulation will open a wide door to the assumption of the old papistical claims of a universal pontificate, which has in all ages been the climacteric dream of the papacy. A similar door was opened in the fall of the Roman Empire, when the pope did boldly arrogate to himself this universal pontificate. When all human thrones shall fall (Daniel 7), rest assured the pope, pursuant to his long-cherished pretensions, will assume absolute autocracy, thus developing into the eighth head of the Roman beast (Revelation 17); as John says that this eighth is one of the seven, it must be the pope, because he is the only surviving head of the seven-headed Roman beast (Revelation 13), the other six; i.e., the kingdom, the consulate, the triumvirate, the dictatorship, the tribuneship, and the empire (the empire having long ago passed away), leaving the papacy the successor of the sixth imperial head, which received the deadly wound in the destruction of the empire by the Goths, Huns, and Vandals; the only survivor, the deadly wound on the imperial head having been healed in the papacy. During the terrible confusion of the tribulation, when all human thrones shall be cast down (Daniel 7), rely upon it the pope will endeavor to occupy and recuperate every fallen throne. For this he is making vigorous preparations in the United States of America as well as other countries. As the Christhood develops and culminates in the second Coming, doubtless Satan, the uncompromising rival of Christ, will perpetuate a corresponding development of the antichristhood. O what a grand open door for the magnification of the antichristhood, when all kingdoms shall totter and human governments collapse and fall amid the terrible revolutions of Armageddon (Revelation 16)! Paul here describes the pope “as sitting in the temple of God, showing himself off that he is God.” This prophecy received a signal fulfillment in 1870. On the day appointed to proclaim the dogma of his infallibilty in presence of fifty thousand people in St. Peter’s Cathedral, arrangements were made, at tremendous cost, to so encompass the multitude with concentric mirrors as to reflect the splendors of the pope’s person, most gorgeously decked with gems, rubies, diamonds, and gold, so as to throw an unearthly splendor from his person, dazzling the eyes of the multitude, and impressing them with the very presence of God. All this blasphemous enterprise was signally defeated by Him who sits upon the circle of the heavens, and turns the seasons round. At the very hour appointed for the blasphemous proclamation of the pope’s infallibility, God sent a terrible thunderstorm, so darkening the elements as to utterly disqualify them to use the mirrors, and thus permit the pope “to show off himself as God.”

6. “Now you know that which hindereth, that He should be revealed in his time.

7. “For already the mystery of lawlessness is working; only there is one hindering until he be taken from the midst.” In Paul’s day the Satanic mystery of a sinning religion in the normal Church of Christ was at work, which in after ages developed into the papacy and Romanism, and is now rapidly developing in the swift apostasy of all the Protestant Churches outside the holiness movement. The “hindering one” here mentioned by Paul as keeping back the manifestation of “this man of lawlessness”—i.e., the pope—was the Roman Emperor, who would have killed the pope if he had risen in his day. The world could not have a Caesar and a pope at the same time. Hence, Caesar must fall before the pope can rise. Paul here very judiciously in this prophecy withholds the personal mention of the Roman Emperor, as he very probably would have expedited his own martyrdom by a direct statement. It is a historic fact that the bishop of Rome, who became pope, actually did assume supremacy over the Roman world soon after the fall of the emperor, and has claimed it ever since, and is only now awaiting an opportunity to enforce his claim, which he will doubtless find in the great Tribulation.

8. “And then that lawless one shall be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy by the breath of his mouth, and annihilate by the brightness of his presence.” The “breath of his mouth” evidently means the Bible. (2Ti 3:16.) “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” The Greek says, “All Scripture is God breathed;” i.e., the Bible from Alpha to Omega is the breath of God. O how the Bible has been destroying the power of the pope the last two hundred years! The sword of the Spirit hews the papistical pretensions all to pieces wherever it goes. If you would successfully fight the devil and the pope, take the Bible all the time. “Will annihilate him by the brightness of His presence.” John devotes four chapters (Revelation 16, 17, 18, 19) to a climacteric description of the great Tribulation. In the sixteenth chapter, the bloody wars of Armageddon shake all kings from their thrones. In the seventeenth chapter, antichrist lays claim to all the vacated thrones. In the eighteenth chapter the tide turns terrifically against antichrist in the fall of Babylon, his Bride. In the nineteenth chapter there is a mighty culmination. Christ rides forth on the white horse. All the kings of the earth are marshaled against him, only to suffer signal defeat and final overthrow. Last of all the rivals of Christ on the earth (except Satan), Babylon having fallen and the kings all perished, still pope and Mohammed survive upon the earth, hopeful again to raise up armies and Churches. But we see them

“both cast alive into the lake of fire that burneth with brimstone.” (Rev 19:20.)

The next verse says,

“The rest were slain by the sword proceeding out from the mouth of him that sitteth upon the horse;”

i.e., all their leaders having been taken out of the world, the surviving millions inhabiting the globe at the close of the Tribulation will all be converted to God, there being no devil on the earth, either personally, through his demoniacal myrmidons, nor through human agency, to lead them.

9. “Whose coming is according to the working o Satan in all power, signs, and wonders of falsehood.” This is the coming of the pope; i.e., antichrist. Jannes and Jambres in the days of Moses wrought miracles by the power of the devil. Satan can perform works so far superhuman as to be incomprehensible by us; i.e., miraculous in our estimation. Though he is a finite being, and utterly incompetent to compete with God, yet he can do works so far above our comprehension as to pass off currently for miracles. The Tribulation will be the great final conflict, in which, doubtless, Satan, through the pope and others, will dazzle the eyes of the world with his miracles, “deceiving, if possible, even the elect.”

10. “In every delusion of unrighteousness to them that perish, because they did not receive the Divine love of the truth, that they might be saved.” This agape, so prominent in the New Testament, is poured out in the heart by the Holy Ghost (Rom 5:5), and is the very essence of Holy Ghost religion, and the only thing that gives you the Divine nature and saves you. While the Bible is going to the ends of the earth, the division here is rapidly being drawn between the savable and unsavable people. Proportionately to the circulation of the Scriptures, infidelity is on the increase, as action always produces reaction, and Satan works wherever God works, contesting every inch of ground, and dividing the spoils with him, the calling out of the elect always revealing the non-elect.

11. “Therefore God sends on them the working of delusion, that they may believe a lie,

12. “That they may all be condemned who believe not the truth, but take pleasure in unrighteousness.” The world is all on probation, being duly tested and tried for the unchangeable state of eternity. Satan could not be in the world if God did not permit him, as in due time he is going to take him out. (Revelation 20.) The culmination is rapidly developing, and the gospel, with unprecedented expedition, is speeding its flight to every nation, revealing the appreciative elect in every land, and rendering conspicuous the non-elect millions, who are fast ripening for destruction. Though the Bible is in every home in many countries, how few comparatively read, believe, and obey it! It lies on every pulpit, to be insulted with the human dogmata of a sinning religion. The issues of eternity are culminating on all sides. How very few have the grit and grace to preach the Word as it is, fearless of men and devils! If God were to save people against their will, he must dehumanize them. When they do not will to receive his truth in the love of it, what can he do but leave them in the hands of the devil, to “believe a lie (and that lie is a sinning religion), and all be damned who do not believe the truth, but take pleasure in unrighteousness.” God’s religion is self-denial throughout. Satan’s counterfeit offers you salvation and heaven without self-denial. The people of this world will have the pleasures of sin. If they become religious, they still hold on to the world’s sinful pleasures, thus worshipping the devil instead of God, believing his lies rather than God’s truth, and receiving damnation instead of salvation. We should expedite the gospel to the ends of the earth for the sake of the elect; meanwhile the non-elect, who reject and abide under the delusions of Satan, will only plunge into a hotter hell than if they had never heard the silver trumpet blow.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

let no man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the falling away come first [Paul uses the article "the" because this apostasy was well known to the church, its coming having been announced by Jesus ( Mat_24:10-12 ), and reiterated by Paul while at Thessalonica. This apostasy, or falling away, may be defined to be a desertion of the true religion and the true God], and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition [Literally, son of perishing. The man of sin is identical with the antichrist of 1Jo_2:18 . Though he is distinguished from Satan in verse 9, yet is he in a sense an incarnation of Satan, for as Satan entered into the heart of Judas ( Joh_13:27 ), who was the first great apostate and son of perdition ( Joh_17:12 ), so he shall enter into the heart of this second apostate and son of perdition, who shall be a man made up of sin, a veritable manifestation of concrete wickedness, and thus self-fitted for perdition. The language clearly shows that he is a person, but there is nothing to forbid us from regarding him as an official rather than an individual personality, as, for instance, a line of popes rather than an individual pope. Those who have denied the right to thus construe his personality, have for the most part straightway fallen into the solecism of interpreting the phrase "one that restraineth," of verse 7, so as to make it mean a line of emperors, or succeeding generations of rulers in our human polity, or some other official personality that existed in Paul's day and long afterward, though the assertion of personality is as strong in verse 7 as it is in verse 3. Antichrist does not cause the apostasy, but is rather the cap-sheaf of it, being revealed in connection with it, and exalted by it],

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

3. Except there come a falling away first. An apostasy must precede the Coming. That is, there shall be a general falling away from the purity of the faith. No apostasy of magnitude occurred in the history of the church for centuries, which could answer to Paul's description, but the gradual declension, corruption, and departure from the ancient faith, which was fully developed a few hundred years later, has always been spoken of by Protestant church historians as The Apostasy. There is no good reason for doubting that it is to the apostle refers. And that man of sin be revealed. He shall be revealed then in connection with the apostasy. The son of perdition. This expression occurs once elsewhere, and is there applied to Judas, an apostate. Here it evidently has a similar application. Some power, once Christian, falls away and becomes opposed to Christ.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

General Information:

Paul teaches about the man of lawlessness.

it will not come

"the day of the Lord will not come"

the falling away

This refers to a future time when many people will turn away from God.

the man of lawlessness is revealed

This can be stated in active form. AT: "God reveals the man of lawlessness" (See: Active or Passive)

the son of destruction

Paul speaks of destruction as a person who bore a son whose goal is to totally destroy everything. AT: "the one who destroys everything he can" (See: Metaphor)

all that is called God or that is worshiped

This can be stated in active form. AT: "everything that people consider to be God or everything that people worship" (See: Active or Passive)

exhibits himself as God

"shows himself as God"

translationWords

deceive

lawful

reveal

son

God

worship

temple

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

3.] Let no man deceive you in any manner (not only in either of the foregoing, but in any whatever): for (that day shall not come) (so E. V. supplies, rightly. There does not seem to have been any intention on the part of the Apostle to fill up the ellipsis: it supplies itself in the reader’s mind. Knatchbull connects ὅτι with ἐξαπατήσῃ, and supplies ἐνέστηκεν after it: but this is very harsh) unless there have come the apostasy first (of which he had told them when present, see ver. 5: and probably with a further reference still to our Lord’s prophecy in Mat 24:10-12. There is no need, with Chrys., Thdrt., Thl., Aug., to suppose ἀποστασία to mean Antichrist himself (τί ἐστιν ἡ ὰποστασία; αὐτὸν καλεῖ τὸν ἀντίχριστον ἀποστασίαν, Chr.), nor to regard him as its only cause: rather is he the chief fruit and topstone of the apostasy), and there have been revealed (ref. ch. 1. As Christ in his time, so Antichrist in his time, is ‘revealed’—brought out into light: he too is a μυστήριον, to be unfolded and displayed: see vv. 8, 9) the man of sin (in whom sin is as it were personified, as righteousness in Christ. The gen. is called by Ellicott that of the predominating quality), the son of perdition (see ref. John, where our Lord uses the expression of Judas. It seems merely to refer to Antichrist himself, whose essence and inheritance is ἀπώλεια,—not to his influence over others, as Thdrt. (both: ὡς κ. αὐτὸν ἀπολλύμενον, κ. ἑτέροις πρόξενον τούτου γενόμενον), Œc., Pelt, al.), he that withstands (the construction is not to be carried on by zeugma, as if ἐπὶ πάντα κ.τ.λ. belonged to ἀντικείμενος as well as to ὑπεραιρόμενος (the omission of the second article is no proof of this, as Pelt supposes, but only that both predicates belong to one and the same subject), but ἀντικείμενος is absolute, ‘he that withstands Christ,’ the ἀντίχριστος, 1Jn 2:18), and exalts himself above (in a hostile sense, reff.) every one that is called God (cf. λεγόμενοι θεοί, 1Co 8:5. “The expression includes the true God, as well as the false ones of the heathen—but λεγόμενον is a natural addition from Christian caution, as πάντα θεόν would have been a senseless and indeed blasphemous expression for a Christian.” Lünem.) or an object of adoration (= numen, and is a generalization of θεόν. Cf. the close parallel in Dan 11:36, Dan 11:37 (Theod. and similarly LXX): κ. ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑψωθήσεται κ. μεγαλυνθήσεται ἐπὶ πάντα θεόν, κ.τ.λ.), so that he sits (not αὑτὸν … καθίσαι, as Grot., Pelt, al., but καθίσαι, intransitive, as in reff.) in (constr. prægnans—‘enters into and sits in.’ The aor. usually denotes that one definite act and not a series of acts is spoken of: but here, from the peculiar nature of the verb, that one act is the setting himself down, and the session remains after it: cf. Mat 5:1; Mat 19:28, &c.) the temple of God (this, say De W. and Lünemann after Irenæus, Hær. v. 30. 4, p. 330 (cited in Prolegg. § v. 3 note),—cannot be any other than the temple at Jerusalem: on account of the definiteness of the expression, ὁ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, and on account of καθίσαι. But there is no force in this. ὁ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ to used metaphorically by St. Paul in 1Co 3:17 bis: and why not here? see also 1Co 6:16; Eph 2:21. From these passages it to plain that such figurative sense was familiar to the Apostle. And if so, καθίσαι makes no difficulty. Its figurative sense, as holding a place of power, sitting as judge or ruler, is more frequent still: see in St. Paul, 1Co 6:4: and Mat 23:2: Rev 20:4: to which indeed we might add the many places where our Lord is said καθίσαι on the right hand of God, e.g. Heb 1:3; Heb 8:1; Heb 10:12; Heb 12:2; Rev 3:21. Respecting the interpretation, see Prolegomena, § v.) shewing himself (πειρώμενον ἀποδεικνύναι, Chrys. Hardly that, but the sense of the present, as in ὁ πειράζων—it is his habit and office to exhibit himself as God) that he it God (not ‘a god,’ nor is it equivalent to ὁ θεός—but designates the divine dignity which he predicates of himself. The construction is an attraction, for ἀποδ. ὅτι αὑτὸς …; and the emphasis is on ἐστιν, ‘that he is God’).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3-8a. Allow no one, Paul continues, to delude you into such a belief whatever means may be employed (v. 3a). Then, choosing to treat the question given him (v. 1) solely with reference to the assertion (v. 2), and having in mind the discouragement of the faint-hearted, he selects from the whole of his previous oral teaching concernin times and seasons only such elements as serve to prove that the assertion (v. 2) is mistaken, and proceeds to remind them that the day of the Lord will not be present until first of all the apostasy comes and a definite and well-known figure, variously described as the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction, etc., is revealed,—allusions merely with which the readers are quite familiar, so familiar, indeed, that the Apostle can cut short the characterisation (v. 4), and appeal, with perhaps a trace of impatience at their forgetfulness, to the memory of the readers to complete the picture (v. 5). Then, turning from the future to the present, he explains why the apostasy and the revelation of the Anomos are delayed, and so why the day of the Lord is not yet present. To be sure, he intimates, the day of the Lord is not far distant, for there has already been set in operation the secret of lawlessness which is preparing the way for the apostasy and the concomitant revelation of the Anomos; but that day will not actually be present until the supernatural spirit which detains the Anomos (or, which is holding sway) for the very purpose that the Anomos may be revealed only at the time set him by God, or the supernatural person who is now detaining the Anomos (or, who is now holding sway), is put out of the way (vv. 6-7). And then there will be revealed the lawless one (v. 8a).

3. ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ. The ὅτ introduces the reason why the readers should not be alarmed or excited (v. 2), or, more directly, why they should not allow themselves to be deceived about the time of the day of the Lord in any way whatever, the ways mentioned in v. 2 or in any other way; and at the same time it starts the discussion of the theme (v. 1) “concerning the advent and the assembling unto him.” However, in the treatment of the theme, only such points are brought to the memory of the readers as make clear (1) that the Parousia will not be present until first of all there comes the apostasy and there be revealed the Anomos (vv. 3-4); (2) why the day of the Lord is not yet present (vv. 5-8); and (3) what the significance is of the advent of the Anomos,—points selected with a view to the encouragement of the faint-hearted. The clause with ὅτ remains unfinished; from v. 2 we may supply after ὅτ “the day of the Lord will not be present” (ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου οὐκ ἐνστήσετα).

On the rare prohibitory subj. in the third person (1Co 16:11), see BMT 166; in view of 1Co 16:11, 2Co 11:16, it is unnecessary to construe μή τι with ἐρωτῶμε, and to take εἰς τὸ μη (v. 2) as indicating purpose. The clause with μή τι is quite independent; it is not probably parenthetical, although ὅτι κτλ may be connected directly with vv. 1-2.—As θροεῖσθα (v. 2) suggests the μὴ θροεῖσθ of Mar 13:7 = Mat 24:6, so ἐξαπατής recalls the βλέπετε μή τις ὑμᾶς πλανήσῃ of Mar 13:5 = Mat 24:4. ἐξαπατά, frequent in Lxx, is in the N. T. used chiefly by Paul.—On κατὰ μηδένα τρόπο, “evidently a current phrase” (Mill.), which strengthens μή τι, cf. 3 Mac. 4:13, Mal 4:4 Mac. 4:24, 10:7; also κατὰ πάντα τρόπο Rom 3:2. Though κατα (v. 9, 1:12, 3:6) is common in Paul, it does not appear in I.

ἡ ἀποστασί. The article suggests that “the apostasy” or “the religious revolt” is something well known to the readers; in fact, instruction upon this and cognate points had already been given orally by Paul (vv. 5 ff., I 5:1). The term itself is at least as old as the time of Antiochus Epiphanes who was “enforcing the apostasy” (1 Mal 2:15), that is, of Judaism to Hellenism; thereafter, as one of the fearful signs of the end (cf. Eth. En. 91:7), it became a fixed element in apocalyptic tradition (cf. Jub. 23:14 ff. 4 Ezr 5:1 ff. Mat 24:10 ff.). Paul, however, is probably thinking not of the apostasy of Jews from Moses, or of the Gentiles from the law in their hearts, or even of an apostasy of Christians from their Lord (for Paul expects not only the Thessalonians (I 5:9, II 2:13 ff.) but all believers (1Co 3:15) to be saved), but of the apostasy of the non-Christians as a whole, of the sons of disobedience in whom the prince of the power of the air, the evil spirit, is now operating (cf. Eph 2:2). This apostasy or religious revolt is not to be identified with “the mystery of lawlessness” (v. 7), for that mystery, already set in operation by Satan, precedes the apostasy and prepares the way for it; it is therefore something future, sudden, and final, like the revelation of the Anomos with which apparently it is associated essentially and chronologically. Whether this definitive religious revolt on earth synchronises with the revolt of Satan (Rev 12:7 ff.) in heaven, Paul does not say.

On the term, see Bousset, Antichrist, 76 ff., and Volz. Eschat. 179. That the revolt is not political, whether of all peoples (Iren. V, 25:2) or of Jews (Clericus, et al.) from Rome, and not both political and religious (see Poole, ad loc., and Wohl.), but solely religious, is probable both from the fact that elsewhere in the Gk. Bib. ἀποστασί is used of religious apostasy (Jos 22:22 (B) 3 Reg. 20:13 (A) 2Ch 29:19, 2Ch 33:19 (A) Jer 2:19, Jer 2:1 Mal 2:15, Act 21:21), and from the fact that in vv. 3-12, as elsewhere in the apocalyptic utterances of Paul, there is no evident reference to political situations. (It is not evident that τὸ κατέχο and ὁ κατέχων ἄρτ in vv. 6-7 refer to Rome). Furthermore, it is unlikely (1) that heresy is in mind, since “the doomed” here (v. 10) and elsewhere in Paul are outside the Christian group, “the saved” (Hammond and others (see Poole) find the prophecy fulfilled (cf. 1Ti 4:1 ff.), while Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. 15:9) sees the fulfilment in the heresies of his own day); or (2) that ἡ ἀποστασί = ὁ ἀποστάτη (cf. Iren. V, 25 apostata, and Augustine, de civ. dei, 20:21, refuga), the abstract for the concrete (so Chrys. and others); or (3) that Belial is meant, on the ground that this word is rendered once in Lxx by ἀποστασί (3 Reg. 20:13 A) and several times in the later Aquila (e. g. Deu 15:9, Jdg 19:22, Jdg 19:1 Reg. 2:12, 10:27, 25:17, Ps. 16:27, Nah 1:11).—Whether πρῶτο (without a following ἔπειτ I 4:17 or δεύτερο 1Co 12:28) belongs to both ἔλθῃ and ἀποκαλυφθῇ, indicating that the coming and revelation are contemporaneous,—“the day will not be present until, first of all, these two things happen together” (Schmiedel, Dob.); or whether και at is consecutive (Ell., Find., Mill.), pointing out the result of the coming, is uncertain (cf. Mt.). In any case, the two things are not identical, although they are apparently associated both essentially and chronologically.

ἀποκαλυφθῇ The Anomos, described in the following words, is indeed in existence, concealed, perhaps imprisoned, somewhere, as ἀποκαλυψθῇ intimates; but the place of concealment, whether in heaven (cf. Eph 6:12), in the firmament, on earth, or in the abyss, is not stated. That he is influencing “the doomed” from his place of concealment is nowhere suggested; it is hinted only (vv. 6-7) that at present (that is, in the time of Paul) there is a supernatural spirit or person that directly by detaining him (or keeping him in detention) or indirectly (by holding sway until the appointed time of the coming of the Anomos) prevents his immediate revelation. This function of τὸ κατέχοor ὁ κατέχων ἄρτ is not, however, permanent; indeed, it is exercised for the purpose (God’s purpose) that the Anomos may be revealed in his proper time, the time, namely, that has been appointed by God. Not until then will the Anomos be revealed, then when the supernatural spirit or person is removed.

Since Paul does not describe the place or conditions of concealment, it is impossible to ascertain precisely what he means. His interest is not in the portrayal of the movements of the Anomos but is in his character (vv. 3-4) and his significance for the unbelievers (vv. 9-12). Paul uses φανερό (Col 3:3) and ἀποκάλυψι (1:7, 1Co 1:7) of the advent of Christ, but not ἀποκαλύπτει (contrast Luk 17:30, Luk 17:4 Ezr 7:28, 13:22). The revelation or Parousia of the Anomos (v. 9) is perhaps intended as a counterpart of that of the Messiah (1:7); but whether Paul is responsible for the idea or is reproducing earlier Christian or Jewish tradition is uncertain. In the later Asc. Isa. 4:18, the Beloved rebukes in wrath “all things wherein Beliar manifested himself and acted openly in this world.”

ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομία = ὁ ἄνομο (v. 8), for ἄνθρωπος ἀνομία like υἱός ἀνομία (Ps. 88:23) is a Hebraism, designating a person as belonging to a lawless class or condition. This phrase, like ὁ υἱὸς, τῆς ἀπωλείας, ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος κτλ., and ὁ ἄνομος is not a proper name but a characterisation of a person, and that too a definite person, as the article in each of the four phrases makes plain. It is evident that the figure in question is not Satan but a man, a unique man, however, in whom Satan dwells and operates. Chrys. observes: “Who is this person? Satan? Not at all; but ἄνθρωπός τις πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ δεχόμενος τὴν ἐνέργειαν” So complete is the control of Satan over his peculiar instrument that it is natural to hold with Th. Mops. that the parallel between the incarnation of Christ and the indwelling of Satan in the Anomos is all but complete.

While (ο) ἄνθρωπο (του) θεου is quite frequent in the Lxx (cf. also 1Ti 6:11, 2Ti 3:17), ἄνθρωπο with an abstract gen. (Sir. 20:26, 31:25, Luk 2:14) is less frequent than ἀνή For the equivalence of ἄνθρωπος, ἀνή, and υἱό in this construction, cf. ἄνθρωτος αἱμάτω (Sir. 31:25) with ἁνὴρ αἱμάτω (2 Reg. 16:7 f. and often in Psalms; see Briggs, ICC on Psa 5:7); and cf. υἱὸς θανάτω (1 Reg. 20:31, 2 Reg. 12:5) with ἀνὴρ θανάτο (3 Reg. 2:26).—Instead of ἀνομία (Bא, Tert. et al.), the majority of uncials (ADEGFKLP, et al.) read ἁμαρτία In the Lxx, A frequently reads ἁμαρτί where B reads ἀνομί (e. g. Exo 34:7, Isa 53:12, Eze 16:51, Eze 29:16); occasionally A has ἀνομί where B (Eze 36:19) or א (Ps. 108:14) has ἁμαρτί As these variants and the parallelism in Job 7:21, Psa 31:5, Isa 53:5 show, the two words are similar in meaning, ἁμαρτί being the more general (cf. 1Jn 3:4). Though common in Lxx, both ἀνομί (Rom 4:7, Rom 4:6:19, 2Co 6:14) and ἄνομο (1Co 9:21) are rare in Paul. Unless Bא revised in the light of vv. 7-8 (Weiss), or substituted ἀνομία for ἁμαρτία in the light of an exegesis which understood “the man of sin” to be Belial, the more specific ἀνομία is the preferable reading.—It is tempting to identify the figure described in the four phrases with Belial (Beliar), though we cannot be sure (cf. Dob. Dibelius) that Paul would assent to this identification. This identification seems probable to Bousset (Antichrist, 1895, 99) and “all but certain” to Charles (Ascension of Isaiah, 1900, lxii; cf. also Mill. and Moff.). The origin and meaning of the word Belial are alike uncertain; Moore (ICC on Jdg 19:22) observes: “The oldest etymology of the word is found in Sanhedrin, 111 f. … ‘men who have thrown off the yoke of Heaven from their necks’ (עול + בלי). So also Jerome in a gloss in his translation of Jdg 19:22: filii Belial, id est absque iugo”; but the word is “without analogy in the language” (ibid.); see further, Cheyne in EB 525 ff. In the Hebrew O.T. Belial is not certainly a proper name, though in Psa 18:5 = 2Sa 22:5 “torrents of Belial” (Briggs) is parallel to “cords of sheol” and “snares of Death.” In the Lxx בליעל is rendered by υἱοὶ βελιά (Jdg 20:13 A), ἀποστασί (3 Reg. 20:13 A so frequently in the later Aquila), παράνομο (frequently; cf. Jdg 20:13 B, where A has βελιά; Jdg 19:22, where Th. has βελιά),ἀνόμημ (Deu 15:9), ἀνομι (2 Reg. 22:3, Psa 17:5, parallel with θάνατο and ᾅδη), etc.; see Moore, loc. cit. In the Test. xii (see Charles on Reub. 2:1), Jub. (see Charles on 15:33 “sons of Beliar”), and Asc. Isa. (see Charles on 1:8), Belial or Beliar is definitely a Satan or the Satan (cf 2Co 6:15).

Charles (Asc. Isa lxi ff.) not only identifies “the man of lawlessness” with Belial but elaborates an hypothesis to account for the Antichrist as he appears in Paul and in later N. T. literature. The Anomos of Paul, a god-opposing man, a human sovereign armed with miraculous power, is the resultant of a fusion of two separate and originally independent traditions, that of the Antichrist and that of Beliar. The Antichrist is not, as Bousset supposes, originally the incarnate devil but a godopposing being of human origin. The first historical person to be identified with Antichrist is Antiochus Epiphanes; and the language applied to him “recalls, though it may be unconsciously, the old Babylonian saga of the Dragon’s assault on the gods of heaven.” Beliar, on the other hand, is a purely Satanic being. “It is through the Beliar constituent of the developed Antichrist myth that the old Dragon saga from Babylon gained an entrance into the eschatologies of Judaism and Christianity.” This fusion of Antichrist with Beliar “appears to have been effected on Christian soil before 50 a.d.,” and is attested by 2Th 2:1-12. The subsequent history of Antichrist was influenced by the incoming of the Neronic myths; for example, Rev. xiii betrays the fusion of the myth of Antichrist with that of Nero Redivivus; Sib. Orac. III, 63-74, reflects the incarnation of Beliar as Antichrist in Nero still conceived as living; and Asc. Isa 4:2-4 (88-100 a.d.; Harnack and Bousset put the passage much later) suggests the incarnation of Beliar as Antichrist in the form of the dead Nero: “Beliar … will descend from his firmament in the likeness of a man, a lawless king,” etc.

ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλεία = ὁ ἀπολλύμεονο, a Hebraism indicating the one who belongs to the class destined to destruction (v. 10 of οἱ ἀπολλύμενο as opposed to the class destined to salvation (1Co 1:18 οἱ σωζόμενο) The same description is applied to Judas Iscariot in Joh 17:12.

Abaddon is in Lxx rendered by ἀπώλει, and appears in parallelism with ᾅδη (Job 26:6, Pro 15:11), θάνατο (Job 28:22) and τόφο; cf. ἀνομί (Belial) with θάνατο and ᾅδη in Psa 17:5. Bousset (Antichrist, 99) calls attention to the angel of the abyss in Rev 9:11 whose name is Ἀβαδδώin Hebrew and Ἀπολλύω in Greek. The abyss is apparently “the abode of the ministers of torment from which they go forth to do hurt” (Taylor in ERE. I, 54). It is not, however, probable that ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλεία refers to the demonic angel of the abyss, for (1) Paul’s usage of ἀπώλει is against it (Rom 9:22, Php 1:28, Php 1:3:19; cf. Isa 57:4 τέκνα ἀπωλείας, σπέρμαἄνομο; Pro 24:22a υἱὸς ἀπωλεία; Jub. 10:3 Apoc. Pet. 1:2); and (2) in Rev 17:8, the beast that ascends from the abyss is to go off ultimately εἰς ἀπώλεια

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Deceive [εξαπατηση] . Better beguile; since the word means not only making a false impression, but actually leading astray.

Except there come a falling away. Before except insert in translation the day shall not come. Such ellipses are common in Paul.

Falling away [αποστασια] . Only here and Act 21:21. Comp. LXX, Jos 22:22; 2Ch 29:19.

The man of sin - the son of perdition [ο ανθρωπος της ανομιας, ο υιος της απωλειας] . See on children of light, 1Th 5:5. The phrase man of sin (lawlessness) does not occur elsewhere, either in N. T. or LXX Son of perdition is found Joh 17:12, o LXX : tekna apwlei. av children of perdition (A. V. transgression), Isa 57:4. The man of sin has been thought to refer to Caligula, Titus, Simon Magus, Nero, the Pope of Rome, Luther, Mahomet, etc.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.