2 Thessalonians 2:4

th2 2:4Dan 11:36-37 is here referred to. The words used there as to Antiochus Epiphanes, Paul implies, shall even be more applicable to the man of sin, who is the New Testament actual Antichrist, as Antiochus was the Old Testament typical Antichrist. The previous world kingdoms had each one extraordinary person as its representative head and embodiment (thus Babylon had Nebuchadnezzar, Dan 2:38, end; Medo-Persia had Cyrus; Greece had Alexander, and Antiochus Epiphanes, the forerunner of Antichrist); so the fourth and last world kingdom, under which we now live, shall have one final head, the concentrated embodiment of all the sin and lawless iniquity which have been in pagan and papal Rome. Rome's final phase will probably be an unholy alliance between idolatrous superstition and godless infidelity.

Who opposeth and exalteth himself--There is but one Greek article to both participles, implying that the reason why he opposeth himself is in order that he may exalt himself above, &c. ALFORD takes the former clause absolutely, "He that withstands (CHRIST)," that is, Antichrist (Jo1 2:18). As at the conclusion of the Old Testament period, Israel apostate allied itself with the heathen world power against Jesus and His apostles (Luk 23:12; and at Thessalonica, Act 17:5-9), and was in righteous retribution punished by the instrumentality of the world power itself (Jerusalem being destroyed by Rome), Dan 9:26-27; so the degenerate Church (become an "harlot"), allying itself with the godless world power (the "beast" of Revelation) against vital religion (that is, the harlot sitting on the beast), shall be judged by that world power which shall be finally embodied in Antichrist (Zac 13:8-9; Zac 14:2; Rev 17:16-17). In this early Epistle, the apostate Jewish Church as the harlot, and pagan Rome as the beast, form the historical background on which Paul draws his prophetic sketch of the apostasy. In the Pastoral Epistles, which were later, this prophecy appears in connection with Gnosticism, which had at that time infected the Church. The harlot (the apostate Church) is first to be judged by the beast (the world power) and its kings (Rev 17:16); and afterwards the beasts and their allies (with the personal Antichrist at their head, who seems to rise after the judgment on the harlot, or apostate Church) shall be judged by the coming of Jesus Himself (Rev 19:20). Anti-Christian tendencies produce different Antichrists: these separate Antichrists shall hereafter find their consummation in an individual exceeding them all in the intensity of his evil character [AUBERLEN]. But judgment soon overtakes him. He is necessarily a child of death, immediately after his ascent as the beast out of the bottomless pit going into perdition (Rev 17:8, Rev 17:11). Idolatry of self, spiritual pride, and rebellion against God, are his characteristics; as Christ-worship, humility, and dependence on God, characterize Christianity. He not merely assumes Christ's character (as the "false Christs," Mat 24:24), but "opposes" Christ. The Greek implies one situated on an opposite side (compare Jo1 2:22; Jo2 1:7). One who, on the destruction of every religion, shall seek to establish his own throne, and for God's great truth, "God is man," to substitute his own lie, "Man is God" [TRENCH].

above all that is called God-- (Co1 8:5). The Pope (for instance, Clement VI) has even commanded the angels to admit into Paradise, without the alleged pains of purgatory, certain souls. But still this is only a foreshadowing of the Antichrist, who will not, as the Pope, act in God's name, but against God.

or that is worshipped--Rome here again gives a presage of Antichrist. The Greek is Sebasma; and Sebastus is the Greek for Augustus, who was worshipped as the secular ruler and divine vicegerent. The papacy has risen on the overthrow of Cæsar's power. Antichrist shall exalt himself above every object of worship, whether on earth as the Cæsar, or in heaven as God. The various prefigurations of Antichrist, Mohammed, Rome, Napoleon, and modern infidel secularism, contain only some, not all, his characteristics. It is the union of all in some one person that shall form the full Antichrist, as the union in one Person, Jesus, of all the types and prophecies constituted the full Christ [OLSHAUSEN].

in the temple of God . . . that he is God--"He will reign a time, times, and half a time" (Dan 7:25), that is, three and a half years, and will sit in the temple at Jerusalem: then the Lord shall come from heaven and cast him into the take of fire and shall bring to the saints the times of their reigning, the seventh day of hallowed rest, and give to Abraham the promised inheritance" [IRENÆUS, Against Heresies, 30.4].

showing himself--with blasphemous and arrogant DISPLAY (compare a type, Act 12:21-23). The earliest Fathers unanimously looked for a personal Antichrist. Two objections exist to Romanism being regarded the Antichrist, though probably Romanism will leave its culmination in him: (1) So far is Romanism from opposing all that is called God, that adoration of gods and lords many (the Virgin Mary and saints) is a leading feature in it; (2) the papacy has existed for more than twelve centuries, and yet Christ is not come, whereas the prophecy regards the final Antichrist as short-lived, and soon going to perdition through the coming of Christ (Rev 17:8, Rev 17:11). Gregory the Great declared against the patriarch of Constantinople, that whosoever should assume the title of "universal bishop" would be "the forerunner of Antichrist." The papacy fulfilled this his undesigned prophecy. The Pope has been called by his followers, "Our Lord God the Pope"; and at his inauguration in St. Peter's, seated in his chair upon the high altar, which is treated as his footstool, he has vividly foreshadowed him who "exalteth himself above all that is called God." An objection fatal to interpreting the temple of God here as the Church (Co1 3:16-17; Co1 6:19) is, the apostle would never designate the apostate anti-Christian Church "the temple of God." It is likely that, as Messiah was revealed among the Jews at Jerusalem, so Antimessiah shall appear among them when restored to their own land, and after they have rebuilt their temple at Jerusalem. Thus Dan 11:41, Dan 11:45 (see on Dan 11:41; Dan 11:45), corresponds, "He shall enter the glorious land (Judea), and he shall plant the tabernacles of his palaces between the seas in the glorious holy mountain"; and then (Dan 12:1) "Michael, the great prince, shall stand up" to deliver God's people. Compare Note, see on Dan 9:26-27. Also the king of Assyria, type of Antichrist (Isa 14:12-14). "Lucifer" (a title of Messiah, assumed by Antichrist, Rev 22:16); "I will exalt my throne above the stars of God." "I will sit upon the mount of the congregation (that is, God's place of meeting His people of old, the temple), in the sides of the north (Psa 48:2); I will be like the Most High." Rev 11:1-2, "The temple of God . . . the holy city" (namely, Jerusalem, Mat 4:5), compare Psa 68:18, Psa 68:29, referring to a period since Christ's ascension, therefore not yet fulfilled (Isa 2:1-3; Eze. 40:1-44:31; Zac 14:16-20; Mal 3:1). "In the temple of God," implies that it an internal, not an external, enemy which shall assail the Church. Antichrist shall, the first three and a half years of the prophetical week, keep the covenant, then break it and usurp divine honors in the midst of the week. Some think Antichrist will be a Jew. At all events he will, "by flatteries," bring many, not only of the Gentiles, but also of "the tribes" of Israel (so the Greek for "kindreds," Rev 11:8-9), to own him as their long-looked-for Messiah, in the same "city where our Lord was crucified." "Sitteth" here implies his occupying the place of power and majesty in opposition to Him who "sitteth on the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Heb 1:3), and who shall come to "sit" there where the usurper had sat (Mat 26:64). See on Dan 9:27; Rev 11:2-3, Rev 11:9, Rev 11:11. Compare Eze 38:2-3, Eze 38:6, Eze 38:9-10, Eze 38:13-14, Eze 38:16, as to Tyre, the type of Antichrist, characterized by similar blasphemous arrogance.

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

2Th_2:4

Who opposeth and exalteth Himself above all that is called God?

Antichrist

I. As opposite to Christ. Christ is the true Head and Lord of the Church (Act_10:36). That which is most remarkable in Christ, and should be in all His followers, is humility (Mat_20:28); 2Co_8:9). This is the grace recommended to His disciples (Mat_11:29); not especially to His ministers (Mat_20:25-26; Luk_22:26). Dominion is allowed in the civil state, for there it is necessary; but preeminence is the bane of the Church (1 John 9). The apostles everywhere disclaim lordship (2Co_1:24; 1Pe_5:31); and if they would not assume lordship, who may? Now in the Pope pride is conspicuous. See his progress: from the chief presbyter, a bishop over many presbyters in the same city; then a metropolitan over many bishops in one province; then a patriarch over many provinces; then universal bishop; then the only shepherd and bishop, and others but his substitutes. But yet exalting himself farther, he challengeth all power in heaven and earth. And the like is practised by his followers. From private priests they grow up into some prelature, as archdeacons, deans; then a bishopric; then a better and richer; then archbishops, cardinals; then pope.

II. The instances of his pride.

1. His exalting himself above all human powers.

(1) That which is called God, i.e., magistrates, etc. (Psa_77:1; Psa_77:6; cf. Joh_10:34-35). God hath clothed such with His honour, so far as He has put His name upon them, as being His vice-gerents. Even this Antichrist exalts himself.

(2) Or is worshipped. The Greek is whatever is held in the highest degree of reverence, whatever is august or illustrious, as the Emperors of Rome were called Sebastoi (Act_25:21). Antichrist exalts himself not only over magistrates but kings and emperors; no less than twenty have been trampled upon by the Pope.

2. His usurpation of Divine honours.

(1) The usurpation itself, He sitteth as God, etc. (1Co_3:16-17). The temple of God is the Church (2Co_6:16). But is the Church of Rome the Church of Christ? It was before it was perverted and retains some relic of a Church, mangled as it is. In this temple of God the Pope sits, it is his sedes, cathedral, seat, whereas other princes are said to reign. And, again, he sits as God incarnate, for Christ is the true Lord of the Church; his name is not Antitheos, but Antichristos; not one who invades the properties of the Supreme, but those of the Mediator--

(a) By usurping the titles of Christ, as Husband of the Church; Head of the Church; Chief Pastor (Peter 5:4); pontifex maximus, greatest High Priest (Heb_3:1; Heb_4:14); so His vicar-general upon earth, whereas the ancient Church gave this to the Holy Ghost.

(b) By usurping the thing implied in the titles--authority over the Church, which is due alone to God incarnate. Supreme authority may be considered as to, First, the claim and right pretended. By virtue of his office in the temple of God he claims the same power as Christ has, which is fourfold.

(i.) An unlimited power over things in heaven and earth. This was given to Christ (Mat_28:18), and the Pope as his vicar challenges it; but to set up himself as a vice-god without warrant is rebellion against Christ.

(ii.) Universal headship and supremacy over all the Churches of Christ. This is Christs right, and whoever challenges it sits as God in His temple. To exercise this power is impossible, and to claim it is sacrilegious, for none is fit for it but such as is God as well as man.

(iii.) Absolute authority so as to be above control. Such a sovereignty belongs to none but God (Job_9:12), yet the Pope is said to be above all law.

(iv.) Infallibility and freedom from error, which is the sole property of God; what blasphemy to attribute it to man! Second, as to the exercise, there are two acts of supreme authority: Legislation, which is the peculiar and incommunicable property of Christ (Isa_33:22; Jam_4:12), they, therefore, who make laws to bind the conscience invade Christs sovereignty. Judgment. The Pope exercises an authority no less than Divine when he absolves man from his duty to God, or the penalty which sin has made due, which he does by dispensation and by indulgence. Bellarmine says that Christ has given Peter and his successors a power to make sin to be no sin, and that if the Pope should err in forbidding virtues and commanding vices, the Church were bound to believe vices to be good and virtues evil. And as to indulgences, to pardon sin before it is committed is to give licence to sin.

(2) The degree of this usurpation, showing himself that he is God: that is meant not of what he professes in word, but what he doth in deed. He shows himself that he is God.

(a) By accepting Antichrists disciples, who call him our Lord God the Pope, and who say that he has the same tribunal with Christ, that from him no appeals are to be made even to God, that his words ex cathedra are equal to Scripture, and much more. Now to accept these flatteries is to show himself that he is God.

(b) By weilding Divine prerogatives, arrogating the right to be lord of conscience, to determine what is to be believed, and pardoning sins.

III. Uses:

1. To give a clear discovery where to find Antichrist: every tittle of this is fulfilled in the bishop of Rome.

2. To show us how things should be carried in the true and reformed Christianity.

(1) With such meekness that our religion may be known to be that of the Crucified. Pride and ambition have been the cause of all the disorders of the Church.

(2) With obedience to magistrates, which is the opposite of Antichristianity (Rom_13:1; 1Pe_2:18; 2Pe_2:10).

(3) What a wickedness it is to usurp Divine honours (Act_3:12). (T. Manton, D. D.)

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

2:4 exalt himself: Like other Roman cities, Thessalonica constructed temples for the worship of the emperor. This cult was the prototype of the worship described here. • He will even sit in the temple of God: The profaning of the Temple in Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 BC (see Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11) may have prefigured the event predicted here (Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14). Or it may refer to the attempt of the emperor Caligula, called “the new god manifest,” to erect his own image in the Temple in AD 40. Alternatively, the temple may be an imperial temple (of God could be of the god) erected in honor of the lawless man and not necessarily a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. • claiming that he himself is God (Ezek 28:2-10): The ascription of divine titles to the emperor was common in the first century.

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

2Th 2:4. Ὁ ἀντικείμενος, κ.τ.λ., who opposeth, etc.) The two preceding names correspond by direct antithesis to the name of Jesus. What follows correspond by antithesis to the majesty of Christ. So Dan 11:36, et seqq.: Καί ὑψωθήσεται καὶ μεγαλυνθήσεται ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐπὶ πάντα θεὸν καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Θεὸν τῶν θεῶν, καὶ λαλήσει ὑπέρογκα, And the king shall be exalted and be magnified above every god, and against the God of gods, and shall speak high-swelling words. This then is what Paul means to say: The day of Christ does not come, unless the prediction of Daniel given in these words concerning Antiochus be so fulfilled (in the Man of Sin), that it shall even be more applicable to the Man of Sin, who corresponds to Antiochus, and is worse than he; comp. on Rev 13:1, Thes. 7. § Non momentanea, etc., “It was not by an instantaneous transformation that the Pope passed,” etc., at the end. These two words, (ὁ) ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος [“who opposeth and exalteth himself”], stand under the one article: for it is for this reason he opposes himself, in order that he may exalt himself. He exalts himself in heart, tongue, style, and deeds, by himself and by his adherents.—ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὀν ἢ σέβασμα, above all that is called god or is worshipped) Angels are wont to be (sometimes) called gods, as are also men who possess great authority, 1Co 8:5. Above every such god, the Iniquitous one [Wicked] will exalt himself: σέβασμα is, that which is worshipped; and the Roman Emperor is distinguished by the peculiar title, ὁ Σεβαστὸς, Augustus, Act 25:21. Therefore the majesty and power of Cæsar, which are most conspicuous at Rome, constitute the principal σέβασμα, object of worship, on the earth. Now the Iniquitous one [Wicked] exalts himself so, as that he not only arrogates to himself greater power and worship than any one who is called god or is worshipped possesses, but also so as that every one who is called god or is worshipped is forced to be subject to him, i.e. on the earth, or is feigned to be so, so for as the inhabitants of heaven are concerned. Clement VI., in his Bull concerning the jubilee, commanded the angels of paradise to introduce the souls of those that died on their journey, being entirely set free from purgatory, into the glory of paradise.—ὥστε, κ.τ.λ., so that, etc.) Comprehending the spiritual and civil power, and in both cases the highest degree of power.—εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, in the temple of God) in that temple of God which is mentioned, Rev 11:1. For in 2Th 2:7 of that passage this adversary is the subject of discussion.—καθίσαι, sitteth) by virtue of his authority.[15]—ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν, declaring himself [“showing himself”]) ἀποδείκνυμι, to mark out, to designate, to declare. Herodian uses more than once the phrase, ἀποδειξαι Καίσαρα, to name, or declare the Cœsar.—ὄτι ἔστι Θεὸς, that he is God) The strong asseveration of the Iniquitous one [‘Wicked’] concerning himself is here expressed. He will not say, that he is very God, the Creator of heaven and earth, but still, that he is a god superior to any other that is called god.

[15] For the marg. of both Ed., as well as the Germ. Vers., intimate that the words ὡς θεὸν before καθίσαι should not be considered as a various reading, but should be retained.—E. B.

ABD(Δ) corrected, f Vulg., Orig. 1, 424d, 669a, Iren. Memph. and Theb. Versions, omit ὡς θεὸν; Rec. Text reads ὡς θεὸν, with Syr. and later Syr. Versions, and, according to Tisch., with G. But Lachm. quotes Gg for ἵνα θεόν.—ED.

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

2Th_2:4. Ὁ ἀντικείμενος] is not to be united by zeugma with ὑπεραιρόμενος, so that out of ἐπὶ πάντα κ.τ.λ. the dative παντὶ λεγομένῳ Θεῷ ἢ σεβάσματι is to be taken (Benson, Koppe, Krause, Rosenmüller, Flat, Pelt, Bloomfield, Hofmann, Riggenbach), but is absolute, in the sense of a substantivethe opposer. It has been erroneously maintained by Pelt, that the article being only put once necessitates the assumption of a zeugma. But all that follows from the single insertion of the article is only that the two statements, ἀντικεῖσθαι and ὑπεραίρεσθαι, must contain something related to each other, which is summed up in a common general idea. This general idea is extremely evident from what follows. Accordingly, the person of whom Paul speaks was designated according to his internal nature by ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, then characterized according to his ultimate fate by ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, and nowwhilst Paul in his delineation takes a step backward (comp. 2Th_2:8 and 2Th_2:9)the mode and manner of his public external appearance and conduct is described.

But if ὁ ἀντικείμενος denotes simply and absolutely the opposer, the question is asked, whom does he oppose? Baumgarten and Michaelis erroneously answer: the human race; for this interpretation has no point of contact in the context, and would explain away the form so definitely brought before us by Paul by a vague generality. De Wette and others more definitely answer: God and Christ. And certainly the description that immediately follows shows that the opposer opposes himself in the highest degree to God. But this fact does not justify such a wide meaning, if another is opposed to it in the context. Now the context specially points to the opposer of Christ (thus Heydenreich, Schott, and Kern). For the man of sin stands in the closest and strictest parallelism with Christ. He is the forerunner of Christs advent, and has, as the caricature of Christ, like Him an advent and a manifestation: he raises the power of evil, which exalts itself in a hostile manner against Christ and His kingdom, to the highest point; his working is diametrically the opposite of the working of Christ, and it is Christs appearance which destroys him. Accordingly, the opponent can be none other than the Antichrist (ὁ ἀντίχριστος, 1Jn_2:18). This Antichrist is not the devil himself (Pelagius and others), for he is distinguished from him (2Th_2:9); but according to 2Th_2:9 he is an instrument of the devil.

In καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος κ.τ.λ. he is further described as he who, in frivolous arrogance, exalts himself above all that is called God. With this description the delineation of Antiochus Epiphanes, in Dan_11:36-37, was before the mind of the apostle, where it is said: καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑψωθήσεται καὶ μεγαλυνβήσεται ἐπὶ πάντα Θεόν, καὶ λαλήσει ὑπέρογκα … καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας θεοὺς τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ οὐ συνήσει … καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶν Θεὸν οὐ συνήσει, ὅτι ἐπὶ πάντας μεγαλυνθήσεται Comp. Dan_7:25 : καὶ λόγους πρὸς τὸν ὕψιστον λαλήσει.

ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον Θεόν] includes the true God as well as the false gods worshipped by the heathen; but λεγόμενον is a natural addition from Christian caution, as πάντα Θεόν would have been a senseless and indeed blasphemous expression for a Christian.

ἢ σέβασμα] serves for a generalization of the idea Θεόν. Accordingly the meaning is: or whatever else is an object of adoration, sc. of divine adoration (= numen).

ὥστε κ.τ.λ.] The arrogant wickedness of Antichrist proceeds so far that he claims divine adoration for himself.

καθίσαι] intransitive, seats himself; accordingly not αὑτόν (Grotius, Koppe, Pelt), but αὐτόν is to be written. αὐτόν is placed for the sake of emphasis: he, who has lost all reverence for the divine, in whose form he wishes to appear.

ὁ ναὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ] is not, as Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Musculus, Hunnius, Estius, Lucius and Andrew Osiander, Aretius, Vorstius, Calixt, Calovius, Wolf, Benson, Moldenhauer, Bolten, and others, also Heydenreich, Pelt, Olshausen, Bloomfield, Alford, Bisping, and Hilgenfeld (l.c. p. 253) assume, a figurative representation of the Christian church, but, on account of the definite expression καθίσαι, cannot be otherwise understood than in its proper sense. But on account of the repetition of the article can only one definite temple of one definite true Godthat is, the temple of Jerusalembe meant (Grotius, Clericus, Schöttgen, Whitby, Kern, de Wette, Wieseler, v. Döllinger, l.c. p. 282).[45]

ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἘΣΤῚΝ ΘΕΌς] exhibiting himself that he is a god, i.e. whilst he not only actually takes possession of the temple of the only true God as his own, as a dwelling-place belonging to him, but also publicly predicates of himself divine dignity, and accordingly requires to be adored. The interpretation of Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and others, also Heydenreich, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, Bisping, and Riggenbach: who shows himself or seeks to show himself as a god by deceitful miracles (2Th_2:9), agrees not with the preceding καθίσαι.

[45] Schrader certainly finds in ὁ ναός a heathen temple; and by the addition τοῦ Θεοῦ its interior is denoted, the place where the god had its seat!

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.

4. The gloss ως θεον is interpolated before καθισαι in DcFgrGKL and most minn., in syrpesh and g [lat]; it was incorporated on this quite insufficient evidence in the T.R. G* employs in this phrase the extraordinary Latinism ινα θεον (g* ut, in the sense of quasi).

AG 37 put αποδεικνυοντα for -υντα.

4 (continued). ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι, ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός, so that he takes his seat within the temple of God, showing himself off (to the effect) that he is God! Ὥστε (with infin. of result) brings in the climax of the self-deification of the Antichrist. Καθίσαι (the verb is here intransitive, as in 1Co 10:7, Mat 5:1, and commonly) is the aorist of the single (inceptive), not continuous, act (cf. Mat 19:28, &c.); εἰς is suitable to the aorist, as implying motion towards,—putting himself “into” God’s seat in the ναός. By their several positions αὐτόν and καθίσαι are both emphasized: “He in the temple of God takes his seat,” as though that throne were his! Ναός, as distinguished from ἱερόν, is the temple proper, the inner shrine of Deity. For ἀποδεικνύναι, cf. 1Co 4:9; it implies a public display, a show—spectandum aliquid proponere (Winer); but the verb, as Lightfoot proves, bears in later Greek the technical sense, to nominate or proclaim one who accedes to office: so e.g. Philo, in Flaccum, § 3, Γαΐου δὲ ἀποδειχθέντος αὐτοκράτορος. The verb thus read is construed with ὅτι quite easily—“proclaiming himself that he is God”—with attraction of the dependent subject (see Winer-Moulton, p. 781). The present participle, qualifying the aorist infinitive (for indicative), denotes a course of conduct that attends and centres in the principal act. On the ordinary rendering of ἀποδεικνύντα, the ὅτι clause forms a second explanatory object, by a kind of synizesis: “showing himself off, (declaring) that he is God.” The rendering of Beza, “præ se ferens se esse Deum,” corrects the Vulg. translation, “ostendens se tanquam sit Deus,” which misses the essential point: ἀντίθεός τις ἔσται (Chrysostom).

The latter part of the description of the Antichrist, from καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος onwards, is based on Dan 11:36 f.: καὶ ὑψωθήσεται ἐπὶ πάντα θεὸν καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν τῶν θεῶν ἔξαλλα λαλήσει … καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς θεοὺς τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ οὐ μὴ προνοηθῇ … ὄτι ἐν παντὶ ὑψωθήσεται; cf. Dan 7:25; Dan 9:27; Isa 14:13 f.; Eze 28:2 (ὑψώθη σου ἡ καρδία, καὶ εἶπας Θεός εἰμι ἐγώ, κατοικίαν θεοῦ κατῴκηκα … καὶ ἔδωκας τὴν καρδίαν σου ὡς καρδίαν θεοῦ). In the above prophetic sketches the monarchic pride of the ancient world-rulers is seen rising to the height of self-deification; these delineations adumbrate the figure which St Paul projects on to the canvas of the Last Times. That self-deification forms the governing feature in this description of Jesus Christ’s Satanic counterfoil, presupposes the assumption of Divine powers on the part of Jesus; cf. note below on ὁ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ.

St Jerome gave the two possible interpretations of εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, writing in Epist. 121: “in templo Dei—vel Ierosolymis, ut quidam putant [so the older Fathers—Irenæus, Hippolytus, &c.]; vel in ecclesia, ut verius arbitramur” (so the later Greek interpreters). Chrysostom presents the latter view less exactly (for St Paul refers to the entire Church as ὁ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ in 1Co 3:16 f., 2Co 6:16; cf. Eph 2:21; Rev 3:12; Rev 7:15), when he says, καθεδήσεται εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, οὐ τὸν ἐν Ἰεροσολύμοις ἀλλὰ καθʼ ἑκάστην ἐκκλησίαν. When the Apostles speak of “the sanctuary of God” without other qualification, they might be supposed to refer to the existing Temple at Jerusalem (cf. the usage of the Gospels, as respects ὁ ναός and the wider τὸ ἱερόν, which includes the courts and precincts; similarly in Acts, τὸ ἱερόν), to which the kindred passages in Daniel (Dan 11:31, Dan 12:11), cited in our Lord’s prophecy (Mat 24:15; Mar 13:14), unmistakably apply. Attempts have been made to show that their words were practically fulfilled soon after this date by certain outrages committed by Nero, or Vespasian, upon the sacred building. But this is not clearly made out; and even the worst of the Emperors was but an adumbration of St Paul’s Antichrist. On the other hand, we have learnt from 1Th 2:16 that St Paul believed national Judaism to be nearing its end,—the Temple presumably with it. Our Lord had predicted the speedy destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (see Luk 21:6; Luk 21:32, &c.), which, forsaken by the Son of God, could no longer be viewed by Christians as properly His “Father’s house” (see Mat 23:37-39; Mat 21:13; Joh 2:16). Along with the terms ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ (1Th 2:14), Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ (Gal 6:16), οἱ ἅγιοι and the like (cf. Php 3:3; 1Pe 2:4-10), the presumption is that ὁ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ belonged statedly, in Pauline dialect, to the new kingdom of God and had its “foundation” in “Jesus Christ”; this transference of the ναός-conception is assumed in 1Co 3:10-17, the next Epistle to ours in point of date, as a recognized fact (οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ναὸς θεοῦ ἐστε; 2Th 2:16); the true ναός is marked out by the indwelling of “the Spirit of God” (cf. 1Th 4:8 above). It is true that there is nothing in our context to indentify ὁ ναός with ἡ ἐκκλησία; but we must remember that we have an incomplete context before us; the paragraph is throughout allusive to previous teaching (2Th 2:5). The doctrine that the Christian community constitutes the veritable shrine of God on earth, may have been as familiar to the Thessalonian as it certainly was a few years later to the Corinthian Christians. Granted this equivalence, the connexion between ἀποστασία and ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας becomes exceedingly close: the Lawless One, in superseding all forms of religion except the worship of himself, assumes to sit within the Church of God, abetted by its apostates, and proclaims himself its supreme Head, thus aping the Lord Jesus and playing his anti-Christian part to the uttermost,—“quasi quia ipse sit Christus” (Theodore).

FURTHER NOTE on 2Th 2:3-4: The premonition of the Lord’s advent the Apostle finds, therefore, in a previous counter-advent, and this is twofold: the coming (a) of “the apostasy,” (b) of “the man of lawlessness, &c.”—(a) a movement, (b) a personality. The former element in the representation remains in shadow, and is developed by the Apostle in later Epistles; the image of “the lawless one’ dominates this passage, but forthwith vanishes from the Pauline writings, to reappear, considerably altered, in St John’s Apocalypse. Three chief factors go to furnish the conception these verses give of the final manifestation of evil: (1) Its foundation lies in the data of O.T. prophecy, more particularly in the Apocalypse of Daniel, to which our Lord attached His own predictions of the Last Things and with whose “son of man coming in the clouds of heaven” He identified Himself. “The apostasy” and “the lawless one,” since they embody ideas from this source, appear to signify two distinct but co-operating agents, as distinct as were e.g. the apostates of Israel from the heathen persecutor, Antiochus Epiphanes, for whose coming their appearance gave the signal at the Maccabean epoch. The distinction is one pervading Pauline thought and teaching, viz. that between existing Jew and Gentile (Israel and the nations), which are reconciled on the true basis in the Church of Jesus Christ; the corresponding evil powers unite to form the conspiracy of Satan. The new Messianic community, of Jews and Gentiles in one body, has become “the Israel of God” (Gal 6:16), defection from which is “apostasy” (see 1Ti 3:15 to 1Ti 4:1: ἀποστήσονται ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως); the old antagonism of Jew and Gentile has been resolved into the opposition of the people of God and the world—the antithesis, in short, of Christian and un-Christian. St Paul, to speak in modern phrase, appears to foresee the rise of an apostate Church paving the way for the advent of an atheistic world-power. So it is “out of the” restless, murmuring “sea” of the nations and their “many waters” that “the Wild Beast” of Rev 13:1; Rev 17:1; Rev 17:15, “comes up.” This combination Dan 8:23 already presents: “When the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance … shall arise”; cf. 1Ma 1:10-15, for the parallel earlier situation. (2) While, for Christian believers, “apostasy” means revolt from Christ, by the same necessity the figure of the atheistic world-king, transmitted from the Book of Daniel and from the struggle with Antiochus, is clothed with an Antichristian character; “the lawless one” becomes from point to point the antithesis of the Lord Jesus,—a Satanic caricature of the Messiah-king, a mock-Christ. But (3) contemporary history supplied a powerful stimulus to the prophetic spirit of the Church, which already dimly conceived its Antichrist as the counterpart in the kingdom of darkness to the true Christ reigning in God’s kingdom of light. The deification of the Roman emperors, from Julius Cæsar downwards, was a religious portent of the times. This cultus must have forced itself on the notice of St Paul and his companions in their recent journey through the north-west of the peninsula of Asia Minor (Act 16:6-10), where it already flourished; not improbably, their route led through Pergamum, a city which boasted, in its magnificent Augusteum, the chief seat of Cæsar-worship in the whole empire (cf. Rev 2:13: ὅπου ὁ θρόνος τοῦ Σατανᾶ). The attempt of the mad emperor Gaius (Caligula), made in the year 40, to place his statue in the temple of Jerusalem for Divine worship, an attempt only frustrated by his death, compelled the attention of the entire Jewish people whom it filled with horror, and of the Christian Church with them, to this blasphemous cult. The event was typical, showing to what lengths the intoxication of supreme power in an atheistic age might carry a man inspired by Satan. This attempt was, in Caligula’s case, but the last of a series of outrages upon “every so-called god.” Suetonius relates that this profane monster transported the statue of Olympian Zeus to Rome, displacing its head for the image of his own; also, that he built his palace up to the temple of the old Roman gods Castor and Pollux, and made of this a vestibule where he exhibited himself standing between the twin godships to receive the adoration of those who entered (De Vita Cœsarum, iv:22). The Apostles are only projecting into the future the development of a “mystery of lawlessness”—a tendency of inscrutable force, springing from unsounded depths of evil in human nature—that was “already at work” before the eyes of all men, masquerading in the robes of Godhead on the imperial stage at Rome. So far-reaching was the impression produced by the Emperor-worship, that Tacitus represents the German barbarians speaking in ridicule of “ille inter numina dicatus Augustus” (Ann. I. 59). The effect of this new Government cultus on what remained of natural religion in the rites of Paganism is indicated in the pregnant words of Tacitus (Ann. I. 10), the first clause of which might have been borrowed from St Paul: “Nihil deorum honoribus relictum, cum se templis et effigie numinum per flamines et sacerdotes coli vellet [Augustus].” Nor was the exaltation of the emperors to deity an act of mere autocratic blasphemy and pride of power. Rome and the provinces spontaneously gave Divine honours to Julius Cæsar at his death; and Augustus promoted the new worship out of policy, to supply a religious bond to the Empire and to fill up the void created by the decay of the old national religions, the very want which Christianity was destined to meet. In relating the obsequies of Julius Cæsar Suetonius says (Ibid. i.84, 88): “Omnia simul ei divina atque humana decreverat [senatus] … Periit sexto et quinquagesimo ætatis anno, atque in deorum numerum relatus est, non ore modo decernentium sed et persuasione volgi.” The unconscious irony of the above passage is finely pointed by the exclamation which the same historian puts into the mouth of the dying Vespasian (viii:23): “Vae, puto deus fio!” Cf. the tragic scene of Act 12:20-23, ὁ δῆμος ἐπεφώνει· Θεοῦ φωνὴ κ. οὐκ ἀνθρώπου … καὶ γενόμενος σκωληκόβρωτος ἐξέψυξεν (Herod Agrippa I.). The shout of the Cæsarean δῆμος shows the readiness of a sceptical and servile heathenism to deify its human rulers, while the language of St Luke reflects the loathing stirred thereby in Christian minds. The Apostle Paul realized the significance of the Cæsar-worship of his time; he saw in it τὸ μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας at work in its most typical form. Antiochus Epiphanes and Gaius Caligula have sat as models for his Antichrist; the Emperor Elagabalus (218–222 A.D.), in more Oriental fashion, subsequently reproduced the type. The struggle between heathen Rome and Christianity was to turn, in reality, upon the alternative of κύριος Καῖσαρ (Martyr. Polycarpi 8) or κύριος Ἰησοῦς (1Co 12:3),—the point already raised, with a strange instinct (like that of Caiaphas respecting the Atonement, Joh 11:50 ff.), by the Jews when they cried to Pilate, “If thou let Him [Jesus] go, thou art not Cæsar’s friend” (Joh 19:12). Cæsar-worship being the state-religion, and the worship of Christ admitting of no sharer, Christianity became a religio illicita and its profession, constructively, high treason. Ὄμοσον τὴν Καίσαρος τύχην was the test put to Polycarp by the Proconsul of Asia in the stadium of Smyrna (Martyr. 9); and this challenge, with the martyr’s reply—πῶς δύναμαι βλασφημῆσαι τὸν βασιλέα μου;—is typical of the entire conflict of the Christian faith with its ἀντικείμενος, the veritable θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου enthroned on the Palatine. Cæsar’s titular name Σεβαστός, the Greek rendering of Augustus (cf. ὁ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πᾶν … σέβασμα above)—to which Divus was added at death—was itself a blasphemy to Jewish and Christian ears. With σεβαστός the title υἱὸς θεοῦ was associated in popular use and even in business documents (see Deissmann’s Bible Studies, pp. 166 f., and Dalman’s Words of Jesus, p. 273), a circumstance that gave additional point to the rivalry, which forced itself on Christian thought, between the deified Cæsar and Christ.

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.

He foretelleth that Antichrist, (that is, whosoever he be that shall occupy that seat that falleth away from God) shall not reign without the Church, but in the very bosom of the Church.

All men know who he is that saith he can shut up heaven and open it at his pleasure, and took upon him to be Lord and master above all Kings and Princes, before whom Kings and Princes fall down and worship, honoring that Antichrist as a god.

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

Verse 4. Who opposeth and exalteth] He stands against and exalts himself above all Divine authority, and above every object of adoration, and every institution relative to Divine worship, σεβασμα, himself being the source, whence must originate all the doctrines of religion, and all its rites and ceremonies; so that sitting in the temple of God-having the highest place and authority in the Christian Church, he acts as Godtaking upon himself God's titles and attributes, and arrogating to himself the authority that belongs to the Most High.

The words ως θεον, as God, are wanting in ABD, many others, Erpen's Arabic, the Coptic, Sahidic, AEthiopic, Armenian, the Vulgate, some copies of the Itala, and the chief of the Greek fathers. Griesbach has left them out of the text, and Professor White says, Certissime delenda; "They should most certainly be erased." There is indeed no evidence of their being authentic, and the text reads much better with out them: So that he sitteth in the temple of God, &c.

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

4 An adversary, and that exalteth himself. The two epithets — man of sin, and son of perdition — intimate, in the first place, how dreadful the confusion would be, that the unseemliness of it might not discourage weak minds; and farther, they tend to stir up the pious to a feeling of detestation, lest they should degenerate along with others. Paul, however, now draws, as if in a picture, a striking likeness of Antichrist; for it may be easily gathered from these words what is the nature of his kingdom, and in what things it consists. For, when he calls him an adversary, when he says that he will claim for himself those things which belong to God, so that he is worshipped in the temple as God, he places his kingdom in direct opposition to the kingdom of Christ. Hence, as the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, so this tyranny must be upon souls, that it may rival the kingdom of Christ. We shall also find him afterwards assigning to him the power of deceiving, by means of wicked doctrines and pretended miracles. If, accordingly, you would know Antichrist, you must view him as diametrically opposed to Christ.

Where I have rendered — everything that is called God, the reading more generally received among the Greeks is, every one that is called. It may, however, be conjectured, both from the old translation and from some Greek commentaries, that Paul’s words have been corrupted. The mistake, too, of a single letter was readily fallen into, especially when the shape of the letter was much similar; for, where there was written πᾶν τὸ, (everything,) some transcriber, or too daring reader, turned it into πάντα, (every one.) This difference, however, is not of so much importance as to the sense, for Paul undoubtedly means that Antichrist would take to himself those things that belonged to God alone, so that he would exalt himself above every divine claim, that all religion and all worship of God might lie under his feet. This expression then, everything that is reckoned to be God, is equivalent to everything that is reckoned as Divinity, and σέβασμα, that is, in which the veneration due to God consists.

Here, however, the subject treated of is not the name of God himself, but his majesty and worship, and, in general, everything that he claims for himself. “True religion is that by which the true God alone is worshipped; that, the son of perdition will transfer to himself.” Now, every one that has learned from Scripture what are the things that more especially belong to God, and will, on the other hand, observe what the Pope claims for himself — though he were but a boy of ten years of age — will have no great difficulty in recognizing Antichrist. Scripture declares that God is the alone Lawgiver (James 4:12) who is able to save and to destroy; the alone King, whose office it is to govern souls by his word. It represents him as the author of all sacred rites; it teaches that righteousness and salvation are to be sought from Christ alone; and it assigns, at the same time, the manner and means. There is not one of these things that the Pope does not affirm to be under his authority. He boasts that it is his to bind consciences with such laws as seem good to him, and subject them to everlasting punishment. As to sacraments, he either institutes new ones, according to his own inclination, or he corrupts and deforms those which had been instituted by Christ — nay, sets them aside altogether, that he may substitute in their place the sacrileges which he has invented. He contrives means of attaining salvation that are altogether at variance with the doctrine of the Gospel; and, in fine, he does not hesitate to change the whole of religion at his own pleasure. What is it, I pray you, for one to lift up himself above everything that is reckoned God, if the Pope does not do so? When he thus robs God of his honor, he leaves him nothing remaining but an empty title of Deity, while he transfers to himself the whole of his power. And this is what Paul adds shortly afterwards, that the son of perdition would shew himself as God. For, as has been said, he does not insist upon the simple term God, but intimates, that the pride of Antichrist would be such, that, raising himself above the number and rank of servants, and mounting the judgment-seat of God, would reign, not with a human, but with a divine authority. For we know that whatever is raised up into the place of God is an idol, though it should not bear the name of God.

In the temple of God. By this one term there is a sufficient refutation of the error, nay more, the stupidity of those who reckon the Pope to be Vicar of Christ, on the ground that he has his seat in the Church, in whatever manner he may conduct himself; for Paul places Antichrist nowhere else than in the very sanctuary of God. For this is not a foreign, but a domestic enemy, who opposes Christ under the very name of Christ. But it is asked, how the Church is represented as the den of so many superstitions, while it was destined to be the pillar of the truth? (1 Timothy 3:15.) I answer, that it is thus represented, not on the ground of its retaining all the qualities of the Church, but because it has something of it remaining. I accordingly acknowledge, that that is the temple of God in which the Pope bears rule, but at the same time profaned by innumerable sacrileges.

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.

(4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself.—The original continues a quasi-substantival form:—“the opposer and exalter of himself”—well-known descriptions (doubtless) of the Antichrist; several of the details are drawn directly from the description of Antiochus in Daniel 11. Being merely descriptive epithets, we are not at liberty to press the present tense, and say that the Man of Sin was already thus acting at the time St. Paul wrote. The word for “the opposer,” or “adversary,” is a pretty close rendering of the name “Satan,” and passed, in ecclesiastical Greek into a synonym for it. The acts here attributed to the Man of Sin are peculiarly Satanic. (Comp. Isa_14:12-14; 2Ti_3:6.) Of course, however, we must not confound Satan himself with his human minister.

Above all that is called God.—The translation here is not quite exact. The word “above” in the original is compounded with “exalteth”; it should be, and super-exalteth, or exhalteth himself above measure (2Co_12:7, where the same compound is used) against every God so called. Probably the clause “against every God” is to be taken only with “super-exalteth “; the description “who opposeth” stands absolutely: it is one characteristic of the Man of Sin to be always in opposition, and to have concord with no one. “Every God so called” includes the false gods with the true God (comp. 1Co_8:5): true or false, it matters not to jealous Antichrist, who would have nothing worshipped but himself. This explains the addition of the little clause, “or that is worshipped.” Many things received religious homage from men without being called gods; and the original word (sebasma) may perhaps be designed to hint at one such worship, viz., the worship of the Augustus (Sebastos). It would be far-fetched, however, to see in this a direct prophecy of conflict between Antichrist and the Civil Power; although it must be admitted that even the word “gods” is sometimes used of secular rulers (e.g., Psa_82:1-6; Joh_10:34), in which sense some take it here.

So that he as God.—The words “as God” are not part of the original text, and should be struck out. In several other points, however, our version does not bring out the profanity of the act as clearly as the Greek. Literally it would be, “so as to seat himself in the shrine of God, showing himself off that he is God.” The “himself” brings out the spontaneous arrogancy of the deed; the Man of Sin does not merely yield to servile flatterers. The “sitting” is not in the tense of habitual custom, but indicates one expressive act of taking possession. The “in” (literally, into) brings out the idea of actual intrusion; while the word for “temple” is not the general name for the whole group of buildings with their courts, but the sacred house itself: it is the word which would describe the Holy and Holy of Holies (see Mat_23:35; Mat_27:5; Mat_27:51; Act_17:4) of the Jewish temple; and probably it is the Mercy Seat that supplies the image to St. Paul’s mind (Psa_99:1).

The temple of God.—Though the image is drawn from the Jewish temple, we may say with some confidence that St. Paul did not expect the Antichrist as a prose fact to take his seat in that edifice. Neither is the metaphor to be pressed into a mere synonym of “the Church” (1Co_3:17). The words, so far need not necessarily mean that the Man of Sin will make special claims upon the Christian community as such. Rather, the whole phrase, “taking his seat in the temple of God,” is a poetical or prophetical description of usurping divine prerogatives generally: not the prerogatives of the true God alone, but whatever prerogatives have been offered to anything “called God.” Though the prophecy might be fulfilled without any symbolical act (e.g., of assuming any material throne), yet the spontaneousness (“himself ) and the openness (“showing himself”) seem so essentially parts of the prophecy as of necessity to imply that the Man of Sin will make formal claim to occupy that central seat in men’s minds and aspirations which is acknowledged to be due to God alone. The formal making of this claim seems to be identical with the apocalypse of the Man of Sin, the act by which he is manifested or revealed.

Shewing himself.—Or, thus showing himself off. It does not mean that he makes any attempt to prove that he is God; the word only carries on the pictorial representation of the Man of Sin enthroning himself upon the Mercy Seat, and by that act of session parading his pretended divinity. As has been said, the performance of a typical act is not of vital consequence to the accomplishment of the prophecy (as, e.g., Zec_9:9 might have been truly accomplished without the literal riding of Mat_21:7), though there are few great movements which do not express themselves in outward typical acts; but these words show that (unless St. Paul was mistaken) an explicit claim will be made for submission, like that of creature to Creator. Even if the “Man of Sin” only signifies a tendency, not a person, yet this “exhibition of himself as God” would hardly be satisfied by a social concession, however widespread, to a general spirit of (say) fleshly luxury or atheistic intellectualism, without the claims of these ideals being eo nomine put forward and consciously admitted. But it is hard to believe that anything avowedly atheistic would be spoken of as explicitly claiming or receiving divine honours. It seems, therefore, most probable that the great Apostasy will not become avowedly atheistic, but will be an apostasy (so to speak) within the Church, and that the Man of Sin, who heads that Apostasy, will make especial claim upon the Christian Church to accord consciously the very honours which she pays to the living God.

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

4. who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped] Better, as in R. V. he that opposeth, &c.; for this is a third and distinct designation of the personality in question. Also against, in place of above. And the comma after “God” in A.V. should be cancelled; the phrase object-of-worship (a single word in the Greek, found also in Act_17:23) extends the idea of God to include everything religious: comp. 1Co_8:5, “There are that are called gods … gods many and lords many.” The Man of Lawlessness embodies not merely an Anti-christian, but an Anti-theistic revolt. His aim will be to abolish religion in every existing form. This is made still clearer by the next clause.

“He that opposeth” renders the Greek word elsewhere translated the adversary, and is the equivalent of the Hebrew Satan (1Th_2:18, see note); so that the Lawless One bears the name of him “after” whose “working” he will come (2Th_2:9). He will be, therefore, in the most absolute sense, the enemy of God, concentrating in himself all that in human life and history is hostile and repugnant to the Divine nature.

For exalteth himself comp. 2Co_12:7, where the same compound verb is twice used, and is rendered “exalted-above-measure.” The above description recalls the language of Dan_8:25; Dan_11:36-37, concerning the great enemy and persecutor of the Church delineated in that prophecy: “He shall magnify himself in his heart; … he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes … He shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods … Neither shall he regard the god of his fathers, … nor any god; for he shall magnify himself above all.” (Comp. the similar language of Eze_28:2, respecting the worldly pride of Tyre.) St Paul takes up and carries forward this O.T. prediction; and as the figure sketched in the Book of Daniel found its proximate realisation in the heathen tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes, who defiled the Temple at Jerusalem and attempted to crush the Jewish religion, it is along the same line that we must look for the accomplishment of this prophecy. In the words that follow we are carried, however, beyond the horizon of the Book of Daniel.

so that he as God sitteth, &c.] Omit as God (R. V.) More lit., in the Greek order, so that he in the temple of God takes his seat, showing off himself, to the effect that he is God.

So that the Man of Lawlessness will not only seek to abolish Divine worship, but will substitute for it the worship of himself (see the passages quoted from Daniel, p. 144), declaring his rule the supreme power and exhibiting his person to receive in place of Almighty God the reverence of mankind. Such atheism is, after all, but egotism full-blown, the kind of egotism to which men are tempted who have great power over the minds of their fellows.

The deification of the Roman Emperors suggested this trait of the description. Never has the world witnessed so blasphemous a usurpation, and so abject a prostration of the human spirit as the Cæsar-worship of St Paul’s time—the only real religion now left to Rome. This passage reflects the horror inspired by it in the mind of the Apostle. So far-reaching was the impression produced by the Emperor-worship, that Tacitus represents the German barbarians as speaking in ridicule of ille inter numina dicatus Augustus—“Augustus, forsooth, enrolled amongst the gods!” (Annals, I. 59). The destructive effect which this cultus had on what remained of natural religion in the rites of Paganism is indicated by the pregnant words of Tacitus (Annals, I. 10): Nihil deorum honoribus relictum, cum se templis et effigie numinum per flamines et sacerdotes coli vellet—“The gods were stripped of their honours, when he (Augustus) consented to be worshipped with temples and statues as a deity, with flamens and with priests.” Compare the words of Suetonius referring to Julius Cæsar, with whom the deification of the dead Cæsars began: “Omnia simul ei divina atque humana decreverat (senatus) … Periit sexto et quinquagesimo aetatis anno atque in deorum numerum relatus est, non ore modo decernentium, sed et persuasione volgi” (De vita Caesarum, I. 84, 88). The unconscious irony of the last sentence is finely pointed by the exclamation ascribed to the dying Emperor Vespasian (VIII. 23): Vae, puto deus fio!—“Woe’s me! I think I am turning god!” The shout of the Greek populace at Cæsarea, hailing “the voice” of Herod Agrippa as that “of a god and not of a man,” indicates the lengths to which a corrupt and servile heathenism was prepared to go in this direction (Act_12:20-24). Deep and wide-spread was the execration caused by the attempt of the mad Emperor Caius (Caligula), in the year 40, to place his statue in the Jewish Temple, an attempt only frustrated by the perpetrator’s death. This was a typical event, showing of what the intoxication of supreme power might make a man capable. It was but the last of many similar outrages on “every so-called god.” Amongst other monstrous profanities of Caligula, Suetonius relates (IV. 22) that he transported the statue of Olympian Jupiter to Rome, and put his own head upon it in place of the god’s! Also, that he built his palace up to the Temple of the ancient Roman gods. Castor and Pollux, making of it a kind of vestibule, where he exhibited himself standing between their twin godships for the adoration of those who entered. Even this, as Olshausen remarks, was “modesty” compared to what the Apostle ascribes to Antichrist. The very name Sebastos, the Greek rendering of the Imperial title Augustus—to which Divus was added at death—signifying “the one to be worshipped” (comp. sebasma, “object-of-worship, in the previous clause), was an offence to the religious mind. In later times the offering of incense to the deity of the Emperor became the crucial test of fidelity to Christ. Cœsar or Christ was the martyr’s alternative.

When he speaks of “the temple of God,” without other qualification, St Paul appears to refer to the existing Temple of Jerusalem (comp. Dan_11:31; Dan_12:11, cited by our Lord in Mat_24:15; Mar_13:14). Attempts have been made to show that the Apostle’s words were literally fulfilled by certain outrages committed by Nero or Vespasian upon the sacred building. This does not seem to us clearly made out; and it will be evident from what has been said, that even the worst of the Roman Emperors was only a type, or adumbration of the Antichrist. The Jewish Temple being still, while it stood, God’s holy place, St Paul naturally associates with it this crowning act of profanation. But we have learnt from 1Th_2:16 that he believed national Judaism to be immediately coming to an end; and its Temple was the type and representative of all places consecrated to the worship of the true God. The great Usurper who claims for himself that he “is God,” appropriates consequently the sanctuaries of religion and prostitutes them to his own worship. “Within the temple of God—not in Jerusalem alone,” says Chrysostom, “but in every church.”

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.

Who opposeth,.... Or is an opposer, an adversary of Christ, the antichrist; who opposes him in his kingly office, styling himself the head and spouse of the church, assuming to himself all power in heaven and in earth, taking upon him to dispense with the laws of Christ, and to make new ones; who opposes him in his priestly office, by pretending to offer him up again in the sacrifice of the mass, and by making angels and saints departed, intercessors and advocates; and also in his prophetic office, by teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, and setting up unwritten traditions before the word of God, requiring the worshipping of images, angels, and saints, when Christ requires that the Lord God only should be worshipped and served; and by introducing the doctrine of works and of merit instead of grace, and with a multitude of other things, in which he most manifestly appears to be diametrically opposite and contrary to Christ:

and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped. The Syriac version renders the last clause, "and religion"; and the Greek word does signify religion, worship, or devotion, as it is translated, in Act 17:23 but here the act of worship is put for the object, and is rightly rendered, "or that which is worshipped"; as it is in the Vulgate Latin version, and in the Arabic version, "or that which is to be worshipped"; and it was usual with the Jews to call God the object of worship, by the name of worship itself, and by which they used to swear: it is said (c) of R. Benjamin the just, that he was appointed over the alms chest; one time a woman came to him and said, Rabbi, relieve me; he replied to her, "by the worship" (that is, by God who is worshipped) there is nothing in the alms chest: and elsewhere (d) it is said by one, concerning two that were fatherless, for whom the collectors of alms gathered, "by the worship", they go before my daughter: and a little after, "by the worship", these things are holy to thee; where the gloss says, it is an oath: and so here the word is to be understood of Deity itself; and the meaning is, that antichrist would exalt himself above all the gods of the Gentiles, who are only nominally, and not by nature, gods; to these were ascribed, some one thing, to some another; one had the government of heaven, another of hell, another of the seas, and an other of the winds, &c. but this haughty creature antichrist assumes to himself all power, both in heaven, earth, and hell. Angels are sometimes called gods, Psa 8:4 because they are sent of God, and sometimes represent him; the popes of Rome have exalted themselves above these; Pope Clement VI. proclaimed a jubilee, and promised forgiveness of sins to all that should come to Rome; and in his bull for it says, that

"if any that was confessed should die by the way, he should be free from all his sins; "and we do command the angels", that they take such a soul out of purgatory entirely absolved, and introduce it into the glory of paradise:''

and in a manuscript in the library at Helmsted are these words,

"we command the angels that they carry such a soul into Abraham's bosom, as soon as it has left the body:''

kings and civil magistrates are called gods, Psa 82:6 and this monster of iniquity and firstborn of Satan, the popes of Rome, have exalted themselves above these; they have not only took upon them to excommunicate emperors and kings, but to depose them, and take away their crowns from them, and give their kingdoms to others, and absolve their subjects from allegiance and fidelity to them; an emperor has held a pope's stirrup while he alighted from his horse, and was severely reprimanded for holding the left instead of the right stirrup; and the same emperor held another pope's stirrup while he got on his horse, and who set his foot upon his neck when he absolved him, being before excommunicated by him, using these words in Psa 91:13 "thou shall tread upon the lion", &c. An emperor and an empress waited at a pope's gates three days barefoot; another emperor and empress were crowned by the Pope with his feet; he took the crown with his feet, and, they bowing down, put it upon their heads, and then kicked it off; and one of our own kings resigned his crown and the ensigns of his royalty to the Pope's legate, who kept them five days; and when he offered a sum of money to the legate as an earnest of his subjection, to show his master's grandeur, he spurned at it; a king was thrown under a pope's table to lick the bones like a dog, while he was eating: so truly has this passage had its accomplishment in that impious and insolent set of men. Rome is by the Jewish (e) writers called "Magdiel", which signifies "magnifying itself"; the reason is, "because it magnifies itself" above all these (f); that is, above all kingdoms and states: but what is worse, and most dreadfully blasphemous, follows,

so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God; not in the temple of Jerusalem, which was to be destroyed and never to be rebuilt more, and was destroyed before this man of sin was revealed; but in the church of God, so called, Co1 3:16 the Ethiopic version renders it, "in the house of God"; for antichrist rose up out of, and in the midst of the church; and it was a true church in which he first appeared, and over which he usurped power and authority; though it has been so corrupted by him, as now to be only nominally so; here he sits, and has homage done him by his creatures, as if he was a god, and is not only styled Christ's vicar, but a god on earth, and our Lord God the Pope; so in the triumphal arch at the entry of Pope Sixtus IV, these lines were put, "oraculo vocis, mundi moderaris habenas, et merito in terris crederis esse Dens"; the sense is, that he governed the world by his word, and was deservedly believed to be God on earth; and their canon law (g) says,

"it is clearly enough shown, that the Pope cannot be loosed or bound by any secular power; since it is evident that he is called God by that pious prince, Constantine, and it is manifest that God cannot be judged by men:''

and Pope John XXII is expressly called (h) "our Lord God the Pope": the Ethiopic version reads, "he shall say to all, I am the Lord God"; see Eze 28:2, the Alexandrian copy, and some others, and the Vulgate Latin version, leave out the phrase, "as God", but the Syriac retains it: however, the same blasphemy is expressed in the next clause,

shewing himself that he is God; by usurping a power over the consciences and souls of men; by dispensing with the laws of God and man; by assuming to himself all power in heaven and in earth; by taking upon him to open and shut the gates of heaven at pleasure; and by pardoning sin, which none but God can do; this is the mouth speaking blasphemies, Rev 13:5.

(c) T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 11. 1. (d) T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 24. 1. (e) Jarchi in Gen. xxxvi. 43. (f) Abarbinel in Dan. fol. 42. 3. (g) Gratian. Decret. dist. 96. can. "satis". (h) Extrarag. "cum inter".

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

4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Ver. 4. Who opposeth himself] αντικειμενος, who standeth in full opposition to Christ, as a counter-christ. The enemy and adversary is this wicked Haman, Ezr 7:6, so this "man of sin" that Antichrist of Rome. When the pope sets forth any bulls, commonly he thus concludes, Non obstantibus constitutionibus Apostolicis, caeterisque contrariis quibuscunque, The constitutions and ordinances of the apostles, and all things else to the contrary notwithstanding. The pope’s interpretation of Scripture, though it never so much cross the text, yet it is to be esteemed the very word of God, saith Hosius: Tamen est ipsissimum Dei verbum.

And exalteth himself] Perfrica frontem, said Calvus to Vatinius, et digniorem te dic qui Praetor fieres quam Catonem. Pope Boniface III set a good face upon it, and arrogated the title of Universal Bishop. The ancient Romans painted Pride with three crowns on her head. On the first was inscribed Transcendo, I transgress, on the second, Non obedio, I do not obey, on the third, Perturbo. I through into confusion, The modern Romans see all this daily acted by their bishop.

Above all that is called god] In the year 1540 Pope Paul III suffered himself to be thus blasphemously flattered, Paulo tertio optimo maximo in terris Deo, to Paul III, the greatest and best God in the world. In the year 1610, books were printed at Bonony and at Naples, with this inscription, Paulo V vice-deo, Christianae reipublicae monarchae invictissimo, Pontificiae omnipotentiae conservatori acerrimo: To Paul V, vice-god, most invincible monarch of Christendom, most stout defender of the papal omnipotency. The pope can do all that Christ can do, and is more than God, saith Hostiensis the canonist, and after him Zabarel: Of wrong he can make right, of vice virtue, of nothing something, saith Bellarmine. (Lib. i. de Pontif. Rom.) He is lifted above the angels, so that he can excommunicate them; he can dispense against not only the law of nature, but against all the evangelists, prophets, and apostles, saith Pope John XXIII in extrav.; one of his parasites clawed him thus,

" Oraclis vocis mundi moderaris habenas:

Et merito in terris diceris esse Deus."

Or that is worshipped] σεβασμα. Or, that is august, above princes and potentates. He is cried up for "Lord of lords and King of kings," one that hath both the swords throughout the world, and an illimited empire over all reasonable creatures, Dulia adorandus, &c. How he trod upon the emperor of Germany, and how he lashed Henry II of England, and Henry IV of France till the blood followed, is better known than that I need here to relate. Sed exorto Evangelii iubare sagaciores (ut spero) principes ad nutum Romani Orbilii non solvent subligacula, saith one. Our Richard I, going for the Holy Land, had conference with one Joachim, a Cistercian abbot, being then in Calabria, near Sicily; whom, at his coming, he heard preaching and expounding the Apocalypse touching the afflictions of the Church, and concerning Antichrist, which (said he) was then born and in the city of Rome, and shall be advanced to the see apostolic; of whom the apostle said, "He shall extol himself above all that is called God;" and that the seven crowns were the kings and princes of the earth, that obeyed him: (Hoveden.) Much about the same time, Pope Celestine crowned the emperor Henry and his empress Constantia at Rome with his feet, and kicked off the same crown again. (Speed.)

Sitteth in the temple of God] Sitting is a style proper to the pope; who is said not to reign, but to sit so many years or months; and his place of dominion is called his "see," or "seat." Robert Grossetete, bishop of Lincoln, called him in a letter, "heretic, Antichrist sitting in the chair of pestilence, and next to Lucifer himself." Benedictus the Sorbonist affirmeth that the ass in the history of Balaam signifieth the Church. An quia Pontifex Balaam est qui ei insidet? saith Dr Raynolds, i.e. Doth he not mean by it, that the pope is Balaam that sitteth upon that ass? (De Idolol. Rom.) England was once called the "pope’s ass," for bearing his burdens, and obeying his mandates. But beside the present Reformation (which is such as ages past despaired of, the present admire, and the future shall stand amazed at), in the year 1245 (lo, so long since) the pope was denied entrance into England; it being said that he was but like a "mouse in a satchel," or a snake in one’s bosom, who did but ill repay their hosts for their lodging. (Scultet. Annal.)

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.

Who opposeth - That is, he is distinguished as an opposer of the great system which God has revealed for human salvation, and of those who would serve God in purity in the gospel of his Son. No Protestant will doubt that this has been the character of the papacy. The opposition of the general system to the gospel; the persecution of Wycliffe, of John Huss, of Jerome of Prague, of the Waldenses and the Reformers; the Inquisition, the cruelties in the reign of Mary (Queen of Scots), and the massacre of Bartholomew in France, are obvious illustrations of this.

And exalteth himself above all that is called God - That is, whether among the pagans or the Jews; above a false God, or the true God. This could be true only of one who set aside the divine laws; who undertook to legislate where God only has a right to legislate, and whose legislation was contrary to that of God. Any claim of a dominion over conscience; or any arrangement to set aside the divine laws, and to render them nugatory, would correspond with what is implied in this description. It cannot be supposed that any one would openly claim to be superior to God, but the sense must be, that the enactments and ordinances of the “man of sin” would pertain to the province in which God only can legislate, and that the ordinances made by him would be such as to render nugatory the divine laws, by appointing others in their place. No one can reasonably doubt that all that is here affirmed may be found in the claims of the Pope of Rome. The assumptions of the papacy have related to the following things:

(1) To authority above all the inferior orders of the priesthood - above all pastors, bishops, and primates.

(2) Authority above all kings and emperors, “deposing some, and advancing others, obliging them to prostrate themselves before him, to kiss his toe, to hold his stirrup, to wait barefooted at his gate, treading even upon the neck, and kicking off the imperial crown with his foot” - Newton. Thus, Gregory VII made Henry IV wait barefooted at his gate. Thus, Alexander III trod upon the neck of Alexander I. Thus, Celestin kicked off the imperial crown of Henry VI. Thus, the right was claimed, and asserted, of laying nations under interdict, of deposing kings, and of absolving their subjects from their oaths of allegiance. And thus the Pope claimed the right over all unknown lands that might be discovered by Columbus, and apportioned the New World as he pleased - in all these things claiming prerogatives which can pertain only to God.

(3) To authority over the conscience, in matters which can pertain only to God himself, and where he only can legislate. Thus, it has been, and is, one of the claims set up for the Pope that he is infallible. Thus, he “forbids what God has commanded,” as the marriage of the clergy, communion in both kinds, the use of the Scriptures for the common people. Thus, he has set aside the second commandment by the appointment of image-worship; and thus he claims the power of the forgiveness of sins. Multitudes of things which Christ allows his people are forbidden by the papacy, and many things are enjoined, or allowed, directly contrary to the divine legislation.

Or that is worshipped - σέβασμα sebasma. This word means “an object of worship;” see Act 17:3, where it is rendered devotions. It may be applied to the worship of a pagan divinity, or of the true God. “It may refer to a person, an idol, or a place. Probably Paul refers here to the heroes and other subordinate divinities of the heathen mythology” - Oldshausen. No one can doubt that the Pope has claimed higher honors, as the vicegerent of Christ, than was ever rendered in the ancient “hero worship.”

So that he, as God - That is, claiming the honors due to God. This expression would not imply that he actually claimed to be the true God, but only that he sits in the temple, and manifests himself as if he were God. He claims such honors and such reverence as the true God would if he should appear in human form. It should be observed here, however, that there is much reason to doubt the genuineness of this phrase - “as God” - ὡς Θεον hōs Theon. Mill supposes that it was inserted from the context. It is marked with an asterisk in the Vulgate, the Coptic, and the Syriac, and is omitted by many of the fathers; see Mill and Wetstein. It is rejected by Griesbach and Lachmann, and marked as doubtful by Hahn. It is defended, however, by Matthaei, Koppe, Knapp, and Schott. The sense is not materially affected whether it be regarded as genuine or not.

Sitteth in the temple of God - That is, in the Christian church. It is by no means necessary to understand this of the temple at Jerusalem, which was standing at the time this Epistle was written, because:

(1) The phrase “the temple of God” is several times used with reference to the Christian church, 1Co 3:16, 1Co 3:17; 2Co 6:16; Eph 2:21; Rev 3:12; and,

(2) The temple was the proper symbol of the church, and an apostle trained amidst the Hebrew institutions would naturally speak of the church as the temple of God. The temple at Jerusalem was regarded as the peculiar dwelling-place of God on earth. When the Christian church was founded, it was spoken of as the peculiar dwelling-place of God; see the passages referred to above. He dwelt among His people. He was with them, and walked with them, and manifested himself among them - as he had done in the ancient temple. The usage in the New Testament would not lead us to restrict this language to an edifice, or a “church,” as the word is now commonly used, but rather to suppose that it denotes the church as a society, and the idea is, that the Antichrist here referred to would present himself in the midst of that church as claiming the honors due to God alone. In the temple at Jerusalem, God himself presided. There he gave laws to his people; there he manifested himself as God; and there he was worshipped. The reign of the “man of sin” would be as if he should sit there. In the Christian church he would usurp the place which God had occupied in the temple. He would claim divine attributes and homage. He would give laws and responses as God did there. He would be regarded as the head of all ecclesiastical power; the source from which all authority emanated; the same in the Christian church which God himself was in the temple. This does not then refer primarily to the Pope as sitting in any particular church on any particular occasion, but to his claiming in the Church of Christ the authority and homage which God had in the temple at Jerusalem. In whatever place, whether in a cathedral or elsewhere, this authority should be exercised, all that the language here conveys would be fulfilled. No one can fail to see that the authority claimed by the Pope of Rome, meets the full force of the language used here by the apostle.

Showing himself that he is God - This does not necessarily mean that he actually, in so many words, claimed to be God; but that he usurped the place of God, and claimed the prerogatives of God. If the names of God are given to him, or are claimed by him; if he receives the honors due to God; if he asserts a dominion like that of God, then all that the language fairly implies will be fulfilled. The following expressions, applied to the Pope of Rome by Catholic writers, without any rebuke from the papacy, will show how entirely applicable this is to the pretended Head of the Church. He has been styled “Our Lord God the Pope; another God upon earth; king of kings and lord of lords. The same is the dominion of God and the Pope. To believe that our Lord God the Pope might not decree as he decreed is heresy. The power of the Pope is greater than all created power, and extends itself to things celestial, terrestrial, and infernal. The Pope doeth whatsoever he listeth, even things unlawful, and is more than God;” see the authority for these extraordinary declarations in Dr. Newton book on the Prophecies, Dissertations xxii. How can it be doubted that the reference here is to the papacy? Language could not be plainer, and it is not possible to conceive that anything can ever occur which would furnish a more manifest fulfillment of this prophecy. Indeed, interpreted by the claims of the papacy, it stands among the very clearest of all the predictions in the Sacred Scriptures.

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

A further description of this man of sin, by his opposition and exaltation.

Who opposeth; or, ο αντικειμενος, the opposer; or rather, opposing, expressed in the participle of the present tense, denoting a continued act, or that which he bends himself strongly to. But against what? The same that he exalteth himself above, as some conceive; but the grammar will not well admit that sense, and we should not so restrain it; and therefore we will take the word indefinitely, as expressed in the text. But we may well conceive, it is Christ himself whom he opposeth; as his name given him by the apostle John doth evidence, when he is called antichrist, or the antichrist, one that is against Christ; not that he openly and professedly opposeth him, but as Judas kissed his Master, and betrayed him: see those that have written of antichrist, as Philip Nicholas, Whitaker, Danaeuns, Chamier, Moulin, Junius, &c. It is iniquity in a mystery. He serveth Christ, but it is to serve himself upon him. He acknowledgeth him in all his offices, and yet doth virtually deny and oppose him in them all: called antichrist, as opposite to the unction of Christ: Christ signifies anointed, and so he opposeth him in the offices to which he is anointed, while he owns his natures. He professeth himself a "servant of the servants of God," and yet persecutes, curseth, proscribes, and killeth them, opposing Christ in his members. He maketh war with the saints, Rev 13:7. He hath two horus like a lamb, and speaks as a dragon, 2Th 2:11; speaks lies in hypocrisy, 1Ti 4:2. And then he is described by his exaltation; υπεραιρομενος, exalted, which is well supplied, he exalteth himself: it is not from God. He

exalteth himself, or lifteth himself,

above all that is called God, though not really and essentially God. The apostle well knew that in the Old Testament magistrates were called gods, Psa 82:1,6; and 1Co 8:5; There be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth. Magistrates and rulers are of several degrees; some inferior, some superior; some supreme, as kings and emperors; but he exalteth himself above them all, and that not only in spirituals, by excommunications, but in civils, by deposing kings, disposing kingdoms, yea, making emperors to wait at his gate, hold his stirrup, prostrate themselves to kiss his toe, and then to tread upon their neck, as Alexander the Third did to Frederic Barbarossa; and this not condemned as the extravagancy of some particular persons, but allowed and justified by the doctrine and doctors of the Romish Church. And Bellarmine, de Rom. Pont. lib. 5. c. 8, gives it as the reason why the pope would not come to the council of Nice, lest if the emperor should come thither he should attempt to sit above him. So that by these two words in the text, the apostle describes him both in his enmity and pride, opposition and exaltation. Observe, first: He assumeth to himself a higher power than those that are only called gods; theirs is human, his is Divine; theirs on the bodies or estates of men, his over the conscience; theirs only to the living, his to men’s souls after death. Next, he makes himself like God, and is

as God, as the king of old Babylon said, I will be like the Most High, Isa 14:14. As God’s residence of old was in the temple of Jerusalem, so he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God: not that temple that was built by Solomon, and afterwards rebuilt, and to be built again, as the popish doctors speak: for it is now destroyed, and if it be built again by this man of sin, as they say, at his coming, would the apostle call that

the temple of God? 2Co 6:16; Rev 3:12, &c. But it is a spiritual temple, as the church is called, 1Co 3:16,17. So Augustine, Jerome, Hilary, Chrysostom, understand it. And he is said here to sit, to have here his cathedra. The apostle speaks of him as a bishop, whose episcopal see is called a seat, or cathedra; and here he sitteth as God: the popish writers give the pope that and suchlike titles, Dominus Deus noster Papa, Idem est Dominium Dei et Papae, Tu es alter Deus in Terra, " Thou art another God on earth." Concil. Later. sess. 4. And as God he maketh laws to bind the conscience, and dispenseth with laws natural and moral; pardons sin as he pleaseth, past, present, and to come; can deliver souls out of purgatory, and translate them to heaven: so that this man of sin is not to be looked for among the Turks, pagans, or infidels. He

sitteth in the temple, the church, of God; not that it can be the true church where he thus sitteth and acteth, but rather the synagogue of Satan; but that which he calleth so, and which beareth that name, and which before the falling away was really so, Rom 1:8. As Jerusalem is called the holy city after it had lost its holiness, Mat 4:5; and the faithful city, when become an harlot, Isa 1:21; and Mount Tabor a holy mount, 2Pe 1:18; because once so: or called so according to men’s opinion; as idols, that are nothing, are yet called gods, 2Ch 28:23; 1Co 8:5. Some read the words, εις τον ναον, in templum Dei, as we say, in amicum, i.e. velut amicus, he sitteth for the temple of God, as if he himself was the temple and church of God. So Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. 20. c. 19. And so some of our protestant writers, applying it to the pope, who, as the head of the church, hath the whole church virtually in himself, and doth exercise all church power.

Showing himself that he is God; not saying it with his mouth, as CEcumenius saith, but making such a show before men; though Bellarmine interprets it of an open boasting and vaunting himself to be God, which, saith he, the pope doth not; but by pretended miracles, signs, and wonders, by pardons, indulgences, canonizing saints, dominion over princes and kingdoms, he shows himself as a God before men, and claimns a power to be judged of no man, and to be judge of all men. A seculari potestate non solvi posse nec ligari pontificem, quem constat a Constantino Deum appellatum, cum nee Deum ab hominibus judicari manifestum sit. Decret. distinct. 96. c. 7. Yea, lastly, he exalteth himself above God himself, when he maketh the Scriptures to derive their authority more from the pope’s canonizing, than God himself; and without it no man is bound to believe them. Decret. lib. 2 Tit 23 Again: If the pope should err by commanding vice and forbidding virtue, the church was bound to believe vice to be good and virtue to be evil. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Summo Pont. c. 5. And it is frequent among their divines and canonists to say, that the pope can dispense against the apostles and the Old Testament, and the Scriptures are inferior to his decrees, and without the authority of the church are a nose of wax, paper, and parchment, &c.; so that upon the whole, as John’s disciples asked concerning Christ: Art thou he that should come, or must we look for another? So, may we not say to the pope concerning antichrist: Art thou he, &c.? I will speak boldly, either there is no antichrist, or the bishop of Rome is he. Chamier. 1.16. c. 8.

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

4. Who opposeth—’Ο αντικειμενος, the antagonist, one lying anti, or opposite. Antagonist to whom? To Christ. “For,” says Lunemann, “he is the forerunner of Christ’s advent, and has, as Christ’s counterfeit, an advent (parousia) and a revelation of himself; his works are the direct antithesis to Christ’s works, and it is by Christ’s appearing that he is abolished. This antagonist is, then, no other than antichrist. 1Jn_2:18.” And it is curious to note that anti signifies, in the Greek, instead of, as commonly as it means opposed to; so that antichrist might as well mean substitute for Christ, or, in papal phrase, “vicar of Christ,” as antagonist of Christ.

Exalteth himself above… God—Alford argues from this clause that the pope cannot be meant, because the pope, so far from placing himself above God, is an abject adorer of gods. Alford’s words are a feeble repetition of a Romanist argument. Says the Rhemish commentator: “How can the Protestants, then, for shame, and without evident contradiction, avouch the pope to be antichrist, who, as we say, honoureth Christ the true God with all his power, or, as they say, honoureth idols, and challengeth no divine honour to himself, much less to himself only, as antichrist shall do.

He humbly prayeth to God, and lowly kneeleth down in every church at divers altars erected to God in memory of his saints, and prayeth to him.

He saith or heareth mass daily, with all devotion; he confesseth his sins to a priest, as other poor men do,” etc. To Alford and the Rhemist it may be replied, 1. Alford mistranslates Paul’s Greek preposition επι, which signifies not so properly υπερ, above, as against. 2. If the prophecy is to wait for a being who literally exalts himself above the Omnipresent and Omnipotent, it waits an impossibility. No finite being can exalt himself above the infinitely high. The very thought is inconceivable. 3. The only possible meaning of exalting himself above God is to arrogate and usurp the attributes and authority of God over men; making his own laws the substitute of, or validating power for and over, the divine rule. Now the papacy has assumed the attribute of infallibility; it has manifestly and manifoldly, by virtue of that attribute, truly reversed and overridden the divine law. It holds itself as the giver of Scripture, and proceeds to overrule Scripture by its traditions. It claims, against and over and above the law of God, to absolve from sin. Nor does Alford at all invalidate the strange fact that the pope “creates the God he adores;” manufacturing a wafer when he pleases, and then by consecration transforming that wafer into God. To claim the power of creating God when he pleases is one of the most flagrant self-exaltations over God conceivable. Nor does the fact that he worships the God he has created invalidate the argument. The pagan idolater first makes his fetish and then worships it.

As God— Usurping divine attributes, such as infallibility, absolution, God-making. The best critics, however, omit these words.

Sitteth—Literally, Takes his seat, and by implication keeps it.

Temple of God—Not the Jewish temple, which is never called so in the New Testament, but unquestionably the Christian Church. See 2Co_6:16; Eph_2:21. This seating himself in supremacy in the Church is a vivid picture of the inauguration of each new pope. Forthwith upon his election he enters St. Peter’s Church, the claimed temple of God; is lifted by his cardinals and placed upon the high altar. There he takes his seat, and is by them adored, kneeling on their knees and kissing his feet. Their technical term for this act is adoration; and the words on the papal coin are, Quem creant, adorant: Whom they create, they adore.

Is God—He is styled, “Dominus Deus noster papa; alter Deus in terra: The Lord God our pope: a second God on earth.” This antichrist, whoever he may be, then, occupies a high, a supreme, seat in the Christian Church. He cannot, therefore, be Nero, nor Mohammed, nor any mere secular prince or warrior.

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

Who opposeth; or, the opposer, taken substantively. The object of opposition is not so much believers, as Christ; he is antichrist, the opponent of Christ. And yet antichrist is not Satan, the great adversary (1Pe_5:8; Rev_12:10) for he is expressly distinguished from him, (2Th_2:9) but the instrument of Satan. As Satan entered into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of perdition, so does he take possession of the man of sin. And exalteth himself above; or rather, against, in a hostile manner. All that is called God; not only against all the false gods of the heathen, but also against the true God. (comp. Dan_7:25 Dan_11:36) Or that is worshipped; that is an object of worship. The same word that is used in, Act_17:23, "As I passed by and beheld your devotions the objects of your worship. So that he as God. The words "as God" are to be omitted, as not found in the best manuscripts. Sitteth in the temple of God. According to some, the temple of Jerusalem (De Wette, Lunemann, Eadie) either as it then existed or as restored according to the prophecy of Ezekiel But it appears more correct to refer the expression metaphorically to the Christian Church. It is a favourite metaphor of Paul to compare believers in particular, or the Church in general, to the temple of God. (comp. 1Co_3:17; Eph_2:20-22) Showing exhibitinghimself that he is God. His sitting in the temple of God was an assertion of his divinity; he claimed to be regarded and worshipped as God. This was the crowning act of his impiety; not only, like the Roman emperors, he demanded to be worshipped as one of many gods, but he claimed to himself the prerogative of the Godhead, not only to the exclusion of the false gods of heathenism, but even of the tree God.

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

Our apostle proceeds in the further description of this man of sin, by a two-fold note of distinction, namely, by his enmity and opposition, and by his dignity and exhaltation.

Observe, 1. His enmity and opposition; He opposeth himself, that is, against Christ, as his name Antichrist signifies, opposing him in his doctrine, in his offices, in his members; corrupting his doctrine, debasing his offices, persecuting his members.

Observe, 2. His dignity and exaltation, which consists of two parts,

1.He exhalteth himself above all that is called God, or is worshipped; that is, he exalteth himself above all magistrates, emperors, kings and princes, who are called gods, because representing his person, as his vicegerents, usurping a power over all civil authority, enthroning and dethroning princes at his pleasure.

Observe, 3. His arrogance is set forth, in relation to God himself, that as God he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. By the temple of God, understand the church of God, the external, visible church, which professeth the faith of Christ and bears his name; in this temple of God he sitteth as an officer or bishop: and sits as God, that is, as God upon earth, whom all must adore: kings kissing his feet, emperors holding his stirrup; and claiming the same power that Christ hath in and over the church, namely, an universal supremacy, an absolute authority, and an unerring infallibility.

And the usurped titles given to him declare that he sheweth himself that he is God; he is called supremum numen in terris; "the chief god upon earth;" and that from him it is affirmed, that no appeals are to be made, no, not to God himself; that he can change the sacraments delivered by Christ, and decree contrary to scripture. Now to accept of these flattering titles, and to pretend to such an unlimited power, is to shew himself that he is God.

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

he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God . [The antichrist will be antagonistic to God, and will exalt himself as a rival to everything that is worshiped, whether it be king or emperor, mythical god or true God, even entering, not only into the outer courts of the temple, but penetrating to the inner sanctuary, and taking his seat where God alone has a right to rest, and there making an arrogant display of himself as an object of worship (comp. Act_12:21-23 ). The Greek word for "worship" is sebasma: from it came Sebastus or Augustus (i. e., the Worshipful), which was the title of the Roman emperors. A man of that age could hardly see this word in such a connection without thinking that Paul meant to convey the idea that the antichrist would arrogate to himself all the reverence then claimed by the great civil lords of the earth, such as emperors, kings, etc. The temple is Paul's favorite metaphor for the church-- 1Co_3:16-17 ; 2Co_6:16 ; Eph_2:21 ]

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.

4. Who opposeth and exalteth himself. I shall endeavor in a few words to identify this power. Various explanations have been given, but there is only one power that exhibits all the marks given by Paul. Observe these: (1) The man of sin exalts himself above God. (2) He sits in the temple, that is, in the church, for that is always the sense in which Paul uses the term. He is a church power. (3) He claims powers that only belong to divinity. (4) He shows off signs and lying wonders (verse 9); or, in other words, lays a claim to miraculous powers. Every one of these marks applies to the papacy: (1) Its development was simultaneous with that of the apostasy. (2) Its development was let (hindered) until the pagan Roman empire fell, but was rapid after it was taken out of the way (verse 7). (3) The papacy has set aside divine laws and has made other spiritual laws to bind men, and has claimed divine prerogatives. A newly-elected Pope is adored and styled “Lord God, the Pope.” (4) It is in the temple of God, that is, it arose in the church, and still claims to be the “Holy Catholic Church.” (5) The claim of Infallibility is “sitting as God in the temple.” (6) The papacy has always claimed miraculous powers, and it is a fact well known that it has often worked off lying wonders (verse 9). No fact is better established than that the hierarchy of the church have often deceived by false miracles. Indeed, these have often been detected and explained.

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.

4. ὁ ἀντικείμενος κτλ. In the further characterisation of Satan’s peculiar instrument, three points are prominent (1) his impious character, “the one who opposes and uplifts himself against every one called God or an object of worship”; (2) the tendency of his spirit of opposition and self-exaltation, “so that he sits in the sanctuary of God”; and (3) the blasphemous claim, intended by the session, “proclaiming that he himself is really God.” The words of the first clause are evidently reminiscent of a description already applied to Antiochus Epiphanes by Daniel (Th. 11:36 ff.): καὶ ὑψωθήσεται ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ μεγαλυνθήσεται ἐπὶ πάντα θεόν, καὶ λαλήσει ὑπέρογκ (i. e. ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν τῶν θεῶ, Lxx) … καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶν θεὸν οὐ συνήσει, ὅτι ἐπὶ πάντας μεγαλυνθήσετα. In alluding to this passage and in quoting ἐπὶ πάντα θεό, Paul inserts λεγόμενο to prevent the possibility of putting the would-be gods on a level with the true God; but whether λεγόμενο refers solely to the would-be gods designated as such, “so-called” (cf. Iren. V, 25:1 super omne idolum, Wohl., Dob.), or whether it embraces both the would-be gods and the true God, “which is called God,” rightly or wrongly (so most interpreters), is uncertain.

Since both ἀντικείμενο and ὑπεραιρόμενο are united by one article, it is probable but not certain (De W., Lün., Ell.) that the former is not a substantive referring to Satan (1Ti 5:14 1Ti 5:1 Clem. 51:1) or ὁ διάβολο who stands at the right hand of Joshua in Zec 3:1 τοῦ ἀντικεῖσθαι αὐτῷ —Apart from Paul (2Co 12:7) ὑπεραίρεσθα is found in Gk. Bib. Psa 37:4, Psa 71:16, Pro 31:29, 2Ch 32:23, Sir. 48:13, 2 Mac. 5:23; the construction with ἐπι (only here in Gk. Bib.; cf. ὑπέ in Psa 71:16 and the dat. in 2 Mac. 5:23) is due, perhaps, to the allusion in ἐπὶ πάντα θεό—Since ἀντικεῖσθα (common in Gk. Bib.; cf. the substantive participle in Isa 66:6, 1Co 16:9, Php 1:28) is regularly construed with the dative, a zeugma is here to be assumed, unless the possibility of ἀντικεῖσθαι ἐπι = “against” be admitted (Schmiedel, Dob.).—The rare σέβασμ (Act 17:23 Sap. 14:20, 15:17 Dan. (Th.) Bel 27; cf. Sap. 14:20 with 14:12 εἴδωλ, 14:15 εἰκώ, and 14:16 τά γλυπτα) indicates not a divinity (numen) but any sacred object of worship.—On λεγόμενο, cf. 1Co 8:5, Col 4:11, Eph 2:11.—The omission by א* of καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενο is not significant.

ὥστε αὐτὸν καθισαι κτλ. The session in the sanctuary of God is tantamount to the assumption of divine honours, “proclaiming that he himself is really (ἔστι) God.” The attempt to sit in the sanctuary of God is made quite in the spirit of the king of Babylon (Isa 14:13 ff.) and the prince of Tyre (Eze 28:2); but whether the attempt is successful or not (cf. Luk 4:29 ὥστε κατακρημνίσαι αὐτό) is not indicated certainly by ὥστ with the infinitive.

τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεσυ. This is apparently the earliest extant reference to the session of the Antichrist in the temple of God (Bousset, Antichrist, 104 ff.). It is, however, quite uncertain whether the temple is to be sought in the church (on the analogy of 1Co 3:16 ff. 1Co 3:6:19, 2Co 6:16), in Jerusalem (Psa 5:8, Psa 78:1, Psa 137:2), “in the high mountains toward the north” (Isa 14:13), “in the heart of the sea” (Eze 28:2), or in the holy heavenly temple where God sits enthroned; cf. Psa 10:4 κύριος ἐν ναῷ ἁγίῳ αὐτοῦ, κύριος ἐν οὐρανῷ ὁ θρόνος αὐτου (see Briggs, ad loc., and cf. Isa 66:1, Mic 1:2, Hab 2:20, Psa 17:7). If the reference is to the heavenly temple, then there is a reminiscence, quite unconscious, of traits appearing in the ancient saga of the Dragon that stormed the heavens, and (beginnings being transferred in apocalyptic to endings) is to storm the heavens at the end (cf. Bousset, loc. cit.). In this case ὥστ with the infinitive will indicate either (1) that the tendency of the spirit of defiance and self-exaltation is toward self-deification, the reference to the temple not being pressed; or (2) that after his revelation or advent, the Anomos, like the Dragon, attempts an assault on the throne of God in his holy temple in heaven, but is destroyed in the act by the breath of the mouth of the Lord Jesus.

Dibelius thinks that the original saga has been humanised by the insertion of the temple in Jerusalem, and compares Rev 13:6 βλασφημῆσαι τὴν σκήνη Other commentators who find here a reference to the temple in Jerusalem hold either that the prophecy has been (Grot.) or will be fulfilled (e. g. Iren. V, 25:4 30:4; Hippolytus (Dan 4:29 Antichrist, 6) has the temple rebuilt; and Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. 15:5) has it rebuilt on the ruins of the old temple). When the significance of ὥστ with the infinitive is faced, it is held either (1) that the Anomos, when he comes, actually takes his seat in the temple, and exercises therefrom his demonic powers until his destruction, the exact manner in which ὥστ is realised being left indeterminate; or (2) that ὥστ indicates tendency or purpose not realised, the description being intended to set forth the trend of defiance and self-exaltation, and the reference to the temple not being forced. Still other commentators interpret the temple as equivalent to the church (Th. Mops., Chrys. Theodoret, Jerome, et al.), an interpretation which makes easy the application to heresy (Calv.), or when necessary, by Protestants, to the Pope sitting in the cathedra Petri.

The difficulty with the reference to the temple in Jerusalem is that the evidence adduced for this interpretation is not convincing. Neither Antiochus who erected a heathen altar on the altar of burnt-offering, and presumably placed thereon a statue of Zeus Olympios (cf. 1 Mac. 1:54, Dan 9:27, Dan 9:11:31, Dan 9:12:11; Mar 13:14, Mat 24:15), nor Caligula who ordered Petronius to set up his statue in the temple (Josephus, Ant. 18:8) is conceived as sitting or attempting to sit in the sanctuary of God. Contrast our verse with Asc. Isa. 4:11: “He (Beliar) … will set up his image before him in every city.” The temple then is probably to be sought in heaven; and there is in the allusion an unconscious survival of traits in the ancient tradition of the Dragon. On this saga, cf. Bousset, Antichrist, 104 ff.; Gunkel, schöpfung und Chaos, 221 ff.; Cheyne in EB 1131 ff.; Mill. 163 f.; and Dob. or Dibelius ad loc.—καθίζει is intransitive; on εἰ (Exo 16:29, Exo 16:1 Reg. 5:11, 2 Reg. 15:25 (A) Lam 2:10), see Bl 39:3. The ναὸς τοῦ θεου (1 Es. 5:52, Judith 5:18 Dan. (Th.) 5:3, Mat 26:61, etc.; or κυριο Luk 1:9 and often in Lxx) is elsewhere in Paul used metaphorically; the Christians are the temple of God, or the body is the temple of the Spirit. —ἀποδείκνυμ (1Co 4:9) may mean “exhibit,” “prove” (Act 25:7), “appoint” (Act 2:22), or “designate” (a successor, 2 Mac. 14:26 (A); cf. Polyb. V, 43:4, Josephus, Ant. 6:35 7:338 The latter meaning in the sense of “nominate” or “proclaim” is here preferred by Lft. and Mill. The participle ἀποδεικνύντ (AGF, et al., read ἀποδεικνύοντ) denotes either purpose (Act 3:26) or attendant circumstance (BMT 449). Before καθίσα, KL, et al., put ὡς θεό

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

That is called God [λεγομενον θεον] . Above the true God and the false gods. The opposer claims divine honors for himself.

That is worshipped [σεβασμα] . An object of adoration, including things as well as persons. Only here and Act 17:23 on which see note under devotions.

Temple of God. According to some, a figure of the Christian Church. Others, the temple of Jerusalem.

Shewing [αποδεικνυντα] . Publicly asserting divine dignity. Rev. setting himself forth as God.

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