2 Thessalonians 2

2 Thessalonians 2:1-99

III. (2:1-12)

The discouragement of those converts who feared that they were not morally prepared for the day of judgment (1:3-12) was intensified by the assertion of some, perhaps the idle brethren, supported, it was alleged, by the authority of Paul, that the day of the Lord was actually present. Paul, who receives news of the situation orally or by letter, together with a request for information about the Parousia and Assembling, is at a loss to understand how anything he had said in the Spirit, orally, or in his previous epistle, could be misconstrued to imply that he was responsible for the misleading assertion, “ the day of the Lord is present.” Believing, however, that the statement has been innocently attributed to him, and feeling sure that a passing allusion to his original oral instruction concerning times and seasons will make plain the absurdity of the assertion, and at the same time quiet the agitation of the faint-hearted, he answers the request in words not of warning but of encouragement (cf. also vv. 13 f.). “ Do not be discouraged,” he says in effect, “ for the day of the Lord, though not far distant, will not be actually present until first of all the Anomos comes; and again be not discouraged, for the advent of the Anomos is intended not for you believers, but solely for the unbelievers, and destruction sudden and definitive is in store both for him and for them.”

The exhortation falls roughly into four parts (1) the object of the exhortation (vv. 1-2); (2) the reason why the day of the Lord is not present (vv. 3-8a); (3) the triumph of the good over the evil in the destruction of the Anomos (v. 8b. c); and (4) the spiritual significance of the Parousia of the Anomos (vv. 9-12). There is no formal counterpart in I either of the exhortation or of the preceding prayer (1:11-12); furthermore the material of 2:1-12 like that of 1:5-12 is, compared with I, almost wholly new.

1Now brothers, in reference to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to meet him, we ask you 2not to be readily unsettled in your mind or to be nervously wrought up by the statement made by Spirit, orally, or by letter, as if we had made it, that the day of the Lord is present.

3Let no one deceive you in any way whatever: for (the day of the Lord will not be present) unless first of all there comes the apostasy and there be revealed the man of lawlessness, the son of perdition, 4the one who opposes and exalts himself against every one called God or an object of worship so that he sits (or, attempts to sit) in the temple of God and proclaims (or, attempts to proclaim) that he himself is really God. 5You remember, do you not, that when I was yet with you, I used to tell you these things? 6And as to the present time, you know the spirit or power that detains him (or, is holding sway), in order that he (the lawless one) may be revealed in his appointed time. 7For, the secret of lawlessness has already been set in operation; only (the apostasy will not come and the Anomos will not be revealed) until the person who now detains him (or, is now holding sway) is put out of the way. 8And then will be revealed the Anomos whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of his mouth and will destroy with the manifestation of his coming.

9Whose coming, according to the energy of Satan, attended by all power and signs and wonders inspired by falsehood 10and by all deceit inspired by unrighteousness, is for those destined to destruction; doomed because they had not welcomed the love for the truth unto their salvation. 11And so for this reason, it is God that sends them an energy of delusion that they may believe the falsehood; 12that (finally) all may be judged who have not believed the truth but have consented to that unrighteousness.

1-2. First stating the theme as given him in their letter, “ concerning the advent and the assembling to meet him” (v. 1), Paul exhorts the readers not to let their minds become easily unsettled, and not to be nervously wrought up by the assertion, however conveyed and by whatever means attributed to him, that the day of the Lord is actually present (v. 2).

1. ἐρωτῶμενδὲὐμᾶςἀδελφοι . In this phrase (which = I 5:12), δε marks a transition from the thanksgiving and prayer (1:3-12) to a new epistolary section, the exhortation (vv. 1-12). But the same people are chiefly in mind here as in 1:3-12, the faint-hearted, though the converts as a whole are addressed, and that too affectionately, “ brothers” (1:3).

ὑπὲρτῆςπαρουσίαςκτλ . The prepositional phrase, introduced by ὑπέ = περι (see 1:4 and I 3:2, 5:10), announces the two closely related subjects about which the readers of I had solicited information, “ the coming of our Lord Jesus” and “ our assembling unto him.” The addition of ἐπ ʼ αὐτό intimates that not only the well-known muster of the saints (cf. Mark 13:27 = Matthew 24:31) that precedes the rapture (I 4:17) is meant, but also the sequel of the rapture (σὺνκυριῳεἶνα , I 4:17).

Since ἐρωτά is rare in Paul (see on I 4:1), it is not strange that ἐρωτάωὑπέ is unique in Paul; he uses, however, παρακαλεῖνὑπέ (see on I 3:2) as well as παρακαλοῦμενδὲὑμᾶςἀδελφοι (I 4:10, 5:14; cf. Romans 15:30, Romans 15:16:17, 1 Corinthians 1:10, 1 Corinthians 16:15); cf. further οὐθέλομενἀγνοεῖνπερι (I 4:13, 1 Corinthians 12:1, and 2 Corinthians 1:8 (א AC, et al.) where BKL have ὑπέ ). On the exact phrase ἡπαρουσίακτλ cf. I 5:23.— ἐπισυναγωγη (elsewhere in Gk. Bib. only 2 Mal 2:7, Hebrews 10:25; cf. Deiss.

Light, 101 ff.) refers to the constant hope of the Jews that their scattered brethren would be gathered together in Palestine (Isaiah 27:13, Sir. 36:13, 2 Mac. 2:18; cf. the ἐπισυνάγει under the leadership of the Messiah in Ps. Sol. 17:28. 50), a hope which passed over, with some changes, into Christian apocalyptic; see for details Schü rer, II, 626 ff.; Bousset, Relig2 271 ff.; and Volz. Eschat. 309 ff. Swete (on Mark 13:27,) observes that ἐπισυναγωγη in Hebrews 10:25 “ is suggestively used for the ordinary gatherings of the church, which are anticipations of the great assembling at the Lord’ s return.” On ἐπι for πρό , here due to the substantive, cf. Galatians 4:9 and especially Habakkuk 2:5 .

2. εἰςτὸμὴταχέωςκτλ . The object of ἐρωτῶμε is specified by two infinitives, one aorist σαλευθῆνα which looks at the action without reference to its progress or completion; the other present, θροεῖσθα which defines the action as going on; hence, “ we urge you not to be easily unsettled and not to be in a constant state of nervous excitement.” The phrase σαλευθῆναιἀπὸτοῦνοό , which is not found elsewhere in the Gk. Bib., suggests that the readers were driven from their sober sense like a ship from its moorings. The word νοῦ , frequent in Paul (cf. Rom. 1:45), means here not “ opinion” (Grot.) but, as elsewhere in the N. T., “ mind,” the particular reference being not so much to the organ of thought as to the state of reasonableness, “ their ordinary, sober, and normal state of mind” (Ell.). Thus driven from their mind, they fell into a state of alarm, agitation, nervous excitement which, as the present tense shows, was continuous.

On the analogy of παρακαλεῖνεἰςτο (I 2:12) or τὸμη (I 3:3) and δεῖσθαιεἰςτο (I 3:10) or τὸμη (2 Corinthians 10:2), ἐρωτῶμενεἰςτὸμη is natural, and that too as an object clause (BMT 412). Parallel to this negative exhortation is the independent negative prohibition μήτιςκτλ (v. 3). Wohl., however, takes εἰςτὸμη as final and finds the content of the exhortation in μήτιςκτλ a construction which is smoother and less Pauline.— σαλεύει , only here in Paul but common elsewhere in Gk. Bib., is used literally “ of the motion produced by winds, storms, waves,” etc. (Thayer; cf. Psalms 17:8 and σάλο Luke 21:25), and figuratively of disturbance in general (Ps. 9:27, Psalms 9:12:5; cf. especially Acts 17:13 of the Jews in Berœ a). It is sometimes parallel to (Job 9:6, Nahum 1:5, Habakkuk 2:16) or a variant of (Isaiah 33:20, 1Mac. 9:13) σείει ; and it is construed with ἀπο in the sense of “ at” (Psalms 32:8), “ by” (1 Mac. 9:13 (A) Ps.

Sol. 15:6), or as here “ from” (cf. 1:9); Vulg. has a vestro sensu (cf. 4 Reg. 21:8 = 2 Chronicles 33:8 Dan. (Th.) 4:11). DE add ὑμῶ after νοῦ ; cf. 1 Corinthians 14:14.— θροεῖσθα , indicating a state of alarm (cf. θροῦ Sap. 1:10, 1 Mac. 9:39), occurs elsewhere in Gk. Bib. only Son 5:4, and Mark 13:37 = Matthew 24:6, an apocalyptic word of the Lord which, so some surmise (Wohl., Mill., Dob.), Paul has here in mind. On θροεῖσθα , see Kennedy, Sources, 126, and Wrede, 48 f.— On μη … μηδε cf. Romans 14:21; EKLP, et al., have μήτ due probably to the following sequence where D has μηδέ , μηδέ , μήτ , and F μηδέ , μήτ , μηδε Though μήτ is common in Gk. Bib. (3 Reg. 3:26, Hosea 4:4, etc.), it occurs only here in Paul; see Bl 77:10.

διὰπνεύματοςκτλ . The instrument or means by which the σαλευαθῆνα and θροεῖσθα are effected is specified in three parallel clauses standing together in negative correlation , διὰπνεύματος , διὰλόγο and δι ʼ ἐπιστολῆ In the light of I 5:19, πνεῦμ (anarthrous as often in Paul) refers clearly to the operation of the Spirit in the charisma of prophecy; λόγο , in the light of ἐπιστολῆ , means probably an oral as contrasted with an epistolary utterance (v. 15, Acts 15:27); and ἐπιστολη is probably an allusion not to a forged or an anonymous letter, but to I.

Chrys. apparently understands πνεῦμ either of the spirit of prophecy or of false prophets who deceive by persuasive words (διὰλόγο ; cf. Ephr.). λόγο is sometimes understood of the “ reckoning” of times and seasons, or of a real or falsified λόγοςκυρίο (see Lü n.); but it is usually explained as an oral utterance inspired (=διδαχη 1 Corinthians 14:6. 1 Corinthians 14:26; cf. λόγοςσοφία and γνώσεω 1 Corinthians 12:8) or uninspired.

ὡςδι ʼ ἡμῶ . “ As if said by us.” Since this clause is separated from the construction with the triple μήτ , it is not to be construed with the infinitives σαλευθῆνα and θροεῖσθα ; and since the three preceding phrases with δια are closely united in negative correlation, ὡςδι ʼ ἡμῶ is to be connected not with ἐπιστολῆ alone, not with both ἐπιστολῆ and λόγο , but with all three prepositional phrases. The reference is thus not to the unsettlement and agitation as such, and not to the instruments of the same, but to the unsettling and agitating cause conveyed by these instruments, the statement, namely, “ that the day of the Lord is present.” While it is possible that some of the converts, perhaps the idle brethren, had themselves said in the Spirit, or in an address, that the day had actually dawned, and had supported their assertion by a reference to an anonymous letter attributed innocently to Paul, it is probable, in view of the unity of the negative correlation with the triple μήτ , that an actual utterance of Paul in the Spirit, or in an address, or in his first epistle (cf. Jerome, Hammond, Kern and Dob.) had been misconstrued to imply that Paul himself had said that “ the day of the Lord is present,” thus creating the unsettlement and nervous excitement.

That the three instruments specified do not exhaust the number of actual instruments about which Paul was informed, or of possible instruments which he thinks may have been employed, is a natural inference from v. 3: “ let no one deceive you in any way,” the ways mentioned or other possible ways. In writing ὡςδι ʼ ἡμῶ , Paul does not deny that he has used such instruments, or that he has expressed himself in reference to times and seasons; he disclaims simply all responsibility for the statement: “ the day of the Lord is present.” The context alone determines whether or not ὡ (1 Corinthians 4:18, 1 Corinthians 4:7:25, 1 Corinthians 4:9:26, 2 Corinthians 5:20, etc.) indicates an erroneous opinion.

That ὡςδι ʼ ἡμῶ is to be joined with all three substantives is regarded as probable by Erasmus, Barnes, Lft., Mill. ,Dob., Harnack, Dibelius, et al. (1) Many scholars, however (from Tertullian to Moff.), restrict the phrase to ἐπιστολῆ , and interpret it as meaning ὡςδι ʼ ἡμῶνγεγραμμένη (Thayer, 681), or ὡςἡμῶνγεγραφότωναὐτή . According to this construction, some of the converts either (a) ἐνπνεύματ (or ex falsis visionibus quas ostendunt vobis, Ephr.), or (b) in an oral address (Chrys.; cf. Ephr. ex commentitiis sophismati vesbis quae dicunt vobis) or in the charisma of διδαχη , or (c) in a forged letter (Chrys., Theodoret, Ell. and many others; cf. Ephr. per falsas epistolas minime a vobis scriptas tamquam per nos missas) asserted that the day is present. But while some of the converts might innocently make such an assertion in the Spirit or in an address, inspired or not, they could not innocently forge a letter. And if they had done so, Paul would scarcely have written as he now writes.

Hence, many commentators content themselves with the supposition that an anonymous letter had been attributed, innocently or wilfully, to Paul; or that Paul suspected that a letter had been forged. (2) Still other scholars (Theodoret, Grot., De W., Lü n., Lillie, Ell., Schmiedel, Vincent, et al.), influenced doubtless by v. 15, join ὡςδι ʼ ἡμῶ with both λόγο and ἐπιστολῆ According to this view, πνεῦμ is understood of an utterance of some of the converts in the Spirit, λόγο of a pretended oral word of Paul, and ἐπιστολη of an anonymous or a forged letter. (3) A more recent theory (Dods, Askwith in his Introd. to Thess. Epistles, 1902, 92 ff., and Wohl.) connects ὡςδι ʼ ἡμῶ closely with the infinitives, and explains that Paul is here disclaiming not the Spirit, or word, or letter, but simply the “ responsibility for the disturbance which has arisen” ; and that ὡςδι ʼ ἡμῶ means “ as if such disturbance came through us.” This attractive suggestion seems to overlook the evident detachment of ὠςδι ʼ ἡμῶ from the negative correlation with the triple μὴτ (cf. Dibelius).

ὡςὅτιἐνέστηκενκτλ . The actual statement of some of the converts, based on a misconstruction of Paul’ s utterance by Spirit, by word, or by his first epistle, is now given: “ that the day of the Lord is present.” That this statement is not a word of Paul has already been indicated by ὡςδι ʼ ἡμῶ The second ὠ may be separated from ὅτ , in which case the judgment of the first ὡ is reiterated, “ as if we said that” ; or ὡςὅτ may be equivalent to a simple ὅτ “ that,” in which case the utterance is quoted without further qualification: “ to wit that the day of the Lord is present” (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:19). ἐνέστηκε means not “ is coming” (ἔρχετα I 5:2), not “ is at hand” (ἤγγικε Romans 13:12), not “ is near” (ἐγγύςἐστι Philippians 4:5), but “ has come,” “ is on hand,” “ is present.” The period indicated by ἠμέρ has dawned and the Lord is expected from heaven at any moment. Paul of course had not expressed any such opinion; and it is with a trace of impatience that, after noting what first must come, he asks: “ Do you not remember,” etc. (v. 5). It is this misleading assertion that accounts both for the increased discouragement of the faint-hearted to encourage whom Paul writes 1:3-2:17, and for the increased meddlesomeness of the idle brethren to warn whom Paul writes 3:1-18.

ὡςὅτ occurs elsewhere in Gk. Bib. 2 Corinthians 5:19, 2 Corinthians 5:11:21, 2 Corinthians 5:2 Reg. 18:18 Esther 4:14. ; for other examples, mostly late (since recent editors no longer read ὠςὅτ in Xen. Hellen. III, 2:14; Dion Hal. Antiq. 9:14; Josephus, Apion, I, 58), see Wetstein on 2 Corinthians 5:19, 2 Corinthians 11:21. In late Gk. ὡςὅτ = ὅτ = “ that” (Sophocles, Lex. sub voc.). Moulton (I, 212), however, urges that this usage appears “ in the vernacular at a rather late stage” and so takes ὡςὅτ = quasi with most interpreters. But while the sense “ as if,” “ on the ground that” would fit most of the instances in Gk.

Bib., it does not fit 2 Corinthians 5:19. Since ὡςὅτ cannot mean “ because,” and since the reading ὅτ (Baljon, Schmiedel) for ὡςὅτ in 2 Corinthians 5:19 is pure conjecture, there remains only the sense “ to wit that” (so Dob. here, and Bernard, EGT on 2 Corinthians 5:19, 2 Corinthians 11:21).— ἐνίστημ is used in N. T., apart from 2 Timothy 3:1, Hebrews 9:9, only by Paul; in Romans 8:38, 1 Corinthians 3:22, ἐνεστώ is contrasted with μέλλω “ The verb is very common in the papyri and inscriptions with reference to the current year” . Lillie cites Josephus, Ant. XVI, 6:2 οὐμόνονἐντῷἐνεστῶτικαιρῷἀλλὰκαὶἐντῷπρογεγενημέν “ where the former reference equally with the latter excludes all idea of future time.” That ἐνέστηκε = “ is present” is recognised by many commentators (e. g.

Cumenius, Kern (jetz eben vorhanden), Riggenbach, Alford, Ell., Lillie, Find., Wohl., Mill.). Many other interpreters, however, perhaps “ from the supposed necessity of the case rather than from any grammatical compulsion” (Lillie), are inclined to explain “ is present” to mean “ is at hand.” Grot. notes that it is “ common to announce as present what is obviously just at hand” and interprets, nempe hoc anno; Bengel defines by propinquitas; Schmiedel and Dob., on the assumption that the Thess. could not have meant “ is present,” understand ένέστηκε of the future which is almost present.

Against all such restrictions, see Lillie’ s exhaustive note in defence of the translation “ is present.” — On ἡἡμέρατοῦκυρίο (1 Corinthians 5:5), see I 5:2; D omits η and GFP omit του ; K, et al., read Χριστου for κυρίο

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

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

On the rare prohibitory subj. in the third person (1 Corinthians 16:11), see BMT 166; in view of 1 Corinthians 16:11, 2 Corinthians 11:16, it is unnecessary to construe μήτι with ἐρωτῶμε , and to take εἰςτὸμη (v. 2) as indicating purpose. The clause with μήτι is quite independent; it is not probably parenthetical, although ὅτικτλ may be connected directly with vv. 1-2.— As θροεῖσθα (v. 2) suggests the μὴθροεῖσθ of Mark 13:7 = Matthew 24:6, so ἐξαπατής recalls the βλέπετεμήτιςὑμᾶςπλανήσῃ of Mark 13:5 = Matthew 24:4. ἐξαπατά , frequent in Lxx, is in the N. T. used chiefly by Paul.— On κατὰμηδένατρόπο , “ evidently a current phrase” (Mill.), which strengthens μήτι , cf. 3 Mac. 4:13, Malachi 4:4 Mac. 4:24, 10:7; also κατὰπάντατρόπο Romans 3:2. Though κατα (v. 9, 1:12, 3:6) is common in Paul, it does not appear in I.

ἡἀποστασί . The article suggests that “ the apostasy” or “ the religious revolt” is something well known to the readers; in fact, instruction upon this and cognate points had already been given orally by Paul (vv. 5 ff., I 5:1). The term itself is at least as old as the time of Antiochus Epiphanes who was “ enforcing the apostasy” (1 Mal 2:15), that is, of Judaism to Hellenism; thereafter, as one of the fearful signs of the end (cf. Eth. En. 91:7), it became a fixed element in apocalyptic tradition (cf. Jub. 23:14 ff. 4 Ezra 5:1 ff.

Matthew 24:10 ff.). Paul, however, is probably thinking not of the apostasy of Jews from Moses, or of the Gentiles from the law in their hearts, or even of an apostasy of Christians from their Lord (for Paul expects not only the Thessalonians (I 5:9, II 2:13 ff.) but all believers (1 Corinthians 3:15) to be saved), but of the apostasy of the non-Christians as a whole, of the sons of disobedience in whom the prince of the power of the air, the evil spirit, is now operating (cf. Ephesians 2:2). This apostasy or religious revolt is not to be identified with “ the mystery of lawlessness” (v. 7), for that mystery, already set in operation by Satan, precedes the apostasy and prepares the way for it; it is therefore something future, sudden, and final, like the revelation of the Anomos with which apparently it is associated essentially and chronologically. Whether this definitive religious revolt on earth synchronises with the revolt of Satan (Revelation 12:7 ff.) in heaven, Paul does not say.

On the term, see Bousset, Antichrist, 76 ff., and Volz. Eschat. 179. That the revolt is not political, whether of all peoples (Iren. V, 25:2) or of Jews (Clericus, et al.) from Rome, and not both political and religious (see Poole, ad loc., and Wohl.), but solely religious, is probable both from the fact that elsewhere in the Gk. Bib. ἀποστασί is used of religious apostasy (Joshua 22:22 (B) 3 Reg. 20:13 (A) 2 Chronicles 29:19, 2 Chronicles 33:19 (A) Jeremiah 2:19, Jeremiah 2:1 Malachi 2:15, Acts 21:21), and from the fact that in vv. 3-12, as elsewhere in the apocalyptic utterances of Paul, there is no evident reference to political situations. (It is not evident that τὸκατέχο and ὁκατέχωνἄρτ in vv. 6-7 refer to Rome). Furthermore, it is unlikely (1) that heresy is in mind, since “ the doomed” here (v. 10) and elsewhere in Paul are outside the Christian group, “ the saved” (Hammond and others (see Poole) find the prophecy fulfilled (cf. 1 Timothy 4:1 ff.), while Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. 15:9) sees the fulfilment in the heresies of his own day); or (2) that ἡἀποστασί = ὁἀποστάτη (cf.

Iren. V, 25 apostata, and Augustine, de civ. dei, 20:21, refuga), the abstract for the concrete (so Chrys. and others); or (3) that Belial is meant, on the ground that this word is rendered once in Lxx by ἀποστασί (3 Reg. 20:13 A) and several times in the later Aquila (e. g. Deuteronomy 15:9, Judges 19:22, Judges 19:1 Reg. 2:12, 10:27, 25:17, Ps. 16:27, Nahum 1:11).— Whether πρῶτο (without a following ἔπειτ I 4:17 or δεύτερο 1 Corinthians 12:28) belongs to both ἔλθῃ and ἀποκαλυφθῇ , indicating that the coming and revelation are contemporaneous,— “ the day will not be present until, first of all, these two things happen together” (Schmiedel, Dob.); or whether και at is consecutive (Ell., Find., Mill.), pointing out the result of the coming, is uncertain (cf. Mt.). In any case, the two things are not identical, although they are apparently associated both essentially and chronologically.

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

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

ὁἄνθρωποςτῆςἀνομία = ὁἄνομο (v. 8), for ἄνθρωποςἀνομία like υἱόςἀνομία (Ps. 88:23) is a Hebraism, designating a person as belonging to a lawless class or condition. This phrase, like ὁυἱὸς , τῆςἀπωλείας , ὁἀντικείμενοςκαὶὑπεραιρόμενοςκτλ ., and ὁἄνομος is not a proper name but a characterisation of a person, and that too a definite person, as the article in each of the four phrases makes plain. It is evident that the figure in question is not Satan but a man, a unique man, however, in whom Satan dwells and operates. Chrys. observes: “ Who is this person? Satan? Not at all; but ἄνθρωπόςτιςπᾶσαναὐτοῦδεχόμενοςτὴνἐνέργειαν ” So complete is the control of Satan over his peculiar instrument that it is natural to hold with Th. Mops. that the parallel between the incarnation of Christ and the indwelling of Satan in the Anomos is all but complete.

While ἄνθρωποθεου is quite frequent in the Lxx (cf. also 1 Timothy 6:11, 2 Timothy 3:17), ἄνθρωπο with an abstract gen. (Sir. 20:26, 31:25, Luke 2:14) is less frequent than ἀνή For the equivalence of ἄνθρωπος , ἀνή , and υἱό in this construction, cf. ἄνθρωτοςαἱμάτω (Sir. 31:25) with ἁνὴραἱμάτω (2 Reg. 16:7 f. and often in Psalms; see Briggs, ICC on Psalms 5:7); and cf. υἱὸςθανάτω (1 Reg. 20:31, 2 Reg. 12:5) with ἀνὴρθανάτο (3 Reg. 2:26).— Instead of ἀνομία (Bא , Tert. et al.), the majority of uncials (, et al.) read ἁμαρτία In the Lxx, A frequently reads ἁμαρτί where B reads ἀνομί (e. g. Exodus 34:7, Isaiah 53:12, Ezekiel 16:51, Ezekiel 29:16); occasionally A has ἀνομί where B (Ezekiel 36:19) or א (Ps. 108:14) has ἁμαρτί As these variants and the parallelism in Job 7:21, Psalms 31:5, Isaiah 53:5 show, the two words are similar in meaning, ἁμαρτί being the more general (cf. 1 John 3:4). Though common in Lxx, both ἀνομί (Romans 4:7, Romans 4:6:19, 2 Corinthians 6:14) and ἄνομο (1 Corinthians 9:21) are rare in Paul. Unless Bא revised in the light of vv. 7-8 (Weiss), or substituted ἀνομία for ἁμαρτία in the light of an exegesis which understood “ the man of sin” to be Belial, the more specific ἀνομία is the preferable reading.— It is tempting to identify the figure described in the four phrases with Belial (Beliar), though we cannot be sure (cf. Dob. Dibelius) that Paul would assent to this identification.

This identification seems probable to Bousset (Antichrist, 1895, 99) and “ all but certain” to Charles (Ascension of Isaiah, 1900, lxii; cf. also Mill. and Moff.). The origin and meaning of the word Belial are alike uncertain; Moore (ICC on Judges 19:22) observes: “ The oldest etymology of the word is found in Sanhedrin, 111 f. … ‘ men who have thrown off the yoke of Heaven from their necks’ .

So also Jerome in a gloss in his translation of Jdg 19:22: filii Belial, id est absque iugo” ; but the word is “ without analogy in the language” (ibid.); see further, Cheyne in EB 525 ff. In the Hebrew O.T. Belial is not certainly a proper name, though in Psalms 18:5 = 2 Samuel 22:5 “ torrents of Belial” (Briggs) is parallel to “ cords of sheol” and “ snares of Death.” In the Lxx ב ל י ע ל is rendered by υἱοὶβελιά (Judges 20:13 A), ἀποστασί (3 Reg. 20:13 A so frequently in the later Aquila), παράνομο ,ἀνόμημ (Deuteronomy 15:9), ἀνομι , etc.; see Moore, loc. cit. In the Test. xii (see Charles on Reub. 2:1), Jub. , and Asc. Isa. (see Charles on 1:8), Belial or Beliar is definitely a Satan or the Satan (cf 2 Corinthians 6:15).

Charles (Asc. Isa lxi ff.) not only identifies “ the man of lawlessness” with Belial but elaborates an hypothesis to account for the Antichrist as he appears in Paul and in later N. T. literature. The Anomos of Paul, a god-opposing man, a human sovereign armed with miraculous power, is the resultant of a fusion of two separate and originally independent traditions, that of the Antichrist and that of Beliar. The Antichrist is not, as Bousset supposes, originally the incarnate devil but a godopposing being of human origin. The first historical person to be identified with Antichrist is Antiochus Epiphanes; and the language applied to him “ recalls, though it may be unconsciously, the old Babylonian saga of the Dragon’ s assault on the gods of heaven.” Beliar, on the other hand, is a purely Satanic being. “ It is through the Beliar constituent of the developed Antichrist myth that the old Dragon saga from Babylon gained an entrance into the eschatologies of Judaism and Christianity.” This fusion of Antichrist with Beliar “ appears to have been effected on Christian soil before 50 a.d.,” and is attested by 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12.

The subsequent history of Antichrist was influenced by the incoming of the Neronic myths; for example, Rev. xiii betrays the fusion of the myth of Antichrist with that of Nero Redivivus; Sib. Orac. III, 63-74, reflects the incarnation of Beliar as Antichrist in Nero still conceived as living; and Asc. Isaiah 4:2-4 (88-100 a.d.; Harnack and Bousset put the passage much later) suggests the incarnation of Beliar as Antichrist in the form of the dead Nero: “ Beliar … will descend from his firmament in the likeness of a man, a lawless king,” etc.

ὁυἱὸςτῆςἀπωλεία = ὁἀπολλύμεονο , a Hebraism indicating the one who belongs to the class destined to destruction (v. 10 of οἱἀπολλύμενο as opposed to the class destined to salvation The same description is applied to Judas Iscariot in John 17:12.

Abaddon is in Lxx rendered by ἀπώλει , and appears in parallelism with ᾅδη (Job 26:6, Proverbs 15:11), θάνατο (Job 28:22) and τόφο ; cf. ἀνομί (Belial) with θάνατο and ᾅδη in Psalms 17:5. Bousset (Antichrist, 99) calls attention to the angel of the abyss in Revelation 9:11 whose name is Ἀβαδδώ in Hebrew and Ἀπολλύω in Greek. The abyss is apparently “ the abode of the ministers of torment from which they go forth to do hurt” (Taylor in ERE. I, 54). It is not, however, probable that ὁυἱὸςτῆςἀπωλεία refers to the demonic angel of the abyss, for (1) Paul’ s usage of ἀπώλει is against it (Romans 9:22, Philippians 1:28, Philippians 1:3:19; cf. Isaiah 57:4 τέκναἀπωλείας , σπέρμαἄνομο ; Proverbs 24:22a υἱὸςἀπωλεία ; Jub. 10:3 Apoc. Pet. 1:2); and (2) in Revelation 17:8, the beast that ascends from the abyss is to go off ultimately εἰςἀπώλεια

4. ὁἀντικείμενοςκτλ . 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.): καὶὑψωθήσεταιὁβασιλεὺςκαὶμεγαλυνθήσεταιἐπὶπάνταθεόν , καὶλαλήσειὑπέρογκ (i. e. ἐπὶτὸνθεὸντῶνθεῶ , Lxx) … καὶἐπὶπᾶνθεὸνοὐσυνήσει , ὅτιἐπὶπάνταςμεγαλυνθήσετα . In alluding to this passage and in quoting ἐπὶπάνταθεό , 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., Lü n., Ell.) that the former is not a substantive referring to Satan (1 Timothy 5:14 1 Timothy 5:1 Clem. 51:1) or ὁδιάβολο who stands at the right hand of Joshua in Zechariah 3:1 τοῦἀντικεῖσθαιαὐτῷ — Apart from Paul (2 Corinthians 12:7) ὑπεραίρεσθα is found in Gk. Bib. Psalms 37:4, Psalms 71:16, Proverbs 31:29, 2 Chronicles 32:23, Sir. 48:13, 2 Mac. 5:23; the construction with ἐπι (only here in Gk. Bib.; cf. ὑπέ in Psalms 71:16 and the dat. in 2 Mac. 5:23) is due, perhaps, to the allusion in ἐπὶπάνταθεό — Since ἀντικεῖσθα (common in Gk. Bib.; cf. the substantive participle in Isaiah 66:6, 1 Corinthians 16:9, Philippians 1:28) is regularly construed with the dative, a zeugma is here to be assumed, unless the possibility of ἀντικεῖσθαιἐπι = “ against” be admitted (Schmiedel, Dob.).— The rare σέβασμ (Acts 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 τάγλυπτα ) indicates not a divinity (numen) but any sacred object of worship.— On λεγόμενο , cf. 1 Corinthians 8:5, Colossians 4:11, Ephesians 2:11.— The omission by א * of καὶὑπεραιρόμενο is not significant.

ὥστεαὐτὸνκαθισαικτλ . The session in the sanctuary of God is tantamount to the assumption of divine honours, “ proclaiming that he himself is really God.” The attempt to sit in the sanctuary of God is made quite in the spirit of the king of Babylon (Isaiah 14:13 ff.) and the prince of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:2); but whether the attempt is successful or not is not indicated certainly by ὥστ with the infinitive.

τὸνναὸντοῦθεσυ . 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 1 Corinthians 3:16 ff. 1 Corinthians 3:6:19, 2 Corinthians 6:16), in Jerusalem (Psalms 5:8, Psalms 78:1, Psalms 137:2), “ in the high mountains toward the north” (Isaiah 14:13), “ in the heart of the sea” (Ezekiel 28:2), or in the holy heavenly temple where God sits enthroned; cf. Psalms 10:4 κύριοςἐνναῷἁγίῳαὐτοῦ , κύριοςἐνοὐρανῷὁθρόνοςαὐτου (see Briggs, ad loc., and cf. Isaiah 66:1, Micah 1:2, Habakkuk 2:20, Psalms 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 Revelation 13:6 βλασφημῆσαιτὴνσκήνη 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 (Daniel 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, Daniel 9:27, Daniel 9:11:31, Daniel 9:12:11; Mark 13:14, Matthew 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, schö pfung und Chaos, 221 ff.; Cheyne in EB 1131 ff.; Mill. 163 f.; and Dob. or Dibelius ad loc.— καθίζει is intransitive; on εἰ (Exodus 16:29, Exodus 16:1 Reg. 5:11, 2 Reg. 15:25 (A) Lamentations 2:10), see Bl 39:3.

The ναὸςτοῦθεου (1 Es. 5:52, Judith 5:18 Dan. (Th.) 5:3, Matthew 26:61, etc.; or κυριο Luke 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 (1 Corinthians 4:9) may mean “ exhibit,” “ prove” (Acts 25:7), “ appoint” (Acts 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 denotes either purpose (Acts 3:26) or attendant circumstance (BMT 449). Before καθίσα , KL, et al., put ὡςθεό

5. οὐμνημονεύετεκτλ . With an unfinished sentence behind him (vv. 3-4), Paul abruptly reminds his readers that they have already been instructed in the matter of the times and seasons, particularly the signs which must precede the Parousia of Christ (ταῦτ referring strictly to vv. 3-4). With a trace of impatience it may be (contrast μνημονεύετ in I 2:9) he asks: “ Do you not remember that when I was yet with you, I was repeatedly telling you these things?”

Paul is wont to appeal not only to the knowledge of his readers (cf. I 2:1, etc.), but also, and specifically, as Chrys. has seen, to his previous oral communications (3:10, I 3:4).— On πρὸςὑμᾶςεἶνα , cf. 3:10, I 3:4.— Even without πολλάκι (Philippians 3:18), Ἔλεγο may denote customary or repeated action,— On the first person sing. without ἐγω , cf. 3:17; with ἐγω I 2:18, 3:5. — For ἔτιὤ , DE have ἔτιἐμοῦὄντο ; so also Ambst (Souter). On the view that ἔτ (a word found in the Major Epistles and Philippians 1:9; cf. Luke 24:6, Luke 24:44) excludes a reference to Paul’ s visit and indicates a reference to Timothy’ s visit, and that therefore Timothy is here proclaiming himself that he is really the author of II (Spitta), see Mill. xc.

6-8a. In these verses, Paul is evidently explaining the delay of “ the apostasy” and of the revelation or Parousia of the Anomos, and consequently the reason why the day of the Lord is not yet present. As the readers are not receiving new information, it is sufficient for Paul merely to allude to what they know already. Unfortunately, the allusions are so fragmentary and cryptic that it is at present impossible to determine precisely what Paul means. The conspicuous difficulty lies in the interpretation of To τὸκατέχο and ὁκατέχεωἄρτ (v. infra). Since the reference is unknown, it is impossible to determine whether κατέχει is to be translated “ withhold” or “ detain,” an object αὐτό being supplied; or, “ hold sway” “ rule” , κατέχει being intransitive.

It is worth noting, however, that in vv. 6-12 there is nothing obviously political. The thought runs in the sphere of the supramundane; the categories are concrete and realistic; and the interest, as in apocalyptic at its best, is religious and moral, the assertion of faith that the universe is moral, the justification of the ways of God to men.

Though the Devil controls his own, his movements are directed by the purpose of God. Indeed, as vv. 9-12 make clear, God first of all endeavours through his Spirit to stir up within men the love for his truth unto their salvation. When they refuse to welcome the heavenly visitor, then God as judge prepares them for the consequences of their refusal. It is thus God himself who sends an “ operation unto delusion” into the souls of those who have destroyed themselves by refusing to welcome the love for the truth unto their salvation. Since then there is no obvious reference in vv. 6-12 to a political power, it is antecedently probable that τὸκατέχο and ὁκατέχωνἄρτ refer not to the Roman Empire and emperor as a restraining principle or person, but to a supernatural spirit or person conceived either as an unknown being who keeps the Anomos in detention as the Dragon of the saga is kept (cf. Dibelius), or as a well-known spirit or person, possibly the Devil himself who is in control of the forces of evil, the prince of the power of the air that operates in the sons of disobedience (cf. Schaefer).

The Meaning of τὸκατέχο and ὁκατέχωνἄρτ

The sphere of conjectural interpretations of τὸκατέχο and ὁκατέχωνἄρτ seems to be limited by the following probabilities: (1) The presence of a ἄρτ with ὁκατέχω indicates that ὁκατέχω (and similarly τὸκατέχο , notwithstanding the fact that we do not have τὸνῦνκατέχο or τὸκατέχοννῦ ) is not a proper name but a description of a definite and well-known figure whose activity in κατέχει is in progress at the time of Paul; (2) the ἄρτ is “ now” to Paul; the τότ is of his expectation, and is not a far-distant “ then” ; (3) κατέχει has the same meaning in both participial phrases (so Boh “ that which layeth hold” (Horner) and Syr.), though the Vulg (Th. Mops., Ambst) renders the former quid detineat and the latter qui tenet nunc. Within the limits of these probabilities, two types of opinion may be briefly sketched, the one based on the “ contemporary-historical,” the other on the “ traditional-historical” method of interpretation.

I. The usual conjecture finds a reference in both τὸκατέχο and ὁκατέχωνἄρτ to the Roman Empire. The older expositors (e. g. Tert. de resur. 24, and Chrys.) stretch the limits of τότ and include in ἄρτ both their own and Paul’ s present. Modern writers, following the example of Wetstein (who thinks of Nero), Whitby (who thinks of Claudius), and Hitzig (who unlocks the pun qui claudit), are inclined to adhere firmly to the contemporary reference. Bacon (Introd. 77; cf.

Spitta, Zur Geschichte und Litteratur, 1893, I, 1146 ff. and Dob. ad loc.) states the prevailing conjecture cogently: “ We need not assume with Hitzig a play upon the name Claudius, nor deny that “ the restrainer” may well be a primeval element of the Antichrist legend; but in the present application of the word, first neuter, then masculine, the reference is certainly to Paul’ s unfailing refuge against Jewish malice and persecution, the usually incorruptible Roman magistracy (Romans 13:1-6) which at this very period was signally befriending him (Acts 18:12-17), The difficulty with this generally accepted interpretation is (1) that while the fall of Rome is one of the signs of the Messianic Period (4 Ezra 5:3 Apoc. Bar. 39:7; cf. for the rabbinical literature Klausner, Die Messianischen Vorstellungen, etc. 1904, 39 ff. and Rabinsohn, Le Mcssianisme, etc. 1907, 63 ff.), the notion of Rome as a restrainer does not appear in Jewish apocalyptic literature (cf.

Gunkel, Schö pfung, etc. 223). To obviate this objection, it is assumed that the trait is due to Paul or to contemporary Christianity (cf. Dob.). (2) A second difficulty is the fact that Paul the Roman citizen, although he does not identify the Roman Empire or emperor with the Antichrist (contrast Rev.), is compelled with grim apocalyptic determinism to put the Roman emperor, if not also the empire, ἐκμέσο when once he, if not also it, has performed his service as restrainer. Augustine, in his interesting review of conjectural explanations (de civ. dei, xx, 19), notes the opinion of some that Paul “ was unwilling to use language more explicit lest he should incur the calumnious charge of wishing ill to the empire which it was hoped would be eternal,” and concedes that “ it is not absurd to believe” that Paul does thus refer to the empire as if it were said: “ Only he who now reigneth, let him reign until he is taken out of the way.” But while the conjecture is not absurd, it creates the only political reference not simply in this passage but in Paul’ s apocalyptic utterances as a whole. A theory which is not open to this objection would be distinctly preferable.

II. Passing by other opinions, as, for example, that the Holy Spirit is meant (noted by Chrys.), or a friendly supernatural being (Hofmann thinks of the angel prince of Daniel), or Elijah (Ewald, who notes Matthew 17:11, Revelation 11:3), we turn to the distinctively “ traditional-historical” interpretations. (1) Gunkel (Schö pfung, 223 ff.) remarks that the heavenly or hellish powers who are to appear at the end are already in existence, and that the natural query why they have not yet manifested themselves is answered by the reflection that there must be something somewhere that holds them back for the time. The idea of κατέχω is originally mythical. Gunkel thinks that to Paul the κατέχω is probably a heavenly being, Elijah. (2) Dibelius in his Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus, 1909, 58 ff. and in his commentary (1911) on our passage attaches himself to Gunkel’ s method, and makes the acute suggestion, supported by such passages as Job 7:12, Revelation 13:1 Apoc. Bar. 29:4, 4 Ezra 6:52 and by instances from mythology and folk-lore, that τὸκατέχο or ὁκατέχω is the something somewhere (Paul does not know who or what it is exactly, and therefore shifts easily from neuter to masculine) which keeps the Anomos in detention until the time appointed by God for his advent. The trait is thus mythical, as Gunkel suspected.

It is of interest to observe that while Gunkel takes κατέχει in the sense of κωλύει (so most from Chrys. on), Dibelius understands it in the equally admissible sense (see on I 5:21) of κρατεῖ confirming the meaning by an apt quotation from the Acta Pilati, 22:2, where Christ, in delivering Satan to Hades, says: λαβὼναὐτὸνκάτεχἀσφαλῶςἄχριτῆςδευτέραςμουπαρουσία (3) Schaefer in his commentary (1890) agrees with Dö llinger in taking κατέχει intransitively and in translating it “ herrschen” , “ rule,” “ hold sway.” In his exegesis of the passage he comes to the conclusion not only that τὸκατέχο is the mystery of lawlessness and that αὐτο (v. 6) is Christ, but also that ὁκατέχω is Satan. This indentification of ὁκατέχω with Satan, original apparently with the Roman Catholic scholar, has the advantage of fitting admirably into Paul’ s thinking both here and elsewhere.

Assuming Schaefer’ s identification as a working hypothesis and applying it in our own way, we suggest first of all that just as Christ is to Paul both the exalted Lord and the Spirit operating in believers, so Satan is both (1) “ the god of this age” (2 Corinthians 4:4), “ the prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2), the (temporary) ruler of the spiritual hosts of wickedness, and (2) the evil spirit that energises in the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:2). The effect of the operation of Satan, the spirit or person who is now holding sway, is characterised as “ the mystery of lawlessness,” that is, the lawlessness which is secretly growing in unbelievers under the spell of Satan. This control of Satan is in accordance with the divine purpose, for it prepares the way for the revelation of the Anomos in the time set him by God and not before, the reason being that the mystery of lawlessness, which Satan sets in operation, is to culminate in a definitive apostasy on earth which is the signal for the advent of Satan’ s instrument, the Anomos. But this apostasy will not come, and the Anomos will not be revealed until Satan, who is now holding sway, is put out of the way. The notion that a iimit has been set to the authority of Satan has recently received fresh confirmation in a manuscript of the Freer collection (cf. Gregory, Das Freer Logion, 1908), where between Mark 16:14: and 16:15 we read: “ This age of lawlessness is under Satan who (which) does not permit τὰὑπὸτῶνπνευμάτωνἀκάθαρτ to understand the true power of God” ; and further, in words attributed to Christ: πεπλήρωταιὁὅροςτῶνἐτῶντῆςἐξουσίαςτοῦΣατανᾶἀλλὰἐγγίζειἄλλαδεινα But the unsolved difficulty in our passage is the reference intended by ἐκμέσουγένητα It is just possible that Paul is alluding to the war in heaven (Revelation 12:7 ff.), the religious revolt led by Satan, which is the signal for the sudden apostasy on earth.

In this case, ἐκμέσου refers to Satan’ s expulsion from heaven to earth. Though he is thus removed, he makes use of his peculiar instrument, the Anomos, who now issues forth from his place of concealment, and gives him all his power, just as the Dragon (Revelation 13:2) gives the beast his power, his throne, and great authority.

Equipped with this power, the Anomos, whose advent is for the doomed alone, gathers his forces for war against Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:24 ff.), attempts the assault on the throne of God in his holy temple in heaven, but is slain in the attempt by the Lord Jesus with the breath of his mouth and is destroyed with the manifestation of his advent. To this conjecture, based on Schaefer’ s identification of ὁκατέχω with Satan, it may be objected not that Satan is described in reference to his function of κατέχει , for Paul calls Satan ὁπειράζω (I 3:5), but that (1) Paul might not subscribe either to the identification or to the deductions therefrom indicated above, and (2) that ἐκμέσο , which to be sure designates only the fact not the manner (forced or voluntary) of the removal, does not at first blush suggest an ἐκβάλλεσθαιεἰςτὴνγῆ (Revelation 12:9).

This brief review of conjectures only serves to emphasise the fact that we do not know what Paul had in mind, whether the Roman Empire, or a supernatural being that keeps the Anomos in detention, or Satan who is temporarily in control of the forces of evil, or something else quite different. Grimm (1861), for example, thinks of the Anomos himself and Beyer (1824) of Paul; see other conjectures in Lü n. (ed. Gloag, 222-238). It is better, perhaps, to go with Augustine who says on v. 6; “ Since he said that they (the Thessalonians) know, he was unwilling to say this openly. And thus we, who do not know what they knew, desire and yet are unable even cum labore to get at what the Apostle meant, especially as the things which he adds (namely, vv. 7-8a), make his meaning still more obscure” ; and to confess with him: ego prorsus quid dicert me fateor ignorare (de oiv dei. xx, 19).

6. καὶνῦντὸκατέχονοἴδατ . “ And as to the present, you know that which restrains him” (if the reference is to the Roman Empire), or “ detains him” (if the reference is to a supernatural being that keeps the Anomos, in detention), or “ is holding sway” (if the reference is to Satan). From things to come (vv.3b-4), Paul turns with καὶνῦ to things present (vv. 6-7); and then, having indicated the reason for the delay of the advent of the Anomos and so of Christ, he reverts in v. 8 with τότ to the future. The νῦ (cf. I 3:8) is not logical but temporal, calling attention to what is going on in the present in contrast not with the past (v. 5) but with the future (vv. 3-4; cf. the next clause ἐντῷαὐτοῦκαιρῷ and καὶτότ v. 8). τὸκατέχο is not a title, but the description of a supernatural being (or the Roman Empire) that is functioning as κατέχο in Paul’ s present.

Some commentators (especially Lü n.) explains νῦ in the temporal sense: “ and now to pass to a further point.” This explanation puts so great a stress on the new point as such as to demand νῦνδε (cf. I Cor. , one of the few instances of logical νῦ in Paul). Since, however, the readers have already been instructed (Lü n.) and need only to be reminded again of the point, and that too allusively, it is more likely that the emphasis is laid not on the new point as such but on the present situation involved in κατέχο as contrasted with the future situation when ὁκατέχωνἄρτ will be removed, and the prophecy of v. 3 will be realised; and that therefore νῦ is temporal (so most). But to seek the contrast in ἔτ (v. 5) is to be forced to assume that the readers had never heard of τὸκατέχο until now, and that from the cryptic utterances of vv. 6-8 a they could divine, without previous knowledge, Paul’ s meaning. Dob. asks too much of the readers when he remarks: “ Paulus muss seiner Sache in dieser Hinsicht sehr sicher gewesen, dass er sich mit dieser Andeutung begnü gt.— The καὶνῦ is detached and emphatic (cf. John 4:18), “ und fü r jetzt” (Dibelius).— If κατέχει = “ restrain” or “ detain,” αὐτό = ἄνομο is to be supplied here and in v. 7; if it means “ hold sway” “ rule,” it is intransitive.

εἰςτὸἀποκαλυφθῆναικτλ . The divine purpose (εἰςτο ; cf. 1:5) of the present action designated by τὸκατέχο is “ that he (namely, the Anomos; cf. ἀποκαλύπτεσθα vv. 3, 8) may be revealed in his time,” that is, the time set him by God, and not before. It is already evident (as v. 7 explains) that the terminus of the function indicated by τὸκατέχο is the apostasy and the concomitant revelation of the Anomos.

The emphatically placed αὐτου (א AKP, et al.) is misunderstood by BDEGFL, et al., and changed to ἑαυτου (Zim; cf. Romans 3:25). The καιπό (cf. I 2:17, 5:1) is a day γνωστὴτῷκυρίῳ (Zechariah 14:7; cf. Ps. Sol. 17:23).— It is to be observed that we have εἰςτὸἀποκαλυφθῆναικτλ , not τὸμη or τοῦμὴἀποκαλυφθῆναιπρὸτοῦκαιροῦαὐτου (cf. Luke 4:42) or ἕωςαὐτὸςἀποκαλυφθῇἐντῷαὐτοῦκαιρῷ

7. τὸγὰρμυστήριονκτλ “ For” , to explain the connection between the present action intimated in τὸκατέχο and the future revelation of the Anomos, “ the secret, namely, of lawlessness has already been set in operation” (by Satan), and is preparing the way for the definitive apostasy on earth and its concomitant, the revelation of the Anomos (v.3). “ Only,” that apostasy will not come and the Anomos will not be revealed, “ until he who is now holding sway (or, detains or restrains him) is put out of the way; and then will be revealed the Anomos.” The phrase τὸμυστήριοντῆςἀνομία , the secret whose content is lawlessness, or “ the mystery of which the characterising feature, or, so to say, the active principle is ἀνομί ” (Ell.), is unique in the Gk. Bib. The exact meaning cannot at present be made out; but with some probability it may be referred not to the ἀποστασί (v. 3) itself, but to the secretly developing lawlessness which is to culminate in the definitive apostasy on earth (cf. Dob.). As ἐνεργεῖτα suggests, an evil power sets in operation “ the secret of lawlessness” ; and since it is improbable that ἀνομίας = ἀνόμο , this evil power is not the Anomos (the instrument of Satan) operating from his place of concealment, but Satan himself (cf. Schaefer), or more precisely, if we may identify τὸκατέχο with Satan, τὸκατέχο , the spirit that holds sway, energising in the sons of disobedience. In this case, τὸκατέχο (present participle) and τὸμυστήριο are connected both essentially and temporally.

In the light of I 2:13 ἐνεργεῖτα may be middle “ is already operating,” or passive “ has already been set in operation.” In the latter case, the present tense with the adverb is to be rendered by the English perfect; cf. I 3:6 ἔχετεπάντοτ and BMT 17.— It is to be observed in passing that in vv. 6-7 Paul not only exposes the absurdity of the allegation that the day is present (v. 2) but also intimates that that day is not far distant.— On μυστήριο , which may have been suggested by ἀποκαλυφθῆνα , cf. 1 Corinthians 2:1, etc. , Colossians 4:3, etc. , Ephesians 1:9 , and Ephesians 6:19 ; also ἀποκαλύπτεινμυστήρι Sap. 6:22, Sir. 3:18, 27:16 ff. Dan. (Lxx) 2:28 f. (Th.) 2:19, 30, 47. See further, Hatch, Essays, 57 ff.; SH on Romans 11:25; Lft. on Colossians 1:26; Swete on Mark 4:11; and Robinson, Ephesians, 235 ff.

μόνονὁκατέχωνἄρτικτλ . There is an ellipsis here; and since the clause with μόνο is evidently the link between the present action implied in τὸκατέχο and the terminus of that action at the revelation of the Anomos, it is natural to supply not only “ that apostasy, which is the culmination of the secret of lawlessness, will not come,” but also, in the light of vv. 6b and 8a, “ the Anomos will not be revealed.” Both the ellipsis and the position of ἕω have a striking parallel in Galatians 2:10: μόνοντῶνπτωχῶνἵναμνημονεύωμε

On the probable meaning of these obscure words, v. supra, pp. 259 ff.— Since Galatians 2:10 explains, satisfactorily both the ellipsis and the inverted order of the words, it is unnecessary to resort to other expedients, as, for example, that of the Vulgate: tantum ut qui tenet nunc, teneat, donec de medio fiat. Many commentators think it needless “ to supply definitely any verb to complete the ellipsis. The μόο belongs to ἕως and simply states the limitation involved in the present working of the μυστήριοντῆςἀνομία ; it is working already, but only with unconcentrated action until the obstacle be removed and Antichrist be revealed.” (Ell.).— The conjunction ἕω occurs in Paul only here and 1 Corinthians 4:5 (ἕωςἄ ; so GF in our passage; cf. BMT 323).— ἐκμέσο is rather frequent in Gk. Bib. with αἴρει (Colossians 2:14, Isaiah 57:2, ἐκμέσο being absolute in both instances), ἐξολευθρεύει , and ἁρπάζει ; but ἐκμέσο with γίνεσθα occurs only here in the Gk. Bib.

Wetstein notes Plut. Timol. 238 B: ἔγνωζῆνκαθ ʼ ἑαυτὸνἐκμέσουγενόμενο The fact not the manner of the removal (cf. Fulford) is indicated: “ to be put out of the way.” See further, Soph. Lex sub μέσο and Steph. Thesaurus, 6087.

8. καὶτότ … ὁἄνομο With καὶτότ (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:5, Mark 13:21, Mark 13:26 f.) balancing καὶνῦ (v. 6), Paul turns from the present (vv. 6-7) to the future, to the fulfilment of the condition stated in vv. 3-4. The words “ and then will be revealed the Anomos” (note ὁἄνομο = the Hebraistic ὁἄνθρωποςτῆςἀνομία v. 3) close the argument of vv. 6-7 and open the way for two important points, the description of the destruction of the Anomos introduced by ὅ (v. 8b, c) and the estimate of the significance of the advent of the Anomos introduced by the parallel ου (vv. 9-12). In passing directly from the revelation to the destruction of the Anomos without pausing to describe the Parousia of the Lord Jesus, Paul creates the impression that he is interested not in external details (e. g. the description of the advent of Christ, of the conflict apparently involved in the destruction of the Anomos, and of the action of the Anomos intimated in ὥστεκτλ v. 4) but in spiritual values, the triumph of apocalyptic faith in the victory of the good over evil.

ὃνκύριοςἀνελεῖκτλ . The description of the destruction moves in synonymous parallelism. The first member may be an allusion to Isaiah 11:4: καὶπατάξειγῆντῷλόγῳτοῦστόματοςαὐτοῦκαὶἐνπνεύματιδιὰχειλέωνἀνελεῖἀσεβη Paul’ s phrase, however, τῷπνεύματιτοῦοτόματοςαὐτου , unique in the N. T., is probably an unconscious reminiscence of Psa 32:6 where the same phrase balances the creative word of God . The second member is synonymous but not quite identical with the first, for instead of “ breath of his mouth” we have “ manifestation of his Parousia.” The words ἐπιφάνει and παρουσί are ultimately synonymous, the former being the Hellenistic technical term for the appearance of a god, and the latter (see I 2:19), the Christian technical term for the expected coming of Christ. If any distinction between the terms is intended, the former will emphasise the presence, the latter, the arrival.

The point is that the manifest presence itself is sufficient to destroy the Anomos; cf. Chrys. ἀρκεῖπαρεῖναιαὐτό

In the phrase “ with the breath of his mouth” (cf. Isaiah 27:8 Sap. 11:19 f. Job 4:9), the means of destruction is not the word (cf. Eth. En. 62:2 Ps. Sol. 17:27; also Eth. En. 14:2, 84:1) but the breath itself. Dibelius sees in the phrase traces of the primitive conception of the magical power of the breath and refers to a passage in Lucian (The Liar, 12) where the Babylonian magician gathered together all the snakes from an estate and blew upon them , “ and straightway every one of them was burnt up by the breathing” .— Against the majority of witnesses (א AD*G, et al., the versions and most of the fathers), BDcK, et al., omit Ἰησοῦ after κύριο (so Weiss (84) who thinks Ἰησοῦ is added to explain κύριο ; cf.

B in 1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Corinthians 11:23).— The reading ἀνελει (BAP) is, according to Dob., supported by ἀνέλο (DGF), an impossible word from which arose ἀναλοῖ (א * and Orig. in three-fourths of the quotations). Thereupon this present , in view of the future καταργήσε , became ἀναλώσε (DcEKL, et al.). Weiss (40) thinks that א knew the emendation ἀναλώσε , and formed ἀναλοι to approximate to the original ἀνελει Zim observes that ἀνέλο points not to ἀνελει , for the interchange of ο and ε is without parallel, but either to ἀναλοι or to a fusion of ἀναλοι and ἀνελει ; and he concludes that the present ἀναλοι , the harder reading, is original (so Lft., Find.). On ἀναιρεῖ (Lxx and Lk. Acts) = “ remove,” “ slay,” a word only here in Paul (if ἀνελει is read), see Plummer, ICC on Luke 22:2. On ἀναλόω = ἀναλίσκ , “ consume,” which is rarer in Gk.

Bib. than ἀναιρεῖ , cf. Galatians 5:15, Luke 9:54.— καταργεῖ , a favourite word of Paul, occurs rarely elsewhere in Gk.

Bib. (2 Timothy 1:10, Luke 13:7, Hebrews 2:14; cf. Barn. 2:6, 5:6, 9:4, 15:5 16:2; Ign. Eph. 13:2 where it is parallel with καθαιρεῖ and λύει ); it denotes in Paul “ annul,” “ abolish” , “ destroy,” etc., (1 Corinthians 15:24, 1 Corinthians 15:26 of the evil powers including death; cf. 2 Timothy 1:10 Barn. 5:6).— In the N. T. ἐπιφάνει appears elsewhere only in the Pastorals, where the Christian παρουσί is supplanted by the Hellenistic ἐπιφάνεια ; in the Lxx (mainly 2, 3 Mac.), it is used of the manifestation of God from the sky; e. g. ἡτοῦθεοῦἐπιφάνει (2 Mac. 15:27 Ven.); cf. ὁἐπιφανὴςκύριο (2 Mac. 15:34), and ὁἐπιφανὴςθεό (3 Mac. 5:35; cf. also Driver’ s Daniel, 191 f. for coins inscribed “ of King Antiochus, god manifest” ). Mill. (151) remarks: “ ἐπιφάνει draws attention to the ‘ presence’ as the result of a sublime manifestation of the power and love of God, coming to his people’ s help.” Deissmann (Light, 374, 378) notes a third-century (b.c.) inscription which records a cure at the temple of Asclepius at Epidaurus: τάντεπαρουσίαντὰναὐτοῦπαρενεφάνιξεὁἈσκλάπιο , “ and Asclepius manifested his Parousia.” In view of the equivalence of ἐπιφάνει and παρουσί , the former does not mean “ brightness,” illustratio (Vulg.); cf. Bengel: “ Sometimes the apparitio is spoken of, sometimes, and in the same sense, adventus (v. 1); but here the apparitio adventus is prior to the coming itself, or at least is the first gleam of the advent, as ἐπιφάνειατῆςἡμέρα ” (quoted by Lillie who renders our phrase, “ with the appearing of his coming or presence” ).

9-12. Careless of chronological order but careful of spiritual values (cf. v. 8), Paul reverts in vv. 9-12 to the Parousia of the Anomos. The section, introduced by ου parallel to ὅ (v. 8), is intended both as a justification of the universe as moral and as an encouragement (cf. vv. 2, 13 ff.) of the disheartened among the readers. Concerned primarily in the description with the character of the advent of the Anomos, he assures the faint-hearted that his Parousia, inspired by Satan and attended by outward signs and inward deceit prompted by falsehood and unrighteousness, is intended not for believers but for unbelievers, “ the destined to destruction” like “ the son of destruction himself (vv. 9-10a). Then justifying the ways of God to men, he observes that the advent of the Anomos is for “ the doomed” because they have already put themselves into this class by refusing to welcome the heavenly visitor, the influence of the Spirit designed to awaken within them the love for the truth of God which is essential to their salvation (v. 10b). As a consequence of their refusal, God as righteous judge is himself bound (for he, not Satan or the Anomos, is in control of the universe) to send them “ an inward working to delude them” into believing the falsehood of the Anomos (v. 11), in order that, at the day of judgment, they might be condemned, all of them, on the moral ground that they believed not the truth of God but consented to the unrighteousness of the Anomos (v. 12).

9. οὗἐστινἡπαρουσίακτλ . Instead of ἡἀποκάλυψι (1:7), which in view of ἀποκαλύπτεσθα (vv. 3, 6, 8) might have been expected, we have Paul’ s regular word παρουσί , its use here being due doubtless to association of ideas (τῆςπαρουσίαςαὐτου v. 8). The collocation of ου , which resumes ὅ , with αὐτου is more difficult to the eye than to the ear. The ἐστί does not describe something in the process of happening , but, like πέμπε (v. 11), looks upon the “ is to be” as “ is” (cf. ἔρχετα I 5:2 and ἀποκαλύπτετα 1 Corinthians 3:13). This advent is first described as being “ in accordance with, in virtue of , the energy, that is, the inward operation of the indwelling spirit of Satan,” daemone in eo omnia operante (Th. Mops.), the parallel between the Spirit of holiness in Christ (Romans 1:4) and the indwelling of Satan in the Anomos being thus strikingly close (cf.

Th. Mops.)

The grammatical arrangement of the clauses following παρουσί is uncertain. Many commentators (e. g. Lü n., Riggenbach, Born, Dob.) “ connect ἐστί closely with ἐνπάσηδυνάμεικτλ for the predicate and treat κατ ʼ ἐνέργειαντοῦΣατανα as a mere explanatory appendage; but with no advantage either to the grammar or the sense” (Lillie). In the light of the succession of dative clauses in such passages as Romans 15:18 ff. Colossians 1:11, etc., it is natural to construe ἐστί with each of the dative clauses, the και before the second ἐ (v. 10) serving to unite the parallel clauses with ἐν (ἐνπάσηδυνάμεικτλ v. 9 and ἐνπάσῃἀπάτῃκτλ v. 10); or we may take ἐστί with τοῖςἀπολλυμέοι for the predicate, leaving the three prepositional phrases under the government of an unexpressed article after the subject παρουσί : “ the Parousia, which is κατά , ἐ , and ἐ , is for the doomed.” But the arrangement is uncertain (see Wohl.). Logically, however, the advent of the Anomos is for the doomed, and the ἐνέργει manifests itself both in outward wonders and in inward deceit.— In the N.

T. ἐνέργει appears only in Paul; it denotes the inward operation (see on ἐνεργεῖ I 2:13) of God and of Christ . This single instance of ἐνέργει in reference to Satanic activity is in keeping with the usage of ἐνεργεῖ in v. 7 and Ephesians 2:2. In the Lxx ἐνέργει is found only in Sap. and 2, 3 Mac.; it indicates among other things the operation of God (Sap. 7:26, 2 Mac. 3:29, Malachi 3:3 Mac. 4:21, Malachi 4:5:12, 28). ἐνέργει differs from δύναμι with which it is sometimes associated (as here and Sap. 13:4, Ephesians 3:7), as “ operative power” from “ potential power” (Mill.); cf. Reitzenstein, Poimandres, 352, I. 24: δαίμονοςγάροὐσίαἐνέργει On Satan, see I 2:18.

ἐνπάσῃδυνάμεικτλ . The advent of the Anomos is further described in a second prepositional clause as being “ in all power and signs and portents that originate in falsehood.” Paul co-ordinates δύναμι , the abstract potential power, with σημεῖακαὶτέρατ , the concrete signs and portents, intending no doubt by δύναμι the specific power to perform miracles. Since he seems to feel no difficulty with this co-ordination, we need not hesitate to construe πάσῃ both with δυνάμε and (by zeugma) with σημείοιςκαὶτέρασι (a common phrase in the Gk. Bib.). It follows that ψεύδου is likewise to be taken with all three substantives . The reality of the capacity and of its expression in outward forms is not denied; but the origin is stigmatised as falsehood.

While many expositors connect πάς and ψεύδου with all three nouns (e. g. Lü n., Ell., Lillie, Lft., Schmiedel, Wohl., Mill.), some (e. g. Calv., Find., Dob.), feeling troubled it may be by the abstract δύναμι , restrict πάσῃ to the first and ψεύδου to the last two nouns, “ in all power— both signs and wonders of falsehood” (cf. Vulg.).— The ἐ is variously understood, “ in the sphere or domain of” (Ell., Mill., et al.), “ consisting in” (Born, Dob.), or “ verbunden mit” (Wohl.). The gen. ψεύδου is interpreted as of “ origin” (Dob.), “ quality” (Chrys., Find., Mill.), “ object” (Ambst, Grot., De W., Lü n., Ell.), or “ reference” in the widest sense (e. g. Riggenbach, Alford, Wohl.).— As all Christians are empowered ἐνπάσῃδυνάμε (Colossians 1:11), and as the indwelling Christ works in Paul ἐνδυνάμεισημείωνκαὶτεράτρω (Romans 15:19), so Satan operates in the Anomos with the result that his advent is attended by all power to work wonders.

Since elsewhere in Paul we have not the singular “ a power” (Mark 6:5, Mark 9:39) but the plural δυνάμει (2 Corinthians 12:12; cf. Acts 2:22, Hebrews 2:4) in reference to miracles, the rendering “ with every form of external power” is evidently excluded.

The phrase σημεῖακαὶτέρατ is common in the Gk. Bib. (Exodus 7:3, Exodus 11:9, etc.; Romans 15:19, 2 Corinthians 12:12, Hebrews 2:4, etc.), σημεῖ suggesting more, clearly than τέρατ that the marvellous manifestations of power are indications of the presence of a supramundane being, good or evil. φεῦδο , a rare word in Paul, is opposed to ἀλήθει (vv. 11-12 Rom 1:25, Ephesians 4:25) and parallel with ἀδικί (vv. 10, 12).— Paul is quite content with a general description of the circumstances attending the advent of the Anomos; but later descriptions of the Antichrist delight in the details, e. g. Revelation 13:13 Asc. Isaiah 5:4 Sib. Orac. 3:63 f., 2:167 ff.; see Bousset, Antichrist, 115 ff. and Charles on Asc. Isaiah 5:4.

10. καὶἐνπάσῃἀπάτῃἀδικία . “ And with all deceit that originates in unrighteousness.” While the preceding clause with ἐ (v. 10) directed attention to the accompaniment of the advent of the Anomos mainly on the objective side, this closely related clause, united to the former by και , directs attention to the subjective side. Hand in hand with the external signs and wonders prompted by falsehood goes deceit, the purpose to deceive, inspired by unrighteousness; cf. Revelation 13:13 f. καὶποιεῖσημεῖαμεγάλ … καὶπλανᾷ

τοῖςἀπολλυμένοι . Finally the class is designated for whom alone the Parousia, with its attendant outward signs and inward deceit, is intended “ the perishing,” those whose end (Philippians 3:19) like that of “ the son of destruction” is ἀπώλει The tacit opposite of οἱἀπολλύμενο (a Pauline expression; cf. 1 Corinthians 1:18, 2 Corinthians 2:15, 2 Corinthians 4:3) is οἱσωζόμενο (1 Corinthians 1:18, 2 Corinthians 2:15; cf. Luke 13:23, Acts 2:47), a phrase that characterises the remnant in Isaiah 37:32 (cf. 45:20, Tobit 14:7). As “ the saved” are the believers so “ the doomed” are the unbelievers irrespective of nationality.

The phrase ἀπάτηἀδικία is unique in the Gk. Bib. For ἀπάτ , in the active sense of “ deceit,” cf. Colossians 2:8, Ephesians 4:22, Ecclesiastes 9:6, Ecclesiastes 9:4 Mac. 18:8; for the genitive, cf. Mark 4:19, Hebrews 3:13 and contrast Test. xii, Reub. 5:5. ἀδικί is a common word in Gk. Bib.; in Paul it is sometimes opposed to ἀλήθει (v. 12, Romans 1:18, Romans 1:2:8, 1 Corinthians 13:6).— The present participle ἀπολλυμένοι is general, indicating a class; a timeless aorist might have been used (cf. οἱσωθέντε Isaiah 10:20, Nehemiah 1:2).

Bousset (Antichrist, 13) restricts “ the doomed” to the Jews, a restriction which is “ permitted neither by the expression nor by the context” (Dob.). The ἐ inserted by KLP, et al., may have been influenced by 2 Corinthians 2:15, 2 Corinthians 4:3. In the light of Mat 24:24, 2 Corinthians 4:3, Lillie is disposed to take τοῖςἀπολλυμένοι not with ἐστί but with ἀπάτηἀδικία ; so also Dob. on the ground that the deceit is only for unbelievers while the miracles could be seen by both believers (but without injury to them) and unbelievers.

ἀνθ ʼ ὧντὴνἀγάπηνκτλ . That the advent of the Anomos is for “ the doomed” (vv. 9-10a) is their own fault “ because they had not welcomed the love for the truth intended for their salvation.” The phrase τὴνἀγάπηντῆςἀληθεία , only here in the Gk. Bib., suggests that God had sent them the divine power (Christ or the Spirit) to create in them a love for the truth of God (Romans 1:25), or Christ , or the gospel (Galatians 2:5, Galatians 2:14, Colossians 1:5); and that they had refused to welcome the heavenly visitor. Having thus refused the help designed for their salvation, they must take upon themselves the consequences of their refusal as stated in vv. 11-12.

ἀνθ ʼ ὧ , very common in Lxx (cf. Amos 5:11), is used elsewhere in the N. T. only by Luke; it means regularly “ because,” but occasionally “ wherefore” (Luke 12:3); cf. Bl 40:1.— In Paul, ἡἀλήθει , which is often used absolutely (vv. 12-13, Romans 1:18, Romans 1:2:8, Romans 1:20, 1 Corinthians 13:6, etc.), means not “ truthfulness,” or “ the truth” in general, but specifically the truth of God, of Christ, or of the gospel preached by Paul as contrasted with the falsehood of the Anomos (v. 11; cf. Romans 1:25, Romans 3:7). In the light of πιστεύειντῇἀληθείᾳ (v. 12), ἀληθεία is genitive of the object.

Elsewhere in Paul ἡἀγάπ is used with the gen. (subjective) of the person, θεου (so Luke 11:42), Χριστοῦ , πνεύματο (Romans 15:30), to denote the divine love for men. Chrys. explains “ the love of truth” as equivalent to Christ; Primasius takes ἀληθεία as = Christ (cf. John 5:43, John 14:6). The phrase, however, is natural in view of the use of ἀγαπᾷ with various impersonal objects (Ephesians 5:25; cf. 2 Timothy 4:8, 2 Timothy 4:10, Hebrews 1:9 = Psalms 44:8, John 3:19; also ἀγαπᾷνἀλήθεια Psalms 50:8, Psalms 83:12, Zechariah 8:19). The divine offer, made through Christ or the Spirit, is not simply the gospel which might be intellectually apprehended, but the more difficult love for it, interest in it; contrast this refusal with the welcome which the readers gave to the gospel (δέχεσθα I 1:6, 2:13).— εἰςτο (I 2:12) may indicate purpose (ἵνασωθῶσι I 2:16) or intended result (εἰςτὴνσωτηρίαναὐτῶ ; cf. ὥστ v. 4). On the variant ἐξεδέξαντ cf.

Sir. 6:23.

11. καὶδιὰτοῦτοπέμτε “ And for this reason (because they did not welcome the love for the truth), God sends (is to send) them an inward working of delusion.” The και may be consecutive, “ and so,” or it may designate the correspondence of guilt and punishment. The πέμτε refers not to the time previous to the revelation of the Anomos (ἐνεργεῖτα v. 7) but, as ἐστί (v. 9) intimates, to the time when the apostasy comes and the Anomos is revealed.

ὁθεὸςἐνέργειανπλάνηςκτλ . The position of ὁθεό is emphatic. In appearance, Satan is responsible for the future success of the Anomos with “ the doomed” ; in reality it is God who is in supreme control, working out his moral purposes through the agencies of evil. Since the divine influence designed to stir up a love for the gospel is unwelcome, God sends another visitor, the ἐνέργειαπλάνη , whose function it is, as a servant of the divine purpose, to prepare the way for final judgment (v. 12) by first deluding the minds of “ the doomed” into believing the falsehood of the Anomos.

τῷψεύδε balances τῆςἀληθεία (v. 10) and εἰςτο introduces the primary purpose of πέμπε In the striking phrase ἐνέργειαπλάνη , only here in Gk. Bib.,πλάνη is a genitive of the object, and denotes the goal of the active inward energy, namely, “ delusion,” the state of being deceived (see on I 2:3): “ an energy unto delusion.” On διὰτοῦτ , see I 2:13; for πέμπειντινι , cf. 1 Corinthians 4:17, Philippians 2:19. D omits και ; GF, et al., omit αὐτού ; F omits τῷ KLP, et al., forgetting ἐστί (v. 9) read πέμψε On διὰτοῦτοπέμπε , cf. Romans 1:24. Romans 1:26 διὸπαρέδωκε

12. ἵνακριθῶσινκτλ The ultimate purpose of πέμπε is contingent upon the fulfilment of the initial purpose in εἰςτὸπιστεῦσα ; hence ἵν depends on εἰςτο Wishing to insist that the basis of judgment (cf. 1:5-10) is “ believing the falsehood,” Paul repeats the thought in a parallelism which designates “ the doomed” negatively as “ all who have not believed the truth” of Christ, and positively, “ who have consented to the unrighteousness” of the Anomos (cf. ἀδικία v. 10). The antithesis of “ truth” and “ unrighteousness” (cf. Romans 2:8, 1 Corinthians 13:6) intimates that “ truth” is regarded more on the moral than on the purely intellectual side, the truth of God, Christ, or the gospel as preached by Paul; and the parallelism of πιστεύει and εὐδοκεῖ hints that in believing the will is an important factor.

The phrases πιστεύειντῷψεύδε (v. 11) and τῇἀληθείᾳ do not occur elsewhere in the Gk. Bib. πιστεύει with dative is employed elsewhere by Paul only in citations, . For the impersonal object, cf. πίστι with εὐαγγελίο (Philippians 1:27) and ἐνεργεία (Colossians 2:12). The construction εὐδοκεῖντιν (1 Esd. 4:39, Sir. 18:31 (A) 1 Mac. 1:43) does not appear elsewhere in N. T.; Paul construes εὐδοκεῖ elsewhere with the infinitive (see I 2:8) and with ἐ and dative (1 Corinthians 10:5, 2 Corinthians 12:10; so here AEKLP, et al.).— κρίνεσθα (opposed to σώζεσθα v. 10) gets here by context the meaning κατακρίνεσθα (cf. Hebrews 13:4); κρίνει is common in Gk.

Bib. (Romans 2:12, Romans 3:7, Isaiah 66:16, etc.).— Exegetically it is unimportant whether πάντε (BDEKLP, et al.) or ἅπαντε (א AGF, et.al.) is read (cf. Galatians 3:28); WH. read ἅπα but once in Paul (Ephesians 6:13). The expression ἅπαςο or ὁἅπα is chiefly Lukan (also Matthew 28:11, Mark 16:15, 1 Timothy 1:16; cf. Genesis 19:4, etc.); on πάντεςοἱπιστεύοντε (which K reads here), see I 1:7; on πάντεςοἱπιστεύσαντε , cf. 1:10.— On the contrast between ἀλήθει and ἁδικί , cf. Romans 2:8, 1 Corinthians 13:6; on the thought of vv. 11-12, cf. Born ad loc. and Romans 1:18-32.

The Origin and Significance of the Anomos

On the basis of what has been said above on vv. 3-7, a general word may be added as to the origin of the Anomos and the significance of the same to Paul. The name “ Antichrist,” commonly employed to designate the being variously described by Paul as “ the man of lawlessness” = “ the lawless one,” “ the son of destruction,” “ the one who opposes and exalts himself against every one called God,” etc., does not appear in extant literature before First John (2:18, 22, 4:3; cf. 2 John 1:7). In that epistle, the Antichrist, who is assumed to be a familiar figure, is both the definite being who is to come and the spirit already in the world , possessing men so that they are themselves called “ Antichrists” (2:18), and leading them both to deny that Jesus is the Christ, Son of God, come in the flesh (4:2) and to separate themselves from their fellow-Christians (2:19). Whether the name was coined by the Ephesian school is unknown.

But while the designation “ Antichrist” is later than Paul, the idea for which it stands is evidently pre-Christian. On the one hand, the opponent of Israel and so of God is identified with a heathen ruler, for example, with Antiochus Epiphanes by Daniel (the earliest instance; cf. Pompey in Ps. Sol., and “ the last leader of that time” in Apoc. Bar. 40:1); on the other hand, the opponent of God is conceived as a Satanic being, Beliar (e. g. Jub. and Test. xii).

But the Anomos of Paul is neither a heathen tyrant, nor a political ruler, nor a Zealotic false-Messiah (Mark 13:22 = Matthew 24:24 and possibly John 5:43), but is an extraordinary man controlled completely by Satan,— a non-political conception that suggests the original influence of the Babylonian myth of Tiâ mat, the sea-monster that opposes Marduk and is vanquished, but who at the end is to revolt only to be destroyed. In fact, due to the researches of such scholars as Gunkel, Bousset, Charles, and Gressmann, it is not infrequently held that traces of that primeval myth, however applied, are discoverable in the O. T. (cf. Daniel’ s description of Antiochus), in subsequent Jewish apocalyptic, and in the apocalyptic utterances in the N. T.; and it is confidently expected by some that from the same source light may shine upon the hitherto inexplicable technical terms of apocalyptic. The precise question, however, whether the Anomos of Paul is the indirect result of the conception of the Antichrist as originally a humanised devil (Bousset) or is the direct result of the fusion of the Antichrist conceived as purely human and of Belial conceived as purely Satanic (Charles, whose sketch of the development of the idea of Antichrist, especially in the period subsequent to Paul when the figure of Antichrist is further affected by the Neronic myths, is particularly attractive) may perhaps be regarded as still open.

In estimating the significance of apocalyptic in general, it is to be remembered that actual experiences of suffering compelled the Jews, a people singularly sensitive to spiritual values, to attempt to reconcile these experiences with the ineradicable conviction that the Lord is righteous and that they are his elect, and that the apocalyptic category, whatever may have been the origin of its component elements, is the means by which the assertion of their religious faith is expressed. The Book of Daniel, for example, is considered as a classic instance not only of apocalyptic form but also of the venture of faith in the triumph of righteousness,— a judgment sustained by the immediate effect of that “ tract for the times,” and by its subsequent influence not only on apocalyptic writers in general but also on the Master himself. The literary successors of Daniel are not to be reckoned as purely imitators; they adhere indeed closely, sometimes slavishly, to the classic tradition; but they also proclaim, each in his way, their originality by what they retain, omit, or insert, and by what they emphasise or fail to emphasise; and still further, they keep alive the old religious faith, even if they differ widely from one another in spiritual insight.

Into the apocalyptic and eschatological tradition and faith of late Judaism, Paul entered as did the Master before him. But Paul, to refer only to him, brought to his inheritance not only his own personal equation but also his religious experience in Jesus the Christ. Through that experience, his world became enlarged and his sympathies broadened. To him, Christianity was a universal religion in which Jesus the Messiah was not a national political factor but the world-redeeming power and wisdom of God. While holding to the traditional conceptualism of apocalyptic and to the essence of its faith, he demonstrates the originality of his religious insight in his attitude to the traditional forms. This scribe who had been made a disciple to the kingdom knows how to bring forth out of his treasures things new and old.

The political traits of the Antichrist being uncongenial, he reverts, quite unconsciously, in the attempted session of the Anomos in the heavenly temple of God, to elements of the non-political primeval myth; and equips the Anomos with Satanic power not for political purposes, but to deceive the doomed (cf. the false prophet in Revelation 16:13, Revelation 19:20, Revelation 20:10). On the other hand, his mystical experience in Christ leads him to make the parallel between the Spirit of holiness in Christ and the operation of the spirit of Satan in the Anomos almost complete. This fusion of the old and new in the mind of the Christian Paul gives an original turn to the conception of the Antichrist. With a supreme disregard for externals and with a keen sense for the relevant, he succeeds in making pre-eminent his faith that God is Abba, that the world is moral, that righteousness triumphs; and his confidence is immovable that a day will come when the sway of the sovereign Father of the Lord Jesus Christ will be recognised, for obstacles will be removed and the believer will be delivered from the evil one. And Paul is at pains to observe that even Satan and his peculiar instrument, the Anomos, are under the control of the divine purpose; that “ the destined to destruction” destroy themselves by refusing to welcome the heavenly influence which makes for their salvation; and that therefore it is really God himself who on the ground of their refusal sends to the doomed an ἐνέργειαπλάνη “ It must have been a great, deeply religious spirit who created this conception, one proof more for the genuinely Pauline origin of our epistle” (Dob. 296).

The literature of the subject is enormous. Of especial importance are Schü rer; Bousset, Relig2; Charles, Eschat. (together with his editions of apocalyptic literature and his articles in EB and Ency. Brit.11); Sö derblom, La Vie Future d’ apres le Mazdeisme, 1901; Volz. Eschat.; Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen. Verstä ndniss des N. T. 1903; Klausner, Die Messianischen Vorstellungen des jü dischen Volkes im Zeitalter der Tannaiten, 1904; Gressmann, Der Ursprung der Israel itschen jü dischen Eschatologie, 1905; Mathews, The Messianic Hope in the N.

T. 1905; Bousset’ s commentary on Revelation in Meyer, 1906; J. H. Gardiner, The Bible as English Literature, 1906, 250 ff.; Rabinsohn, Le Messianisme dans le Talmud et les Midraschim, 1907; Oesterley, Evolution of the Messianic Idea, 1908; Clemen, Religionsgeschichtliche Erklä rung des N. T. 1909; Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus, 1909; and Moffatt’ s commentary on Revelation in EGT 1910. Likewise of special importance are such specific works as Gunkel’ s Schö pfung und Chaos, 1895; Bousset’ s Antichrist, 1895 (in English, 1896; cf. his articles on Antichrist in EB ERE. and Ency. Brit.11); Wadstein’ s Eschatologische Ideengruppe: Antichrist, etc., 1896; Charles’ s Ascension of Isaiah, 1900, li ff.; Friedlä nder’ s Der Antichrist in den vorchristlichen jü dischen Quellen, 1901; the articles on Antichrist by Louis Ginsberg in the Jewish Ency., and by Sieffert in PRE; and the discussions by Briggs in his Messiah of the Apostles, and by Born, Find., Schmiedel, Wohl., Mill., Dob. and Dibelius in their respective commentaries.

For the later history of the Antichrist, see, in addition to Bousset’ s monograph, Preuss, Die Vorstellung vom Antichrist im spä teren Mittelalter, bei Luther, etc. 1906 (and Kö hler’ s review in TLZ 1907, 356 ff.). For the history of the interpretation of 2:1-12, see the commentaries of Lü n., Born and Wohl.; Mill. (166-173) gives an excellent sketch.

IV. , COMMAND, AND PRAYER (2:13-17)

Like the thanksgiving and prayer (1:3-12) and the exhortation (vv. 1-12), this new section (vv. 13-17), though addressed to the converts as a whole, is intended especially for the encouragement of the faint-hearted whose assurance of salvation was wavering, and who had become agitated by the assertion (v. 2) that the day of the Lord was actually present. With a purposed repetition of 1:3, Paul emphasises, his obligation to thank God for them notwithstanding their discouraged utterances, because, as was said in the first epistle (I 1:4 ff.), they are beloved and elect, chosen of God from everlasting, and destined to obtain the glory of Christ (vv. 13-14). Thus beloved and elect, they should have no fear about the future and no disquietude by reason of the assertion that the day is present; on the contrary, remembering the instructions received both orally and in the first epistle, they should stand firm and hold to those deliverances (v. 15). Aware, however, that only the divine power can make effectual his appeal, and aware that righteousness, guaranteed by the Spirit, is indispensable to salvation, Paul prays that Christ and God who in virtue of their grace had already commended their love to Christians in the death of Christ and had granted them through the Spirit inward assurance of salvation and hope for the ultimate acquisition of the glory of Christ, may vouchsafe also to the faint-hearted readers that same assurance of salvation, and strengthen them in works and words of righteousness.

This section differs from 1:3-12, and from I 2:13-3:13 which it resembles closely in arrangement (cf. αὐτὸςδε vv. 16-17 with I 3:11, and the repeated thanksgiving v. 13 with I 2:13), in having the command (v. 15).

13Now we ought to thank God always for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning of time to be saved by consecration of the Spirit and by faith in the truth; 14and to this end he called you by the gospel which we preach, namely, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the instructions that you have been taught whether we delivered them orally or by letter. 16Now may our Lord, Jesus Christ himself and God, or Father, who loved us (Christians) and gave us, in virtue of grace, eternal encouragement and good hope, 17encourage your hearts, and make you steady in every good work you do and word you utter.

13. ἡμεῖςδὲὀφείλομενκτλ The similarity in thought and language between the first clause of this verse and that of 1:3 suggests of itself a purposed return to the obligation there expressed “ to give thanks to God always for you, brothers” ; and the differences observable in our verse, the order of ὀφείλομενεὐχαριστεῖ and the insertion of ἡμεῖ , tend to confirm the suggestion. By putting ὀφείλομε first, Paul lays stress on the obligation and at the same time, by the very emphasis, intimates that the repetition of 1:3 is intentional. By inserting ἡμεῖ (i. e. Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy as in I 2:13, 17) he reiterates emphatically what was implied in 1:3 that he and his fellow-writers are morally bound to thank God, notwithstanding the fact that the readers, voicing the discouragement of the faint-hearted, had declared to Paul by letter that they were not worthy of salvation and that therefore Paul ought not to thank God for them as he had done in his former epistle. If this is the case, δε is not adversative, contrasting in some manner with vv. 9-12, but introduces, as in v. 1, a new point.

That δε introduces a resumption of 1:3 is frequently admitted (B. Weiss, Dob., Dibelius, et al.). Usually, however, a contrast is discovered between ἡμεῖ and the doomed in v. 10 (e. g. Lü n., Ell., Lft.), a contrast which is pertinent only if ἡμεῖ referred to the Thessalonians or all Christians. To obviate this difficulty, ἡμεῖ is put over against God who sends the energy of delusion; or over against the Anomos; or over against the mystery of lawlessness (Hofmann, Riggenbach, Denney, et al.); but these interpretations are, as Wrede insists (21), somewhat forced. On the other hand, the contention of Wrede (and Schmiedel) that ἡμεῖ is taken over mechanically from I 2:13 arises from the necessity of explaining the workings of the falsarius.

A similar resumption of the thanksgiving occurs in I 2:13 (from 1:2; cf. 3:9); but in 2:13 we have και not δε , and the main point of I 2:1-12 is resumed as well as the thanksgiving of 1:2. Contrast with our verse I 2:17 where δε is adversative: “ we apostles” over against the Jews who insinuated that we did not wish to return.

ἠγαπημένοιὑπὸκυρίο The readers are addressed not simply as brothers (1:3, 2:1) but as brothers “ beloved by the Lord,” that is, “ whom Christ loved and loves.” The phrase ἠγαπημένοιὑπὸκυρίο does not appear in 1:3 ff., though the idea of election is there implied in the statement that the endurance and faith of the readers is evidence of God’ s purpose to deem them worthy of the kingdom. In I 1:4, however, where Paul openly draws the conclusion that the readers are elect from the fact that the Spirit is at work not simply in him (1:5) but especially in the Thessalonians who welcomed the gospel (1:6-10), the same estimate is given: ἀδελφοὶἠγαπημένοιὑπὸτοῦθεου The repetition here of these words of appreciation which recall the love of Christ (v. 16) who died for them (I 5:10) and who as Spirit quickens within them the sense of the divine love (3:5), and which suggest (cf. Romans 1:7, Colossians 3:12) that as beloved they are elect (I 1:4), is evidently designed for the purpose of encouraging the faint-hearted with the assurance of salvation, and of awakening within them, as elect and beloved, the obligation to fulfil their Christian duty .

On the phrase, cf. Test. xii, Iss. 1:1 (v. l.) ἡγαπημένοιὑπὸκυρίο and Deuteronomy 33:12; and see note on I 1:4. On the perfect participle “ implying a past action and affirming an existing result,” cf. . 154 and ἐκκέχυτα Romans 5:5.— κύριο is used frequently in Paul of the Lord Jesus; but it is especially characteristic of the Macedonian letters, fourteen times in I, eight times in II, and ten times in Phil. In our letters it appears in reminiscences from the Lxx (I 4:6, II 1:9, 2:13); in such phrases as ὁλόγοςτοῦκυρίο (I 1:8, 4:15, II 3:1), ἑνκυρίῳ (I 3:8, 5:12; cf. Galatians 5:10, Romans 16:2 ff. and eight times in Phil.), and ἡμέρακυρίο (I 5:2, II 2:2; cf. 1 Corinthians 5:5); in prayers (I 3:12, II 3:5, 16); and in other connections (I 1:6, 4:15-17, 5:27, II 3:3). In the light of this usage, κύριο here (contrast I 1:4) and 3:16 (contrast I 5:23) is natural; cf. παρὰθεῷ II 1:6) with ἔκδικοςκύριο I 4:6 in the light of βῆμαθεου (Romans 14:10) or Χριστου (2 Corinthians 5:10).

On the use of ὁκύριο , see especially Mill. 136 ff. and Zahn, Introd. I, 254.— D corrects to θεου ; א A, et al., read τοῦκυρίο

ὅτιεἵλατοὑμᾶςκτλ . In advancing the reason why (ὅτ = “ because” as in I 2:13, II 1:3) he ought to thank God always for them, Paul lets his religious imagination range from everlasting to everlasting,— from the choice of God unto salvation before the foundation of the world, to the divine invitation in time extended to the readers through the preaching of the gospel, and to the consummation in the age to come, the acquiring of the glory which Christ possesses and which he will share with those who are consecrated to God by the Spirit and have faith in the truth of the gospel. The purpose of this pregnant summary of Paul’ s religious convictions (cf. Romans 8:28-30) is the encouragement of the faint-hearted. Not only are they chosen, they are chosen from all eternity ; not only are they chosen, they are also called; and not only are they called, they are also destined to acquire the fulness of salvation in eternity.

The order of words, εἵλατοὑμᾶςὁθεό (cf. I 5:9) not ὑμᾶςεἵλατ , tells against the suggestion that the readers are contrasted with “ the doomed” (v. 10). K reads εἵλετ (cf. προείπομε (AKL) in I 4:6, and see, for mixed aorists, Bl 21:1). For ὑμᾶ (BAGFP, et al.), א D, et al., read ἡμᾶ ; so also for ὑμᾶ after ἐκάλεσε in v. 14, BAD read ἡμᾶ , a reading which takes the nerve out of Paul’ s intention and which in v. 14 leads to the impossible.— αἱρεῖσθα (Philippians 1:22, Hebrews 11:25), like ἐκλέγεσθα (1 Corinthians 1:27 ff. Ephesians 1:4), προγινώσκει (Romans 8:29, Romans 11:2) and προορίζει (Romans 8:29 f.; 1 Corinthians 2:7 πρὸτῶναἰώνω ; Ephesians 1:5, Ephesians 1:11), is used of God’ s election as in Deuteronomy 26:18 (cf. προαιρεῖσθα Deuteronomy 7:6 f. Deuteronomy 7:10:15); cf. τιθένα I 5:9, καταξιοῦ II 1:5, and ἀξιοῦ 1:11.

The idea of election is constant, but the words expressing it vary,— a consideration that accounts for the fact that elsewhere in the N. T. αἱρεῖσθα is not used of the divine election.— The reading ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆ (א DEKL, Pesh, Arm, Eth., Chrys., Th.

Mops., Ambst et al.) suits Paul’ s purpose of encouraging the fainthearted better than ἀπαρχή (BGP, Vulg, Boh, Didymus, Ambrose, et al.). The former reading is harder in that elsewhere Paul uses not ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆ but πρὸτῶναίώνω (1 Corinthians 2:7), ἀπὸτῶναῖώνω (Colossians 1:26) or πρὸκαταβολῆςκόσμο (Ephesians 1:4) to express the idea “ from eternity,” while ἀπαρχη , apart from James 1:18, Revelation 14:4, is found in the N. T. only in Paul (seven times; it is common in Lxx, especially in Ezek.). Most commentators prefer ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆ and interpret it as = ἀπ ʼ αἰῶνο (cf. Psalms 89:2); a few, however (so recently Wohl.), seek to refer ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆ to the beginnings of Christianity either as such or in Thessalonica, a view possible in itself (cf. 1 John 2:7, 1 John 2:24), though more appropriate to a later period in Paul’ s career, but not probable in Paul who, when he refers to ἐνἀρχη (Philippians 4:15) adds not only τοῦεὐαγγελίο (cf. 1 Clem. 47:2) but also ὅτεἐξῆλθονἀπὸτῆςΜακεδονία As already indicated, ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆ does not occur elsewhere in Paul; it is, however, common in the Gk. Bib. as a designation of beginnings whether in eternity or in time (cf.

Isaiah 63:16, Sir. 24:9, 1 John 2:13, Matthew 19:4, etc.; also 2 Reg. 7:10, Psalms 73:2, Luke 1:2, etc.). Apart from our passage and Philippians 4:15, ἀρχη denotes in Paul “ power” or, in plural, “ powers.” — The reading ἀπαρχή which, under the influence of the Vulg. primitias , was current in Latin exegesis (Dob.), implies that “ believers have been, as it were, set aside for a sacred offering, by a metaphor taken from the ancient custom of the law” . The reference in ἀπαρχη is (1) to the Thessalonians as first-fruits “ consectrated to God in opposition to the mass of “ the doomed” (Hofmann, who notes 14:4; but see Swete on that passage); (2) to the Thessalonians or Macedonians as first-fruits “ contrasted with others yet to follow” (Moff., ἀπαρχη here as in 1 Corinthians 15:26 implying others to come); or (3), combining an estimate of worth with the idea of historical priority, to the fact that the Thessalonians are consecrated for a possession (James 1:18, 14:4), and are, along with the Philippians and others, especially a first-fruit from paganism (B Weiss).— It is noteworthy, however, that, apart from Romans 11:16 where the reference to the cult (Numbers 15:19 f.) is obvious, Paul elsewhere qualifies ἀπαρχη with a genitive as in Romans 16:5, 1 Corinthians 16:15 (cf. Romans 8:23, 1 Corinthians 15:20, 1 Corinthians 15:23; and 1 Clem. 24:1). The absence of the qualifying genitive in this passage suggests either that the Thessalonians are first in value, a choice fruit, which is improbable; or that they are the first in time, which is impossible, for they are not even the first-fruits of Macedonia. Grot. obviates the difficulty by supposing that our letter was written as early as 38 a.d., that is, before Paul came to Thessalonica, and was addressed to Jason and other Jewish Christians who had come thither from Palestine. Harnack likewise (v. supra p. 53 f.) thinks that our letter was addressed to Jewish Christians in Thessalonica, a group of believers that formed a kind of annex to the larger Gentile Christian church, and interprets ἀπαρχή as referring specifically to the Jews who were the first-fruits of Thessalonica (Acts 17:4).

But apart from the fact that, in a section written for the encouragement. of those who were losing the assurance of salvation, ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆ (cf. Sir. 24:9) is more appropriate than ἀπαρχή , it is difficult to understand, on Harnack’ s theory, the omission of the expected τῆςΘεσσαλονίκη or the τῶνΘεσσαλονικέω , for in the letter to Corinth, a city in which two distinct groups of Christians, Jewish and Gentile, are unknown, the familia of Stephanas is called not simply ἀπαρχη but ἀπαρχὴτῆςἈχαία (1 Corinthians 16:15).— In passing it is to be noted not only that D in Romans 16:5 and א in Revelation 14:4 change the forceful ἀπαρχη to the meaningless ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆ , but also that in Sir. 24:9 , πρὸτοῦαἰῶνοςἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆςἔκτισένμ , A changes ἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆ to ἀπαρχή

εἰςσωτηρίανκτλ . The eternal choice of God includes not only the salvation (I 5:9) of the readers (εἰςσωτηρία = εἰςτὸσωθῆναιὑμᾶ ; cf. v. 10, I 2:16), but also the means by which (ἐ = δια , Chrys.) or the state in which (cf. I 4:8) salvation is realised (Denney). The ἁγιαςμὸςπνεύματο designates the total consecration of the individual, soul and body, to God, a consecration which is inspired by the indwelling Holy Spirit, and which, as the readers would recall (I 4:3-8, 5:23), is not only religious but ethical. The phrase πίστιςἀληθεία , “ faith in the truth” of the gospel, is prompted by πιστεύειντῇἀληθείᾳ (v. 12). Faith is man’ s part; but behind the will to believe is the consecrating Spirit of God (τὸπνεῦμααὐτοῦτοἅγιο I 4:8).

To be sure, man may refuse to welcome the heavenly influence designed for his salvation; but, if he does, he takes upon himself the conse quences of his choice (vv. 11-12). A similar interaction of the divine and human in salvation is referred to in another Macedonian letter (Philippians 2:12 f.). The fact that the means or state of salvation is included in the eternal choice, and that it is mentioned before the calling (when the means or state is historically manifested) suggests that Paul is choosing his words with a view to the encouragement of the faint-hearted. To know that they are elect from everlasting, and hence destined to the future salvation to which they were called, they have only to ask themselves whether the consecrating Spirit is in them and whether they have faith in the truth of the gospel. By the same token, Paul, in I 1:4 ff., expresses the conviction that the readers are elected, namely, by the presence of the Spirit in the readers who heard him and welcomed his gospel. “ We find in ourselves a satisfactory proof (of election) if he has sanctified us by his Spirit, if he has enlightened us in the faith of his gospel” (Calvin).

Grammatically ἐνἁγιασμῷκτλ is to be construed not with εἵλατ alone (Whol.), or with σωτηρία alone (Riggenbach, Schmiedel, Born), but with εἵλατοεἰςσωτηρία (Lü n., Ell., Lft., Dob. et al.). In the light of I 5:23, πνεύματο is not the human (Schott., Find., Moff. et al.) but the divine Spirit (Calv., Grot. and most); and the gen. is not of the object but of the author. The phrase ἐνἁγιασμῷπνεύματο in 1 Peter 1:2 “ probably comes from 2 Thessalonians 2:13” (Hort). On ἁγιασμό , see I 4:3 ff.; on πίστιςἀληθεία , see vv. 10-12 and cf. Philippians 1:27, Colossians 2:12.

14. εἰςὃἐκάλεσενκτλ . “ To which end,” “ whereunto” (1:11), that is, “ to be saved in consecration by the Spirit and faith in the truth.” The eternal purpose is historically manifested in God’ s call (καλεῖ I 2:12, 4:7, 5:24; κλῆσι II 1:11), an invitation extended through the gospel which Paul (cf. Romans 10:14 ff.) and his associates preach (ἡμῶ ; cf. I 1:5). That is, οὓςδὲπροώρισεντούτουςκαὶἐκάλεσε (Romans 8:30).

εἰςπεριποίησινδίξηςκτλ . With this clause, standing in apposition to εἰςο , Paul proceeds to the final consummation of the purpose of God in election and calling, explaining εἰςσωτηρία as the acquisition of divine glory, “ to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The “ glory of Christ” (1:9), like the glory of God (to which he calls in I 2:12), is the glory which Christ possesses, and which he shares (cf. Romans 8:17) with “ the beloved of the Lord.” In other words, οὕςἐκάλεσε … τούτουςκαὶἐδόξασε (Romans 8:30). The repetition, in this appositional explanation, of a part of the language of I 5:9 where the faint-hearted are likewise encouraged is undoubtedly purposed.

Lillie properly remarks: “ There is no reason for restricting εἰςο to any one (σωτηρία , as Piscator, Bengel, et al.; or πίστε , as Aretius, Cocceius, et al.), or any two (ἁγιασμῷ … καὶπίστε , as Grotius, Flatt, Schott, de Wette, Hofmann, et al.), of the three; though, inasmuch as salvation is the leading idea and ultimate end, this is repeated and defined in the latter clause of the verse, εἰςπεριποίησινκτλ ” Most commentators agree with the above in referring εἰςο to σωτηρίανἐνἁγιασμῷ … πίστε (Theophylact, Lü n., Ell., Lft., Find., et al.); but B. Weiss refers it to εἵλατ “ with reference to which election” (cf. εἰςο in 1:11 which resumes εἰςτὸκαταξιωθῆνα 1:5).— A few codices read εἰςὃκαι (א PGF, Vulg), the και coming probably from 1:11 (but see Weiss, 112); cf. I 4:8 τὸνκαὶδιδόντ (א DGF, Vulg et al.), and contrast the simple εἰςο in Philippians 3:16.— On διὰτοῦεὐαγγελίο , cf. Ephesians 3:6, 1 Corinthians 4:15.— In vv. 13-14 (on which see especially Denney in Expositor’ s Bible, 1892), which are “ a system of theology in miniature” (Denney), nothing is expressly said of the death and resurrection of Christ, or of the specific hope of believers for a redeemed and spiritual body conformed τῷσώματιτῆςδόξηςαὐτου (Philippians 3:21; 1 Corinthians 15:42 ff.; Romans 8:23 f.). But these essential convictions of Paul, who is already a Christian of over seventeen years’ standing, are given in the very words “ our gospel.”

15. ἄραοὖνκτλ . With his characteristic ἄραοὗ (I 5:6), to which an affectionate ἀδελφοι is added (as in Romans 8:12), Paul commands the brethren to fulfil their Christian duty, their good work and word. This imperative is based on the fact that they are beloved of Christ and elected and called of God to obtain the glory of Christ, and is expressed (1) in στήκετ (a word of Paul; see I 3:8), “ stand firm” and (2) in κρατεῖτετὰςπαραδόσει , “ hold to the deliverances or instructions which you have been taught by us whether by our word or by our letter,” ἡμῶ being construed with both substantives. Since ἐδιδάχθητ has in mind instructions hitherto conveyed by Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy (ἡμῶ ; cf. v. 14) to the Thessalonians, λόγο refers to the oral teaching during the first visit; and “ our letter” refers specifically to the first epistle. While these instructions comprehend the various elements, religious and moral, communicated by Paul and his associates to the Thessalonians orally or by letter up to the time of the writing of II , the presence of στήκετ , recalling the σαλευθῆνα of v. 2, goes to show that Paul has in mind not only generally “ our gospel” as outlined in vv. 13-14 but also specifically the instructions concerning the Parousia which he had given orally (I 5:2, II 2:5) and had touched upon in the first epistle (5:1-11 which has the faint-hearted in mind). Knowing, as they should remember (v. 2), that the day is not actually present, and aware that, as elect and beloved (I 1:4 ff.), they are put not for wrath but for the acquiring of salvation (I 5:9), they should not be agitated and nervously wrought up (v. 2), but should stand firm and stick to the deliverances that they had been taught, “ whether we conveyed them by word of mouth when we were yet with you or by our letter,” that is, the first epistle (sive per verbum praesentes sive et absentes per litteras Th. Mops.; cf. also Theodoret: λόγουςοὕςκαὶπάροντεςὑμῖνἐκηρύξαμενκαὶἄποντεςἐγράψαμε ).

As Dob. (ad loc.) and J. Weiss (in Meyer on 1 Corinthians 11:2) have pointed out, the use of παράδοσι betrays the Jewish training of Paul who as a Pharisee outstripped many of his comrades in his zeal for τῶνπατρικῶνμουπαραδόσεω (Galatians 1:14). Here, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 , the deliverances are not defined; contrast the single tradition below 3:6 which is stated in 3:10; and note also the comprehensive ἡπαράδοσιςτῶνἀνθρώπω (Colossians 2:6-8; cf. Mark 7:8) which is antithetical to Christ. In our passage, Paul might have said τὴνδιδαχὴνἥνὑμεῖςἐμάθετ (Romans 16:17; cf. Philippians 4:9, Colossians 1:7, Colossians 2:6 ff.

Ephesians 4:20; also 1 Corinthians 4:17); or, on the analogy of I 4:1-2, 1 Corinthians 7:10, τὰςπαρογγελίαςἅςἐδώκαμενὑμῖ The thought is constant, but the language varies. Paul is ὁδιδούς , ὁπαραδιδούς , ὁδιδάσκων , ὁπαραγγέλλω , and ὁγνωρίζω (1 Corinthians 15:1); and the readers or hearers receive (παραλαμβάνει Galatians 1:9, 1 Corinthians 15:1, Philippians 4:9, Colossians 2:6, I 4:1, II 3:6), learn (μανθάνει Philippians 4:9, Romans 16:17, Colossians 1:7, Ephesians 4:20), and are taught (διδάσχεσθα Colossians 2:7, Ephesians 4:21; cf.

Galatians 1:12); and they likewise “ hold fast to the instructions” (here and 1 Corinthians 11:2; cf. 15:2). While the source of these words, deliverances, teaching, commands, etc., is for Paul the indwelling Christ, and may thus be opposed to human authority (Galatians 1:12) or his own opinion (1 Corinthians 7:10 ff.), still they are historically mediated by the O. T., sayings of Jesus, and the traditions of primitive Christianity (1 Corinthians 15:3).— κρατεῖ is used elsewhere by Paul only Colossians 2:19 ; cf. Mark 7:3, Mark 7:8 κρατεῖντὴνπαράδοσι ; but παράδοσι , apart from Paul, appears in Gk. Bib. only Mark 7:3 ff. = Matthew 15:2 ff., and in 2 Ezr 7:26, Jeremiah 39:4, Jeremiah 41:2 of “ delivering up” a city.— The construction διδάσκεσθαίτ is found elsewhere in Gk. Bib. 1 Chronicles 5:18, Son 3:8 Sap. 6:10 (but cf.

Galatians 1:12); on διδάσκει , cf. 1 Corinthians 4:17, Colossians 2:7, Ephesians 4:21.— The implication of this specification of alternative modes of conveying instruction, διὰλόγο and δι ʼ ἐπιστολῆ (εἴτ being disjunctive as in I 5:10), is that each is equally authoritative; et par in utroque auctoritas (Grot.). Paul had previously referred to both these modes (vv. 2, 5, I 5:2, 27); but the reminder here may imply an intentional contrast both with the erroneous inferences drawn by some from Paul’ s oral utterances (inspired or not) and from his first epistle (v. 2), and (probably) with the statement implied in I 5:27 that some of the brothers would give no heed to the letters of Paul (cf. below 3:14).— ἐπιστολη with an article may refer to “ this” present letter (I 5:27, II 3:14, Romans 16:22, Colossians 4:16; cf.

P. Oxy. 293:8 f. (a.d. 27) τῷδὲφέροντίσοιτὴνἐπιστολή ), or to a previous letter, “ that” letter (1 Corinthians 5:9, 2 Corinthians 7:8), the context determining in each instance the reference. The plural ἐπιστολαι indicates with the article previous past letters in 2 Corinthians 10:9-10; and without the article, either letters to be written (1 Corinthians 16:3) or the epistolary method (2 Corinthians 10:11).

16-17. αὐτὸςδέκτλ . The δε , which introduces a new point (cf. I 3:11, 5:23, II 3:16), is here, as in I 5:23, slightly adversative. “ We have commanded you to stand firm and hold to the instructions which you have received, and we have based our imperative on the fact that you are beloved and elect; but after all , the only power that can make the appeal effective, that can encourage your purposes and strengthen them in the sphere of righteousness, is Christ and God, to whom consequently we address our prayer for you.” As in I 3:11, so here the divine names are united and governed by a verb in the singular; there, however, God, as usual, takes the precedence; here (as in Galatians 1:1, 2 Corinthians 13:13) Christ is named first, perhaps because the good hope is pictured as the sharing of the glory of Christ (v. 14). Due to the position of the name of Christ, the arrangement of the divine names is chiastic, “ Our Lord, Jesus Christ,” and “ God, our Father” (the phrase ὁθεὸςὁπατὴρἡμῶ being unique; see on I 1:3).

ὁἀγαπήσαςἡμᾶςκαὶδού . “ Who loved us (Christians; contrast ὑμῶ v. 17) and so gave us eternal encouragement and good hope in virtue of grace” (both the love and the gift arising from the divine favour (I 1:1) of God and Christ unto salvation; cf. κατὰτὴνχάρι 1:12 and ἐνδυνάμε 1:11). On the analogy of I 3:11, it is evident that ὁἀγαπήσαςκαὶδού is to be referred to both Christ and God (contrast Galatians 1:1, “ through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead,” where ἐγείραντο logically excludes the double reference). Since the aorists look upon the past event simply as an event without reference to its progress or existing result (BMT 38), it is probable (1) that ὁἀγαπήσα alludes chiefly to the love of God (Romans 5:8) or Christ (Galatians 2:20) manifested in his sufferings and death, though the aorist does not exclude the idea of the continued love of God and Christ (“ who has loved us” ; cf. I 1:4, II 2:13 ἠγαπημένο , and Romans 8:35 ff.); and (2) that the δού , which is closely attached to ἀγαπήσα under the governance of one article, refers to the initial gift of the Spirit (I 4:8, Galatians 4:6, Romans 5:5), though the aorist does not exclude the idea of the permanent possession of the gift .

παράκλησιναἰωνίανκαὶἐλπίδαἀγαθή . In choosing these phrases (which are evidently unique in the Gk. Bib.), Paul, though speaking of Christians in general, has especially in mind the needs of the faint-hearted who had been losing confidence and hope. παράκλησι is the courageous confidence, inspired by the Spirit, that nothing, whether persecutions (1:4, I 3:3) or disquieting utterances touching the time of the Parousia (vv. 2-3)can prevent the beloved and elect from sharing the future glory of Christ. This “ encouragement” is αἰωνία , not because it belongs to this present æ on , but because it holds good for and reaches into the æ on which is to come , a present and lasting encouragement. The “ good hope” springs from the “ eternal encouragement” (cf. Romans 5:1 ff.), and is likewise a present possession (cf.

Romans 8:23) due to the Spirit. It is “ good” not only negatively in contrast with the empty hope of non-Christians (I 4:13) but also positively in that it is genuine and victorious (Romans 5:5), certain to be realised in the future kingdom of God.

17. παρακαλέσα … καὶστηρίξαικτλ . Having named the divine persons and recalled their gracious love and gift to all Christians (v. 16), Paul petitions Christ and God (the two persons being united here as in I 3:11 by the singular optatives) first of all (1) to “ encourage” the inward purposes or will of the faint-hearted among the readers (ὑμῶντὰςκαρδία as 3:5, I 3:15; note the change from the general ἡμᾶ (v. 16) to the specific ὑμῶ ), that is, to put into their hearts the confident assurance of salvation, the “ eternal encouragement” of which he had just spoken . Then (2), recognising still the needs of the faint-hearted and gently reminding them that the future salvation, though it is assured by the indwelling Spirit, is contingent upon righteousness (cf. 1:11-12, I 3:13, 5:6 ff.; Romans 14:10, 2 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Corinthians 3:13 ff. Philippians 1:6), he petitions further (as in 1:11, I 3:13) Christ and God to “ establish (στηρίξα ; cf. I 3:2, 13 and στήκετ above v. 15) their hearts in every good work that they do (contrast περιεργάζεσθα 3:11) and in every good word that they speak” (contrast v. 2).

On αὐτὸςδε , see 3:16, I 3:11, 5:23. Most codices have ἸησοῦςΧριστό ; but A reads ἸησοῦςὁΧριστό , and B ΧριστὸςἸησοῦ (cf. Romans 16:25, Ephesians 5:20; also D in 1:1 above). The unique ὁθεὸςὁπατὴρἡμῶ is given by א GF; BD omit ο before θεό , yielding an equally unusual phrase; θεό (K) or ὁθεό (APL) καὶπατὴρἡμῶ (AKLP) is conformation to Paul’ s regular usage.— Paul speaks elsewhere of the love of God (3:5, Romans 5:5, Romans 5:8:39, 2 Corinthians 13:13) and of the love of Christ (Romans 8:35, Romans 8:37, 2 Corinthians 5:14); of God as the author of παράκλησι (Romans 15:5, 2 Corinthians 1:3) and of Christ as the inspiration of the same (Philippians 2:1); of God as the author of hope (Romans 15:5) and of Christ in us the hope of glory (Colossians 1:27); and of the grace both of God and of Christ (see I 1:1). There is no intrinsic difficulty therefore in referring ὁἀγαπήσαςκαὶδού to both Christ and God.— In the present context, παράκλησι , which anticipates παρακαλέσα in v. 17, means not “ consolation” but “ encouragement” (Find.; cf. I 3:2).— On the feminine ending αἰωνί instead of the common αἰώνιο (which GF have here; cf. 1:9), cf.

Hebrews 9:12, Numbers 25:13, Jeremiah 20:17, etc.— For ἐλπὶςἀγαθη (which, like παράκλησιςαἰωνί , is unique in the Gk. Bib.), see Goodwin’ s note on Demosthenes, de cor. 258.

On διδόναιἐλπίδ , cf. Job 6:8, Sir. 13:6; on ἀγαθό , see I 3:6 and on ἐλπί I 1:3.Isaiah 57:18 may be cited: παρεκάλεσααὐτὸνκαὶἔδωκααὐτῷπαράκλησινἀληθινή — The adverbial expression ἐνχάριτ is to be construed not with παρακαλέσα (B. Weiss), and not with δού alone, but with the two closely united participles ὁἀγαπήσαςκαὶδού (De W., Lü n., Lft., et al.). The ἐ indicates the sphere or more precisely the ground of the divine love and gift (cf. 1:10, 12, Romans 5:15, Galatians 1:6, 2 Corinthians 1:12).— Why Paul writes not “ word and work” (so GFK, et al.; cf. Colossians 3:17, Romans 15:18, 2 Corinthians 10:11) but “ work and word” (not elsewhere in Paul; but cf. Luke 24:19), and adds ἀγαθῷ is quite unknown.— On the analogy of I 2:4 , א A put ἡμῶ after καρδία For the phrase παρακαλεῖντὰςκαρδία , cf. Colossians 4:8, Ephesians 6:22, Sir. 30:23.— Ell. notes Chrys. on στηρίξα : βεβαιώσαι , ὥστεμὴσαλεύεσθαιμηδὲπαρακλίνεσθα

א Ԡ א (e a p r). Cod. Sinaiticus, saec. iv, now at St. Petersburg. Edited by Tischendorf, its discoverer, in 1862. Photographic reproduction by H. and K. Lake, Oxford, 1911. Contains I and II complete.

A A (e a p r). Cod. Alexandrinus, saec. v, now in the British Museum. Edited by Woide in 1786. Facsimile by E. M. Thompson, 1879. Contains I and II complete.

C C (e a p r). Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus, saec. v, now in the National Library at Paris. The N. T. fragments were edited by Tischendorf in 1843. Contains I 1:2 ευχαριστουμεν — 2:8 εγενηθητε .

B B (e a p r). Cod. Vaticanus, saec. iv, now in the Vatican Library. Photographic reproduction by Cozza-Luzi, Rome, 1889, and by the Milan firm of Hoepli, 1904. Contains I and II complete.

K K (a p). Cod. Mosquensis, saec. ix, now at Moscow. Collated by Matthaei, 1782. Contains I and II complete.

L L (a p). Cod. Angelicus, saec. ix, now in the Angelican Library at Rome. Collated among others by Tischendorf (1843) and Tregelles (1845). Contains I and II complete.

Deiss. A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (1910) = Licht vom Osten (19093).

Schü rer E. Schü rer, Geschichte des Jü dischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (4th ed., 1901-9).

Bousset, W. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (19062).

Grot Hugo de Groot (Grotius).

Ell Ellicott.

BMT E. D. Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in N. T. Greek (18983).

Wohl Wohlenberg.

Mill George Milligan.

Dob Ernst von Dobschü tz,

Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek (1895).

E E Cod. Sangermanensis, saec. ix, now at St. Petersburg. A copy of D.

P P (a p r). Cod. Porphyrianus, saec. ix, now at St. Petersburg. Edited by Tischendorf (1865). Contains I and II except I 3:5 μηκετι — ημειςοι 4:17.

Bl F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (1896, 19022).

Chrys Chrysostom.

Ephr Ephraem Syrus.

Lü n Lü nemann.

Lft Lightfoot.

Moff James Moffatt.

De W De Wette.

Lillie John Lillie, Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians, Translated from the Greek, with Notes (1856).

Vincent M. R. Vincent, Word Studies in the N. T., vol. IV, 1900.

EGT The Expositor’ s Greek Testament (ed. W. R. Nicoll, 1897-1910).

Find G. G. Findlay.

D D (p). Cod. Claromontanus, saec. vi, Graeco-Latin, now in the National library at Paris. Edited by Tischendorf in 1852. Contains I and II complete.

G G (p). Cod. Boernerianus, saec. ix, now in the Royal Library at Dresden. “ It is closely related to F, according to some the archetype of F” (Souter). Edited by Matthaei, 1791. Im Lichtdruck nachgebildet, Leipzig (Hiersemann), 1909. Contains I and II complete.

F F (p). Cod. Augiensis, saec. ix, Graeco-Latin, now in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. An exact transcript by Scrivener, 1859. Contains I and II complete.

Lxx The Old Testament in Greek (ed. H. B. Swete, 1887-94).

Th. Mops Theodore of Mopsuestia, in epistolas Pauli commentarii (ed. H. B. Swete, 1880-82).

ICC International Critical Commentary.

Weiss B. Weiss in TU. XIV, 3 (1896).

EB The Encyclopæ dia Biblica (London, 1899-1903; ed. J. S. Black and T. K. Cheyne).

Calv Calvin.

Ambst Ambrosiaster.

Boh Coptic version in the Bohairic dialect.

Vulg Vulgate.

Zim F. Zimmer, Der Text der Thessalonicherbriefe (1893).

Hatch, E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (1889).

SH Comm. on Romans in ICC. by W. Sanday an A. C. Headlam.

Soph. E. A. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (revised by J. H. Thayer, 1887, 1900).

Born Bornemann.

WH The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881; I, Text, II, Introduction and Appendix).

Charles, R. H. Charles, Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian (1899).

Meyer Kritisch-exegetischer Komm. ü ber das N. T.

PRE Real-Encyclopä die fü r protest. Theologie u. Kirche (3d ed. Hauck, 1896-1909).

TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung.

Pesh Syriac Vulgate.

Arm Armenian version.