(a) The relation of the style to that of 1 Thessa- lonians. In spite of the pointsof likeness (see above), there is a dillerence ; the tone is more orticial {eux- 6(pti\ofiev), the feeling less vivid, the sentences more involved, the .same things are being said, but said with less point and directness ; they suggest a second person adapting Pauline thought (Spitta, pp. 116-119). But the variety seems equally ex- plicable as that of one writer writing after a short lapse of time, and in a dillerent mood. A compari- son of the style of 2 Timothy with I Timothy, of Colossians with Ephesians, of 2 Co 11 with 1 Co 9, will show very similar variety.
(b) The escliatology is said to be un-Pauline. It is true tliat no such detailed anticip.-itions are to be found elsewhere in St. Paul (but 2 Co 0" rh ffv^tpujvTjffts XptaTou irpot lieXiap may refer to the Anti- christ tradition), liut .such teacliing was naturally esoteric ; and, even here, the writer .seems inten- tionally to avoid being explicit, through fear, jierhaps, of giving the Roman authorities a handle against himself or his converts (cf. the reticence of Jos. Ant. X. X. 4, about the interpretation of Daniel's prophecies). Further, some such teacliin^j was common among the Jews, so that St. Paul wouhl have inherited it ; and, lastly, it is almost universal in Christian writers (Synoptists, John [5'''], James, I. 2 John, Apoc. ), so that the proba- bility is in favour of St. Paul having shared the expectation in some form.
But is the form iniidicd here Pauline? This again is dillicult to answer, because of the diliiculty of deciding what the writer was pointing to. There lay behind him in the history of the doctrine the following stages. (1) A common Oriental mytli of a struggle between the ])ower of evil, represented by a dragon (I'.ab. Tiaiii.it) and the Creator of the world (Marduk), in which the dragon had been bound, but would revive for another conllict with God before the end of the world (see articles Rahaii, Sea Monstkr, and Rkvki.ai'ion). The connexion of this with the following is only a conjecture, but a very possible conjecture. (2) A Jewish expectation, springing up during the Exile, of an attack upon Israel by foes led by some liuiiian leader or (later) by Satan or Heliar, which would bo frustrated either by J" or the Messiah. Such a victory is described in Ezk 38. Something similar recurs in the prophecies of Daniel (7. 8 and 1 1 ) about the conllict with Antioclius Epiplianes. The ex- pectation did not ccasewitli the deathof Antioclius; it was applie<l to the thouglit of deliverance from the Roman empire in 2 Es 5', Ps-Sol 17, Urac. Sib. iii. 60, Apoc. ISaruch, c. 40, Ase. Is. c. 4 (cf. Man
T48
II. THESSALOXIANS
IL THESSALOXIA^v^S
OF Six). (3) This anticipation had become Chris- tian. Our Lord had contemplated a leader ' coming in his own name ' (Jn 5'^) and demanding allegiance ; some person, ' the abomination of desolation, stand- ing in the holy place (itrTriKdra) ' ; many false pro- 5 bets, a growth of lawlessness, a destruction of erusalem, and a coming of the Son of Man (Mt 24, Mk 13, Lk 21). Similar teaching bad been given at Thessaionica by the writer frequently {IXcyof, 2'), but it was shared by his fellow-teacbers {{puruiixcv ... lis iC Tit>-C»', 2'- -), and the phrases t) iiroaraaia, 6 &v$piairo$, 6 dvTtKeifiivoSf 6 Karix^*' s-re quoted without explanation as from a well-known body of teaching. (4) A new point had probably been given to the expectation among the Jews in A.D. 39 or 40, by the attempt of Caligula, frustrated only by his death, to erect his own statue in the temple of Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. XVIII. viii. ; Tac. Hist. v. 9). This would help to explain the language of 2*, and Spitta suggests that St. Paul and his colleagues had adapted a Jewisli form of the apocalyptic teacliing written in view of Caligula's attempt ; but there is no necessity for such a suggestion, interest- ing and possible as it is.
This history of the doctrine helps us to define the probable application which is implied in this teaching. It is not indeed necessary to suppose in St. Paul's mind any clear identification with a definite person or a definite time ; yet the language is more natural on such a supposition, and the in- terpretation will come in one of two directions.
(a) Probably the opposition comes from Jewish soil, t6 ^vaTijptov TTjs di'Ofj.ias is the opposition of the Jews to the spread of Cliristianity (cf. 3'-^, 1 Th 2", Ac 18* and passim) ; the ipepyca ir\dfn! is the blinding of the eyes of the Jews to the gosjiel (Ac 13"-'^ 1 Co 2«, 2 Co 3», Ro U^^) ; t6 Karexof is the Roman empire controlling the Jews ' assidue tumultuantes ' (cf. Ac 18-) and preventing their illegal attacks on the Christians ; 6 Karixuv, the Roman emperor, or perhaps on the analogy of Dn lu'^- -" some archangel who presides over the order of the empire (so Goebel, ad loc); ^ diro- uraaia is the final rejection by the Jews of their Messiah, or possibly some Christian apo>tasy such as is contemplated in He 10^*- ; 6 di'dpuiiros rijt dpuipTlas is some false Messiah, expected to lead the Jews in a final rising against tlie Roman emj>ire ; and his destruction lies in the overthrow of the Jewish polity and the salvation and estab- lishment of the Christian Church. This interpreta- tion is most in accord with the Synoptists and with the subsequent Church tradition, as well as with St. Paul's own circumstances at the moment.