(i3) The opposite view has been frequently main- tained of late, which sees the explanation in heathen oiiposition and especially in the worsliip of tlie Cfajsars. The lawlessness and deceit will then be that of heathen wickedness and error ; the restrain- injj power, tlie antagonism of the Jewish State (Warfield), or the imperial authority (Jljlicher) ; the man of sin, the emperor or some heathen per- sonification of evil proclaiming himself as God ; the apostasy, that of the Jews, or, as on the former theory, of some Christians ; and the coming of the Son of Man will be tlie ultimate annihilation of C^sarism and the est.iblishment of Christianity as the religion of the world. This view would be more in accordance with the past history of the appli- cation to Antiochus Epiphanes, with the attempt of Caligula, and with the reference to Nero in the Apocalypse; but it seems less in accord with St. Paul's own circumstances at the time.
Either of these views gives a setting possibly Pauline ; the language, no doubt, is indefinite ; it is capable of being applied to the theory of a Nero reclivivu,i (c. 69 A.D. ), or to some Gnostic oppo-sition to Christianity in the 2nd cent. ; but none of the
lan^age rcfjuires such an interpretation. Noi again, is this view fatally inconsistent with St. Paul's expectation elsewhere. 1 Th 5'"' certainly foretells a sudden surprising appearance of the day of the Lord ; but that is consistent with a previous preparation of events, the length of which 13 left, as here, wholly indefinite. Ro U^ also implies a hope that ' all Israel will be saved,' which seems scarcely consistent with a great Jewish antagonism ; out the language cannot be rigidly pressed ; the failure of a Jewish false Messiah might be a stage in the conversion of the Jewish nation ; and it is possible that St. Paul's expectation on this point may have changed. Again, 1 Ti 4', 2 Ti 3' point to an expectation of an apostasy within the Christian Church ; but that would not be inconsistent with the view main- tained here.
Recent investigations have emphasized the strength of the tradition both Jewish and Chris- tian ; but they have also shown the versatility of its application ; it is applied to the danger which threatens the truth at any moment. Baniel gives it a heathen application to Antiochus Epi- phanes ; the writer of the Psalms of Solomon to Pompey ; St. Paul, thwarted by Jews, applies it to them ; St. John sees many Antichrists in teachers untrue to Christianity ; the writer of the Apocalj'pse, when the Roman empire had become a persecuting power, applies it to the Roman emperor ; the writers of the Ep. of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons see in the persecu- tion there an anticipation of the final conflict : ' he that opposeth ' swoops down upon the Christians ; Christ m the martyrs ' brings to naught ' him who opposeth ; the apostate Christians are ' the sons of perdition.' This application is all the more inter- esting that it is mcidental, and the passage is not quoted. Consequently there may be many applications and many fulfilments yet in the future, as long as the cleavage between faith and unfaith, error and truth, remain. [Cf. Man OF SiN, vol. iii. p. 226 ; PAUL, vol. iii. p. 709 ; Bousset, Der Antichrist (Gottingen, 1895, Eng. tr. 1896) ; in Encyc. Bill. s.v. ; Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jeu-ish Thought, pp. 136- 141 ; Stanton, Jeu-ish and Christian Messiah, iii. e. 2 ; R. H. Charles, Eschatvlogy, p. 380 tt'., and art. 'Apocalyptic Literature' in Encyc. Bibl. ; Schurer, EJPu.'n. 154 f. ; B. B. Warfield in Expositor, 1886, ii. pp. 30-44 ; G. G. Findlay, ti. 1900, ii pp. 251- 261].
There is, then, no reason for denying the author- ship to St. Pall. Spitta in a valuable examination of the Ep. {Zur Gesch. und Litt. dcs Urchristentunis, i. pp. 111-154) suggests Timothy as the real author, supposing that St. Paul, instead of dictating as usual, left Timothy to compose it, and that Timothy is referring in 2* to his own separate teaching at his last visit to them ; St. Paul then adds a general authentication in 3". In this way he attempts to explain the ditlerence of style be- tween 1 Thess. and this Ep., and the difference of the eschatological view. But these differences are not so great as to call for such an explanation ; further, St. Paul would not authenticate a letter which contained any substantial ditference from his own teaching ; the Thessalonians would natur- ally refer fKeyov of 2° to the leading apostle whose name stands first (!') and who is named in 3", the only other use of the singular; and 2'-' imply that the teaching of the one teacher (2°) was shared by all. If anotlier author were needed, Silvanus seems a more natural suggestion, for he, as a prophet, miglit be the source of the projihetic passage ; but the theory creates more difficulties than it solves.
■Those who reject the Pauline authorship alto gether suppose tnat at some later date an expects.
n. THESSALONIAXS
THliSSALONICA
749
tion of the immediate coming of Christ arose and produced excitement and neglect of daily duties ; that some one in authority tried to meet the peril implied in the excitement uy writing a letter which described the stages that would precede that com- ing, and in order to gain w eight for it com|)osed it in the name of Paul, deliberately modelling it upon 1 Thess., the Pauline Epistle which was most cognate in subject. Of the many suggested situations, that of Schmiedel seems the best, who would connect it with the expectation of a return 01 Xero, and so place it after Nero's death (June OS), and before the destruction of the teiiijile (August 70). It would then deal with the s:une circumstances a-s the Apocalypse (ch. 13). But there is no detail here, wliich connects 'him that opposeth ' clearly with Nero redioieus, and the verj' elaborateness of the theory is against its truth.