ε
in ii 3f. fits in with the data so well as the early theory that ὁ κατέχων and τὸ κατέχον denote, not the episcopate as a restraint against gnosticism (Hilgenfeld and others), but the Emperor and imperial power of Rome (‘quis nisi Romanus status?”’ Tertullian, de Resurr., xxiv.). Paul had ample experience of the protection afforded by the polity of the empire against the malevolence of the Jews, and he apparently anticipated that this would continue for a time, until the empire fell. But how could the fall of the empire be expected ἢ The answer lies not so much in any contemporary feelings of panic and dismay, as in the eschatological tradition, derived from a study of Daniel, which was evidently becoming current in certain Jewish and early Christian circles, that the empire represented the penulti- mate stage in the world’s history. ‘“ And when Rome falls, the world.” Hence the tone of reserve and cryptic ambiguity with which Paul speaks of its collapse, ‘‘ne calumniam incurreret, quod Romano imperio male optauerit, cum speraretur aeternum ” (Aug., Civ. Dei., xx.; so Jerome on 2 Thess. ii. 6). The idea of Rome’s downfall could not be spoken of, or at least written about, openly. All that a Christian prophet could do was to hint that this future Deceiver or pseudo-Messiah would prove too strong even for the Restraining Empire, and that King Jesus would ultimately inter- vene to meet and to defeat him. An entire change came over the spirit of the dream, when, nearly half a century later the imperial cultus in Asia Minor stirred the prophet John to denounce Rome as the supreme antagonist of God. The empire, on this view, was no providential restraint on τὸ μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας, but was herself μυστήριον (Rev. xvii. 5), loathsome and dangerous and doomed. This altered prospect lay far beyond the horizon of Paul. The imperial worship had not yet become formidable, and to him the empire, with its administrative justice, stood for a welcome, even though a tem- porary, barrier against the antagonistic forces of Judaism. The kingdom of God was not the opponent of the empire, but simply the final conqueror of a foe who would prove too strong even for the restraining control of Roman civilisation.
This interpretation of the restraining power! implies that the supernatural antagonist issues from Judaism (so especially Weiss, N.T. Theologie, ὃ 63). Here again patristric tradition seems to cor-
Cf. Neumann’s Hippolytus von Rom (Leipzig, 1902), pp. 4 f. The κατέχων is not to be associated with any special emperor, not even with Claudius, whose name has a curious resemblance to it. The theories which identify the Restrainer with Vespasian (as a check on Nero Redivivus), Antichrist, or Domitian. depend on a priori conceptions of the epistle’s origin and aim.