48
k Cf. 2 Cor. ἡμῶν),1 ὃ ὡς " ὅτι ᾿ ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ Κυρίου.
ΧΙ. 21, “to the effect that”.
3. Μή τις ὑμᾶς
Ὁ ἐξαπατήσῃ κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον ὅτι " ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ “ ἡ ἀποστασία
1 Rom. viii, ἢ πρῶτον καὶ 4 ἀποκαλυφθῇ 6 ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας,2 6 υἱὸς "τῆς
38, εἴς.
πι Aor.conj. ἀπωλείας, 4. ὃ as in2 Cor. xi. 16; 1 Cor. y να τει
nSc. “1 shall not come” (ellipsis, as in. ver. 7). XXiv. 12. in N.T., only in Acts xvii. 23 (Sap. xv. 17). cf. Acts ii. 22; here = ‘‘ proclaim”.
ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἐστὶ θεός.
ο ‘‘The well known.” r Win. § 30, 6, b; cf. Deissm. 163; Jub. x. 3. u Matt. xxiv. 15.
ιά ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ " πάντα λεγό-
μενον 3" θεὸν ἢ ' σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν “eis τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι,
3 , ” a 5. οὔ μνημονεύετε OTL ETL WY
Ρ = πρότερον (I. iv. 16). q Matt: 51 Cor.viii. 5. t Elsewhere v By deeds as well as words,
1Qn ws δι ηµων Field (202) writes: “ Perhaps the apostle wrote ws δη ἡμῶν, as pretending to be ours,” adding instances from Ast. Lex. Plat. to justify the latter's statement that ‘‘ cum irrisione quadam plerumque ponitur ws δη”.
2 The ανοµιας of Ν Β min., cop., arm., Euth., Dam., Tert., Amb. (Ti., Tr., WH, Zim., Bj., Findlay, Lgft.), is preferable to the Western paraphrastic αµαρτιας (Alford,
Ellic., Wohl., Weiss). 3 Bentl. conj. επι παν το λεγομενον.
chievous effects upon the church (cf. Matt. xxiv. 4). Probably his suspicions of misinterpretation were due to his recent experiences in Galatia, though the Macedonian churches seem to have escaped any infusion of the anti-Pauline propaganda which soured Corinth not long afterwards.
Ver. 3. καὶ ἀποκ., the apostasy and the appearance (so of Beliar, Asc. Isa., iv. 18) of the personal anti-Christ or pseudo- Christ form a single phenomenon. From the use of ἡ ἀποστασία as a Greek equivalent for Belial (LXX of 1 Kings xxi. 13, A, and Aquila), this eschatolo- gical application of the term would natur-
ally flow, especially as byb3 WAN might well be represented by 6 ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας on the analogy of 2 Sam. xxli, 5 (LXX) = Ps. xvii. (xvili.). 4. Lawlessness was a cardinal trait in the Jewish figure of Belial, as was persecu- tion of the righteous (i. 4, il. 7, see Asc. Isa., ii. 5, etc.). The very order of the following description (ἀπωλείας set be- tween ἀνομίας and 6 ἀντικείμενος, etc., unchronologically, but dramatically) sug- gests that this incarnation of lawlessness was a doomed figure, although he chal- lenged and usurped divine prerogatives. He is another Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan. xi. 36, καὶ ὑψωθήσεται ἐπὶ πάντα θεὸν καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν τῶν θεῶν ἔξαλλα λαλήσει, though Paul carefully safe- guards himself against misconception by inserting λεγόμενον in his quotation of the words). This conception of a super- natural antagonist to Jesus Christ at the end is the chief element of novelty intro-
duced by Paul, from Jewish traditions, into the primitive Christian eschatology. The recent attempt of Caligula to erect a statue of himself in the Temple at Jeru- salem may have furnished a trait for Paul’s delineation of the future Deceiver ; the fearful impiety of this outburst had sent a profound shock through Judaism, which would be felt by Jewish Christians as well. But Paul does not identify the final Deception with the Imperial cultus, which was far from a prominent feature when he wrote. His point is that the last pseudo-Messiah or anti-Christ will επι οἷν all that is profane and blasphem- ous, every conceivable element of im- piety ; and that, instead of being repudi- ated, he will be welcomed by Jews as well as pagans (cf. Acts xli. 21, 22).
Ver. 5. It was no after-thought, on Paul’s part (the singular rules out Spitta’s idea that Timothy wrote this apocalyptic piece). Nor was it an idio- syncrasy of his teaching. Especially since the days of Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan. vii., xi.; cf. Gunkel’s Schopfung u. Chaos, 221 f.), a more or less esoteric and varied Jewish tradition had pervaded pious circles, that the last days would be heralded by a proud uprising against God. The champion of this movement was no longer the Dragon or cosmic op- ponent of God, as in the older mythology (though traces of this belief still linger), but an individual (6 ἄνομος) who incor- porates human wickedness (τὸ μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας) and infernal cunning in his own person, and who essays to supplant and suppress the worship of the true God, by claiming divine honours for himself.