The Pulpit Commentary — 2 Thessalonians — Section 57

Western wae the pope. It is a remarkable circumstance that all three-the Greeks, the Romans, and the Protestants-were at one a.s rega.rrls the restraining influence; this they regarded as the imperial power-the Roman empire, either in itself or continued in the Greek a.nd German empires. The modem views concerning the Ma.n of Sin are chiefly four: the Rat.ionali~ts, who consider that there is no prophecy; the Prreterists, who consider the prophecy as already fulfilled; the Progressionists, who regard it as being fulfilled or in the course of fulfil- ment; and the Futurists, who regard the fulfilment as still future. 1. The first class of expositors are those who regard a.II the usual interpretations as proceeding from a false assumption as if there were a prophecy, whereas there is in reality no prediction at a.II. This opinion is adopted by Knppe, Pelt, De Wette, Liine- mann, Jowett, and Davidson. Koppe appears to have been the earliest who took this view 1Jf the passage. He idealizes the prediction, a.nd supposes that the apostle is only stating his impressions of what might be the future state of the Church from a consideration of the times in which he lived. The apostle was profoundly impressed with the prophecies of Daniel, and from them he dreaded a.n outburst of evil after his death, and he expressed his forebodings in language coloured from Daniel. Pelt supposes that the mystery of iniquity wa.s the inward priuciple of evil which the apostle foresaw would afterwards break forth in a more open and violent form; that the restraining power was the will of God holding back the kingdom of Satan ; and that the coming of Christ was the final victory ol good over evil. So also De Wette observes," He goes altogether wrong who finds here any more than the apostle's subjective anticipation, from his own historical position, of the future of the Christian Church. Instead of rising to the example of Christ, acknowledging the limitation which there ia to a definite foreknowledge of the future, the apostle pays a. tribute to human weakness, since he wanted to know too much beforehand." 1 Liinemann considers that Paul was so entirely engro~sed by bis ideas of the proximity of the advent that, carried away by his individuality, he" wished to settle more exactly concerning its circumstances and conditions the historical relations of the coming of Christ than is allotted to man in general to know, even although he sl;iould be the apostle, the most filled with the Spirit of God." 1 "Such passages [Col. ii. 8, 16; Eph. vi. 12]," observes Professor Jowett, "are a much safer guide to the interpre- tation of the one we are considering than the meaning of similar passages in the Old Testament. For they indicate to us the habitual thought of the apostte·s mind; 'a falling away first,' suggested, probably, by the wavering which he sa.w among his own converts, the grievous wolves entering into the Church of Ephesus (Acts XL 29), the turning away of all them of Asia (2 Tim. i.15). When we con,ider that his own converts and Jewish opponents or half-converts were all the world to him; that through them, as it were in a glass, he appeared to see the workings of human nature generally, we understand how this double image of good and evil should have presented itself to him, and the kind of necessity that he felt that Christ and Antichrist shonld alternate with each other. It was not that he foresaw some great conflict, decisive of the destinies of mankind. What he anticipated for man nearly resembled the spiritual combat in the seventh chapter of the Romans." 3 And Dr. Davidson remarks, "The passage does ..10t contain a prophcey, but rather the writer's notion on a subject which did not concern the proper faith and duty of mankind. 'l'hose notions were shaped by the floating belief of his day, and have nothing beyond an historical interest. They belong to the past of Christianity-to its infantine state, when it was emerging out of Judaism, and assuming that independent position to which no man contributed so much as the apostle of the Gen tiles.' Such a view is at vari11nce. with the idea of inspiration-in other words, with the supposition that the apostle was cruided in writing by a higher Spirit than his own. The supernatural is entirely overlooked ; the apostle writes according to his own fancies; 1 De Wette, however, expresses himself very differently, in the preface to his exposition of the Apocalypse; there he recognizes the symptoms of Antichrist in the Ho<l.Jenying egoism of OW' day, with its rejection of all restraints. • Liineruann, ' Briefe o.n die Thesso.lonioher,' pp. 229, 280, translu.tion of the IIBlll&, p. 237. • Jowett's 'St. P11nl's Epistles,' vol. i. p. 177, let edit. • Davidson's 'Intro,luclion to the New Testament' vol. i. p. H (new edit.).  68 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [oe. n. 1-17