bl' ill led RBtray by hie erroneous opinions. How such & view is " entirely coneletenl with the &postle's inspiration" is difficult to unden;tand, even although we employ the term "inspiration" in a very br,-ad sense. The power of foretellina the future is denied to the sacre<l writers. •• We take them," observes Dr. Davidson,"~ guides to faith and practice generally without &dopting all tb&t they propoun,led, or believln" that they could foretell events." 1 It is evident the apostle is here giving a prediction ;fwh&tshall take pl&ce; and therefore, if there were no real prediction, he was on thie point mistaken &nd in error, and consequently uninspired. If we admit inspiration, we must receive the truths declared as the revelation of God: the Scripture cont&ins truths t.o be received and not the mere opinions of fallen men to be canvassed. ' 2. The secnnd class of _interpreters are th?se who, recognizing a prediction, regard it as already fulfilled. To this clRSs belong Grotms, Wetstein, Hammond, Le Ulero, Whitby, Schott!!cu, Wieseler, Kern, Dollinger, and Baumgarten. These generally agree in consider- ing that the prophecy received its accomplishment in Christ's coming in spirit to destroy Jerusalem, although they cliffer widely in details. Grotius supposes that the Man of Sin was Caligula, who demanded supreme and universal worship as god, and ordered bis statue to be placed in the temple of Jerusalem; he who restrained was Vitellius, the Proconsul of Syria, who, at the risk of his life, refused to obey the order of Caligula ; and the lawless one was Simon Ma,,,aus. It seemed to Paul that the delineation of Antiochus Epiphanes in Daniel was to be realized in Caligula.1 But the distinction between the Man of Sin and the lawless one is incorrect, and besides, the interpretation involves an anachronism, as the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was written after the death of Caligula. W etstein adopts the extravagant opinion that the Man of Sin was 'fitus," the delight of the human race," whose army brought their idolatrous ensigns into the captured temple and offered sacrifices there; and that the restraining influence was Nero, that monster of iniquity, whose death was necessary for the rule of Titus. Hammond imagined that, by the Man of Sin, Simon Magus, together with his followers the Gnostics, was meant; the apostasy was the falling away of the Christians into Gnosticism ; and the restraining influence was the apostles, who, by still preaching to the Jews, preserved the union still subsisting between Jews and Christians.' Le Clerc. supposes that the apostasy was the revolt of the Jews from the Romans; the Man of Sin was the rebellious Jews, and especially their leader Simon the son of Giora; and the restraining power was the chief of the Jewish nation, who were against the revolt. Whitby also considers the apostasy was the revolt of the Jews from the Roman empire or from the faith; the Man of Sin was the Jewish nation, with their high priest and Sanhedrim; and the restraining power was Claudius, during whose reign the Jews would not rebel, as ~hey were under great obligations to him.' Schi:ittgen also agrees with Whitby in con- sidering that by the Mau of Sin is meant the Pharisees, the rabbis, and the doctors of the Law; but he differs from him in considering that the restraining power was the prayers of the Christians, which warded off the destruction of Jerusalem until they bad left the city and retired to Pella. Much more ingenious is the opinion of Wieseler. He also considers the prophecy ae a prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem. " He that restraineth n must be some good influence which delayed the catastrophe, and this ho considers to be the pious Jews then living, particularly the Christians; and if the singular number requires an individual, then the rl'strainer is James the Just, the Lord's brother. Not until James was murdered and the Christians had removed from Jeru- salem was the city taken.I Kern considers that the Man of Sin is Nero; he that restrainetb is V espasian and his son Titus; and the apostasy is the revolt of the Jews or the de!)&rture uf the Christians.• Dollinger, like Kern, supposes Anticl,rist to be Nero. Nero was already adopted by Claudius, and W&-9 regarded by many 88 the future Ca,sar. "He thJ.t re.~traineth" was Claudius. The coming of Christ was his coming to 1 DavidBOn's • Introduction to the New Testament," vol. l. p. 15 (new edit). • Grotius, • Annute.tiones in IL Epi.stole.m e.d Theual.' 1 Hammond on the New Testament, in loco.
Whitby's 'Commentary,' pp. 813-818. London: Thomas Tegg, 1842. • Wieseler's • Chronologie des apostolischea Zietalters,' pp. 268-277. • Kern, on this aooount, considers the Second Epistle to the Thessaloniane to be spurious Th,. ume view is maintained by Baur, Hilgenfeld, and others b,-Io•1ging to the 'l'iibinger: aehool on. n.1-17.] THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. 67