That they all might be damned, or condemned. The Greek is, judged, but often translated as in the text; the simple verb being taken for the compound: so Joh 3:17; 1Co 11:29; Jud 1:4. It is true a man may be judged and not condemned, but the judgment of the wicked is condemnation; and damnation is here mentioned either as the event, or the effect of their believing lies, or as the purpose of God in sending them strong delusions. They are first justly punished with spiritual judgment, and then eternal, and God is just in both; whence we see that there are some errors in judgment which are damnable. As we read of damnable heresies, 2Pe 2:1, or heresies of destruction; such are many in the Romish Church; and the apostle speaks of such, Col 2:19, not holding the Head, & c.; not meant of a total rejection of Christ, but of voluntary humility, and worshipping of angels, mingled with the true worship of the gospel; and such cannot be saved.

Who believed not the truth: where we have a further description of these persons who are to be damned, which is added by the apostle, either to clear Gods justice, as in sending them strong delusions to believe a lie, so also in their condemnation; or to assign the cause why they believed a lie, because they believed not the truth. Those will easily be brought to believe a lie who believe not the truth; and the belief here mentioned is that of assent, yet snch an assent as is operative and practical, which they had not; for it was said before, they received not the truth in the love of it.

But had pleasure in unrighteousness; did not only practise, but had great complacence and contentment of mind in it, as the Greek word imports, and so had rather believe a false doctrine which will countenance their practice, than the truth which doth condemn it: see Pro 10:23; Rom 1:32. By unrighteousness some expositors understand false doctrine, or error, because it is set in opposition here to truth, as sin is set in opposition to it, Joh 8:46; and that the apostle hath peculiar reference to the corrupt doctrines of Simon Magus and the Nicolaitanes, that gave liberty to the lusts of the flesh. But why not rather to the doctrines of the man of sin, which he had been before speaking of? I rather take the word in the largest sense, so all sin is unrighteousness; and the apostle St. John saith, all unrighteosness is sin, 1Jo 5:17, where unrighteousness is expressed by , a word which imports transgression of the law, as in this text by , a word which signifies injustice. So that we see here an erroneous mind and a vicious life going together. And when sin is come to this height, that men take pleasure in it, it makes them ripe for damnation. And how well these things agree to the antichristian church, let men consider and judge.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

12. they all . . . damnedratheras Greek, “that all,” c. He here states thegeneral proposition which applies specially to Antichrist’sadherents. Not all in the Church of Rome, or other anti-Christiansystems, shall be damned, but only “all who believed not thetruth,” when offered to them, “but had pleasure inunrighteousness” (Rom 1:32Rom 2:8). Love of unrighteousnessbeing the great obstacle to believing the truth.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

That they all might be damned,…. Or judged, discerned and distinguished from true Christians and real believers, or rather that they might be condemned and punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and have their portion in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone; where the devil, the false prophet, and the beast, whose followers they are, will be cast; and it is but a righteous thing with God to give them up to such delusion,

that they may be damned, since they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved; and the following character of them justifies the divine procedure:

who believed not the truth; neither the word of truth, the Gospel of salvation, nor Christ, who is truth itself; and therefore were righteously given up to believe a lie; and whose damnation is just, according to the declaration of Christ, he that believeth not shall be damned:

but had pleasure in unrighteousness; in sin, as all unrighteousness is; in sinful ways and works, and in unrighteous doctrines; as the doctrines of merit, of works of supererogation, and of justification by works, being derogatory to the justice of God, and to the righteousness of Christ; and in the unrighteous persecution and bloodshed of the saints, the martyrs of Jesus; in which the followers of antichrist take as much delight and pleasure, as an intemperate man does in drinking wine or strong drink to excess; and therefore the whore of Babylon is said to be drunk with the blood of the saints; and it is but just she should have blood to drink, or be punished both with temporal and eternal destruction.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

That they all might be judged ( ). First aorist passive subjunctive of , to sift, to judge, with . Ultimate purpose, almost result, of the preceding obstinate resistance to the truth and “the judicial infatuation which overtakes them” (Lightfoot), now final punishment. Condemnation is involved in the fatal choice made. These victims of the man of sin did not believe the truth and found pleasure in unrighteousness.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Might be damned (kriqwsin). More correctly, judged. See on damnation, 1Ti 5:12. 35

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “That they all might be damned” (hina krithosin pantes) “in order that all may be judged”; Rejection of the written Word of God, as truth, leads to, or includes, rejection of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, Joh 8:32; Joh 8:36; Joh 14:6; Joh 17:17, which in turn leads to worship of “the creature” more (rather than) the Creator, Rom 1:25-26.

2) “Who believed not the truth” (hoi me pisteousantes te aletheia) “the ones not having believed the truth”; referring to 2Th 2:10. After repeated, obstinate, personal rejection of the Bible, as the Word of truth, and Jesus Christ as Savior, God withdraws the restraining power of the Holy Spirit from the presumptuous unbelieving, Gen 6:3; Pro 1:22-30; Pro 29:11; Rom 1:28.

3) “But had pleasure in unrighteousness” (alla eudokesantes te adikia) “But having had or held (to) pleasure in unrighteousness”; the covetous, selfish, egocentric lovers of the world, who reject Divine Truth, not only follow anti-Christs today, but also shall be followers of the man of sin at the end of this age, Psa 50:16-22; Rom 1:29-32; 1Jn 2:17; 1Co 7:31.

To be given over to delusion, after having long or repeatedly rejected and spurned the truth, inevitably leads to judgment. This is Paul’s conclusion, and affirmation, regarding rejection of truth, relating to the coming of Jesus Christ, and the appearance and later revelation of the anti-Christ.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

12 That all may be condemned. That is, that they may receive the punishment due to their impiety. Thus, those that perish have no just ground to expostulate with God, inasmuch as they have obtained what they sought. For we must keep in view what is stated in Deu 13:3, that the hearts of men are subjected to trial, when false doctrines come abroad, inasmuch as they have no power except among those who do not love God with a sincere heart. Let those, then, who take pleasure in unrighteousness, reap the fruit of it. When he says all, he means that contempt of God finds no excuse in the great crowd and multitude of those who refuse to obey the gospel, for God is the Judge of the whole world, so that he will inflict punishment upon a hundred thousand, no less than upon one individual.

The participle εὐδοκήσαντες ( taking pleasure) means (so to speak) a voluntary inclination to evil, for in this way every excuse is cut off from the ungrateful, when they take so much pleasure in unrighteousness, as to prefer it to the righteousness of God. For by what violence will they say that they have been impelled to alienate themselves by a mad revolt (683) from God, towards whom they were led by the guidance of nature? It is at least manifest that they willingly and knowingly lent an ear to falsehoods.

(683) “ En se reuoltant malicieusement;” — “By revolting maliciously.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(12) That they all.This is Gods purpose in making them believe the liein order that, one and all, they might be judged. He who desireth not the death of a sinner, now is said actually to lay plans with the intention of judging him: such are the bold self-contradictions of the Bible! It must not, however, be forgotten for a moment that God did not begin to will the sinners judgment till after He had offered him freely the love of His own blessed truth, and had been rejected. When once the sinner is incurable, the only way to vindicate truth and righteousness is by hastening on his condemnation, whatever that condemnation may mean.

Who believed not the truth. . . .Once more the offence for which they are condemned is insisted upon. Theirs is no fancy sin. What God wanted them to believe was not some fantastical dogma, some fiction between which and the fictions of the Man of Sin there was nothing morally to choose, but the inviolable truth by which God Himself is bound. But had pleasure in the unrighteousness (so runs the Greek): i.e., consciously gave their moral consent to the unrighteousness of 2Th. 2:10, the unrighteousness which sought to impose itself upon them, and which they would never have been led into had they loved the truth.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

12. That they all might be damned Not damned, but judged. And damned if judgment justly goes against them. But a true translation should give only what the apostle says, and let the inferential results take care of themselves. God’s purpose is not that any man should be damned.

Believed not St. Paul reiterates, as if anxious to secure a true view of man’s responsibility and God’s justice, that they were voluntary rejecters of truth which it was in their power to accept.

Had pleasure Not from necessity, nor from God’s decree, but from free choice.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

2Th 2:12 . ] dependent on . . ., not on , as Hofmann thinks. A statement of the further or higher design.

] in order that they may be judged, i.e. according to the context, condemned .

The truth is the Christian truth, and the unbelief , shown against it, is the consequence of the love for the truth in general being wanting (2Th 2:10 ).

CONCLUDING REMAEKS ON CHAP. 2Th 2:1-12

The apocalyptic teaching of the apostle in chap. 2Th 2:1-12 has occupied Christians of all times, and has been very variously interpreted. A chief distinction in the interpretations consists in this, that this Pauline prediction may be considered either as that which will be fulfilled in the near or more distant future, or as having already received its fulfilment.

I. The Church Fathers belong to the representatives of the first view (Irenaeus, adv. haer. v. 25, 29, 30; Tertullian, de resur. carn. c. 24; Chrysostom in loco ; Cyril. Hierosolym. Catech. 15; Augustine, de civit. dei , xx. 19; Theodoret in loco , and epit. decret. div. c. 23; Theodorus Mopsuestius, and others). They correctly agree in considering that by the advent (2Th 2:1 ; 2Th 2:8 ), or the day of the Lord (2Th 2:2 ), is to be understood the personal advent of Christ for the last judgment and for the completion of the Messianic kingdom . Also it is correctly regarded as proved, that the Antichrist here described is to be considered as an individual person , in whom sin will embody itself. Yet Augustin already remarks, that “nonnulli non ipsum principem, sed universum quodam modo corpus ejus i. e. ad eum pertinentem hominum multitudinem simul cum ipso suo principe hoc loco intelligi Antichristum volunt.” The restraining power by which the appearance of Antichrist is delayed, is usually considered to be the continuance of the Roman Empire ( ) and its representative the Roman emperor ( ). Some, however, as Theodorus Mopsuestius and Theodoret, understand by it , i.e. more exactly, the counsel of God to keep back the appearance of Antichrist until the gospel is proclaimed throughout the earth. This latter interpretation is certainly unsuitable enough. For although the difference of gender and may be to distinguish God’s counsel and God Himself , yet is not reconcilable with the masculine . Chrysostom chooses a third interpretation, that by the restraining power is meant the continuance of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. But he directly refutes this by the fact that if so, Antichrist must have already appeared, as those gifts have long since disappeared in the Christian church. The temple of God, in which Antichrist will place himself, is referred either to the Christian church (so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Augustin), the expression being taken figuratively, or to the actual temple of Jerusalem (so Irenaeus and Cyril); in which latter case the objection, that this temple was already destroyed, is met by the shift that a new temple rebuilt in place of the old one by Antichrist is to be thought on. Lastly, some, as Chrysostom, [52] although in contradiction to the chronology of the Epistle, interpret the , which already begins to work, of Nero, the forerunner and type of Antichrist in St. Paul’s time; and others, as Theodoret, of the outbreak of heresies.

[52] , . , . , , , , ;

The common and grave error in the explanations of the Fathers, by means of which they run counter to the Pauline representation, consisted in their not doing sufficient justice to the point of nearness of the event predicted by Paul. It is incontestable, as the result of correct exegesis, that Paul not only considered Antichrist as directly preceding the advent, but also regarded the advent as so near, that he himself might then be alive. It was natural that the Fathers, as the prophecy of the apostle had not been fulfilled in their times, should disregard this point; but they held that in this prophecy a picture of the last things, fully corresponding to the reality in the future, must have been given. They therefore satisfied themselves with the consideration that the prediction had already begun to be fulfilled in the apostolic times, but that the apostle could not possibly give an exact statement of time, as he only says that Antichrist will be revealed in his appointed time. [53]

[53] Comp. Augustin, Epist. 80 ( Ep. 199, ed. Bened.): ita sane obscure sunt et mystice dicta, ut tamen appareat, eum nihil de statutis dixisse temporibus, nullumque eorum intervallum spatiumque aperuisse. Ait enim: ut reveletur in suo tempore, nec dixit, post quantum temporis hoc futurum sit.

The view of the Fathers remained in the following ages the prevalent one in the Christian church. It was necessary, however, partially to change and transform it, the relation of Christianity to the Roman state having altered, as the Christian church, instead of being exposed to renewed hostilities from the secular power, had obtained the sovereignty of the state, and, penetrating larger portions of the world, represented itself as the kingdom of God on earth, and an imposing hierarchy was placed at its head. Whilst, accordingly, the idea of the advent stepped more and more into the background in the church generally, and especially with the hierarchy, on the other hand, those who had placed themselves in opposition to the hierarchy believed themselves obliged to apply to it the description of the apostle, as well as the figures in the Apocalypse of St. John. Thus arose whilst the early view concerning the was held with only the modification that its entrance was to be expected in the distant future the view, first in the eleventh century, that the establishment and growing power of the Papacy is to be considered as the Antichrist predicted by Paul. At first this view was expressed in the conflict between the emperors and the popes by the partisans of the imperial power; but was then repeated by all those who had placed themselves in opposition with the hierarchy, because they wished, instead of the rigid ecclesiastical power, a freer spirit of Christianity to rule; thus by the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and the followers of Wickliffe and Huss. The empire which was regarded as nothing else than a revival and renewal of the old Roman Empire was considered as the restraining power which still delayed the destruction of the Papacy.

This reference [54] of Antichrist to the papal hierarchy became specially prevalent toward the time of the Reformation , and after that event was almost regarded as a dogma in the evangelical church . It is found in Bugenhagen, Zwingli, Calvin, Victorin Strigel, Hemming, Hunnius, Lucius and Andrew Osiander, Camero, Balduin, Aretius, Er. Schmid, Beza, Quistorp, Calixt, Calovius, Newton, Wolf, Joachim Lange, Turretin, Benson, Bengel, Macknight, Zachariae, Michaelis, and others. Accordingly it is expressed in the Lutheran symbolical books; comp. Articul. Smalcald. II. 4 (ed. Meyer, p. 189 f.): Haec doctrina praeclare ostendit, papam esse ipsum verum Antichristum, qui supra et contra Christum sese extulit et evexit, quandoquidem Christianos non vult esse salvos sine sua potestate, quae tamen nihil est, et a deo nec ordinata nec mandata est. Hoc proprie loquendo est se efferre supra et contra deum, sicut Paulus 2Th 2 loquitur.

De pot. et prim. pap. (p. 210): Constat autem, Romanos pontifices cum suis membris defendere impiam doctrinam et impios cultus. Ac plane notae Antichristi competunt in regnum papae et sua membra. Paulus enim ad Thessalonicenses describens Antichristum, vocat eum adversarium Christi, extollentem se super omne, quod dicitur aut colitur deus, sedentem in templo dei tanquam deum. Also Luther’s powerful treatise against the papal bull bore the title: “Adversus exsecrabilem bullam Antichristi.” It was thought that the Papacy would go on more and more developing what was anti-Christian in it, and that then the last judgment would overtake it. The was the falling away from the pure gospel to the traditions of men. The singular . . . is to be understood collectively as a series et successio hominum , inasmuch as the question is concerning an imperium monarchicum which remains one and the same, although its temporal head may be changed. The godlessness of Antichrist, described in 2Th 2:4 , is historically proved by the pope placing himself above all human and divine authority, the words . . ., in accordance to biblical usage, being referred to the princes and great men of the world, and an allusion being discovered in to the Roman imperial title . The objection, that there have been pious popes, is removed by the proverb: “ a potiori fit denominatio. ” is referred to the Christian church, and the to the tyrannical power usurped over it. By is nearly universally understood the Roman Empire, and by the Roman emperor, for which proof is deduced from history, that the papal power sprang from the ruins of the Roman Empire, whilst in reference to the continuation of the empire in Germany, it is observed that praeter titulum nihil fere remains. The declaration , 2Th 2:7 , is considered as justified by the fact that at least the semina erroris et ambitionis , which paved the way for the Papacy, were present in the time of the apostle; for which Camero appeals to Gal 1:2 , and others to other proofs. For an enumeration of , 2Th 2:9 , relics, transubstantiation, purgatory, etc., afford rich material. The annihilation of Antichrist by the of the Lord, is understood to denote the annihilation of his importance in the minds of men by the divine word of Scripture being again opened up and diffused in its purity by means of the Reformation; whilst the denotes the final and material destruction of Antichrist by the coming of Christ to judgment.

[54] See against this view, Koppe, Excurs. II. p. 120 ff.

In the presence of such polemics used against them, the Catholics are certainly not to be blamed that in retaliation they interpreted as the defection from the Roman church and from the pope, and Antichrist as the heretics, especially Luther and the evangelical church. Comp. Estius, Fromond., Bern. a Piconio.

Yet even before the reference of Antichrist to Popery was maintained, Mohammed [55] was already regarded by the divines of the Greek church (latterly by Faber Stapulensis and others) as the Antichrist predicted by Paul, and in the was seen the defection of several Oriental and Greek churches from Christianity to Mohammedanism. This interpretation at least so far exercised an influence on the evangelical church, that some of its theologians have assumed a double Antichrist one Oriental, viz. Mohammed and the Turkish power, and the other Western, viz. the pope and his power. So Melancthon, Bucer, Musculus, Bullinger, Piscator, and Vorstius.

[55] See against this view, Turretin, p. 515 ff.

Related to this whole method of interpretation is the assumption, [56] made in our own century, that by the apostasy is to be understood the enormities of the French Revolution; by Antichrist, Napoleon; and by him that restraineth, the continuation of the German Empire an interpretation which the extinction of the German Empire in 1806 has already condemned.

[56] See Leutwein, das Thier war und ist nicht, und wird wiederkommen aus dem Abgrunde. Eine Abhandlung fr nachdenkende Leser , Ludwigsb. 1825.

In recent times it has often been considered as objectionable to determine exactly the individual traits of the imagery used by Paul. Accordingly the representation of the apostle has been interpreted in a general, ideal , or symbolical sense. To this class of interpreters belongs Koppe, according to whom Paul, founding on an old national Jewish oracle, supported especially by Daniel, would describe the ungodliness preceding the last day, which already worked, but whose full outbreak was only to take place after the death of the apostle; so that Paul himself was the . [57] Similarly Storr ( l.c. ), who understands by the “potestas aliqua, deo omnique religioni adversaria, quae penitus incognita et futuro demum tempore se proditura sit,” and by the preventing power the “copia hominum verissimo amore inflammatorum in christianam religionem.”

Further, Nitzsch ( l.c. ) thinks on the power of atheism first come to have public authority, or the contempt of all religion generally. Further, the opinion of Pelt is entirely peculiar, who in His Commentary, p. 204, [58] sums up his views in the following words: “Mihi adversarius illi principium esse videtur sive vis spiritualis evangelio contraria , quae huc usque tamen in Pontificiorum Romanorum operibus ac serie luculentissime sese prodidit, ita tamen, ut omnia etiam mala, quae in ecclesia compareant, ad eandem Antichristi sint referenda. Ejus vero i. e. summum fastigium, quod Christi reditum qui nihil aliud est, nisi regni divini victoria , [59] antecedet, futurum adhuc esse videtur, quum illud tempus procul etiamnum abesse putemus, ubi omnes terrae incolae in eo erunt, ut ad Christi sacra transeant. vero cum Theodoreto putarim esse dei voluntatem illud Satanae regnum cohibentem, ne erumpat, et, si mediae spectantur causae, apostolorum tempore maxime imperii Romani vis, et quovis aevo illa resistentia, quam malis artibus, quae religionem subvertere student, privati commodi et honoris augendorum cupiditas opponere solet.” Pelt thinks that the symptoms of the future corruption of the Christian church were already present in the apostolic age in the danger of falling away from Christian freedom into Jewish legalism, in the mingling of heathenism with Christianity, in the false gnosis and asceticism, in the worship of angels, and in the fastus a religione Christiana omnino alienus. To the same class belongs Olshausen, [60] who considers the Pauline description only as a typical representation of future events. According to him, the chief stress lies on . Antichrist is a union of the individuality and spiritual tendency in masses of individuals. The revolt of the Jews from the Romans, and the fearful divine punishment in the destruction of Jerusalem, Nero, Mohammed and his spiritual devastating power, the development of the Papacy in the Middle Ages, the French Revolution of 1789, with the abrogation of Christianity, and the setting up of prostitutes on altars for worship, in the external world , as well as the constantly spreading denial of the fundamentals of all religious truth and morality, of the doctrines of God, freedom, and immortality, and likewise the self-deification of the ego in the internal world , all these phenomena are the real precursors of Antichrist; but they contain only some of his characteristics, not all ; it is the union of all these characteristics which shall make the full Antichrist. The preventing power is to be understood of the preponderance of the Christian world in its German and Roman constituents over the earth; i.e. of the whole political condition of order, with which, on the one hand, there is the constant repression of all and , and on the other hand, the continued and peaceful development of Christianity. Of this condition the Roman Empire, as the strongest and most orderly secular organization which history knows, is the natural type. Baumgarten-Crusius is also here to be named. According to him, the Pauline prediction contains no new teachings peculiar to the apostle, but only representations from the old Messianic pictures in the prophets, especially in Daniel. The apostle’s design is practical, to make the Thessalonians calmly observant, attentive to the times, prepared and strong for the future; the passage has a permanent value in this reference, and in the chief thought that the development and determination of these things can only gradually take place. The passage is indeed historical and for the near future, but Paul has no definite or personal manifestations, whether present or future, in view, at least not in , which he describes as still entirely concealed; and it is even doubtful whether he understood by it an individual person. Only has a definite reference, but not to a person; on the contrary, the new spirit of Christianity is meant. The difference in gender, and , is used either only to correspond with , or Paul thinks on , Col 1:27 ! Lastly, to the same class belong Bloomfield and Alford. [61] According to the former, the is something still continuing; the prediction of the apostle will obtain its complete fulfilment only at the end of time, when only then the preventing power which is most probably to be understood, with Theodoret, of the council of divine Providence will be removed. According to the latter (see Proleg. p. 67 ff.), we stand, though 1800 years later, with regard to the where the apostle stood; the day of the Lord not present, and not to arrive until the man of sin be manifested; the still working, and much advanced in his working; the preventing power not yet taken out of the way. All this points to a state in which the is working on underground, under the surface of things, gaining an expansion and power, although still hidden and unconcentrated. It has already partially embodied itself in Popery, in Nero and every Christian persecutor, in Mohammed and Napoleon, in Mormonism, and such like. The and the are to be understood of the fabric of human polity and those who rule that polity , by which hitherto all outbursts of godlessness have been suppressed and hindered in their course and devastations.

[57] To prove this view of the by Koppe as the correct one by a closer exposition, is the object of the above-mentioned treatise of Beyer (on 2Th 2:7 ). Also Heydenreich, Schott, and Grimm ( Stud. u. Krit. 1850, Part 4, p. 790 ff.) so far agree with Koppe, that they understand the neuter as the multitude of the truly pious and believers (Heydenreich), or as the veri religionis doctores (Schott), or as the apostolorum chorus (Grimm). For the removal of the objection, that Paul hoped to survive the advent, and that accordingly would be unsuitable, Schott and Grimm consider it probable that by this expression we are to think not on death, but on “alia res externa, e.g. captivitas dura.” Akin to this interpretation of the is Wieseler’s view ( Chronologie des apost. Zeitalt. , Gtting. 1848, p. 272 f.), that Paul would denote with it the pious in Jerusalem, particularly the Christians, or in case necessarily denoted an individual, the Apostle James the Just. Comp. also Bhme, de spe messiana apostolica , Hal. 1826, p. 30, according to whom the apostolic circle are denoted in general, and in particular the most prominent member, perhaps the Apostle James. Hofmann judges differently upon and , Schriflbeweis , Part 1, 2d ed. Nrdling. 1857, p. 352 f., and in his h. Schr. N.T. , Part 1, p. 318 ff., with whom Baumgarten, l.c. p. 609, Luthardt, l.c. p. 159 f., and Riggenbach coincide. According to Hofmann, as throughout the whole passage 2Th 2:5-7 Paul refers apparently to the visions of Daniel, he must have spoken to the Thessalonians of that which hinders the man of sin from coming sooner than his proper time with reference to these prophecies of Daniel. Therefore, in agreement with Daniel, a spiritual power is to be thought of which rules in the secular world and in the various governments in agreement with the divine will, and opposes the influences of the spirit of nations and kingdoms working contrary to the divine will. This power may be designated both as neuter and as masculine, as and as , and the words are sufficiently similar to those of Daniel: (Dan 10:20 ), in order to be recognised as a transfer of the same to those last times when the spiritual power which now preserves the earthly commonwealth in agreement with the kingdom of God entirely recedes, in order that every form of secular power may enter which will allow no more place for the church of God on earth. Still differently, Ewald, Jahrb. der bibl. Wissenschaft, Jahr. 3, Gtt. 1851, p. 250 f. (comp. Sendschreiben des Ap. Paulus, Gtt. 1857, p. 27): “We have here a mystery before us which in the early apostolic times only believers loved to talk over and to diffuse among themselves, so that Paul may have been unwilling to speak openly upon it. The appearance of Antichrist was expected according to Mat 24:15 (?), and Paul here describes it, only more openly and freely than it is there indicated in the prophecy of Christ; but an opinion must have been formed in the bosom of the mother church at Jerusalem why Antichrist had not as yet appeared, which was imparted only to believers. We may, however, pretty nearly guess what it was from other signs. If we reflect that, according to Rev 11:3 ff., Antichrist was not to be considered as coming until the two martyrs of the old covenant had appeared, and their destruction was the true beginning of his extreme rage; further, that instead of these two assumed martyrs, it was also, or rather originally, still more commonly supposed that only Elijah must return before Christ, and accordingly also before Antichrist. Elijah’s return is not actually denied in that passage, where this expectation is treated of in the freest manner (Mat 17:11 f., comp. Mat 11:13 f.), so it is most probable that by that which hindereth the appearance of Antichrist the coming of Elijah is meant (Sendschr. des Ap. Paulus, p. 27: the tarrying of Elijah in heaven); and by him who hitherto hindered, and who must be taken out of the way before the last atrocious wickedness of Antichrist, is meant Eljiah himself.” Still otherwise Noack (Der Ursprung des Christenthums, vol. II., Leipz. 1857, p. 313 ff.), who by him that hindereth arbitrarily identifying the same with the man of sin understands Simon Magus and his machinations. Still differently Jowett, according to whom (after the suggestion of Ewald, Jahrb. X., Gtt. 1860, p. 235) is designed to indicate the Mosaic law.

[58] In only an unessentially modified form Pelt has latterly maintained the same view in the Theolog. Mitarbeiten. Jahrg. 4, Kiel 1841, H. 2, p. 114 ff.

[59] Comp. Pelt, p. 185: “tenentes, illum Christi adventum a Paulo non visibilem habitum.”

[60] Bisping follows him in all essential points.

[61] Comp. also Dsterdieck, die drei johanneischen Briefe , Bd. I., Gtt. 1852, p. 306: “John, as Paul (2Th 2:1-12 ), in conformity to the instruction of the Lord, recognises in the powerful errors of the present the signs of an approaching decision. The last hour is present, the advent is at hand. The last hour is the concluding period of , the period of travail, which continues in an unbroken connection from its commencement, the destruction of Jerusalem, even to the end, to which the advent directly succeeds .” John has not erred in that he soon expected the real commencement of the crisis, continually carried on throughout the whole historical development of the kingdom of Christ; for that generation, as our Lord had predicted, survived the destruction of the holy city, an event of whose importance in the history and judgment of the world there can be no doubt. Moreover, in reference to 1Th 4:15 ( . . .), Dsterdieck ( l.c. p. 308) recognises that there Paul has shortened the chronological perspective too much; but then he thinks, referring to 2Th 2:1 ff. and Rom 11:25 ff., that this is an imperfection which was gradually overcome in the apostle by the moral development of his life in God, and that it was changed for the real truth. But it is assumed, without right, that an entirely different view of things lies at the foundation of the section 2Th 2:1-12 than of the section 1Th 4:13 ff., as the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was written only a few months after the First; and besides, 2Th 2:5 points to the agreement of the written explanations there given with the oral instructions to the Thessalonians given even previously to the First Epistle. Further on, Dsterdieck (p. 330) concedes that because Paul in 1Th 4:13 ff. has abbreviated the interval to the advent, he was also in 2Th 2:1 ff. constrained to represent the personal appearance of the opponent incorrectly in point of chronology .

It is evident that all these explanations are arbitrary. The Pauline description is so definitely and sharply marked, and has for its whole compass so much the idea of nearness for its supposition, that it can by no means be taken generally, and in this manner explained away.

II. Others have regarded the apocalyptic instruction of the apostle as a prophecy already fulfilled . Thus Grotius, Wetstein, Hammond, Clericus, Whitby, Schoettgen, Noesselt, Krause, and Harduin. [62] The reference of the to the coming of the Lord in judgment at the destruction of Jerusalem , is common to all these writers. In reference to the other chief points of the Pauline representation they differ as follows:

[62] What is necessary to be said on Kern’s view has already been observed in the Introduction, sec. 3. Dllinger ( l.c. ), who like Kern understands by Antichrist Nero , thinks, however, that with this assumption the authenticity of the Epistle, and even its composition in the year 53, are perfectly reconcilable. According to Dllinger, the prophecy in all its essentials was fulfilled close upon the apostle’s days, although a partial fulfilment at the end of time is not excluded by this assumption. Already Paul has recognised the youthful Nero as the future Antichrist, whose public appearance was already prepared, but was yet prevented by Claudius as the then possessor of the imperial throne. The coming of Christ is His coming to execute judgment on Jerusalem. Nero, although he personally undertook nothing against the temple of Jerusalem, yet entrusted Vespasian with the guidance of the war, and accordingly brought certainly only after his death the abomination of desolation into the holy city. Lastly, the apostasy is the being led astray into the false doctrines of the Gnostics.

Grotius [63] understands by Antichrist the Emperor Caius Caligula , notorious for his ungodliness, who, according to Suetonius, Caligul. xxii. 33, ordered universal supplication to himself as the supreme God, and according to Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 8, and Philo, legat. ad Caj. p. 1022, wished to set up his colossal statue in the temple of Jerusalem; by the , L. Vitellius , the proconsul of Syria and Judea, who dissuaded from the erection of the statue; and by the , Simon Magus .

This opinion is sufficiently contradicted, partly by the impossibility of distinguishing the from as a separate person, and partly by its incongruity with the period of the composition of the Epistle. See sec. 2 of the Introduction.

[63] See against him, Turretin, p. 483 ff.

According to Wetstein, the is Titus , whose army, according to Joseph. de bello Jud. vi. 6. 1, brought idols into the captured temple of Jerusalem, sacrificed there, and saluted Titus as imperator. The is Nero , whose death must precede the rule of Titus; and the is the rebellion and murder of Galba, Otho , and Vitellius . But how can Titus , the ornament of the Roman emperors, pass for Antichrist; and Nero , that monster in human form, the power which hinders the outburst of Antichrist?

Hammond [64] understands by the man of sin Simon Magus and the Gnostics, whose head he was. The , 2Th 2:1 , is the “major libertas coeundi in ecclesiasticos coetus ad colendum Christum;” the is the falling away of Christians to the Gnostics (1Ti 4:1 ); denotes the casting off the mask of Christianity; 2Th 2:4 refers to the fact that Simon Magus “se dictitaret summum patrem omnium rerum, et qui ipsum Judaeorum deum creaverat.” is the circumstance that the apostles and orthodox Christians still preserved union with the Jews, and had not yet turned themselves to the Gentiles. The neuter and the masculine are equivalent; or if a distinction is to be maintained, must be regarded as the same as . The is the “duplicis generis scelera horum hominum, libidines nefariae et odium in Christianos.” 2Th 2:8 refers to the contest of Peter and Paul with Simon Magus in Rome, which ended in the death of the latter.

The exegetical and historical monstrosity of this interpretation is at present universally acknowledged.

[64] Comp. against him, Turretin, p. 493 ff.

The interpretations of Clericus, Whitby, Schoettgen, Noesselt, Krause, and Harduin have a greater resemblance between them.

According to Clericus, [65] the apostasy is the rebellion of the Jews against the Roman yoke; the man of sin is the rebellious Jews, and especially their leader, Simon the son of Giora, of whose atrocities Josephus informs us. . . . denotes the government. is whatever hindered the open outbreak of the rebellion, partly the fear of the proceres Judaeae gentis , who mistrusted the war because they expected no favourable result, partly the fear of the Roman army ; on the one side “praeses Romanus,” on the other side “gentis proceres, rex Agrippa et pontifices plurimi.” The which already works consists in the rebellious ambition which conceals itself under the pretext of the independence of the Jewish people, yea, under the cloak of a careful observance of the Mosaic law, until at length what strives in secret is openly manifested.

[65] See against him, Turretin, p. 501 ff.

Whitby [66] considers the Jewish people as Antichrist, and finds in the apostasy the rebellion against the Romans, or also the falling away from the faith; and in the the Emperor Claudius , during whose life the Jews could not possibly think of a rebellion, as he had shown himself favourable to them.

[66] See against him, Turretin, p. 508 ff.

According to Schoettgen, the Jewish Pharisees and Rabbis are Antichrist. The is the rebellion excited by them, of the Jews against the Romans; refers likewise to the rulers; and are probably the Christians who by their prayers effected a respite from the catastrophe, until, in consequence of a divine oracle, they left Jerusalem, and betook themselves to Pella; denotes ipsa doctrina perversa .

Noesselt, whom Krause follows, understands Antichrist of the Jewish zealots , but interprets the preventing power, as Whitby does, of the Emperor Claudius .

Lastly, Harduin explains the of the falling off of the Jews to heathenism . He considers the high priest Ananias (Act 23:2 ) as the , and his predecessor in office as the , who must first be removed by death in order to make place for Ananias. At the beginning of his high-priesthood the will appear as a deceitful prophet, and be destroyed at the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

All these interpretations of the second class avoid, it is true, the common error of the interpretations of the first class, as they give due prominence to the point of the nearness of the catastrophe described by Paul; but, apart from many and strong objections which may be brought against each, they are all exposed to this fatal objection, the impossibility of understanding the coming of the Lord, mentioned by Paul, of the period of the destruction of Jerusalem.

Tychsen ( l.c. ) has endeavoured to divest the Pauline representation of its prophetic character, by assuming that the apostle follows step by step the course of an Epistle received from Thessalonica, from which he perceived that the church had been led astray into the erroneous notion that the advent of Christ was already at hand. The apostle cites passages from that writing, and adds each time his refutation. For the statement of this opinion, which only claims attention on account of its strangeness, it will be sufficient to give the translation from 2Th 2:3 and onwards, in which Tychsen (p. 184 f.) sums up the view he has already stated at length. It is as follows: “You certainly wrote to me, ‘This day cannot come until the great apostasy will occur; when a thoroughly lawless and corrupt man will publicly appear, who in hostile pride exalts himself above all that man calls divine and honourable, who also intrudes even into the temple of God, and gives himself out as a god.’ But do you not remember that I, when I was with you, told you something of this? and besides, you know what is in the way of that lawless one, so that he can only appear in his time, not yet at present. ‘This wickedness,’ you say further, ‘even now secretly works.’ Only that hindrance must first be removed out of the way! ‘And when this is removed,’ ye think, ‘the wicked one will soon fearlessly show himself.’ Now let him do it! The Lord Jesus will annihilate him with His divine power, and destroy him by His solemn appearance. ‘When this lawless one comes,’ ye continue, ‘so will his appearance be accompanied by the assistance of Satan with deceiving miracles, delusions, and everything which can lead to blasphemy.’ Yet all this cannot seduce you, but only those unhappy persons who have no love for true religion, and accordingly are helplessly lost by their own fault. God for a punishment to them permitted seducers to rise up, that they might believe the lie. A merited punishment for all friends of vice who are prepossessed against true doctrine!”

For a correct judgment of the apocalyptic instruction of the apostle, it is firmly to be maintained that Paul could not possibly wish to give a representation of the distant future. On the contrary, the events which he predicted were for him so near, that he himself even thought that he would survive them. He hoped to survive even to the personal return of the Lord for judgment and for the completion of His kingdom; His return shall be preceded by the appearance of Antichrist, whom he considered not as a collective idea, but as an individual person, and not in the political, but in the religious sphere, and specially as a caricature of Christ and the culmination of ungodliness; but Antichrist can only appear when the preventing power, which at present hinders his appearance, will be removed. As, now, these circumstances, which Paul thinks were to be realized in the immediate future, have not actually taken place, so it is completely arbitrary to expect the fulfilment of the prophecy only in a distant future; rather it is to be admitted, that although, as the very kernel of Paul’s representation, the perfectly true idea lay at the bottom, that the return of the Lord for the completion of the kingdom of God was not to be expected until the moral process of the world had reached its close by the complete separation of the susceptible and the unsusceptible, and accordingly also until the opposition to Christ had reached its climax, yet Paul was mistaken concerning the nearness of the final catastrophe, and, carried along by his idiosyncrasy, had wished to settle more exactly concerning its circumstances and moral conditions than is allotted to man in general to know, even although he should be the apostle, the most filled with the Spirit of Christ. Comp. Mat 24:36 ; Mar 13:32 ; Act 1:7 .

We can thus only determine the meaning and interpretation which Paul himself connected with his prophecy, and how he came to the assertion of such a prophecy. It rests on the apocalyptic views of the Jews. It was a prevalent opinion of the Jews in the time of Christ, that a time of tribulation and travail and an Antichrist were to precede the appearance of the Messiah. Comp. Gfrrer, das Jahrhundert des Heils , Part 2, p. 256 ff., 300 ff., 405 ff. The description of Antiochus Epiphanes in Dan 8:23 ff; Dan 11:36 ff., and the apocalyptic representation of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38, 39, were esteemed as types of Antichrist. From these passages it is further explicable how Paul conceived Antichrist as a personality, as an individual.

Accordingly, it remains only still to determine, for the explication of the Pauline prophecy, what is to be understood by the preventing power, which still delayed the appearance of Antichrist. Without doubt, the Fathers have already correctly recognised by the Roman Empire, and in another form of expression for it by the Roman emperor, as the representative of the empire. This is the more probable as, according to the Book of Daniel, the whole history of the world was to fall within the four monarchies of the world, but the fourth was by Josephus and others regarded as the Roman Empire, whose impending ruin the apostle might not without reason think himself justified in inferring from many symptoms.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Ver. 12. That they all might be damned ] Heresy is the leprosy in the head, Lev 13:29 , which is utterly incurable, and destroys the soul. See Rev 19:21 .

Had pleasure in unrighteousness ] These are delivered up to that dead and dedolent disposition, Eph 4:19 , losing at length all passive power also of awakening out of the snare of the devil, who taketh them alive at his pleasure, 2Ti 2:26 .

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

2Th 2:12 . Like the prophet John half a century later (Joh 13:2 f.), Paul distinguishes his anti-Christ or antitheistic hero from the Satan whose campaign he executes; but, unlike John, the apostle has nothing to say about the fate of Satan. The tools and the victims of Satan are destroyed, and they alone. . not with as usual, but with the less common ( cf. e.g. , 1Ma 1:43 , ) dative. “And the greater number of those who shall have been associated together in order to receive the Beloved he [ i.e. , Beliar] will turn aside after him” ( Asc. Isa. , iv. 9).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

That = In order that. Greek. hina.

damned = condemned, or judged. App-122.

had pleasure = were well pleased. See Mat 3:17.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

2Th 2:12. [20] , all) That error then is to exhibit extensive, long-continued, and violent prevalence.

[20] , that) Endeavour therefore with all your might to believe the truth.-V. g.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

2Th 2:12

that they all might be judged who believed not the truth,-To know the, truth and refuse to obey it is not to believe it with the earnest living faith that God requires and blesses. If a man at heart desires to do the whole will of God, Gods will in its fullness will be opened to him that he may do it. God does not cast pearls before swine. When a people desire not to do the will of God, God withdraws the knowledge of himself from them. We may Infer that when men wish to do only a part of his will, he permits only partial knowledge of himself to be known. This doubtless explains why so many professed Christians seem never able to see portions of the will of God; they do not desire to do it all. They see only what they wish to do. Blindness in part has happened to those people.

but had pleasure in unrighteousness.-Instead of that faith that works by Jove and obeys God in doing his will, they had pleasure in doing the things that were displeasing to him. [They are credulous of that which falls in with their evil inclination. Wicked men are of wickedness.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

they: Deu 32:35, Mar 16:16, Joh 3:36, 1Th 5:9, 2Pe 2:3, Jud 1:4, Jud 1:5

but: Psa 11:5, Psa 50:16-21, Psa 52:3, Psa 52:4, Hos 7:3, Mic 3:2, Mar 14:11, Joh 3:19-21, Rom 1:32, Rom 2:8, Rom 8:7, Rom 8:8, Rom 12:9, 2Pe 2:13-15, 3Jo 1:11

Reciprocal: Exo 10:20 – General Lev 13:29 – General Jdg 9:23 – God 2Ch 18:19 – Who shall entice Psa 69:27 – Add Isa 63:17 – why Hos 5:4 – They will not frame their doings Hos 10:2 – Their heart is divided Mat 13:19 – and understandeth Joh 16:13 – he will show Rom 6:13 – unrighteousness 1Co 4:7 – who Phi 3:19 – end 2Th 2:13 – through Heb 3:19 – General Heb 4:2 – not being Heb 10:39 – but

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

2Th 2:12. That they may all be judged. Ellicott says: It need scarcely be said that is not per se might be damned, but simply might be judged, the further idea of an unfavourable judgment being supplied by the context. However, the familiar use of the word judgment to denote the judicial punishment of men by God, shows that the fact that in the majority of cases judgment results in punishment has told upon terminology.

Took pleasure in unrighteousness. This was the reason of their rejecting the love of truth from their minds; they loved the darkness because their deeds were evil.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

that they all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. [God permits Satan to present lies to those who, because of their love for sin, desire to be deceived (Deu 13:1-5). Having given our exposition of the above passage, we should like also to give a history of its exposition, but must content ourselves with referring the reader to those given by Newton, Lunemann, Alford, Gloag, etc. We should like also to discuss the theory of most commentators who identify the man of sin with the beast at Rev. 13, and the Roman Empire with the red dragon at Rev. 12, and who find in the Antiochus of Daniel the prototype of this lawless one. See Newton on the Prophecies, Dissertation 22. But we will content ourselves with the presentation of the antichrist, and remarks on this prophecy. The term “antichrist” conveys not only the idea of one who is opposed to Christ, but also of one who is the antithesis of Christ. This latter idea has been touched upon, but not fully developed. The antichrist is a counterfeit or caricature of Christ, and his life is an elaborate parody of that part of the Christ life which may be so contradicted, contorted and adapted so as to comport with worldly ambition. The antichrist is the personification of sin (verse 3), whereas Christ is the incarnation of righteousness (Act 3:14). He is the son of perdition (verse 3), just as Jesus is the Prince of life (Act 3:14). He opposes his will against God, and exalts himself against God, and enthrones himself in the temple of God, and displays himself as God (verse 4), while Jesus resigned himself to the Father’s will (Luk 22:42) and humbled himself in complete obedience (Phi 2:5-8), and, though truly claiming to be divine (Joh 14:8-11), waited until he was exalted of God (Phil 2:9), when he sat down at the right hand of the majesty in the true temple on high, because he was divine (Heb 1:3-5; Heb 8:1-2). Antichrist has a season or time for revelation (verse 6), just as Jesus had (Gal 4:4), and still has a proper time for revealing himself (Act 1:6-7). He first exists as a mystery, and then has his open revelation (Greek, apocalypse)–verses 7, and 3, 6, 8; and so also did Jesus (Rom 16:25-26). Moreover, as a mystery the antichrist existed as lawlessness, and finally came forth the lawless one, while Jesus was first concealed in the mysterious types of the law (Joh 5:46; Rom 3:21-22), and was born under the law (Gal 4:4) and was the very incarnation of law (Rom 10:4; Mat 5:17-18), and is the mystery of godliness (1Ti 3:16). He has a coming (Greek, parousia)–verse 9, just as Christ has (verse 8). His coming is according to the working of Satan with lying power, signs and wonders (verse 9), while Jesus came after the working of God (Joh 5:19-20; Eph 1:19-20), with God’s real powers, signs and wonders– Act 2:22 (“powers” being translated “mighty works”). With these lying miracles he established an anti-gospel, formed in the deceit of unrighteousness and producing death (verse 10); while Jesus, as is shown by the same verse, brought the gospel of truth that men might he saved. And finally, his kingdom rests on belief–the belief of a lie (verse 11)–just as Christ’s rests upon the belief of the truth. Thus, step by step, the antichrist parodies the glories, but not the humiliations of the Christ, but he fails to rise to the last step, for he has no manifestation (Greek, epiphany) answering to that which Christ has, as shown by verse 8. That is to say, he has no divinity to subdue all things by the outburst of its glory. He can assume the figure of Christ, but can not rival Christ transfigured. In interpreting this passage commentators divide themselves into three parties: 1. Those who think the prophecy long since fulfilled. 2. Those who regard it as in process of fulfillment. 3. Those who look upon it as yet to be fulfilled in the future. The first class fail to note that the antichrist is to be destroyed by the epiphany of Christ’s coming. Hence antichrist can not have come and gone, since this epiphany is yet to take place. The great body of Protestant commentators are found in the second class, who look upon the long line of popes as the antichrist, and the church of Rome as the apostasy. The third class, of whom Alford and Olshausen are exponents, look upon the pope as a prefiguration or forerunner of the antichrist, having many of his characteristics, but not filling up all the Scripture details by which he is described; Olshausen urging that the pope can not be antichrist, because, contrary to Joh 2:22; he confesses that Jesus is the Christ; and Alford objecting on the two grounds that the pope does not oppose God, and exalt himself above God, according to verse 4, for the pope is found to be very worshipful; and because the Papacy has existed for some fifteen hundred years, and Christ has not yet come, though the revelation of the antichrist is to immediately precede the coming of Christ. Taking up these three objections in their order, we would note, first, that a mere verbal, formal or ceremonial confession of Christ certainly will not relieve any one from being charged by the Spirit with having denied Christ. To really confess Jesus as Christ, is to look to him as the supreme Priest, to be guided by him as the all-authoritative Prophet or Teacher, to be ruled by him utterly as the divine and absolute King. Does the pope’s confession answer to this? Secondly, the language of verse 4 should not be so strained as to make it stronger than it is. It must be borne in mind that antichrist is a man, and not a deity, and hence his opposition to God, exaltation of self against God, etc., must be such as is possible to man. Alford so construes verse 4 as to demand not only one who lifts himself against God, but even above God, so as to make himself the sole object of worship. But Whedon justly remarks, “If this prophecy is to wait for a being who literally exalts himself above the Omnipresent and Omnipotent, it waits for an impossibility.” Moreover, in permitting the worship of saints and of the virgin, the pope does not avoid the charge of opposing all that is worshiped, for it must be borne in mind that the very spirit of worship demands an unseen element. If the pope should entirely deny all the unseen, then worship itself would be at an end. Since he must permit some continuance of this unseen element or defeat his own purposes, he contents himself with dictating as to it, deciding for himself in what it shall consist. Too rigorous a denial of all worship would destroy that which he seeks to parody, and obliterate his title as antichrist, Lastly, the third objection, that the Papacy has existed for fifteen hundred years, carries no weight; for the word “immediately,” on which Alford founds it, is neither in the text nor in the thought, and prophecy has very little perspective at best. It is sufficient that the Papacy still exists, and if it continues to exist till the Lord comes, and is brought to naught by that event, it will fulfill that part of the prophecy under consideration. In short, while we will not attempt to say that the final form of antichrist, Papal or otherwise, may not exceed in wickedness all that we have yet seen (for prophecies are certainly iterative), yet we are constrained to contend that if no other form appears, the Papacy has already fulfilled the prophecy, for it agrees in all the points, as follows: 1. It has one official man ever at its head, and the arrogancy of its claims are centered in him. 2. That man came with and out of all apostasy, and the very kind of an apostasy which Paul elsewhere describes (1Ti 4:1-3; 2Ti 3:1-9). Can that apostacy exist for all these centuries, and antichrist be still unborn of it? 3. The spiritual pride and lawlessness which worked and would have produced antichrist in Paul’s day, was curbed by the person of the Csar whose superior spiritual pride and lawlessness restrained that of the church by contempt and persecution. 4. When, notwithstanding the overshadowing emperor, the bishops of Rome began to assert themselves spiritually, they were still checked and restrained from revealing themselves as earthly potentates by the temporal power of the empire, just as the language of verses 6 and 7 so carefully distinguishes. 5. When the power of the Roman Empire was taken away, the pope appeared, and has since been unceasingly in evidence. Paul’s readers could readily see how the emperor and the empire would check the antichrist; but Paul could not openly write that emperor and empire were to fall, for, had he done so, the Romans would have appealed to his words as affording a just cause for persecuting the church. So thought Tertullian (A. D. 150-240), Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386), Ambrose (340-397), Jerome (342-420), Chrysostom (347-407), Augustine (354-430), etc. 6. The pope is careful to keep up his line of succession, so as to establish his identity and claims; and arising out of the fall of Rome and the apostasy of the church, which accompanied that event, he has continued for centuries with little change, and certainly none for the better. 7. He exalts himself against God and Christ, calling himself the vicar, or infallible substitute for Christ, and permitting and encouraging his followers to speak of him thus: “Our Lord God the Pope, another God upon earth . . . doeth whatsoever he listeth, even things unlawful, and is more than God.” Under these titles he presumes to set aside divine laws in favor of his own. Thus as a substitute person he makes substitute laws, and arrogates to himself divine power, as did Pope Clement VI. when he commanded the angels to admit certain souls to paradise. 8. He sits in the temple of God, i. e., he has his sphere of dominion in the church, and the temple or church which he occupies is still a temple erected to God, albeit the Spirit and presence of God may have long since departed from it. 9. He proves his supreme claims by fraudulent miracles, signs and wonders; of which cures effected by relics and shrines and pictures; prayers, made effectual by blessed beads; indulgences; souls prayed out of purgatory for money; absolution, and transubstantiation are fair samples.]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but {o} had pleasure in unrighteousness.

(o) They liked lies so much that they had pleasure in them, which is the greatest madness that may exist.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes