THE MAN OF SIN
Translated from the original Latin
WITH EMPHASIS ON REFUTING WHAT ARE COMMON INTERPRETIVE ERRORS MADE BY PAPISTS AND TODAY’S EVANGELICALS.
By Reformed Dutch Theologian Franciscus Gomarus (d. 1641)
V. 1 The mode of the exhortation is not a command, according to the authority of the apostolic legation, but an emphatic request and adjuration. For the request signifies the intimate and serious zeal of the Apostle; the adjuration, however, designates the excellence and necessity of the thing to which he exhorts. For he requests by adjuring, first by the coming (per adventum) of our Lord Jesus Christ, then by our gathering together unto him. For that which some translate ἐκ as “de” (concerning) and explain “quantum ad” so that it denotes the matter or object, is a rather weak translation. Whereas on the contrary, if we translate it “per” (by), so that it signifies the cause (as is common among good authors), it flows very well.
Moreover, the coming of Christ here is not understood as the first and humble one, by which He came to be judged, but the second and glorious one, by which He is going to come to judge the living and the dead. Nor is it, as some think, our spiritual gathering together in which we are united to Christ by faith; but rather the corporal and future gathering at the coming of Christ is designated; concerning which see Matthew 24:31 and 1 Thessalonians 4:17. This is also gathered from the preceding chapter of this Epistle, verses 5, 7 & 10. For by this method he elegantly weaves this hortatory section into the consolatory one, while deriving it from the latter: namely, that they should obey the Apostle’s request, since the coming of Christ and their consequent salvation were so dear to them.
V. 2 To this preface the exhortation coheres, warning them to flee the seduction of false doctrine concerning the imminent Day of Christ, that is, the day of the last coming of Christ (Luke 17:24). For although elsewhere, as in 1 John 2:18, the last hour or time is said to be present, nevertheless, on account of a different context, there is no contradiction. For in comparison with the times preceding the first coming of Christ, the times following are called the last times/days with respect to the Second Coming (Hebrews 1:1-2).
Then, although the Day of Christ is also taught to be at hand it also is to be understood relative to God’s view which are very long because eternal (2 Peter 3:8). Finally, relative to the expectation of the wicked (2 Peter 3:10 & 12; and 1 Thessalonians 5:2–3), the Day of Christ will be unexpected and sudden.
But in this place, “to be at hand” is denied in that sense in which it was affirmed by the seducers, who feigned that Christ would come, not after some centuries of years (known to God alone), but shortly, while they themselves were still living — contrary to the sentence of Christ and the mind and assertion of Paul (1 Thessalonians 5:1–2).
This seduction he describes by its bodily parts and modes, which are errors of the mind and terrors of the soul: the indignity of which he also exaggerates from the brevity of the time from which they were rightly instructed [to being confused and worried,] when he says “soon” (citò), as in Galatians 1:6.
The manner by which the seducers abused them were false pretexts, both of spirit (that is, metonymically speaking, of a revelation of the Holy Spirit) and of the doctrine of Paul, by word and by letter. For since he had spoken in person by word concerning the coming of Christ and the end of the age (1 Thessalonians 5:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:3), and though absent had spoken by his epistle (namely the first to the Thessalonians, chapter 4), they seem (as the ancient theologians rightly observed) to have abused both the word and the epistle of Paul, especially 1 Thessalonians 4:15 (“we who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord”) and verse 16 (“then we who are alive”): as if those things were spoken literally of the persons of Paul and of the Thessalonians then living; whereas, on the contrary (as we have shown), they are to be understood synecdochically (1 Corinthians 15:52: “we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed” — “we who are alive,” that is, out of our number, and out of the number of the faithful who are alive). For the faithful unto the end of the world constitute one mystical body, whose Head is Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12; Ephesians 4:16 and 5:31). And this could be gathered from 1 Thessalonians 5:1–2.
V. 3 Therefore, in general he indicates the deceit of the adversaries and the duty of caution, when he says, “let no one deceive you in any way,” that is, inasmuch as Satan is a shape-shifter (versipellis) in this or in any other way.
And this is the proposition of the exhortation to which a most weighty and prophetic confirmation is added: that before the coming of Christ certain things must first come to pass which are not yet completed. Although those things are various, in this place two illustrious ones are recounted: the apostasy [‘falling away’] and the revelation of Antichrist, which are delayed on account of an obstacle.
The Apostle uses ellipsis when he says, “unless the apostasy, or falling away, comes first,” meaning “the day of Christ will not come,” as the following and previous verses show. Some think “apostasy” means a falling away from the Roman Empire, but others rightly see it as a spiritual falling away from Christ. It can mean either the Antichrist himself (by metonymy), like how “scelus” (crime) can mean a wicked person, or it can mean the act of falling away from Christ (by synecdoche).
But since defection is either particular (which happens in a particular place and in a small part of the world) or universal (which spreads itself through almost the whole world), it is not the former but the latter that is understood here. For in the time when Paul wrote this, particular defections had already existed; but a universal one followed afterwards, concerning which he speaks in 1 Timothy 4:1: The Spirit expressly says that in the latter times some will depart from the faith, that is, from the doctrine and profession of the [Christian] faith.
But the Papists object: “Those against whom the gates of hell do not prevail will not fail.” [I.e., It is impossible for the Church to fail, Matt. 16:18]. “But against the universal Church the gates of hell shall not prevail. Therefore, the universal Church shall not defect/fall away. Then, if the universal Church (which is the kingdom of Christ) fails, Christ will, in reality, cease to be king. But this is impious: therefore, so is the former.”
But this is the fallacy of ignorance of refutation [ignoratio elenchi] because the Church is taken in one way by our side, and in another way in our adversaries’ arguments. We understand the universal Church not as the invisible one (which includes only the elect and truly faithful, as Christ mentions in Matthew 16), but as the visible one, made up of both elect and hypocrites (Matthew 13). It is universal, but not completely—otherwise, the elect would fail too. Instead, it is universal in a relative way: the whole world may [universally] oppose the elect, but the [visible] Church mainly consists of hypocrites. Meanwhile, the true Church lives on in a few faithful believers, with Christ ruling over them.
But this defection happens gradually, yet chiefly (as is rightly observed) first through Muhammad, who both in reality and in profession, defected from Christ and the Christian name, and seduced a great part of the world to apostasy; then through Christian Bishops, especially the Roman one, who under the Christian name introduced an antichristian tyranny into the Church. This [Roman] apostasy is the first event which must take place before the coming of Christ, according to the Apostle’s prediction. The second event is the revelation of the Antichrist. But since that which is revealed already previously exists, he shows that Antichrist will first be [i.e., ‘exist’], before he is made manifest. This happens in two ways: the first way is the revelation of his kingdom, initially ecclesiastical, afterwards political; concerning which see verse 7. The second way is the revelation of his wickedness and fraud, concerning which see verse 8.
Moreover, because this prophecy is of the greatest moment, therefore he describes Antichrist graphically for the caution and consolation of the faithful, with fourfold surrounding conditions: firstly, of the effect of his sin; then of the consequent end, which is his destruction; thirdly, the subject of his place; finally, of the added time.
The first condition is indicated when Paul calls Antichrist “that man of sin,” that is, a sinner, by Hebraism, where a substantive [‘sin’] is connected with another substantive [‘man’] as an adjective. But since this word [‘sinner’] in Holy Scripture is taken either properly and generally for any transgressor of the divine law, or specifically, by synecdoche, κατ’ ἐξοχήν [par excellence] for him who is altogether given over and enslaved to sins, or for a man egregiously wicked, so in this place it ought to be taken that way, as the thing itself proves because by this he is distinguished from other men who commonly exist as sinners.
The second condition, namely the added nomenclature denoting ‘destruction,’ is described by a Hebrew phrase: “the son of perdition,” that is, a most destroyed/perished man: as “sons of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3). But though perdition may be understood as either temporal or eternal, the latter is understood by synecdoche, as in John 17:12, where Judas is called “the son of perdition,” that is, not only by right (as all are by nature, Ephesians 2:3), but also in reality, liable to eternal perdition to be destroyed.
Is the Antichrist a single, unique person?
Here, the question is whether the Antichrist described is a single, unique person. The Papists say ‘yes,’ to protect their own Pope and explain the mystery of iniquity. The Orthodox [Protestants] argue that it is a single person, but not absolutely unique. Instead, there is one at a time and in order, but many over time; in other words, one at a time in office, but many in succession. For just as in Daniel [7], singular kingdoms and successions of kings are rightly denoted under the species of singular animals (a lion, a bear, etc.), so it is not absurd (as the adversaries contend) that several in succession and order agreeing into one should be denoted by the singular number and the noun “man.”
[N. B. Modern Futurists view the Antichrist as one unique individual who will rule the world.]
But they insist again: if Antichrist were called [‘man’] without the article ὁ ἄνθρωπος [the man, as it is in the Greek text] there might be another explanation; but with the article ὁ ἄνθρωποςn [the man] an altogether singular man is designated. In which argument the adversaries exult and wonderfully please themselves: but ineptly, because the consequence is false, which they have learned neither from the grammarians nor from the Scriptures. For the article indeed has force and emphasis, but neither perpetually (since it often is redundant) nor of the kind that the Papists contend for. For in Matthew 12:35, ἀπὸ τοῦ θησαυροῦ [‘From the treasury;’ i.e., does not indicate a unique and single treasury]; and Mark 2:27, “the Sabbath was made for man” (τοῦ ἀνθρώπου: the Greek uses the definite article, yet is translated as mankind in general), etc., and Luke 4:4, “not by bread alone” (οὐκ ἐπ’ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ), Luke 11:24, “when the unclean spirit has gone out from the man” (ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου), 2 Timothy 3:13, the article [the] is superfluous. Finally, in 2 Thessalonians 2:6–7, τὸ κατέχον [the one withholding] and ὁ κατέχων [the withholder/restrainer] with the article [the], the Papists themselves understand concerning the Roman Empire and the succession of Emperors [i.e., the verse is not limited to one singular person]. To this it is added that in Matthew 16:18, “upon this rock” (ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ), etc., they understand it as not concerning a single, unique Pontiff or of the Church of one specific time but concerning the perpetual and ordinary succession of Pontiffs and of the Church.
Therefore, we establish there is indeed emphasis, so that that by the [definite] article this singular order of Antichrists is distinguished as remarkable [and set apart] from common heretics and antichrists, as in 1 John 2:18. Thus, the second necessary condition is explained.
V. 4 But before the third condition of his place is proposed, an illustration of the first condition is opportunely added: for the sins of Antichrist are first placed generally, when he is called ὁ ἀντικείμενος, that adversary [‘the one opposing,’ v. 4]. For that it ought to be translated thus is shown by the construction and use of this word, as in 1 Corinthians 16:9, “adversaries many” (ἀντικείμενοι πολλοί), and 1 Timothy 5:14, “to give no occasion to the adversary” (τῷ ἀντικειμένῳ), that is, to Satan, as is gathered from verse 15 and 1 Timothy 3:6–7, and that by synonymy: for Satan in Hebrew denotes “adversary.”
But this name is taken in two ways in Holy Scripture: either relatively by reason of the action through weakness, as Christ says to Peter in Matthew 16:23, “Get thee behind me, Satan”; or absolutely by reason of the whole pursuit and life: and that either commonly, as persecutors of the Church and any heretics whatsoever; or κατ’ ἐξοχήν [preeminently] as the Devil, and Antichrist. For just as the Devil is called “the adversary” (ὁ ἀντίδικος; 1 Peter 5:8) because he is that notable adversary of God and of His sons, so the firstborn of the Devil and the son of sin is on that account [using ‘that’ as a demonstrative conjunction] especially called κατ’ ἐξοχήν [par excellence] “that Antichrist” (ὅτι ἀντίχριστος; 1 John 2:18), and “the adversary,” because he is a [preeminent] adversary to Christ, both by reason of His person (whose glory he violates) and by reason of the members, or the Church, which he opposes and persecutes.
And to this general exposition of the sins of Antichrist is subjoined that part man and part beast; whereby the general is confirmed. For he ascribes to him two notorious and truly diabolical sins: wickedness and, at the same time, horrific arrogance, both against God and against the Church. Against God, when he says that he exalts himself against every so-called God, or divinity: that is, both the true God and the false god, as the opposition and distinction show.
But the Pope cannot be the Antichrist since he is the Vicar of Christ
But this exaltation can happen in two ways: either by the action of works or by mere words. The former, however, is understood in this place. For as Paul says concerning ungodly men that they profess to know God but in works deny Him (Titus 1:16), so also Antichrist. And this Paul also teaches when he shows that he will sit in the temple of God and will use fraud (verse 10), and experience proves it. However, if he should exalt himself above God by open profession, he would make no claim to [Christian] faith in the temple of God, or at least not a lasting one. Wherefore that which the Papists attempt to prove from this place — that their Pope is not Antichrist because he does not profess himself an adversary of Christ but a Vicar, and does not exalt himself above God since he calls himself the servant of God — that collapses of its own accord, because they rely on a false hypothesis. For the Apostle does not speak of the profession of Antichrist, but of his works, which appear in the Pontiff. For when he calls himself the Vicar of Christ, he arrogates to himself the honor of that kingdom in which Christ alone is the Head; and he changes, increases, or abrogates the laws given by God and Christ alone concerning spiritual things, just as indeed he calls himself “servant of servants” with the words of the Lord, but in reality bears himself as a tyrant of the Lord’s servants and thrusts down his own lords, kings and emperors, to kiss his feet.
And this is more evident from his wicked pride against the Church, which the Apostle – adding the third condition placed here – describes when he says: so that he sits in the temple of God as God, showing himself that he is God: that is, not only will he be so wicked against God, but also so deceitful that he fixes his seat as ruler in the Church, not as a shepherd, but as a devourer of the Church and an adversary of God, having arrogated to himself divine authority and falsely showing himself to be God.
For that which some translate “he will sit as the temple of God,” making the sense to be “he will boast himself to be the temple of God,” does not sufficiently agree with the following words “as God sitteth in the temple” Wherefore ἐν is taken (as often) for εἰς, so that “he sits in the temple of God,” that is, he occupies the throne of God.
But Paul calls the Church “the temple of God” by a metaphor and similitude derived from the type of the legal [OT] temple. For as the temple of God was sacred to the worship of God, which could not be profaned without impiety, and in which God presided by His gracious presence, so it was a type of the Church, which is on that account called the house of God (1 Timothy 3:15), and the faithful are called the temple of God (1 Corinthians 3:17), built of living stones (1 Peter 2:5), in which God also dwells (2 Corinthians 6:16), and the faithful are priests, that they may offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Christ (1 Peter 2:5). So also, the Church triumphant (Revelation 3:12, 7:15, 11:19).
Is the Temple of God the rebuilt or OT Temple of Jerusalem?
[N. B. Futurists posit the Temple described in 2 Thess. 2:4 as one which will be rebuilt in the unknown future in Jerusalem. Preterists view the Temple as the literal OT Jerusalem Temple, placing this prophecy in the 1st century. Gomarus takes the Historicist Protestant view.
For that which the Papists dispute against — that the temple of God signifies the temple of Jerusalem — that is inept: for the temple of Jerusalem was to be utterly destroyed shortly before the dominion of Antichrist. And although Irenaeus expounded it so, it is probable that he, being an ancient writer but of small judgment and too gullible was deceived by the authority of Papias. As also in the explanation of the Apocalypse, in which he wrongly took figuratively spoken things literally, it is established that the same happened to Papias. And therefore, Chrysostom joined both, and Jerome (ad Algasiam, question 11), correcting that opinion, says: “he will sit in the temple of God, either in Jerusalem or in the Church,” as we judge more truly. This opinion is also approved by Thomas Aquinas on this passage. And Oecumenius says: “not in Jerusalem, but in the churches of God.” Wherefore that which the Papists gather from this — that the Pope is not Antichrist, because he does not sit in Jerusalem but in Rome — the consequence is absurd. They quibble about the impiety and pride of Antichrist in the same way: “The Pope,” they say, “sits in the Church, but not as God and supreme Lord, but as the Vicar of Christ; nor does he show himself to be God, but the servant of God. Therefore, he is not Antichrist.”
But the antecedent is false. For (not to repeat the things which I have just mentioned) he exercises divine authority and dominion in the Church, while he exempts himself from the judgments of all and constitutes himself Judge and universal King. Concerning which matter two passages especially memorable are in Pontifical law: The former in the decree of Gratian, Distinction 40, c. “Si Papa,” the saying of Boniface the martyr: “If the Pope is found negligent of his own, and his brethren’s salvation, and useless and remiss in his works (and moreover silent concerning good, which harms himself all the more): nevertheless, should he lead innumerable peoples in droves with him to the first level of Gehenna to be tormented with him with many plagues in eternity, no mortal may presume to reprove his faults. For he who is to judge all is to be judged by no one, unless he be found deviating from the faith.”
The latter passage is that of Boniface VIII (who on account of his notorious crimes ought rather to be called ‘Malefacius’), in Extravag. Comm. 1.1. c.1 “Unam Sanctam.” He asserts: “If the spiritual power errs, it will be judged by its superior; but if the truly supreme power errs, it can be judged by God alone, not by man, the Apostle testifying: The spiritual man judges all things, yet he himself is judged by no one (1 Cor. 2:15).” And in the conclusion, he adds: “Furthermore we declare, say, define and pronounce that it is altogether of necessity of salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
[N. B. ‘Boniface’ translates as ‘maker of good deeds.’ In contrast, ‘Malefacius’ translates as ‘acting with malicious intent.’
[The Papists arguments continue:] “Christ was given all power in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). Therefore, the Supreme Pontiff, who is Christ’s Vicar, will have this power.” Likewise, “Jesus Christ, while he was in this world, was from eternity naturally Lord; and therefore, by natural right he could have pronounced a sentence of deposition against the Emperor or against any others whatsoever, and of damnation, and any other [sentences] whatsoever, inasmuch as he was dealing with persons whom he had created and had endowed with natural and gratuitous gifts, also preserving them. And for the same reason his Vicar can do so: for it does not seem that the Lord was imprudent (with reverence toward the Lord I speak) if he left behind him such a Vicar who could do all these things.” And afterwards: “divine dominion is that which is with God, over every creature, for he himself is God the Creator of all things.” Likewise, “of this kingdom and priesthood the Son of God committed the perpetual principality to Peter and his successors.”
To this pertains the fact that he willingly endures being called “God on earth” by pontifical writers. Concerning which there is a most grave complaint in Claude D’Espence, the most learned Parisian theologian (who appears not to have been far from the kingdom of God), in his Epistle on Titus, chapter 1, page 76: “For what,” he says, “can they either excuse or devise that is true or probable, to whom neither king, nor Caesar, nor people, nor clergy, nor general synod, nor finally the Church itself can say, ‘Why do you do thus?’” And that which the poet-theologian, the Monk of Mantua, objects and proves:
“You who desire to live holy, depart from Rome: when all things are permitted, it is not permitted to be good.”
These few things, out of innumerable places, may suffice, that from them it may be established that the Pope sits in the Church of God as God, and shows himself as God.
But here the Papists object again: “If the Pope sits in the Church of God, it follows that the Roman Church is the true Church of Christ, and therefore, the rest who have made a secession from it are outside the Church.” But the logical consequence can be taken two ways: in a divided sense or denied altogether. For the Roman Church can be taken either for the better [godly] part [of the universal Church] or for the greater [ungodly] part. If interpreted in the former way, we grant it to be called a Church because remnants of a Church still survive there, who groan under the yoke of the Pontiff and have not bowed their knees to Baal, as among the Israelites (Romans 11:4). If in the latter way it is interpreted as a Church consisting only of the Pontiff, his sworn ministers and followers, we deny it to be a [true] Church.
Therefore, we have not departed from the formerly described Church, or from those who think rightly [of biblical truth] (to whom we remain joined by faith), but only from the latter; and not simply, but according to a certain respect. For that which is good in it we have retained; that which is evil we have rejected by the reformation of the Church. For we have not departed from the Roman Church, but only insofar as it has departed from God. This concerning verse 4 and the sins, destruction, and seat of Antichrist.
V. 5 Which things, from the antecedent doctrine of Paul (proposed by word in their presence) and from the memory of the Thessalonians, would more gravely argue [their] incredulity in admitting the opinion of the seducers concerning the imminent coming of Christ: “Do you not remember,” he says, “that when I was still with you, I told you these things?”
V. 6 The last condition necessary for the revelation of the Antichrist is the time. For Paul shows that an obstacle remains, by which it comes to pass that he is not yet revealed, but will be revealed in his own time.
This obstacle some expound as the Holy Spirit, who by His gracious presence restrains Antichrist; but when, offended by the sins of men, He shall depart and then Antichrist will be revealed — which can be illustrated from verse 10.
[N. B. Modern-day Futurists also view the “let” as the Holy Spirit.]
Others understand it of the future preaching of the Gospel throughout the whole world, which ought to precede Antichrist. For the Church must first be gathered throughout the whole world before that ungrateful defection of it (v. 10) can exist and Antichrist be revealed (Matthew 24:14): “This Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto all nations, and then shall the end come.”
Others understand it of the Roman Empire. Finally, others understand it of the propagation of the Gospel and the Roman Empire together.
All these things, as different modes of the general obstacle, might not be bad joined together were it not for the fact that two things stand in the way: first, its obscure description because he mentions the obstacle twice covertly, nor does he express it once clearly; although they can safely be declared, with one exception. Then, unless the explanation in verse 7 prevents it, the one who restrains (τὸ κατέχον) is identified. This refers to a person [he] but carries the same meaning as the obstacle, as the language and context indicate.
[N. B. There is no reason why Paul could not identify the restrainer as the Holy Spirit, if that be the case, because he mentions the Holy Spirit in his 1st epistle to them, verse 5.]
Wherefore it appears that the Roman Emperor reigning at Rome is this obstacle, as very many ancient and more recent interpreters, even Pontifical ones, expound it. For while this Empire flourishes and while the Emperor dwells at Rome the dominion of Antichrist will lie hidden and be restrained, for he is predicted to [eventually] sit [presiding] in that city, known as the seven-hilled city and mistress of the kings of the earth (Revelation 17:9, 18).
V. 7 And it is expounded more clearly: for to that which he said, “shall be revealed,” there corresponds, as an epexegesis, those words: “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work”; that is, by a Hebrew hypallage, “the iniquity of the mystery,” or mystical and secret iniquity. In this way, by metonymy, many understand Antichrist himself. And indeed, it is so stated in Revelation 17:5: “upon her forehead a name written, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Fornications and Abominations of the Earth.” And so, it ought to be translated “is working” (operatur), as the Vulgate interpreter rendered it — a similar case is seen in 1 Thessalonians 2:13: “the word of God which worketh in you.”
And in this sense it will be: that Antichrist existed in the times of the Apostles — not in his own person, but in spirit and in his forerunners and authors, who prepared the way for him and laid the foundations of wickedness: such as Simon Magus, Ebion, Cerinthus, and others like them, who endeavored to mix the superstition of the Jews and the idolatry of the Gentiles with the Christian religion. Concerning whom it is said in 1 John 2:18: you have heard that Antichrist shall come; even now there are many antichrists; and verse 22: this is Antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son. And 1 John 4:3: And this is that spirit of Antichrist (as the construction proves), of whom you have heard that he should come, and even now already is in the world.
Others, however, keeping the same sense but in a different way, understand by “the mystery of iniquity” not Antichrist by metonymy of the adjunct, but properly the iniquity which followed; and they translate ἐνεργεῖται as “is being accomplished/performed.” Just as Tertullian in his book De Resurrectione says: “a secret iniquity is being wrought” — because the foundations of the apostate seat of Antichrist were already being laid in the very times of the Apostles, but in such a way as to deceive men. For as the Gospel is called “the mystery of godliness” (1 Timothy 3:16) and of faith (v. 9), of God (Colossians 1), of Christ (Colossians 4:3), so the doctrine of Antichrist can rightly, by way of opposition, be called “the mystery of iniquity,” of perfidy, of Satan, of Antichrist. And indeed, Satan scattered this doctrine so insidiously that the churches of Christ were gradually and imprudently infected with the seeds of Judaism and heathenism, which afterwards grew up in such a way that they brought in Antichrist.
This is evident from Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, and other most ancient theologians — so much so that he who does not see these things must be blind at noonday. For those things which Paul had already reproved and which had already crept into the Church — idolatry, communion with idolatrous sacred things (1 Corinthians 10:14, 20), worship of angels, superstitious observation of Jewish feasts (such as the Passover), prohibition of certain foods, superstitious affliction of the body, and human doctrines (ἐθελοθρησκεία), arbitrary worship of God and show of humility (Colossians 2:16, 18, 21–23; Galatians 4:10), assertion of one’s own righteousness even from the works of the law (Galatians 4:21 & 5:4), profane and old wives’ fables (1 Timothy 4:7), superstitious celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:9), fornications and contempt of magistrates (2 Peter 2:10, etc.) — all these things so crept into the Church and grew with continual increase that they in a manner invaded almost all the churches of the world, as the writings of the Fathers, ecclesiastical history, and councils demonstrate.
Such will be the defections of Antichrist’s doctrine, as Paul prophesied in 1 Timothy 4:1, and John in Revelation 17, and is proved by experience of the Roman Pontiffs. This mystical and secret iniquity, therefore, is already working, but he teaches when it is to be revealed and when that Antichrist is to be made manifest by explaining what hinders, and then at what time.
Concerning the former, he says: “that which now hinders, until he is taken out of the midst,” namely, until he departs. He who hinders is the Roman Emperor (as we showed above). But the ancient and modern interpreters give the right reason why Paul proposed the matter so generally and obscurely: namely, lest by openly predicting the fall of Rome and the Roman Empire he should bring upon the Gospel an untimely hatred and a destructive persecution against the Christians. For nothing more grievous could seem to be said against the majesty of the Roman Empire than if someone should predict its fall.
The time of the obstacle, however, is indicated by these words: “only until he be taken out of the midst.”
[N. B. The Greek text uses the noun μέσου (midst) which the KJV translates as “way.” The same is true for the text examples which follow.]
This phrase can be expounded in two ways: either literally or figuratively. If literally so that it denotes place: just as in Matthew 13:49, “they shall separate the bad from the midst of the righteous”; Acts 17:33, “Paul went out from the midst of them”; and 23:10, “to take him by force from the midst of them”; 1 Corinthians 5:2, “taken out from the midst.”
Figuratively, however, it denotes destruction: Colossians 2:14, “he took it out of the midst, having nailed it to the cross.”
Hence, although agreeing in substance, the interpreters differ in manner: some expound it literally, “until he be taken out of the midst,” that is, until he ceases to have his seat at Rome and the Empire; others figuratively, concerning the destruction, “until his Empire has collapsed.” For while the Roman emperor stands and flourishes, the tyranny of Antichrist lies hidden; yet will gradually reveal itself. But this ruin of the Roman Emperor was not made in a moment, but in certain intervals and degrees of time. For first, the beginning and occasion was the desertion of Rome and Italy by the translation of the seat of the Empire to Byzantium, as well as the change of the ancient political order by Constantine (in constituting assemblies, etc., as Zosimus explains), and the administration of Italy by others, which evil was observed by historians.
To this was added the negligence or perfidy of governors, and the irruption and dominion of the Huns, Goths, and Lombards into Italy; as well as the defection of the East by Muhammad and the Saracens; and also by the transfer of a part of the Roman Empire to Charlemagne, at which time its downfall was finally accomplished: so that, for some centuries, nothing remained of the Roman Empire except the name.
The Roman Pontiff, in the meantime, most obviously revealed himself to be Antichrist: first, by reason of ecclesiastical dominion, under Boniface III, when from Phocas the tyrant (the murderer of his own lord the Emperor, and one seeking the favor of the Roman Bishop to cover his crime) he obtained the title of “Universal Bishop”: as Platina and others teach. Because the Bishop of Constantinople, John, had arrogated this title to himself, Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, had called him the forerunner of Antichrist.
Secondly, he revealed himself as Antichrist by reason of gradual political dominion, but most principally through Gregory VII, as is commonly correctly acknowledged. For the Pontiffs stripped the Emperors of the Roman Empire and established all Kings subject to themselves: so much so that, just as formerly the Roman Bishop was established by the authority of the Emperor, so, on the contrary, the Emperors were established by authority of the Pontiff; and to such a degree that they were thrust down to perform vile duties, such as the kissing of feet.
V. 8 Wherefore rightly the Apostle says, And then shall that Wicked be revealed — or rather, that lawless one (ἄνομος), that is, Antichrist, the son of sin. Whose just destruction he describes in two degrees by parenthesis when he says, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.
The first degree is the inchoate abolition of that tyranny, by the spirit of His mouth. This can be understood either as the word of the Gospel in its substance because it consists of spirit or breath of the mouth; or the Holy Spirit, by whose power, through the preaching of the Gospel, the tyranny and frauds of Antichrist have been revealed; as well as the many kingdoms who were intoxicated and lulled by the cup of the Babylonian harlot and have now been awakened and shaken off the antichristian yoke. This was done formerly in Provence by the Waldenses, and in Bohemia and in most regions of the Christian world in our age by Luther, Zwingli, and other heralds of the Gospel.
The second degree is the final abolition of Antichrist, which will happen at the illustrious coming of Christ to judge the living and the dead, by which the parenthesis concerning the destruction of Antichrist is completed.
V. 9 Furthermore, his impiety is expounded from the efficient cause besides the effects. The efficient cause is Satan because the coming of Antichrist will be according to the working of Satan. The effects are established as twofold: proximate and distant.
The proximate effects are powers of every kind: signs and lying wonders (false prodigies), that is, of deceit: and that either partly or completely. Partly because of their ultimate goal, which is to confirm falsehood, and partly because of their form and outward appearance — they seem to be supernatural and purely divine works, even though they do not go beyond the powers of nature and are not entirely done by Satan’s power, but only appear so due to a certain enchantment amplified by stories; such as the miracles of the Roman Antichrist, performed either by himself or through his agents. Among these are some recent examples by Jesuits and monks.
V. 10 The remote effects are of every kind: a deadly seduction in those who perish, by the just judgment of God, because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Some interpret “the love of the truth” as Christ or God: just as in 1 John 4:8 and 16, “God is love.” Others judge that faith is denoted from the effect; for, from faith in the truth arises the love of it. The simpler and more genuine sense is (as is also gathered from verse 12) that from the preaching of the Gospel they did not conceive the love of it. For “truth” first metonymically denotes true doctrine; then the Gospel, which is also called “truth” in Hebrews 10:26, 1 Peter 1:22, and “the word of truth” in 2 Timothy 2:15, Colossians 1:5, Ephesians 1:13, and James 1:18. This word, though they ought to have loved it on account of its excellence and usefulness for salvation, they hated (as John 3:19). Meanwhile, not unsuitably can “the love of the truth” be expounded as “the lovable truth,” just as such Hebraisms are frequent also in this Epistle; and in this way unbelief would also be denoted.
V. 11 The contempt of which truth is established as the cause of the seduction and the destruction, when at the same time this is more clearly expounded by the following words: for he teaches that the seduction arises from [their contempt] when he says, and for this cause God shall send them an efficacy of deception, that they should believe a lie. But the “efficacy of deception” can be taken either directly or obliquely by a Hebrew hypallage, so that it denotes a deception of efficacy, that is, an efficacious deception deception, as Oecumenius expounds it.
But that God is said to send that efficacy, some interpret so that “to send” means “to permit,” which is opposed to a positive action, or it denotes the cessation of action. But this is rightly denied by others as adverse to the providence of God: for in this place is not a bare permission, but a judicial action of God is understood, by which He punishes sins with sins — not indeed by effecting them, but by wisely and justly directing them, so that in respect to God they are most just punishments. This happens in part when He takes away His gifts, knowledge and conscience from iniquitous and ungrateful men, and delivers them up to their own lusts (concerning which see Romans 1); and partly when He loosens the reins to Satan and his instruments – Antichrist and the seducers – leading them into temptation (Matthew 6:13). And just as a magistrate does not make the poison but sometimes uses it for the punishment of a guilty person: so also, God does not make sins, but instead as a just judge governs them. And in this sense God is said to deceive (Ezekiel 14:9), and in this particular place “to send an efficacy of error” [“strong delusion”] by metaphor and similitude because the just governance of God is similar to a sending. Concerning which matter, because we have written more fully in the Conciliatio doctrinae orthodoxae de providentiae Dei, there is no need to treat it with more words here.
V. 12. Seduction is followed by just destruction as the end purpose with respect to God the judge, when Paul says, that they all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
For the word of judgment by synecdoche denotes not the judgment of absolution, but of condemnation, as our interpreter translates it. However, since every sin deserves damnation and all men have innate sin which they are born with, even apart from before ever hearing the Gospel and rejecting it, they are guilty of damnation and eternal death. Hence, in John 3:36 the wrath of God is said to abide upon the unbeliever. But with the addition of contempt of the Gospel the guilt is increased, and the cause of condemnation becomes twofold: the first, on account of the violation of the covenant of works and the Law (Deuteronomy 27:26); the second, on account of the transgression of the covenant of grace and of the Gospel (Mark 16:16). Concerning which matter is treated here, when the sin of those who are seduced is described: who believed not the truth (that is, the doctrine of the Gospel, which verily contains saving truth), but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
This word can be taken either by synecdoche of the genus [kind], so that it signifies a specific falsehood or false doctrine opposed to the truth; or generically, [any falsehood or doctrine opposed to the truth in general] which is the more proper, common and broader meaning since it includes the former meaning.
V. 13. But lest this doctrine concerning the just judgment of God against the contemners of the Gospel should shake and weaken the weaker consciences of the Thessalonian faithful, he mitigates it with a timely consolation by contrasting the judgment of God with the contrary grace toward the faithful, thanksgiving being employed to declare his sentence concerning them.
Which thanksgiving he first indicates in general, when he says: But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren. Then he expounds the matter of the thanksgiving in particular: first, the love of God, by which He was benevolently disposed toward them; the effect of which is election. Indeed, men choose first those whom they love because they have regard to worthiness; however, on the contrary, God loves graciously whom He elects, without regard to human worthiness.
But since election varies with respect to time and means, he applies a more detailed explanation of time: “He chose you from the beginning to salvation,” namely from eternity, and that of both soul and body, which is the end purpose. But the means are established as sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. These two some distinguish as different parts, so that sanctification of the Spirit denotes the pursuit of holiness, which is from the Holy Spirit and is something other than faith; and that there is a hysteron proteron [‘reversal of the natural order’], because faith naturally precedes it; but in this place it is named later. But nothing prevents us from taking sanctification generally concerning the purification which is contained in the appearance of both implanted faith and love; the effect of which is actual faith which believes in the truth. A similar place is 1 Peter 1:1–2.
However, since faith is here called “of the truth,” our interpreter paraphrastically expounded it as “belief of the truth,” so that truth denotes the object of faith: just as in verse 12, “they believed not the truth.”
V. 14. But of this faith, as the Holy Spirit has been indicated before as the principal cause, so the instrumental cause is adduced: the calling by a twofold instrument. The proximate is the Gospel; the remote is the herald of the Gospel, Paul. To which is annexed a repetition and exposition of the previously posited salvation, when he says, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, that is, the communion of His glory. Verse 14 is concerned with the consolation of the Thessalonians, against the fear which could arise through weakness in the hearers from the antecedent seductive doctrine preached through Antichrist and the punishment of destruction of the unbelievers. Those things are examples of hatred and reprobation, but the faithful Thessalonians are beloved of God, elected to salvation and true faith. From thence it follows they are safe from that destructive seduction, as that unbroken chain of salvation proves (Romans 8:29–30: whom He predestined, those He also called, etc.), and the promise of Christ (John 10:28), and the prayer (John 17:20-24), and the assertion of Matthew 24:24: there shall arise false prophets and false Christs, and shall show great signs and miracles, so as to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect, and 1 Peter 1:5: we are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.
V. 15. And thus far the Apostle has produced the second part of this chapter — the confirmation of the exhortation. But the third is a most ample conclusion of the exhortation, consisting of a repetition of the exhortation and a prayer. For just as he proposed the exhortation by the removal and dissuasion from evil earlier, in this place he does so by thesis, by exhortation to good. For he exhorts them to constancy in the delivered doctrine which they had been taught, whether by word or by the epistle of Paul. By saying this he is speaking to the frauds of the seducers, who abused both word and epistle, as if proceeding from the Apostle, in order to disturb the Church. He opposes these lies by delivering his own sincere word and an epistle, not supposititious nor altered, but true.
Meanwhile, not even this place is immune from the corruptions of our Papist adversaries. For from here the Papists endeavor to prove their distinction concerning the doctrine of salvation, which they claim is partly written, partly unwritten: namely, that in the written word not all things necessary to salvation are written down, but that the things which are lacking are supplied by the unwritten word or traditions. For those things that are separated are not homogeneously subordinated or of the same argument; but the doctrine of salvation delivered by word is separated from the doctrine delivered by the Holy Scriptures, because Paul says, “whether by word or by letter.” “Therefore,” they say, “the doctrine of salvation delivered by word and the doctrine delivered by Holy Scripture are not subordinate and are of the same import.”
But there is a twofold fault in this objection because both the assumption and its proof are false. First, Paul does not speak of the whole Scripture which is understood in the subject of the question or the minor terminus (for in Acts 26:22 he testifies that he taught nothing at all outside the word of the Prophets and Moses), but only of that small part of it, namely the first epistle to the Thessalonians. For he says, “you were taught by our epistle.” And therefore, it does not follow: Paul taught ‘more things’ than that epistle contains in writing; therefore, ‘more things’ were neither written by him, nor by the Apostle before or after, nor by the Prophets.
We deny it necessary for a separation [between written and unwritten] to be indicated. For although the word “whether” (sive) more frequently separates different or opposite things, yet it frequently joins and connects harmonious things, thereby denoting a conjunction: as examples prove, such as 1 Corinthians 13:8, “whether prophecies shall be abolished, or tongues shall cease, or knowledge shall be abolished” — that is, together prophecies and tongues and knowledge; and 1 Corinthians 15:11, “whether I or they, so we preach” — that is, both I and they. And this is also the sense of Paul in this place that the matter itself shows: for he testified earlier, in verse 5, that he was writing the very same things he told them when he was there in person. And therefore, the word “whether” does not separate, but joins and links together.
V. 16 & 17. This exhortation to constancy in retaining the delivered doctrine he illustrates by a prayer: by which he describes the principal helping cause of obedience, showing that the mode of obtaining it is by prayers. It is to be observed who is the object of the prayer and subject matter; i.e., from whom and what it is he wishes for the Thessalonians.
The former is Jesus Christ and God the Father, who are not only proposed but also explicitly written down for the confirmation of faith in obtaining the thing requested. Christ indeed is called “our Lord,” not only by common right with the Father and the Spirit because He is the Creator, but also by a twofold right: first, of the paternal donation because we were given to Him as an inheritance and a people (Psalm 2:8; John 6:37); secondly, by right of redemption (Romans 14:9 and 1 Corinthians 6:20).
But God is called “Father” — our God and Father, that is, who has joined us to Himself by the covenant of grace and has adopted us as sons: from whom preservation and salvation depend (as Matthew 22:32). Therefore, he adds the benefits: the love of grace, that is, gratuitous love, and the effects and gifts of love and grace — first, of comfort through faith and the sealing of the Holy Spirit, and indeed eternal, which shall not be taken away from the faithful (John 14:16); then the gift of good hope, namely both with respect to its form, because it is sincere, and with respect to its effect, because it does not deceive (Romans 5:5).
And by this description the object of the prayer is indicated, and at the same time the foundations of the prayer and of faith are declared: for those whose Christ is Lord and Redeemer, and whose God is God and Father, by whom they have been loved and endowed with faith and hope — those shall be preserved and kept (1 Peter 1:5).
Wherefore fitly he adds the thing itself which he wishes from Christ and the Father: comfort of their hearts and confirmation of them in every word and good work. Of which the former pertains to faith — and indeed not with respect to its beginning (since he has asserted that they have already received comfort), but with respect to its continuation and increase; the latter pertains to life, or the fruits of faith, when he says, in every good word and work.
And with this choice connection and transition he opens the way to the other part of the hortatory treatment, which is occupied with the performance of the fruits of faith.
END
Be First to Comment