2 Thessalonians 3:4

DcG, verss. (except d e vg), add υμιν to παραγγελλομεν (cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:2).

The double form of ποιεω has occasioned a crop of various readings:

(a) ποιειτε και ποιησετε, in א*A de; (b) ποιειτε και ποιησατε, D*gr;

(c) και ποιειτε και ποιησετε, אcDcKLP &c., f vg et facitis et facietis;

(d) και εποιησατε και ποιειτε και ποιησετε, B; cop fecistis et facitis;

(e) και εποιησατε alone, Ggr, several minn.; g et fecistis et facietis.

The early (itacistic) corruption of ποιησετε into ποιησατε (D) appears to have bewildered the copyists. Is it not just possible, however, that BG cop have preserved a true reading, and that in (a) ποιειτε was an assimilation of και εποιησατε to 2 Thessalonians 3:1 above, and to 1 Thessalonians 4:10? εποιησατε is commended by its difficulty (after πεποιθαμεν), and by the fact that its priority might best explain the genesis of the other readings. The initial και of B and G seems original.

4. The Apostles, trusting for the safety of their flock to “the Lord,” are at the same time well assured of the faithfulness of the Thessalonians themselves: πεποίθαμεν δὲ ἐν κυρίῳ ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς, But we confidently rely, in the Lord, upon you. Πεποιθέναι ἐπί with accusative occurs besides (for the N.T.) only in 2 Corinthians 2:3 and Matthew 27:43 (the better reading): cf. ἐπί with dat., 2 Corinthians 1:9; Hebrews 2:13; Luke 11:22; Luke 18:9; and εἰς with accus. after the same verb, Galatians 5:10. The preposition signifies—as after πιστεύω, πίστις, in Acts 9:42; Acts 11:17; Hebrews 6:1; or ἐλπίζω in 1 Timothy 5:5; 1 Peter 1:13; or χρηστότης in Ephesians 2:7—a confidence directed towards and resting upon its object. The simple dative, according to classical regimen, follows this verb in 2 Corinthians 10:7; Philippians 1:14; Philemon 1:21; dative with ἐν in Philippians 3:3 f.; πέποιθα has much the same variety of construction as πιστεύω. The perfect is of the type of οἶδα, ἕστηκα, κ.τ.λ.: “I have got the persuasion,” so “I have confidence”; cf. πέπεισμαι, Romans 8:38; Romans 14:14, &c. Ἐν κυρίῳ is related to πεποίθαμεν … ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς, as to its sentence in 1 Thessalonians 4:1 (see note): “the Lord (Jesus Christ)” and His service supply the sphere of all Christian relationships; St Paul’s confidence toward the Thessalonians is grounded ultimately in Christ: cf. Galatians 5:10, ἐγὼ πέποιθα εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν κυρίῳ.

The matter of confidence is thus stated: ὅτι ἃ παραγγέλλομεν [καὶ] ποιεῖτε [or ἐποιήσατε] καὶ ποιήσετε, that the things which we charge (you), you (both) are doing [or have done] and will do. For παραγγέλλω, thrice repeated in the sequel, see notes on 1 Thessalonians 4:2 (παραγγελία) and 11. Under the present tense the verb brings forward no general directions respecting the Christian life, such as were included in the παραδόσεις of 2 Thessalonians 2:15, nor does it recall the παραγγελίαι of 1 Thessalonians 4:1-12; it urges the injunctions presently given—in the first place, the appeal of 2 Thessalonians 3:1 f., and then the charge immediately to follow in 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 : cf. 1 Corinthians 7:10; 1 Corinthians 11:17. The reading ἐποιήσατε (for ποιεῖτε: see Textual Note) would imply assurance on the writers’ part that their commands had been obeyed in time past, and accordingly will be in time to come. For the fact stated by ποιεῖτε, cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:10; also Romans 15:14. Πεποίθαμεν bears specially on the future, ποιήσετε; had the present (or past) only been in view, the writers might have used οἴδαμεν: see 2 Corinthians 9:2; εἰδὼς ὅτι … ποιήσεις, however, of certain expectation, in Philemon 1:21; cf. also Philippians 1:6; Philippians 1:19, and 1 Thessalonians 5:24 above.

4. ANTICHRIST IN THE EARLY CHURCH

During the earliest age of the Church’s History, ending with the dissolution of the Western Empire in the fifth century, one consistent theory prevailed respecting the nature of Antichrist,—viz. that he was an individual destined one day to overthrow the Roman Empire and to establish a rule of consummate wickedness, which would quickly be terminated by the appearance of the Lord Jesus from heaven, coming to effect the Last Judgement. After the downfall of Rome, Greek theologians saw in the Eastern Empire, with its Christian capital of Constantinople (the New Rome), the fabric which Antichrist would destroy. In later ages this rôle was assigned to the Holy Roman Empire, resuming the part of imperial Rome in the West. The Eastern Empire succumbed in the fifteenth century; but this remained the most imposing bulwark of society. When the Western Empire in its turn became a shadow, its office was transferred—especially by Roman expositors—to the Christian State in general. Here “the withholder” (ὁ κατέχων, τὸ κατέχον) was found by the Fathers, in the power of the Roman government and the civil polity of the Empire—Romanus status, as Tertullian says; its dissolution imported the end of the world to the mind of the Church of the first three centuries. The above view was not inconsistent, however, with the recognition of the features of Antichrist in particular imperial rulers. Chrysostom probably echoes a popular belief when he speaks of Nero as “a type of Antichrist,” and as embodying “the mystery of iniquity already working.” The resemblance of Nero to St John’s first θηρίον probably favoured this identification. The idea of Nero’s return and re-enthronement, so long current in the East, was associated with this tradition and kept it alive.

Many leading Patristic writers however—including Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Augustine, Pelagius, John of Damascus—sought τὸ μυστἡριον τῆς� not in the political but in the religious sphere, following the intimation of 1 John 2:18-22; they saw it continuously working in the progress of heresy and schism; some attempted to combine the two factors, detecting a common leaven of Satanic evil in civil and in ecclesiastical rebellion. Greek interpreters made faith, or the gifts of the Spirit, the κατέχον.

As to the meaning of ἡ� in this context, opinions were divided upon much the same lines. It was revolt from the Catholic Church, or from the Imperial State, or from both at once. Immorality was a feature regularly attached to doctrinal aberration by orthodox exegetes in their treatment of this point; and contemporary illustration was not wanting. The ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 was usually regarded as the Christian Church; but a few scholars (Cyril of Jerusalem, Pelagius; and in later days, Nicolas de Lyra and Cornelius a Lapide) adhered to the literal reference of this expression to the Jewish Temple, supposing that this must be rebuilt, to become Antichrist’s seat, before the end of the world. In connexion with the latter opinion, a Jewish origin, from the tribe of Dan (Genesis 49:17)[7]—the genealogy of Antichrist suggested by Rabbinical interpreters—was assigned to the Man of Lawlessness. Many patristic and medieval interpreters confess themselves at a loss on this subject.

[7] From this text, in conjuction with Deuteronomy 33:22 and Jeremiah 8:16 (Leviticus 24:10 ff. and Judges 18:30 f. helped to balcken Dan’s character), an astonishing vein of Jewish speculation and allegory has opned out. Dan has served as the bête noire of Rabbinism, being made to play amongst the sons of Jacob a part resembling that of Judas amongst the twelve Apostles. With its ensign of the serpent, Dan stood for the antithesis and would-be supplanter of the royal tribe of Judah; it belonged to the dark north of the land, and supplied the seat of Jeroboam’s apostate and idolatrous worship. Dan, to be sure, is wanting in the Apocalyptic list of The Tribes (Revelation 7.). See Friedländer’s work above cited, ch. 9., Die Anstammung des Antichrist aus Dan; also Bousset’s Antichrist, pp. 112 ff. Amongst the Fathers, this tradition goes back to Irenæus and Hippolytus.