the man of sin be derived from any ancient prophet, it must be derived from Daniel, who hath described the like arrogant and tyrannical power, (vii. 25:) "He shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws:" and again, (xi. 36 :) "The king shall do according to his will, and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods." Any man may be satisfied, that St. Paul alluded to this description by Daniel, because he hath not only borrowed the ideas, but hath even adopted some of the phrases and expressions. The man of sin may signify either a single man, or a succession of men. A succession of men being meant in Daniel, it is probable, that the same was intended here also. It is the more probable, because a single man appears hardly sufficient for the work here assigned and it is agreeable to the phraseology of Scripture, and especially to that of the prophets, to speak of a body or a number of men under the character of one. Thus a king, (Dan. vii. viii. Rev. xvii.) is often used for the succession of kings, and the high priest, (Heb. ix. 7, 25,) for the series and order of high priests. A single beast (Dan. vii. viii. Rev. xiii.) often represents a whole empire or kingdom in all its changes and revolutions from the beginning to the end. The "woman clothed with the sun," (Rev. xii. 1,) is designed as an emblem of the true church; as the "woman arrayed in purple and scarlet," (Rev. xvii. 4,) is the portrait of a corrupt communion. No commentator ever conceived the whore of Babylon to be meant of a single woman: and why then should the man of sin be taken for a single man? The man of sin seemeth to be expressed from Daniel, (vii. 24,) according to the Greek translation, as po σει κακοῖς πάντας τοὺς ἔμπροσθεν, he shall exceed in evil all who went before him and he may fulfil the character either by promoting wickedness in general, or by advancing idolatry in particular, as the word sin frequently signifies in Scripture. The son of perdition is also the denomination of the traitor Judas, (John xvii. 12,) which implies that the man of sin should be, like Judas, a false apostle, like him betray Christ, and like him be devoted to destruction. "Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped:" this is manifestly copied from Daniel, "He shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and speak marvellous things against the God of gods." The features, you see, exactly resemble each other. "He opposeth and exalteth himself above all (inì návra, above every one) that is called God, or that is worshipped," cibarua, alluding to the title of the Roman emperors, σebaords, august or venerable. He shall oppose, for the prophets speak of things future as present; he shall oppose, and exalt himself not only above inferior magistrates, who are sometimes called gods in holy writ, but even above the greatest emperors, and shall arrogate to himself divine honours. "So that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God:" By the temple of God the apostle could not well mean the temple at Jerusalem, because that he knew very well would be totally destroyed within a few years. It is an observation of the learned Bochart, that after the death of Christ the temple at Jerusalem is never called by the apostles the temple of God; and if at any time they make mention of the house or temple of God, they mean the church in general, or every particular believer. It is certain, the temple or house of God is the Christian church, in the usual style of the apostles. St. Paul thus addresseth the Corinthians in his first Epistle, (iii. 16, 17:) "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy: for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are :" and thus again in his second Epistle, (vi. 16:) "What agreement hath the temple of God with idols for ye are the temple of the living God." He adviseth Timothy (1 Tim. iii. 15) "how he ought to behave himself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, as a pillar and ground of the truth." St. John also writeth thus to the angel of the church in Philadelphia, (Rev. iii. 12 :) “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God." These few examples out of many are sufficient to prove that under the gospel dispensation the temple of God is the church of Christ and the man of sin's sitting implies his ruling and presiding there, and sitting there as God implies his claiming divine authority in things spiritual as well as temporal, and showing himself that he is God implies his doing it with great pride and pomp, with great parade and ostentation. These things were not asserted now merely to serve the present occasion. The apostle had insisted upon these topics, while he was at Thessalonica; so that he thought it a part of his duty, as he made it a part of his preaching and doctrine, to forewarn his new converts of the grand apostasy that would infest the church, (ver. 5—7:) "Remember ye not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth, that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth, will let, until he be taken out of the way." The man of sin therefore was not then revealed. His time was not yet Verùm a Christi obitu templum Hierosolymitanum nunquam ab apostolis templum Dei vocatur; et si quando de Dei ede vel templo sermonem habeant, tum vel ecclesiam in genere, vel singularem quemque fidelem, iis vocibus intellecta volunt.' Bocharti Examen Libelli de Antichristo, tom. 2, col. 1047. come, or the season for his manifestation. "The mystery of iniquity was indeed already working :" for there is a mystery of iniquity as well as a "mystery of godliness," (1 Tim. iii. 16,) the one in direct opposition to the other. The seeds of corruption were sown, but they were not yet grown up to any maturity. The leaven was fermenting in some parts, but it was far from having yet infected the whole mass. The man of sin was yet hardly conceived in the womb; it must be some time before he could be brought forth. There was some obstacle that hindered his appearance, the apostle speaketh doubtfully whether thing or person; and this obstacle would continue to hinder, till it was taken out of the way. What this was we cannot determine with absolute certainty at so great a distance of time; but if we may rely upon the concurrent testimonies of the fathers, it was the Roman empire. Most probably it was somewhat relating to the higher powers, because the apostle observes such caution. He mentioned it in discourse, but would not commit it to writing. He afterwards exhorts the Thessalonians, (ver. 15,) "Brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." This was one of the traditions which he thought more proper to teach by word than by epistle. When this obstacle shall be removed, "then (as the apostle proceeds, ver. 8) shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." Nothing can be plainer than that avopos, the lawless, the wicked one here mentioned, and the man of sin, must be one and the same person. The apostle was speaking before of what hindered that he should be revealed, and would continue to hinder until it was taken out of the way; "And then shall the wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume, &c." Not that he should be consumed immediately after he was revealed; but the apostle, to comfort the Thessalonians, no sooner mentions his revelation, than he foretells also his destruction, even before he describes his other qualifications. His other qualifications should have been described first in order of time, but the apostle hastens to what was first and warmest in his thoughts and wishes. "Whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." If these two clauses refer to two distinct and different events, the meaning manifestly is, that the Lord Jesus shall gradually consume him with the free preaching and publication of his word, and shall utterly destroy him at his second coming in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. If these two clauses relate to one and the same event, it is a pleonasm that is very usual in the sacred as well as in all oriental writings; and the purport plainly is, that the Lord Jesus shall destroy him with the greatest facility, "when he shall be revealed from heaven (as the apostle hath expressed it in the preceding chapter) with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." The apostle was eager to foretel the destruction of the man of sin; and for this purpose having broken in upon his subject, he now returns to it again, and describes the other qualifications, by which this wicked one should advance and establish himself in the world. He should rise to credit and authority by the most diabolical methods, should pretend to supernatural powers, and boast of revelations, visions, and miracles, false in themselves, and applied to promote false doctrines, (ver. 9.) "Whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders." He should likewise practise all other wicked arts of deceit, should be guilty of the most impious frauds and impositions upon mankind; but should prevail only among those who are destitute of a sincere affection for the truth, whereby they might obtain eternal salvation. (ver. 10.) "And with all deceivablenes of unrighteousness, in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." And indeed it is a just and righteous judgment of God, to give them over to vanities and lies in this world, and to condemnation in the next, who have no regard for truth and virtue, but delight in falsehood and wickedness, (ver. 11, 12.) "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned, who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." II. Upon this survey there appears little room to doubt of the genuine sense and meaning of the passage; but it hath strangely been mistaken and misapplied by some famous commentators, though more agree in the interpretation than in the application of this prophecy. 1. Excellently learned as Grotius was, a consummate scholar, a judicious critic, a valuable author; yet was he certainly no prophet, nor son of a prophet. In explaining the prophecies, scarcely have more mistakes been committed by any of the worst and weakest commentators, than by him, who is usually one of the best and ablest. He understands this prophecy of the times preceding the destruction of Jerusalem. The man of sin, was the Roman emperor Caligula, who did not at first 7 "'Denudet ingenium suum Caius.--Sic et Caius omnibus se Diis gentium prætulit, etiam Jovi Olympio et Capitolino.-Recte autem dicitur Caius semet posuisse in templo Dei, quia simulacrum suum ibi collocari jussit.-L. Vitellius, cum Paulus ista diceret, et hæc scriberet, Syriam et Judæam tenebat, vir apud Judæos gratiosus, et mag 8 discover his wicked disposition. He vainly preferred himself before all the gods of the nation, even before Jupiter Olympius and Capitolinus; and ordered his statue to be set up in the temple at Jerusalem. He was hindered from disclosing, and exercising his intended malice against the Jews, by his awe of Vitellius, who was at this time governor of Syria and Judea, and was as powerful as he was beloved in those provinces. What follows Grotius could not by any means accommodate to Caligula, and therefore substitutes another, and supposes that the wicked one was Simon Magus, who was revealed and came to Rome soon after the beginning of the reign of Claudius. He was there baffled and disgraced by St. Peter; but Christ may well be said to have done what was done by Peter. He pretended also to work great miracles, and by his magical illusions deceived many, the Samaritans first, and afterwards the Romans. But in answer it may be observed, that this Epistle of St. Paul, as all other good critics and chronologers agree, and as is evident indeed from history, was written in the latter part of the reign of Claudius, who was successor to Caligula : and if so, the apostle, according to this interpretation, is here prophesying of things which were past already. The coming of Christ, as it hath been before proved undeniably, relates to a more distant period than the destruction of Jerusalem. Besides, how could Caligula with any tolerable sense and meaning be called an apostate from either the Jewish or the Christian religion? He never sat in the temple of God; he commanded indeed his statue to be placed there; but was dissuaded from his purpose, as Philo testifies, by the entreaties of king Agrippa, and sent an order to Petronius, governor of Syria, not to make any innovation in the temple of the Jews. He was so far from being kept in awe by the virtues of Vitellius, that Vitellius on the contrary was a most sordid adulator, as both' Tacitus and Suetonius expressly affirm; and instead of restraining Caligula from affecting divine honours, he was the first who incited him to it. Moreover, it is doing the greatest violence to the con Pearsonii Annales Paulini, p. 13. Sam. Basnagii Annales, A. D. 51, 74; A. D. 52, § 12. Whitby Pref. Calmet. Pref. &c. &c. Philo de Legatione ad Caium. Mndèv ἐπὶ τῷ ἱερῷ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἔτι νεώτερον κενεῖν. Nequid in Judæorum templo novaret. nis exercitibus imperans, cui propterea facile et de Antichristo. 1 Exemplar apud posteros adulatorii dedecoris habetur.' Tacit. Annal. 1. 6, e. 32. Idem miri in adulando ingenii, primus C. Cæsarem adorari ut Deum instituit. Suet. in Vitellio, § 2. |