One may naturally enquire, what is that which withholds, and after that would know, why Paul expresses it so obscurely. What then is it that withholds, that is, hinders him from being revealed? Some indeed say, the grace of the Spirit, but others the Roman empire, to whom I most of all accede. Wherefore? Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold him. And otherwise he ought now to have come, if he was about to come when the gifts ceased; for they have long since ceased. But because he said this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous enmities, and useless dangers. For if he had said that after a little while the Roman empire would be dissolved, they would immediately have even overwhelmed him, as a pestilent person, and all the faithful, as living and warring to this end. And he did not say that it will be quickly, although he is always saying it— but what? that he may be revealed in his own season,
he says, “For the mystery of lawlessness does already work.”
He speaks here of Nero, as if he were the type of Antichrist. For he too wished to be thought a god. And he has well said, the mystery
; that is, it works not openly, as the other, nor without shame. For if there was found a man before that time, he means, who was not much behind Antichrist in wickedness, what wonder, if there shall now be one? But he did not also wish to point him out plainly: and this not from cowardice, but instructing us not to bring upon ourselves unnecessary enmities, when there is nothing to call for it. So indeed he also says here. Only there is one that restrains now, until he be taken out of the way,
that is, when the Roman empire is taken out of the way, then he shall come. And naturally. For as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exalt himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God. For as the kingdoms before this were destroyed, for example, that of the Medes by the Babylonians, that of the Babylonians by the Persians, that of the Persians by the Macedonians, that of the Macedonians by the Romans: so will this also be by the Antichrist, and he by Christ, and it will no longer withhold. And these things Daniel delivered to us with great clearness…
These are St John Chrysostom’s thoughts on 2 Thess. 2:6-9. St John Chrysostom lived from c. AD 347 to 407. In his lifetime, the Roman Empire still existed in both the West (Rome/Ravenna) and the East (Constantinople). This passage clearly shows that he believed the Man of Sin is the Antichrist and that the Antichrist is a future figure (i.e. St John Chrysostom was not a preterist).
Earlier in this commentary on 2 Thess., St John Chrysostom indicates that the Antichrist will sit in the temple in Jerusalem (presupposing that it will be rebuilt), although he considers that the Antichrist taking his seat in the temple of God also means the church in some fashion.
His interpretation of the restrainer/restraining force is a common one – viz. the Roman Empire. It does not seem to be confirmed by history, however. Although St Paul does not say expressly that the Antichrist will appear almost immediately after the removal of the restrainer, most would naturally read the passage this way. The Antichrist did not appear swiftly after the fall of either the Western (AD 476) or Eastern (AD 1453) Roman Empire. We know this because the Antichrist is destroyed when Christ returns – Christ did not return soon after the fall of the Roman Empire.
In St John Chrysostom’s words, St Paul writes “obscurely”. The identity of the restrainer has proved a vexing problem for commentators and exegetes over the years.
Interesting article. I’ve not read any of St. John Chrysostom’s writing, although our 1928 Book of Common Prayer has one of his prayers.
I think now I’ll have to do some research on him.
Thank you, Nicholas!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re very welcome and I leave you to form your own conclusions. Earlier in this commentary he appears to espouse cessationism, which is not my own view. But he’s definitely worth reading and iss obviously a big influence in liturgical churches.Unfortunately, among dissenters, we don’t tend to read his sermons in church, except as excerpts embedded in a sermon composed by the minister or lay preacher.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had a senior moment but I’ve recovered, lol. Here is his prayer in our BCP.
Almighty God, who has given us grace at this time with one accord to make our common supplications unto thee; and dost promise that when two or three are gathered together in thy name thou will grant their requests. Fulfill now, O Lord, the desires and petitions of thy servants, as may be most expedient for them; granting us in this world knowledge of thy truth, and in the world to come life everlasting. Amen.
This is in our Morning Prayer.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s a good prayer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Earlier in this commentary on 2 Thess., St John Chrysostom indicates that the Antichrist will sit in the temple in Jerusalem (presupposing that it will be rebuilt), although he considers that the Antichrist taking his seat in the temple of God also means the church in some fashion.”
From the Commentary from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible we read a different evaluation of what St. John Chrysostom believed or presupposed:
“(1) Some (e.g., St. Irenaeus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem) see it as a reference to the Jerusalem Temple. This view entails a belief that the sanctuary, which is now in ruins, will be rebuilt in the end times. (2) Others (e.g., St. John Chrysostom, St. Ephraem the Syrian) see a reference to the Church, since in Paul’s theology, believers make up the true Temple of God (1 Cor 6:16; Eph. 2:21).”
LikeLiked by 3 people
One of our bishops is using the Ignatius Catholic study Bible as a resource in a Bible study. I’m finding I prefer it to my KJV study Bible.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I like it as well but have been waiting an eternity it seems for the OT commentary which has been in the works for for many decades.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I can recommend some good OT resources if you like. You may have to filter the odd bit that doesn’t conform with the Catholic position, but by and large the stuff I’m thinking of is basically more about the historical context and less about developed theology.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nahum Sarna’s commentary on Exodus is very highly rated across the board. If you’re looking for something in that vein, that’s a good starting point.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks. I have looked to the Haddock Bible and the at times the commentary in the Navarre Bible but little else for OT information. It will be nice to have a newer commentary that makes use of the later scholarship however. Plus its more readable than most commentaries I’ve seen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, writing a decent commentary is actually quite an art. Going verse by verse is not always desirable, and different commentators have different agendas, and different audiences different preferences. I was actually thinking of writing a post about the OT today before I settled on this one.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There’s always tomorrow; God willing. I’ll look for it if you do so.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, I’m still mulling what exactly it is I want to say. I think I possibly tend to do more OT stuff on here than Jess and Chalcedon do, but I’m not sure. I think my main points really are that (i) the NT tends to assume you know the OT, so if you don’t you’re actually not getting the full message of the NT and (ii) the trend in chipping away at the historicity of the OT has ramifications for our belief in God.
LikeLiked by 2 people
All very good points to be made.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Of course it does bring to mind a problem with the Gentile converts and their assimilation into the fulfilled Jewish Church. I suppose they had to lean heavily on the Apostles and disciples who were present in the various communities.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, the Apostles would have been instrumental, but there were some Gentiles who had been attending synagogue before the Gospel reached them and Messianic Jews, so there were people to explain the Scripture. Thankfully the Torah was in Greek by that point as well (LXX). I’m less clear on when the other books were translated, but clearly if they weren’t officially, Paul and others were happy to translate them since he quotes non-Torah passages in Greek.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The point of the OT traditions and scripture and the necessity to hold to both was voiced by St. Paul in this same Chapter. So it is clear that some tutoring must have taken place and these two foundations were to be used to catechize the assemblies . . . at least that would be my take if I were ignorant of them at the time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, and Paul was at pains to do so – he stayed with the churches he planted for varying lengths, presumably according to need, but that fact that he stayed in some places for months shows he was dedicated to teaching them what they needed to know. We have the advantage now that we can access documents and items through archaeology that give us some insights into conditions at the time of the events mentioned in the OT. By St Paul’s day, much of that was unknown to the exiles, which is why a good, reliable tradition was so important to them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed it was.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think, for me, tradition is, as the name says, about making sure something gets from one holder to another, be that across generations, space, culture, or media. Preserving something in writing is a means to that end, but there is also oral tradition and the fact that it has to be unpacked/decoded at the other end. One of the big problems we have as moderns is that Scripture tends to assume knowledge of a lot of context that we don’t automatically have. It was written in that way partially because of culture generally (i.e. they liked to communicate that way and the audience at the time could be trusted to know these things) and because of the limitations of handwriting on scrolls (which was expensive for them and time-consuming) and because they were writing to address a particular purpose. Paul here does not explain who the restrainer is because he had already done so to the Thessalonian Christians. Unfortunately for us, there is no other passage in Paul that says, “the restrainer is X”. However, if that is something we need to know, then God in His providence has ensured we can work it out from other parts of Scripture and any necessary reading and external materials. This is just one example, but there are others in Scripture of this sort of thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed.
“I sought whence evil comes and there was no solution”, said St. Augustine, and his own painful quest would only be resolved by his conversion to the living God. For “the mystery of lawlessness” is clarified only in the light of the “mystery of our religion”. The revelation of divine love in Christ manifested at the same time the extent of evil and the superabundance of grace. We must therefore approach the question of the origin of evil by fixing the eyes of our faith on him who alone is its conqueror.
So I guess as evil continues to grow throughout history we will become more aware as it “is paving the way fo an explosion of evil in the last days.” Also, quoted in the CCC 385,
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like Reggie Kelly’s analysis of the mystery of evil. I think I’ve mentioned to you before my own thoughts on why St Paul describes the Antichrist as the Son of Perdition and Man of Sin in this passage – because he demonstrates just how wicked humans really can be without the grace of God. The Antichrist is thus a home truth to us about the need for us to repent and seek God, lest we turn earth into hell.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Seems we’re getting closer everyday my friend. What once was evil is now not only OK it is preferred and considered a good.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Everything is a mess, that’s for sure. We’ve often talked about this and you know how I feel about post-modernism and all the protests, etc these days. You also know how important order is to me (though I deny charges of unreasonable inflexibility, etc).
LikeLiked by 1 person
God and nature are ordered. It seems that it is only our pride that makes us think that this is too confining to our human spirit of licentiousness and freedom. God and nature’s laws are just, reasonable but they are inflexible to the extent that the only pardon is God’s infinite mercy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is why I am a small-c conservative. I believe that when we depart from the order and rhythm of our fundamental institutions, things fall apart. I take this worldview and analysis to a whole range of problems I consider from economics to education to government and law to family, etc. They are all of course interconnected in our societies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, it is the lex vivendi which is a natural outcome of worship and belief . . . it is what we are informed by: lex orandi, lex credendi.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One of my Sacred Scripture courses is on Prophetic literature. It’s a joy to sit and read and study Isaiah and Jeremiah (as far as we’ve gotten so far).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love the major prophets and used to enjoy reading them in the days when I’d read a bit of Scripture before bed. Some of the imagery in Isaiah is absolutely wonderful.
LikeLike
The evaluation is incomplete: it’s not either/or with Chrysostom, but both…and. Here’s the relevant part of the commentary: “For he will not introduce idolatry, but will be a kind of opponent to God; he will abolish all the gods, and will order men to worship him instead of God, and he will be seated in the temple of God, not that in Jerusalem only, but also in every Church. “Setting himself forth,” he says; he does not say, saying it, but endeavoring to show it. For he will perform great works, and will show wonderful signs.”
Glad to see you’re still around, Scoop. I hadn’t seen you here for a while and was rather worried. I hope you and your family are in good health and in as good spirits as can be managed by the grace of God in the circumstances. Have you access to the sacraments?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Blood sugar issues, Nicholas and thanks we are doing OK for a couple of old fogies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Praise God and may he bless you and your family abundantly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you and blessings to you as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person