✠ daily readings

jump to a date

readings are available from 2025-01-01 through 2027-12-31.

search

search by feast, season, or scripture reference.

type to search…

←
Lectionary 426 · Year II · Weekdays in Ordinary Time — Year II

Tuesday of the 21st week in Ordinary Time

→
USCCB ↗

First Reading · 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3a, 14-17

1And we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and of our gathering together unto him:2That you be not easily moved from your sense nor be terrified, neither by spirit nor by word nor by epistle. as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand.3Let no man deceive you by any means: for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition14Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.15Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope in grace,16Exhort your hearts and confirm you in every good work and word.

commentary

Paul names three ways the Thessalonians might be shaken, neither by spirit nor by word nor by epistle, as sent from us (v. 2), and Witham takes the last to mean any letter falsely presented "as spoken or written by me." Calmet explains that impostors had used his first epistle to teach that the day of judgment was at hand; Paul answers that it will come, but says nothing of when. Two Greek words carry the passage. The gathering together unto him (v. 1) is episunagoges, which Witham renders literally as "our congregation unto him." The revolt that must come first (v. 3) is apostasia, in the Latin discessio, and Haydock adds that the Greek articles before the man of sin and the son of perdition sufficiently denote a particular man.

What the revolt is, the fathers could not settle. Jerome took it as the falling away of the kingdoms subject to Rome, so that the empire must collapse before the end. Chrysostom and Theodoret took the apostasy to be antichrist himself. Cyril of Jerusalem read it as a falling from the true faith and good works, an exposition Witham calls common, adding Augustine's caution that the Church will nonetheless remain visible and Catholic to the end. Augustine himself wrote, Ego prorsus quid dixerit, me fateor ignorare, "I own myself altogether ignorant what the apostle means by these words," and called the Roman reading a suspicion. Lapide went so far as to call that reading a tradition of the fathers which seemed to him apostolical, and Witham, citing Bossuet, objects that conjectures some fathers advanced on obscure prophecies, while others doubted them, cannot be raised into articles of faith. The passage draws the same line at verse 14: hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. Chrysostom concludes that the apostle "did not deliver all things that were to be believed, by writing," and that what came by mouth is "no less" deserving of faith than what he wrote. So the tradition a reader is bound to hold is what Paul actually handed on, and a guess about Rome or Nero, however venerable, is not part of it.

Both errors Calmet and Witham name are alive. One is the alarm that seizes on a date, a sign or a message as sent from us and announces the end; Augustine's reply, that no one can learn from Scripture the day, year or age of the second coming, still stands. The other is the confident decoding that fixes the man of sin on a chosen enemy, which Witham calls "as ridiculous as malicious" when reformers pinned it on the popes. Against both Paul offers the plain instruction to stand fast (v. 14) and a prayer that God will confirm you in every good work and word (v. 16). The Thessalonians had been warned about letters pretending to be Paul's, and the one telling them so was in their hands.

· sources ·

The complete public-domain commentary this reading's note draws from, unabridged. Every claim in the note traces to a passage here.

First Reading 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3a, 14-17

Haydock Catholic Bible Commentary · Public Domain
2:1 · bibliography — editions & variants cited above

And we, &c. Some impostors had taken occasion from St. Paul's first epistle to the Thessalonians, to teach that the day of judgment was at hand. The apostle here maintains that it certainly will come, but that it will come like a thief in the night. He says nothing of the time when it is to arrive; he merely refutes those who spoke of its taking place immediately. --- By the coming, &c. Grotius and some others explain this coming, of the vengeance he took on the Jews by the arms of the Romans. It is true he speaks in many places of the destruction of Jerusalem, and of his coming at the last day, in terms exactly the same. But the context of the whole epistle demonstrates that he is here speaking of the last day. (Calmet) --- And of our gathering together [1] unto him. Literally, of our congregation unto him. That is, that you be not moved by any pretended revelation, nor by any words or letter, as spoken or written by me. (Witham)

Et nostræ congregationis in ipsum, Greek: kai emon episunagoges ep auton.

2:2

St. Augustine, writing to Hesychium, declareth that no one from the Scripture can be assured of the day, year, or age [century] when the second coming shall be. (ep. lxxx.) Let us attend to what St. Augustine declares he had learnt from the first Church authorities. At the last judgment, or about that time, will arrive Elias, the Thesbite, the conversion of the Jews, the persecution of antichrist, the coming of Jesus Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the separation of the good from the bad, the conflagration of the world, and the renovation of the same: that these things will arrive, we are to believe, but in what manner and in what order experience will teach better than reason. It is my opinion that they will come in the order I have related them. (De Civ. Dei. lib. xx. cap. ult.) That the man of sin will be born of the Jewish tribe of Dan, that he will cruelly persecute the faithful for three years and a half, that he will put to death Henoch [Enoch] and Elias, and that great, very great, will be the apostacy, is the general belief. Oh! God, preserve us with thy grace, and do not permit us to lose sight of the dreadful danger that threatens even the elect.

2:3–4 · bibliography — editions & variants cited above

First, &c.[2] What is meant by this falling away, (in the Greek this apostacy) is uncertain, and differently expounded. St. Jerome and others understand it of a falling off of other kingdoms, which before were subject to the Roman empire; as if St. Paul said to them: you need not fear that the day of judgment is at hand, for it will not come till other kingdoms, by a general revolt, shall have fallen off, so that the Roman empire be destroyed. The same interpreters expound the sixth and seventh verses in like manner, as if when it is said, now you know [3] what withholdeth, &c. That is, you see the Roman empire subsisteth yet, which must be first destroyed. And when it is added, only that he ho now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way; the sense, say these authors, is, let Nero and his successors hold that empire till it be destroyed, for not till then will the day of judgment come. A. Lapide makes this exposition so certain, that he calls it a tradition of the fathers, which to him seems apostolical. But we must not take the opinion of some fathers, in the exposition of obscure prophecies, where they advance conjectures (which others at the same time reject, or doubt of) to be apostolical traditions, and articles of faith, as the learned bishop of Meaux, Bossuet, takes notice on this very subject, in his preface and treatise on the Apocalypse, against Jurieux. St. Jerome indeed, and others, thought that the Roman empire was to subsist till the antichrist's coming, which by the event most interpreters conclude to be a mistake, and that it cannot be said the Roman empire continues to this time. See Lyranus on this place, St. Thomas Aquinas, Salmeron, Estius, and many others; though A. Lapide, with some few, pretend the Roman empire still subsists in the emperors of Germany. We also find that divers of the ancient fathers thought that the day of judgment was just at hand in their time. See Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory the Great, &c. And as to this place, it cannot be said the fathers unanimously agree in their exposition. St. John Chrysostom [4], Theodoret, St. Augustine in one of his expositions, by this falling off, and apostacy, understand antichrist himself, apostatizing from the Catholic faith. And they who expound it of Nero, did not reflect that this letter of St. Paul was written under Claudius, before Nero's reign. According to a third and common exposition, by this revolt or apostacy, others understand a great falling off of great numbers from the Catholic Church and faith, in those nations where it was professed before; not but that, as St. Augustine expressly takes notice, the Church will remain always visible, and Catholic in its belief, till the end of the world. This interpretation we find in St. Cyril[5] of Jerusalem. (Catech. 15.) See also St. Anselm on this place, St. Thomas Aquinas, Salmeron, Estius, &c. In fine, that there is no apostolical tradition, as to any of the interpretations of these words, we may be fully convinced from the words of St. Augustine[6], lib. xx. de Civ. Dei. chap. 19. t. 7. p. 597. Nov. edit. where he says: For my part, I own myself altogether ignorant what the apostle means by these words; but I shall mention the suspicions of others, which I have read, or heard. Then he sets down the exposition concerning the Roman empire. He there calls that a suspicion and conjecture, which others say is an apostolical tradition. In like manner the ancient fathers are divided, as to the exposition of the words of the sixth and seventh verse, when it is said you know what hindereth; some understand that antichrist must come first. Others, that the beforementioned apostacy, or falling off from the Church, must happen before. And when St. Paul says, (ver. 7.) that he who now holdeth, do hold; some expound it, let him take care at the time of such trials, to hold, and preserve the true faith to the end. When the expositions are so different, as in this place, whosoever pretends to give a literal translation ought never to add words to the text, which determine the sense to such a particular exposition, and especially in the same print, as Mr. N. hath done on the seventh verse, where he translates, only let him that now holdeth the faith, keep it until he be taken out of the way. --- And the man of sin [7] revealed, the son of perdition, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. He is called again, (ver. 8.) that wicked one....whom the Lord Jesus Christ shall kill with the spirit of his mouth. By all these words is described to us the great antichrist, about the end of the world, according to the unexceptionable authority and consent of the ancient fathers. It is as ridiculous as malicious to pretend, with divers later reformers, that the pope, and all the popes since the destruction of the Roman empire, are the great antichrist, the man of sin, &c. Grotius, Dr. Hammond, and divers learned Protestants, have confuted and ridiculed this groundless fable, of which more on the Apocalypse. It may suffice to observe here that antichrist, is to be one particular man, not so many different men. That he is to come a little while before the day of judgment. The he will make himself be adored, and pretend to be God. What pope did so? That he will pretend to be Christ, &c. (Witham) --- St. Augustine (de Civ. Dei. book xx. chap. 19.) says, that an attack would be made at one and the same time against the Roman empire and the Church. The Roman empire subsists as yet, in Germany, though much weakened and reduced. The Roman Catholic Church, notwithstanding all its losses, and the apostacy of many of its children, has always remained the same. (Calmet) The two special signs of the last day will be a general revolt, and the manifestation of antichrist, both of which are so dependent on each other, that St. Augustine makes but one of both. What presumptive folly in Calvin and other modern reformers, to oppose the universal sentiments of the fathers both of the Latin and Greek Church! What inconsistency, to give such forced interpretations, not only widely different from the expositions of sound antiquity, but also widely different from each other! The Church of God, with her head, strong in the promises of Jesus Christ, will persevere to the end, frustra circumlatrantibus hæreticis. (St. Augustine, de util cred. chap. xvii.) --- In the temple. Either that of Jerusalem, which some think he will rebuild; or in some Christian Church, which he will pervert to his own worship; as Mahomet has done with the churches of the east. (Challoner)

Nisi venerit discessio primum, Greek: e apostasia. St. Jerome (Ep. ad Algasiam. q. 11. t. 4. p. 209) Greek: Apostasia, inquit....ut omnes Gentes, quæ Rom. Imperio subjacent, recedant ab eis.

St. John Chrysostom (Greek: log. d. p. 235) says that by these words, you know what hindereth, is probably understood the Roman empire, &c. and Tertullian (lib. de Resur. Carnis. chap. xxiv. p. 340) on those words, till taken out of the way, donec de medio fiat, Quis nisi Romanorum status?

St. John Chrysostom (Greek: log. g. p. 232) Greek: ti estin e apostasia autoi kalei ton Antichriston. See Theodoret on this place.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. xv) says, this apostacy is from the true faith and good works: Greek: aute estin e apostasia. St. Anselm and others mention both expositions, i.e. from the Roman empire, or from the faith.

St. Augustine: Ego prorsus quid dixerit, me fateor ignorare....suspiciones tamen hominum, quas vel audire, vel legere potui, non tacebo, &c. Quidam putant hoc de Imperio dictum esse Romano, &c.

Greek: O anthropos tes amartias, o uios tes apoleias, o antikeimenos, &c. ille homo peccati, ille filius perditionis: the Greek articles sufficiently denote a particular man.

2:14 · bibliography — editions & variants cited above

Traditions,...whether by word,[10] or by our epistle. Therefore, says St. John Chrysostom, the apostle did not deliver all things that were to be believed, by writing; (Witham) but many things by word of mouth only, which have been perpetuated by tradition, and these traditions, no less than the writings of the apostles, are deserving of faith. Greek: Omoios de kakeina, kai tauta estin axiopista. (St. John Chrysostom, on this place)

St. John Chrysostom, 237. Greek: enteuthen deilon, &c.