{He that opposeth and exalteth himself} (ho antikeimenos kai
huperairomenos). Like John's Antichrist this one opposes
(anti-) Christ and exalts himself (direct middle of
huperair(935c), old verb to lift oneself up {above} others, only
here and  2Co 12:7  in N.T.), but not Satan, but an agent of
Satan. This participial clause is in apposition with the two
preceding phrases, the man of sin, the son of perdition. Note
 1Co 8:5  about one called God and  Ac 17:23  for sebasma (from
sebazomai), object of worship, late word, in N.T. only in these
two passages. {So that he sitteth in the temple of God} (h(9373)te
auton eis ton naon tou theou kathisai). Another example of the
infinitive with h(9373)te for result. Caius Caligula had made a
desperate attempt to have his statue set up for worship in the
Temple in Jerusalem. This incident may lie behind Paul's language
here. {Setting himself forth as God} (apodeiknunta heauton hoti
estin theos). Present active participle (mi form) of
apodeiknumi, agreeing in case with auton, {showing himself
that he is God}. Caligula claimed to be God. Moffatt doubts if
Paul is identifying this deception with the imperial cultus at
this stage. Lightfoot thinks that the deification of the Roman
emperor supplied Paul's language here. Wetstein notes a coin of
Julius with 	heos on one side and Thessalonike(936e) on the
other. In  1Jo 2:18  we are told of "many antichrists" some of
whom had already come. Hence it is not clear that Paul has in
mind only one individual or even individuals at all rather than
evil principles, for in verse  6  he speaks of 	o katechon
(that which restraineth) while in verse  7  it is ho katech(936e)
(the one that restraineth). Frame argues for a combination of
Belial and Antichrist as the explanation of Paul's language. But
the whole subject is left by Paul in such a vague form that we
can hardly hope to clear it up. It is possible that his own
preaching while with them gave his readers a clue that we do not
possess.