2 Maccabees 5:21–26

2 Maccabees 5:21 — The Arrogance of Antiochus: The opening verse does not merely record a logistical withdrawal; it renders a spiritual verdict. The figure of 1,800 talents of silver looted from the Temple — already introduced in 5:15–16 — is here framed not as wealth but as the material evidence of a soul in rebellion against God. The author employs a vivid irony: Antiochus "thought he could sail on land and walk on the sea." This hyperbole is not accidental. It deliberately echoes the ancient biblical motif in which dominion over sea and land belongs to God alone (cf. Job 9:8; Ps 77:19). By arrogating such imagery to himself, Antiochus commits the quintessential sin of hubris — the creature usurping the prerogatives of the Creator. The phrase "his heart was lifted up" (Gk. ἐπῄρετο) is a direct echo of the prophetic condemnations of the proud king of Babylon (Isa 14:13–14) and the prince of Tyre (Ezek 28:2, 5), figures who also claimed divine prerogatives and were brought low. The author of 2 Maccabees is deliberately casting Antiochus in this typological lineage of doomed, God-defying rulers.

2 Maccabees 5:22 — Philip the Phrygian: The installation of Philip at Jerusalem is laden with symbolic weight. He is identified as "by race a Phrygian" — a detail that signals to the Jewish reader not merely foreign origin but cultural brutality, since Phrygians were proverbially associated in the ancient world with servitude and harshness. The editorial aside that he was "more barbarous than him who set him there" is a remarkable authorial intrusion: the narrator signals that the instrument can exceed the cruelty of the instigator. This is the logic of delegated oppression — Antiochus does not need to be present for his violence to continue; it is franchised outward and intensified at each remove.

2 Maccabees 5:23 — Andronicus and Menelaus: Andronicus is posted at Gerizim, the Samaritan cultic center, extending the network of oppression beyond Judah into the contested sacred geography of the region. But the sharpest condemnation falls on Menelaus — the illegitimate high priest who had purchased his office through bribery (2 Macc 4:24). He is described as "worse than all the rest," and crucially, his crime is framed as treachery against "his fellow-citizens." Menelaus represents a category of evil more insidious than foreign tyranny: the apostate insider, the shepherd who becomes the wolf. The text stresses that he held malicious intent toward "the Jews whom he had made his citizens" — a sardonic phrase suggesting that his priestly office, which should have bound him in covenantal solidarity, became instead a tool for their subjugation.

Verses 24–26 — Apollonius and the Sabbath Massacre: The deployment of Apollonius crystallizes the passage's theology of desecration. He is given the epithet "lord of pollutions" (Mysarch in some traditions), and his orders are genocidal in scope: kill all adult men, enslave the women and children. But the method of execution is what the author emphasizes most: Apollonius "pretended to be a man of peace" and waited for the Sabbath. This is a double desecration — the holy day, the sign of the covenant between God and Israel (Exod 31:13–17), is weaponized as the instrument of Israel's destruction. The Jews, resting in faithful observance, come out as spectators to what they believe is a military parade, and are cut down. The Sabbath rest, which should be an icon of eschatological peace, is turned into the occasion for massacre. Typologically, this foreshadows later debates in 1 Maccabees 2:29–41 about whether one may fight on the Sabbath — a question raised by precisely this kind of calculated exploitation of Jewish piety.

From a Catholic theological perspective, this passage illuminates several interconnected doctrines with striking force.

First, the portrait of Antiochus embodies what the Catechism of the Catholic Church identifies as the root of all sin: pride that places the creature at the center in place of God (CCC §1850). The patristic tradition consistently read Antiochus as a type of Antichrist — a reading found explicitly in St. Jerome's Commentary on Daniel and Hippolytus of Rome's Treatise on Christ and Antichrist. His plunder of the Temple and installation of oppressive governors prefigures the "abomination of desolation" (Dan 9:27; Matt 24:15), an eschatological desecration the Church has always understood as both a historical event and a sign of ultimate opposition to God.

Second, the figure of Menelaus — the corrupt, simoniacal high priest — carries profound ecclesiological weight. The Church Fathers, particularly Origen and St. Cyprian, saw in corrupt religious leaders who collaborate with worldly power a perennial spiritual danger. The Fifth Lateran Council (1512–17) and later the Council of Trent condemned simony precisely because the purchase of sacred office — as Menelaus exemplified — corrupts the entire Body. Pope Gregory the Great (Moralia in Job) wrote that a shepherd who turns predator is the most dangerous enemy the flock can face, because the sheep do not recognize the wolf within the fold.

Third, the desecration of the Sabbath by Apollonius speaks to the Church's consistent teaching that sacred time is not merely ceremonial but covenantal and ontological. Vatican II's Sacrosanctum Concilium (§106) reaffirmed Sunday as the Lord's Day, the primary feast, the foundation of liturgical time. To desecrate holy time — whether through violence, as Apollonius does, or through neglect and commerce, as modern life is tempted to do — is an assault on the covenant structure of creation itself.

The three figures in this passage — Antiochus, Menelaus, and Apollonius — map uncomfortably well onto temptations that confront the contemporary Church. Antiochus's arrogance warns against any cultural or political power that claims absolute authority over conscience, religious practice, or the sacred. Catholics living in contexts of religious restriction or secular pressure to conform can find in this passage both a mirror and a promise: history records that Antiochus ultimately failed (2 Macc 9).

Menelaus, however, is perhaps the most uncomfortable figure for Catholic readers today — not because he is a foreign oppressor, but because he is an insider who used sacred office for personal gain and collaborated with the enemies of his own people. He challenges us to examine whether we, in any position of spiritual or institutional responsibility, have allowed careerism, comfort, or cowardice to turn us against those entrusted to our care.

Finally, the exploitation of the Sabbath calls every Catholic to take seriously the protection of Sunday as the Lord's Day — not as legalism, but as resistance to a culture that would colonize every hour for productivity or consumption, leaving no time sacred, no rest covenantal.