man-of-sin-part-2

.Articles

"THE MAN OF SIN".
Part II: The History
x
By David Vaughn Elliott
x

PAUL WARNED that "the mystery of lawlessness is already at work" (2 Thessalonians 2:7). Thus the fulfillment of this prophecy began in the first century. Something was already working in Paul’s day which in time produced "the man of sin…the son of perdition…the lawless one."

"All Roads Lead to Rome"
x

Most students of prophecy, from Paul’s day to this, understand that the little horn of Daniel 7 and the beasts of Revelation 13 and 17 are related to Rome. Today there are three major views about when Rome is involved. The preterists place the fulfillment in our past. The historicists place it in our present. The futurists place it in our future.

Most agree that 2 Thessalonians 2 is part of the same prophetic picture. This means that "the man of sin" will be found in Rome. The evidence studied in the previous article points to the conclusion that "the man of sin" refers to the most outstanding apostate church. Add Rome to the equation and the fulfillment of the prophecy becomes obvious.

"I Told You…You Know"
x

The Bible was not sealed in a vacuum as soon as it was written, to be untouched by human hands until it reached each of us. To ignore the intervening centuries is shortsighted and egotistical. If we do not learn from others, why should we expect others to learn from us?

"I told you…you know," said Paul, "what is restraining" (2 Thessalonians 2:5,6). That is amazing. The saints in Thessalonica knew. Paul had taught them in person. But the Holy Spirit prevented Paul from writing it down. Is there any other place in Scripture like this? The writer says his readers know what he is talking about, but he shrinks from writing it down. It becomes irresistible to scan early Christian writers to learn what they can tell us. Can you conceive that the first-century Christians would not pass the information on?

Before examining early Christian writers, we need to be aware of three things.

1 - They were not inspired. Therefore, they express many contradictory views on prophecy as well as other matters.

2 - Before a particular prophecy is fulfilled, we cannot expect Christians to understand it all. The apostles, for example, with Jesus in their midst, did not have correct views of many messianic prophecies.

3 - After a prophecy is fulfilled, there will always be those who will deny its fulfillment. The Jews, for example, to this very day, deny that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah.

With these precautions in mind, it is still very enlightening to discover what Christians through the ages have believed regarding various prophecies. Especially is this true in this case in which Paul said, "you know…"

Not Fulfilled in the First Century
x

The preterist view teaches that "the man of sin" appeared in the first century. They apply all the details of 2 Thessalonians 2 to events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. They quote authorities with identical views, but never anyone earlier than the seventeenth century. Why not earlier? The reason is simple. There are none.

Not one writer prior to 1600 A.D. ever mentions anybody who believed that "the man of sin" prophecy was fulfilled in the first century. Notice:

1) The Thessalonians knew who was restraining.

2) Many Christian writers in the second to fifth centuries wrote in detail about this prophecy.

3) Not one early writer thought "the man of sin" prophecy was fulfilled in the first century.

4) The early writers often discuss views contrary to their own. None of them mention anyone who applied this prophecy to the first century.

In the 18th century, Thomas Newton, in his famous Dissertations on the Prophecies, discusses 2 Thessalonians 2 at length. He mentions five recent writers who claimed that "the man of sin" prophecy was fulfilled in the first century. He points out that they disagree with the majority of interpreters, and indeed disagree with each other as well as with all who were before them and after them.

Then he remarks: "If this prophecy [2 Thessalonians 2] was fulfilled, as these critics conceive, before the destruction of Jerusalem, it is surprising that none of the fathers [early Christian writers] should agree with any of them in the same application, and that the discovery should first be made sixteen or seventeen hundred years after the completion. The fathers might differ and be mistaken in the circumstances of a prophecy which was yet to be fulfilled; but that a prophecy should be remarkably accomplished before their time, and they be totally ignorant of it, and speak of the accomplishment as still future, is not very credible" (page 400).

The Early Christians Speak
x

A study of early Christian writings reveals that the believers did know what was restraining.

Irenaeus: 120 to 202 A.D.
x

Irenaeus was born 20 years after the apostle John died. In his extensive work, Against Heresies, Irenaeus devoted several chapters to Daniel 7, Revelation 13 and 2 Thessalonians 2. Typical of believers in all ages, he understood that the three prophecies are related. Irenaeus wrote:

"Daniel too, looking forward to the end of the last kingdom, i.e., the ten last kings, amongst whom the kingdom of those men shall be partitioned, and upon whom the son of perdition shall come, declares that ten horns shall spring from the beast, and that another little horn shall arise in the midst of them."

"In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord’s disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules [Rome] shall be partitioned" (Against Heresies, Book 5, chapter 25, paragraph 3; chapter 26, paragraph 1; bold emphasis supplied).

Tertullian: 145 to 220 A.D.
x

Not many years later, Tertullian, quoting and commenting on 2 Thessalonians 2, wrote the following. He blends "the man of sin" prophecy with the prophecies of the ten-horned beast.

"Again, in the second epistle he [Paul] addresses them with even greater earnestness: ‘For that day shall not come, unless indeed there first come a falling away,’ he means indeed of this present empire, ‘and that man of sin be revealed,’ that is to say, Antichrist, ‘the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God…And now ye know what detaineth, that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way.’ What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)?" (Of the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 24, bold emphasis supplied).

Hippolytus: 170 to 236 A.D.
x

A few years later yet, Hippolytus wrote A Treatise on Christ and Antichrist. While discussing Daniel 2 and 7, he wrote:

"The golden head of the image and the lioness denoted the Babylonians; the shoulders and arms of silver, and the bear, represented the Persians and Medes; the belly and thighs of brass, and the leopard, meant the Greeks, who held the sovereignty from Alexander’s time; the legs of iron, and the beast dreadful and terrible, expressed the Romans, who hold the sovereignty at present; the toes of the feet which were part clay and part iron, and the ten horns, were emblems of the kingdoms that are yet to rise; the other little horn that grows up among them meant the Antichrist in their midst" (paragraph 28, bold emphasis supplied).

Cyril of Jerusalem: 315 to 386 A.D.
x

Moving to the fourth century, Cyril, after quoting 2 Thessalonians 2, said the following:

"Thus wrote Paul, and now is the ‘falling away’… now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise. For men have fallen away from the truth, and ‘have itching ears’… This therefore is ‘the falling away,’ and the enemy is soon to be looked for…

"But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman empire shall have been fulfilled, and the end of the world is now drawing near. There shall rise up together ten kings of the Romans, reigning in different parts perhaps, but all about the same time; and after these an eleventh, the Antichrist, who by his magical craft shall seize upon the Roman power…

" ‘So that he seateth himself in the temple of God.’ What temple then? He means, the Temple of the Jews which has been destroyed. For God forbid that it should be the one in which we are!" (Lecture 15, paragraphs 9,12,15, bold emphasis supplied).

Remarkable! Cyril recognizes that "temple" could be of the Jews or it could be a reference to the church. Living before the fulfillment, he liked to think that it meant the temple of the Jews, because he rightly dreaded the thought that the antichrist would be in the church of God!

Chrysostom: 347 to 407 A.D.
x

Later in the fourth century, Chrysostom wrote multitudes of homilies based on Scripture texts. In his Homily on 2 Thessalonians 2:6-9, he says:

"What then is it that withholdeth, that is, hindereth 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…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…

" ‘Only there is one that restraineth 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 exit himself, but when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy, and endeavor to seize upon the government both of man and of God" (paragraphs 1-2, bold emphasis supplied).

Jerome: 340 to 420 A.D.
x

Jerome wrote this first letter in 396 A.D. and the second in 409 A.D. Already the Roman Empire was in deep trouble from the barbarians.

"I shudder when I think of the catastrophes of our time…The Roman world is falling: yet we hold up our heads instead of bowing them…

"Rome’s army, once victor and Lord of the world, now trembles with terror at the sight of the foe" (Letter #60 to Heliodorus, paragraphs 16,17, bold emphasis supplied).

"But what am I doing? Whilst I talk about the cargo, the vessel itself founders. He that letteth is taken out of the way, and yet we do not realize that Antichrist is near. Yes, Antichrist is near whom the Lord Jesus Christ ‘shall consume with the spirit of his mouth’…

"For thirty years the barbarians burst the barrier of the Danube and fought in the heart of the Roman Empire…Rome has to fight within her own borders not for glory but for bare life" (Letter #123 to Ageruchia, paragraphs 16, 17, bold emphasis supplied).

In summary, all these early writers considered 2 Thessalonians 2 to be a prophecy of events yet future to themselves. Most early Christians believed "the man of sin" would come after the fall of the Roman Empire. This belief was based on an understanding of the restrainer in 2 Thessalonians 2. It was also based on the ten horns of the beasts in Daniel 7 and Revelation 13 and 17.

The Greatest "Theologian" Didn’t Know
x

It would be difficult to name a "theologian" who has had more influence on "Christian thought" than Augustine (345 to 430 A.D.). As one writer said, "He had a creative and decisive hand in almost every dogma of the church." He entered the great debates of his day and came out victorious. Catholics and Protestants alike hold him in high esteem. But there was something Augustine did not know.

In his famous City of God, he wrote: "I can on no account omit what the Apostle Paul says, in writing to the Thessalonians, ‘We beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,’ etc.

"No one can doubt that he wrote this of Antichrist and of the day of judgment, which he here calls the day of the Lord, nor that he declared that this day should not come unless he first came who is called the apostate…Then as for the words, ‘And now ye know what withholdeth,’ i.e., ye know what hindrance or cause of delay there is, ‘that he might be revealed in his own time;’ they show that he was unwilling to make an explicit statement, because he said that they knew…I frankly confess I do not know what he means. I will nevertheless mention such conjectures as I have heard or read.

"Some think that the Apostle Paul referred to the Roman empire, and that he was unwilling to use language more explicit, lest he should incur the calumnious charge of wishing ill to the empire which it was hoped would be eternal…But others think that the words, ‘Ye know what withholdeth,’ and ‘The mystery of iniquity worketh,’ refer only to the wicked and the hypocrites who are in the Church, until they reach a number so great as to furnish Antichrist with a great people, and that this is the mystery of iniquity" (book 20, chapter 19, paragraphs 1-3).

It is remarkable for a man of Augustine’s knowledge and influence to say he did not know who the restrainer was. He was aware that others believed it to be the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire was crumbling before his eyes. In his lifetime, the Goths looted even Rome. His contemporary Jerome, seeing the Empire collapsing, declared, "yet we do not realize that Antichrist is near." In contrast, Augustine said, "I frankly confess I do not know."

However, from Augustine's voluminous writings we learn that he "knew" that baptism took away the "original sin" of babies. He "knew" that sacrifices and alms of Christians benefited the dead. He "knew" that the "Virgin Mary" lived without committing sin. He "knew" that Mary was a perpetual virgin. He "knew" that sex in marriage is at once legal and yet a carnal lustful act. He "knew" that war could be holy. He "knew" that it was good for the state to persecute those who did not hold to the teachings of the church.

Augustine "knew" all of this and yet he did not know, like many others knew, that when Rome fell, the antichrist would appear. It is this writer’s belief that there is a definite connection between what he "knew" and what he did not know. It is the same Augustine who was so influential in formulating Catholic doctrine who at the same time was ignorant regarding "the man of sin" prophecy!

The Reformers Knew the Truth About Rome
x

Rome fell. The bishop of Rome stepped into the vacuum and took the place of the Emperor. As the years went by, the popes gained incredible powers over the bodies and souls of men. Popes crowned emperors. In a clash between Emperor Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII, the Emperor was left standing barefoot in the snow for three days in January 1077, until Gregory withdrew his excommunication. This style of power lasted for centuries.

As early as the 13th century, if not before, one voice after another began to cry: "The pope of Rome is antichrist"; "the pope is the man of sin." The voices grew louder and louder until a full-blown Reformation Movement took shape. From that day until recent times, Protestants have been united in calling the Roman Pontiff "the man of sin."

Rather than prove this with endless quotations from Protestants over the centuries, let us rather see that both preterists and futurists admit this historical fact.

Gary DeMar, a modern preterist, totally rejects the idea that the pope is "the man of sin." He thinks 2 Thessalonians 2 and related prophecies were fulfilled in the first century by Nero and the Jews. Nevertheless he admits:

"For centuries the papacy was the unanimous candidate for the Antichrist. The papal system was identified as ‘both "the man of sin" and the Babylonian whore of which Scripture forewarns (2 Thessalonians 2; Revelation 19). In the conviction of the sixteenth-century Protestants, Rome was the great Anti-Christ, and so firmly did this belief become established that it was not until the nineteenth century that it was seriously questioned by evangelicals’ " (Last Days Madness, page 207, 208).

Again: "The Reformers, almost without exception, believed the ‘man of lawlessness’ to be the Roman Pontiff. In their dedication to the King James Version of the Bible (1611) the translators identified the Pope as the ‘man of sin’ of 2 Thessalonians 2: ‘The zeal of your majesty toward the house of God doth not slack or go backward but is more and more kindled, manifesting itself abroad in the farthest parts of Christendom by writing a defence of the truth which hath given such a blow to that man of sin as will not be healed’ " (page 330). You will find this in the "Dedicatory" in the front of your King James Bible. Later in the same "Dedicatory," the translators speak of "Popish Persons" on one hand and "Brethren" on the other hand.

Dave Hunt is a well-known futurist. He does believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the "whore" called Babylon in Revelation 17. However, being a futurist, he believes that the beasts of Revelation 13 and 17 are in the future, as are also the little horns of Daniel 7 and 8 and the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2. He believes the antichrist is probably alive now but will not be revealed until during "the tribulation" after "the rapture." With all these beliefs, he yet admits:

"Early Protestant creeds unanimously called the Pope Antichrist."

"It is only after the Russian Revolution that Christians began to view Communism as the Antichrist system. Yet for 400 years before 1917, Catholicism was so identified by Protestants" (Global Peace and the Rise of Antichrist, pages 108, 136).

Turning Their Backs on History
x

History shows that the early Christians understood that the antichrist would arise when Rome fell. History shows that they were right. History shows that when the Reformation came, preachers, politicians and the populace declared that the pope was "the man of sin," the antichrist. History shows that the vast majority of Bible believers continued in this conviction until recent times. History shows that modern evangelicals are preaching a new doctrine when they refuse to believe that the pope is "the man of sin."

To reject the pope of Rome as "the man of sin" is to fly in the face of the martyrs and Bible-believers of all ages. It is to forget those who were burned at the stake because they dared translate or even possess a Bible in any language but Latin! To deny that the pope is "the son of perdition" is to turn one’s back on the thousands of martyrs whose bodies were twisted and wrenched by the "Holy" Inquisition. To deny that the Roman Church is "the falling away" (apostasy) is to minimize the gross perversion of sound doctrine that still emanates from the Vatican.

Among the hottest items in the religious marketplace today are the sensational books and videos about "the rapture," "the tribulation" and the "antichrist" which the producers openly advertise as fiction. Instead of prophecy-fiction, it would be a far more beneficial use of time, money and energy to produce historical documentaries on the church in the Middle Ages. Truth is stranger and more startling than fiction. Those who think that a future, mere seven years of tribulation could possibly be worse than the realities of the Dark Ages need to brush the dust off their history books.

Note by author: Look in the next issue for "Part III: The Reality." Do the doctrines of Rome fulfill the details of the 2 Thessalonians 2 prophecy? Lord willing we will examine this vital question in the light of Scripture.

<BACK

-n

^TheSword^ANDStaff