THE MAN OF SIN??? #1

RALPH  WOODROW  HAS  SOME  GOOD  INSIGHTS  TO  THIS  PASSAGE  BY  THE  APOSTLE PAUL-------

Man of Sin? 

2Thes.2 #1

All about this prophecy of Paul's falling away

by Ralph Woodrow THE ANTICHRIST "HE WHO LETTETH WILL LET" "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him... Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed... and now ye know what witholdeth that he might be revealed in his time... only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed" (2 Thess.2:1-8). Has the man of sin been revealed yet? During World War I, some believed the Kaiser would be the dreaded man of sin, the Antichrist. A few years later it was Joseph Stalin. When the New Deal came into power in the United States, some thought Franklin Roosevelt was at least the forerunner of Antichrist. And then, of course, there was Mussolini and Hitler. Of the two, Mussolini was probably the favorite. A book published in 1940 asked the question: "Is Mussolini the Antichrist?" and the writer answered: "He may be. I know of no reason why he should not fit the description of this terrible man of sin... He is evidently an atheist." Another writer was more positive in his claims. He said that Mussolini had fulfilled 49 prophecies concerning Antichrist Others have thought the Antichrist will be Nimrod, Nero, or a Roman Emperor resurrected from the dead. Some believe it will be Judas Iscariot. After comparing John 17:12 with 2 Thess.2:3, one writer says: "Judas, then, will be the Antichrist." Or, as another put it: "Antichrist will be Judas come to earth again!" Some believe that Antichrist will be assassinated and that Satan will raise him from the dead. A widely known preacher writes: "The Bible tells how, right in the middle of his rise to power, Antichrist will be assassinated. The devil will then make his big move. He will raise Antichrist from the dead in an attempt to reproduce the Holy Trinity." Actually, it would take several pages to give an account of the various ideas that are held today concerning Antichrist. But the common concept is that he will be an atheistic "superman", an individual who will come to world-wide political power and prominence during the last years of this age. This is the FUTURIST interpretation. In contrast to the futurist interpretation is what we will call the FULFILLED interpretation. Those who hold this view believe that the prophecies concerning the man of sin or Antichrist have found their fulfillment in the PAPACY - the succession of Popes that rose to power in Rome following the fall of the Roman Empire. To some, this interpretation will appear too ridiculous to even consider, and it will be cast aside immediately. But before such actions are taken, surely the evidence for this position should be carefully examined. As we shall notice in more detail later, such noted men as Wycliff, Huss, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, Tyndale, Foxe, Newton, and Wesley all believed that the prophecies of the man of sin had found their fulfillment in the Roman Papacy. Should we not at least inquire why these men held this view? Who invented the futurist interpretation? And for what purpose? When all the evidence is in, we do not believe the fulfilled interpretation will appear as absurd as some may have thought. Looking again now at Paul's prophecy regarding the man of sin, we read these words: "Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he [the man of sin] might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [restrains] will let [restrain], until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed" (2 Thess.2:5-8). The word "let" in this passage is simply an old English word meaning to hinder or restrain. In this case, the reference is to something that was hindering or restraining the appearance of the man of sin. We notice from the wording of this passage that whatever was restraining the man of sin from being revealed was not some thing that was unknown or obscure. Paul KNEW what it was. He mentioned that the Christians at Thessalonica KNEW what it was. There was no guess work about it. However, when writing concerning this restraint, we notice that Paul was careful not to mention it by name, but simply reminded them of what he taught when he had been present with them. What was it that was restraining or hindering the man of sin from being revealed? According to the teachings that were handed down by word of mouth to the Christians of the early centuries, it was the ROMAN EMPIRE under the Caesars, the fall of which would bring on the man of sin. When Christians were accused of holding this belief, they did not deny it. Their reply was that they believed the Empire would fall, but that they did not desire it, for its fall would bring on the Antichrist who would inflict greater persecution against them than they had suffered under pagan Rome. Lactantius, for example, said: "Beseech the God of heaven that the Roman State might be preserved, lest, more speedily than we suppose, that hateful tyrant should come." Justin Martyr in his Apologies to the pagan Roman rulers stated that the Christians understanding of the time caused them to pray for the continuance of the restraining Roman Empire, lest the dreaded times of Antichrist, expected to follow upon its fall, should overtake them in their day. Hippalytus believed the breaking up of the fourth Empire, Rome, would bring on the Antichrist who would persecute the saints. In his comments on 2 Thess.2, Tertullian pointed out that the Roman State was the restraining "obstacle" which, by being broken up would make way for Antichrist. "What is the restraining power? What but the Roman State, the breaking up of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon [its own ruins]?" Cyril of Jerusalem, in the fourth century, speaking of the prophecy under consideration said: "This, the predicted Antichrist, will come, when the times of the Roman Empire shall be fulfilled... Ten kings of the Romans shall arise together... Among these the eleventh is Antichrist, who, by magical and wicked artifices, shall seize the Roman power." Jerome, noted bishop and translator, stated: "He[ Paul] shows that that which restrains is the Roman Empire; for unless it shall have been destroyed, and taken out of the midst, according to the prophet Daniel, Antichrist will not come before that." Commenting further on 2 Thess.2, he stated that "unless the Roman Empire be first desolated and Antichrist precede, Christ shall not come....Let us therefore say what all ecclesiastical writers have delivered to us, that when the Roman Empire is destroyed, ten kings will divide the Roman world among themselves, and then will be revealed the man of sin." Ambrose also mentioned that the Roman Empire was that which was standing in the way of the appearance of Antichrist and that "after the failing or decay of the Roman Empire, Antichrist would appear." Chrysostom stated: "One may naturally enquire, What is that which withholdeth?" He answered that it was the Roman Empire and that "when the Roman Empire is taken out of the way, then he [Antichrist] 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." He spoke also of how the four empires of Daniel 7 each followed the others in succession, so the fall of Rome would be followed by AntiChrist. "As Rome succeeded Greece, so Antichrist is to succeed Rome." We see, then, that the testimony of the early church fathers was that the Roman Empire was that which was standing in the way of the man of sin being revealed and that its fall would bring on the Antichrist. That this was the belief of the Christians in the early centuries is well known by any who have looked into it. The Expositor's Bible Commentary, for example, says: "There is no reason to doubt that those fathers of the church are right who identified it with the Empire of Rome and its sovereign head." Let us briefly notice what some of the other commentators have said along this line. "We have the consenting testimony of the early fathers", says Elliott, "from Irenaeus (130-200 A.D.), the disciple of the disciple of St. John, down to Chrysostom (347-407) and Jerome (331-420) to the effect that it was understood to be the Imperial power ruling and residing at Rome." After many pages of carefully documented proof for his statement, Froom says that the "letting" or restraining power impeding the development of the "man of sin" was interpreted in the early church as the Roman Empire. 1. Jerome, Commentaria, Bk. 5, chapter 25. 2. Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, p. 463. 3. Porcelli, The Antichrist-His Portrait and History, p.49. 4. Newton, p. 463. 5. Chrysostom, Homilies, pp. 388, 389. 6. Denny, Commentary on Thessalonians, p.325. 7. Elliott, Horae Apocalyticae, Bk. 3, p.92. 8. Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 1, p. 150. Guinness says: "The early writings of the fathers tell us with remarkable unanimity that this 'let' or hindrance was the Roman Empire as governed by the Caesars; and that on the fall of the Caesars, he [the man of sin] would arise." The Encyclopedia Britannica says that the power which was universally believed by the Christians to be that which was retarding the revelation of the Antichrist was the Roman Empire? Clarke's Commentary states that the united testimony of the church leaders of those first centuries was that the restraint which was to be removed was the Roman Empire. "The Christian Church in general, all over the world at that time, regarded the then existing Roman Empire of the Caesars as the obstacle of which St. Paul had spoken as 'letting' or 'hindering' the appearance of Antichrist upon the scene of the world." Is it necessary to say more? We think the evidence is clear. Understanding that it was the Roman Empire that was to be removed before the man of sin would come to power, we can now understand why Paul did not come right out and call the hindrance by name. To teach that "eternal Rome" could fall from power could have brought the early Christians into immediate conflict with the leaders and people of the Empire within which they lived. Especially careful would Paul be in writing to the Christians at Thessalonica, for when he had been there with them, unbelieving Jews had stirred up trouble by saying that Christians were doing things "contrary to the decrees of Caesar" and that they believed in "another king, one Jesus" (Acts 17:7). So when writing to the Thessalonian believers, he found it wise to simply remind them of what he had taught when he had been present with them. Jerome said that Paul believed the restraint was the Roman Empire and that "if he had chosen to say this openly, he would have foolishly aroused a frenzy of persecution against the Christians." Chrysostom stated: "Because he [Paul] 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." Understanding that the "let" or restraint that was standing in the way was the Roman Empire and that its fall would bring on the man of sin, we can now know the TIME when the man of sin rose to power! We should look not to the future for the appearance 1) Guinness, Romanism and the Reformation, p. 119. 2) Vol. 2, p. 60 (1961 Edition), Article: Antichrist. 3) Note on 2 Thessalonians 2. 4) Tanner, Daniel and Revelation, pp. 188, 189. 5) Jerome, Commentaria, Bk. 5, chapter 25. 6) Chrysostom, Homilies, p.388, 389. of the man of sin then, but back into those early centuries to the time that the Roman Empire fell. But before looking into history in this connection, there is another point of identification that we should note.  Looking again at Paul's prophecy (2 Thess.2), we notice that included within his veiled description is not only the mention of "what" withholdeth, but also "he" who letteth or restrains (verses 6,7). "What" is neuter gender; "he" is masculine. Evidently the reference was to the Roman Empire as "what" and the Caesar as "he" that would be taken out of the way. If, then, the Caesar would have to be "taken out of the way" before the man of sin could come to power, we have a strong indication that the man of sin would rise to power in Rome. It could not properly be said that the Caesar was in the way of the man of sin, unless the Caesar was occupying the place the man of sin would eventually occupy! To illustrate, let us suppose we wanted to build a house on a certain piece of property, but another building was in the way. Obviously it could not be said that the old building was in the way - and needed to be taken out of the way - unless it was occupying the spot where the new house would be built. The old building would not have to be taken out of the way if the new house was going to be built on a completely different location! Likewise, the Roman Caesar could not be in the way - and need to be "taken out of the way" - unless the place that he occupied would be the location where the man of sin would come to power! Therefore, since we have seen that the Roman Caesar was the "he" that was in the way and would have to be "taken out of the way", it is definitely implied that the man of sin would rise to power in the same place that the Caesar ruled: Rome. On the basis of these things, then, we know WHERE the man of sin would rise to power and we know WHEN! Where? He would rise to power in the place that the Caesars ruled at the time Paul wrote his epistle; that is, Rome. The man of sin would be a Roman power! When would the man of sin be revealed? Upon the fall of the Roman Empire (under the rule of the Caesars) the man of sin would be revealed. Looking into history then, who was it that followed the Caesars as rulers of Rome? What power rose up in Rome following the fall of the Empire? We believe the evidence all points to the PAPACY. There was no other power that rose up at the time and place specified by the prophecy. Barnes has well said: "To any acquainted with the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, nothing can be more manifest than the correspondence of the facts in history respecting the rise of the Papacy, and the statement of the apostle Paul here." (Barnes' Commentary, p. 1115). The breaking up of the Roman Empire and the removal of the Caesars from power in Rome took place over a period of time. Constantine removed the seat of power from Rome to Constantinople in A.D.330. This can probably be considered a partial removal of the restraint that was in the way. Says the historian Flick: "The removal of the capital of the Empire from Rome to Constantinople in 330, left the Western Church practically free from imperial power, to develop its own form of organization. The Bishop of Rome, in the seat of the Caesars, was now the greatest man in the West and was soon forced to become political as well as spiritual head" (Flick, The Rise of the Medieval Church, p. 113). This point is recognized by Catholic writers also. Henry Cardinal Manning wrote: "The possession of the pontiffs, commences with the abandonment of Rome by the emperors" (quoted in The Seer of Babylon, p. 113). Finally in 476, the last Western Caesar, Augustulus, was forced out of office by the Goths. With the fulfillment of these things, the mighty Roman Empire of the Caesars had passed from the scene of human history. The restraint was now fully ek mesou, "out of the way." According to what Paul had written, the stage had now been cleared for the next scene in the prophetic drama, the rise to power of the man of sin. "The mighty Caesars had fallen; Augustus, Domitian, Hadrian, Diocletian, were gone; even the Constantines and Julians had passed away. The seat of sovereignty had been removed from Rome to Constantinople. Goths and Vandals had overthrown the western empire; the once mighty political structure lay shivered into broken fragments. The imperial government was slain by the Gothic sword. The Caesars were no more, and Rome was an actual desolation. Then slowly on the ruins of old imperial Rome rose another power and another monarchy, a monarchy of loftier aspirations and more resistless might, claiming dominion, not alone over the bodies, but over the consciences and souls of men; dominion, not only within the limits of the fallen empire, but throughout the entire world. Higher and higher rose the Papacy, till in the dark ages all Christendom was subjected to its sway" (Guinness, Romanism and the Reformation, p. 61). The fact that the early Christians held the belief that the "let" or restraint was the Roman Empire presents a problem for those who hold the futurist interpretation of prophecy. If that which was holding back the revelation of the man of sin was the Roman Empire, how could the man of sin be someone who would not appear until at the very end of the age? Since the Roman Empire fell many centuries ago, what has been holding back his appearance all of these centuries since that time? To admit that the "let" was the Roman Empire is to admit that the prophecy of the man of sin has found fulfillment in the Pope, for it was the Papacy that rose up in the place and time designated by the prophecy. But futurism teaches that the man of sin is some future individual - someone, in fact, that will not be revealed until after a supposed "secret rapture"! Consequently, those who hold the dispensational viewpoint must ignore all of this evidence that the "let" was the Roman Empire under the Caesars and substitute a theory that is of modern origin. Those who hold the dispensational - futurist interpretation usually suggest a few vague possibilities and then end up saying that the "restraint" is the Holy Spirit in and through the Church. The following quotations from dispensational writers are typical of many: "The hindering influence in this passage is of course, the ministry of the Holy Spirit in and through the lives of Christians today. This One who hinders the man of sin must be the Holy Spirit. At the rapture of the saints, we believe, the Holy Spirit will be taken out of the way of the man of sin so that he may be revealed" ( Rice, The Coming Kingdom of christ, p. 125). This teaching is nothing but an echo from the theory spread by Scofield that the restrainer "can be no other than the Holy Spirit in the Church, to be 'taken out of the way'." But as Oswald Smith has well said concerning the verse under consideration: "There is no mention of the Holy Spirit at all. That is a Scofield Bible assumption. The Holy Spirit and the church remain to the end of the age" (Smith, Tribulation or Rapture - Which?, p. 8). We all recognize, of course, that the Holy Spirit within the Church is a great force against evil in the world, but this was not the "let" of which Paul spoke. Paul told the Thessalonians that the day of Christ's coming and our gathering together unto him could NOT take place until AFTER the man of sin would be revealed (2 Thess.2:1-3). Surely then, he would not turn right around in the same chapter and contradict himself by teaching that the church is the "let" which must be taken out of the way BEFORE the man of sin would be revealed! This would be the exact OPPOSITE of what he had just said! The teaching that the church would be taken out of the world before the man of sin is revealed is absolutely contrary to what all Christian teachers and preachers have always taught - until the last century! Though they may have differed on details, they all envisioned the Antichrist as a persecuting power against the true believers - a power that would make war against the saints! On this they were united. None of them thought of the church as being absent from the earth during the reign of Antichrist. We have seen that Paul was careful not to mention the restraint by name when writing to the Thessalonians. But if the restraint had been the Holy Spirit or the church, there would have been no reason for Paul not to mention this in 2 Thess.2. Several times in his writings to the Christians at Thessalonica, he mentioned the church (1 Thess.1:1; 2:14; 2 Thess.1:1,4) and he also mentioned the Holy Spirit (1 Thess.1:5,6; 4:8; 5:19; 2 Thess.2:13). There is no record of anyone believing that the restraint mentioned by Paul was the Spirit until the latter half of the fourth century and we only know of this belief because Chrysostom rejected it. Concerning this, he wrote: "Some indeed say, the grace of the Spirit." But he points out that the restraint was the Roman Empire and could not be the Spirit. "Wherefore? Because if he [Paul] meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly." It should be pointed out that what Chrysostom rejected was a theory about the restraint being the grace of the Spirit in connection with spiritual gifts. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the dispensational idea of the Spirit being taken out of the world in a secret rapture. The teaching that the Holy Spirit will be taken out "seems to be of quite modern origin; there is, apparently, no trace of it in early writings on the subject." Those who believe that the Holy Spirit will be taken out of this world are faced with serious problems of interpretation. They teach that after the church is gone, God will turn to the Jews, a believing remnant of which will preach the gospel of the kingdom into all the world. They will be so empowered, some ask us to believe, that they "will become the mightiest evangelists this world has ever seen" (Appleman, Antichrist and the Jew, p. 12). Another writer says: "The Jew in seven years will accomplish more in world evangelism than the church has done in nineteen centuries. The greatest revival which has ever been known in history will be in progress during the tribulation period." But who, we ask, will so empower these Jews if the Holy Spirit is taken from the earth? How could they evangelize the world if the Holy Spirit which convicts and converts is gone? Is there some other agent more powerful than the Spirit of God? To hear some tell it, there will be more conversions with the church gone and the Holy Spirit taken out of the way! They tell us that millions will be converted within the brief period of seven years - and so strongly converted that they will become martyrs! "All over the world will be a turning to God", says one noted dispensational preacher, "... MILLIONS shall see that they have been deceived and shall be converted to Jesus Christ and to full obedience to the true God... it will be a martyr's route to heaven... These are the Tribulation martyrs. They missed the Rapture. But at last, their eyes shall be opened." All of this is supposed to happen with the church gone, the Antichrist in power, and the Holy Spirit taken out of the way! It just does not make sense. We have carefully checked the arguments that are given to explain this glaring discrepancy and have found them very weak and unconvincing. We find no proof whatsoever in the scriptures for the belief that the "let" was the Holy Spirit or the church. On the other hand, there are very good reasons for believing that the Roman Empire under the rule of the Caesars was that which was to be taken out of the way. That is, the Roman Empire would be broken up and fall - then the man of sin would be revealed in power. We believe that Paul proved what he taught from the scriptures. On what passage, then, did he base his conclusions in this connection? The passage that shows that the rise of Anti-christ would follow the breaking up of the Roman Empire is found in Daniel Seven to which we now turn... ............ TO BE CONTINUED