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
Man of Sin? 2Thes.2 #2The Great Falling away - who did it? by
Ralph Woodrow
DANIEL'S PROPHECY - THE LITTLE HORN
In vision, Daniel saw four great beasts which symbolized four
kingdoms which were to rule the earth (Daniel 7).
1. The first beast was like a lion with eagle's wings, but the
wings were to be plucked off (verse 4). Even as the lion among
animals is the king of the forest, so the empire which held first
position in the vision given to Daniel was Babylon. In due time,
its "wings" were plucked off and mighty Babylon fell from its
elevated position.
2. The second beast was like a bear and it had three ribs in its
mouth (verse 5). Even as the bear is less courageous (as well as
less noble) than the lion, the second kingdom, Medo-Persia, was
less in glory compared to Babylon. It fell short of Babylon in
wealth, magnificence, and brilliance. The mention of "three ribs"
in the mouth - between the teeth where a bear crushes its prey -
is possibly a reference to the fact that Medo-Persia crushed the
three provinces that made up the Babylonian kingdom: Babylon,
Lydia, and Egypt.
3. The third beast was like a leopard with four wings and four
heads (verse 6). The third kingdom, the Grecian Empire of
Alexander the Great, was symbolized by the leopard which is noted
for its quick movements and remarkable swiftness by which it
springs upon its prey. Likewise the conquests of Alexander's
kingdom were amazingly rapid. At the age of 32, it is said,
Alexander had conquered the world and wept because there were no
more worlds to conquer.
There were four heads on this leopard beast. Following the death
of Alexander, his kingdom was divided into four parts with four
kings each ruling a part: (1) Cassander ruled over Greece and the
surrounding country, (2) Lysimachus ruled over Asia Minor, (3)
Seleucus ruled over Syria and Babylon, and (4) Ptolemy ruled over
Egypt.
4. The fourth beast that Daniel saw was "dreadful and terrible,
and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured
and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it,
and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and
it had ten horns" (verse 7). The fourth world kingdom was the
Roman Empire. And, as the prophecy said, it was dreadful,
terrible, and strong; it did tear down the whole earth; and it
stands out as diverse from the other empires of history. The
meaning of the ten horns on this beast is explained in verse 24:
"These ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings [or kingdoms]
that shall arise" - Macchiavelli, the Roman historian, described
the Empire as being divided among the various Gothic tribes their
number being ten: Heruli, Suevi, Burgundians, Huns, Ostrogoths,
Visigoths, Vandals, Lombards, Franks, and Anglo-Saxons. These
have ever since been spoken of as the ten kingdoms that rose out
of the Roman Empire.
As the prophecy continues, we find that another horn would rise
up among these ten. "I considered the horns, and, behold, there
came up among them another little horn, before whom there were
three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in
this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking
great things" (verse 8). This "little horn" would make war
against the saints (verse 21) and would think to change times and
laws (verse 25). Altogether there are eight things that we should
notice concerning the little horn.
1. The little horn was to be a ROMAN power. A horn on a beast is
that which grows out of a beast. Since we know the fourth beast
was Roman, so also must the horn be Roman!
Does the Papacy fit this description? Yes. The Papacy rose to
power at the time and place indicated by Bible prophecy. No one
can question that the Papacy is Roman. Its seat is in Rome. Its
very name is ROMAN Catholic, an amazing point of identification
even in our time!
2. The little horn was to be revealed in power among the ten
kingdoms into which the Roman Empire was divided. We have seen
that Rome was divided into ten kingdoms. The Papacy did rise to
power among these ten kingdoms - following the fall of Rome - as
we have seen.
3. The little horn was to pluck up three of the other horns, the
interpretation being that "he shall subdue three kings
[kingdoms]" (Dan.7:24). Did the Papacy subdue three of these ten
kingdoms? Elliott says: "I might cite three that were eradicated
from before the Pope out of the list first given, viz., the
Heruli under Odacer, the Vandals, and the 0strogoths." The Heruli
were
1) In Daniel 7 we find the word "kings" and "kingdoms" used
interchangeably. The prophecy speaks of four kings (verse
17) and goes on to speak of these as four kingdoms (verse
23). There is no contradiction here. If there is a king,
there is of necessity a kingdom.
2. Elliott, Horae Apocalpticae, vol. 3, p. 139.
Overthrown in 493, the Vandals in 534, and the Ostrogoths in 553.
4. The little horn would rise up among the ten horns (kingdoms),
but would be "diverse" or different than the ten. Has the Papacy
been a kingdom that has been different from other kingdoms that
rose out of the fourth beast? Yes. Other kingdoms have claimed
temporal power, but the Papacy rose up claiming spiritual power
as well. The Papacy is the only government rising from the ruins
of Rome that made such claims. The Papacy has claimed that its
diversity from other kingdoms is as the sun compared to the moon.
Guinness has well put it in these words: "Is not the Papacy
sufficiently diverse from all the rest of the kingdoms of western
Europe to identify it as the little horn? What other ruling
monarch of Christendom ever pretended to apostolic authority, or
ruled men in the name of God? Does the Pope dress in royal robes?
Nay, but in priestly garments. Does he wear a crown? Nay, but a
triple tiara, to show that he reigns in heaven, earth, and hell!
Does he wield a sceptre ? Nay, but a crosier or crook, to show
that he is the good shepherd of the Church. Do his subjects kiss
his hand? Nay, but his toe! Verily this power is 'diverse' from
the rest, both in great things and little. It is small in size,
gigantic in its pretensions:"
5. The little horn was pictured with a MOUTH - "a mouth that
spoke every great things"(verse 20). "He shall speak great words
against the most High" (verse 25). This suggests pride and
arrogance.
By teaching corrupt doctrines, unscriptural doctrines, the Papacy
has dared to speak great things - has made great claims - and so
by doing has spoken against God. IT should be carefully noted
that the prophecy tells what this little horn would DO, not what
he would PROFESS TO DO. He professes to speak the words of God,
to define the doctrines of God; but in reality, he speaks things
that are unscriptural and in some cases even the exact opposite
of what the Bible says.
Much could be said about the great claims that the Popes have
made, but for now we will mention one classic claim - the claim
that all men must be subject to the Roman pontiff in order to be
saved: "All the faithful of Christ by necessity of salvation are
subject to the Roman pontiff, who judges all men... Therefore we
declare, assert, define, and pronounce, that to be subject to the
Roman pontiff is to every human creature altogether necessary
for salvation" (Unam Sanctam, by Boniface VIII).
Thus the Papacy has had a mouth claiming things that no bishop
had ever claimed before. The sentences of the Pope are considered
final; his utterances infallible; his decrees irreformable.
6. The little horn of Daniel's vision "had eyes" and his "look
was more stout than his fellows" (verse 20). A horn on a beast
does not normally possess eyes - thus such symbolism stands out
vividly. This horn would be a power with foresight, intelligence.
With such eyes, it would be a seer.
Does the Papacy fit this? The Pope claims to be the overseer of
the whole world-wide church! He claims to watch over, to shepherd
or pastor, more people than any other leader. His look is more
stout than others and is greatly feared, for he claims to be the
possessor of the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
7. The little horn was to "make war with the saints" and prevail
against them (Dan. 7:21); he would "wear out the saints of the
most High" (verse 25).
The early Christians were persecuted by the Jews, later came the
persecutions under the rule of the pagan Roman Empire. But the
war against the saints that is here described was to be carried
on by a power that would rise out of Rome following the breaking
up of the Empire into ten kingdoms. Looking into history, we find
that century after century of persecution did come upon the
saints by a power that rose out of Rome. That power was the
Papacy - and none other.
Christians were horribly tortured, tested, and tried during those
centuries. Pope Innocent IV issued an official document which
stated that heretics (those who would not bow to the Romish
system) were to be crushed like venomous snakes. His soldiers
were promised property and remission of all their sins if they
killed a heretic! Victims of the Inquisition were stretched and
torn apart on the "rack." Some were crushed and stabbed to death
in the "iron virgin." There was the thumb-screw, an instrument
made for disarticulating the fingers and "Spanish Boots" which
were used to crush the legs and feet. Pinchers were used to tear
out fingernails or were applied red-hot to the sensitive parts of
the body.
Every imaginable method of torture was used that fiendish men
could imagine. Those who wouldn't bow to the Pope's system were
shut up in caves and dungeons, were nailed to trees, tormented
with fires, scalded with oil or burning pitch; melted lead was
poured into their eyes and ears and mouths; they were scalped,
skinned, flayed alive; heads were twisted off and eyes gouged
out; women were defiled, their breasts cut off; babies were
brutally beaten, whipped stabbed, dashed against trees - in front
of their parents - and then thrown to hungry dogs and swine. It
has been estimated that there were fifty million or more
Christians killed during those dark ages by the persecutions that
were promoted by the Papacy.
If such treatment as this, inflicted on generation after
generation, is not the "wearing out of the saints of the most
High", what could be? All other persecutions against the saints
were brief and mild in comparison to those persecutions inflicted
by the Papacy.
Those who hold the futurist interpretation, however, commonly
think of the Antichrist as a super-politician who will drop
highly destructive bombs from jet planes. As one writer says.
Antichrist will "plunge the nations into the last great atomic
war" (De Haan, Will the church Go Through the Tribulation?, .
25).
But this is not what the Bible is talking about here. The
dropping of bombs upon cities would kill people regardless of
whether they were saints or sinners. In fact, this kind of "war"
would kill more sinners than saints, for the simple reason that
there are more sinners. But the "war" of Daniel 7 was not to be
mass destruction of the people as a whole - it was specifically
described as war against the saints!
8. The little horn would "think to change times and laws" (Dan.
7:25). Daniel said that wisdom and might belong to God and that
he is the one that "changeth the times and the seasons" (Dan.
2:21). But here we see that this "little horn" would think to do
things which rightly belong only to God. He would exalt himself
to a place in which he would even dare to meddle with divine
things!
There would not be much significance if he would merely think to
change civil laws - politicians do this every day in their course
of duty. But since the context speaks of how the little horn
would speak words against the "most High", would wear out the
saints of the "most High", it is inferred that the times and laws
which he would seek to change would not only be civil laws, but
divine laws also. This demonstrates the blasphemous character of
the little horn.
As far as human laws, the Papacy has annulled the decrees of
kings and emperors; it has thrust its long arm into the affairs
of the nations; it has brought rulers to its feet in abject
humility. In religious things, the Pope claims infallibility in
pronouncing doctrine. By exalting himself to such a position -
and millions have believed this dogma - it is evident that he has
thought to change divine things. He has instituted the observance
of days for which there is no scriptural basis, has instituted
rituals and rites that were borrowed directly from paganism, and
has set himself up as authority in place of the Bible.
We see, then, that the little horn that would rise out of the
fourth beast - Rome - would be a Roman power, would rise among
the ten kingdoms into which the empire was divided, would pluck
up three of the other kingdoms, would be diverse, would make
great claims, would be a seer, would make war with the saints,
and would think to change times and laws.
Understanding this prophecy, the early Christians knew that the
Roman Empire - the fourth beast - would fall, the fall of which
would bring on the man of sin. And since the man of sin, the
little horn of Daniel 7, would make war against the SAINTS, Paul
concluded that the man of sin would have to come to power BEFORE
the saints are gathered at the Second Coming of Christ!
(2 Thess.2:1-3).
................
TO BE CONTINUED
Man of Sin? 2Thes.2 #3The last wicked one by
Ralph Woodrow
PAUL'S PROPHECY - THE MAN OF SIN
Continuing now in Paul's prophecy, we see that he links the man
of sin with a falling away. "That day shall not come, except
there come a FALLING AWAY first, and that man of sin be re-
vealed..." (2 Thess.2:1-3). Therefore, if we can determine when
this falling away occurred and where, we will have another point
of identification regarding the man of sin.
The Greek word that is here translated "falling away" is
'apostasia.' Strong's concordance defines this word as "defection
from the truth." It is from this word that we get our English
word "apostasy." This falling away or apostasy of which Paul
spoke was not to be a falling away from religion into atheism,
but rather a corruption of Christianity through false doctrine.
It would be a departure from the true faith - a departure that
would develop right WITHIN the realm of the Christian church. As
Lenski has said: "This is apostasy. It is, therefore, to be
sought IN the church visible and not OUTSIDE the church, not in
the pagan world, in the general moral decline, in Mohammedanism,
in the French Revolution, in the rise and spread of Masonry, in
Soviet Russia, or in lesser phenomena."
Is the falling away from true Christianity yet to happen at some
future time or has it already happened? Those who are acquainted
with church history know the answer.
The falling away to which Paul referred took place many centuries
ago. The only way the falling away could be future is if
Christianity had remained pure in doctrine and Spirit until now.
This has obviously not been the case.
Originally the New Testament church was filled with truth and
spiritual power. The book of Acts gives an account of those
glorious days. But as time went on, even as the inspired apostles
had warned (Acts 20:29,30; 1 Tim.4:1-3; 2 Peter 2:2,3), there
began to be departures from the true faith. The mystery of
iniquity was at work. Compromises were made with paganism in
order to gain numbers. Finally, what the world recognized as the
"Church" in the fourth and fifth centuries had actually become
the fallen church. And - as is well established in history - this
apostasy cantered in ROME!
The bishop of Rome rose to power claiming to be "Bishop of
bishops" and that all the Christian world should look to him as
head and to ROME as headquarters for the church. This apostasy
has continued through the centuries with a "man" at Rome exalting
himself above all others, claiming divine honours and worship - a
continual reminder that the falling away took place centuries
ago. It is not future, it is FULFILLED!
Newton has well said: "If the apostasy be rightly charged upon
the church of Rome, it follows that the man of sin is the Pope,
not meaning this or that Pope in particular, but the Pope in
general, as the chief head and supporter of this apostasy. The
apostasy produces him and he promotes the apostasy." Or as Barnes
put it: "That his the Pope's rise was preceded by a great
apostasy, or departure from the purity of the simple gospel, as
revealed in the New Testament, cannot reasonably be doubted by
any one acquainted with the history of the church. That he is the
creation or result of that apostasy, is equally clear."
Understanding that the falling away occurred centuries ago and
cantered at Rome, provides more evidence that the Papacy has met
the requirements of the prophecy about the man of sin.
According to Paul, the man of sin was to "exalt himself above
all... in the temple of God" (2 Thess.2:4). It is quite important
that we understand just what Paul meant by his use of the term
temple of God.
Those who hold the dispensational interpretation of prophecy with
its secret rapture, gap theory, etc. think that Paul was speaking
of a future rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem. But a careful
study of every reference that Paul made to the "temple God"
reveals that he NEVER applied this term to the Jewish temple.
The word that is translated "temple" in 2 Thess.2:4 is used many
times by the apostle Paul. The first is Acts 17:24: "God... _.
dwelleth not in temples made with hands." In what kind of temple,
does God now dwell? Looking through the epistles, we find that
Paul always used the expression in reference to BELIEVERS, the
CHURCH - never to a literal building.
"Know ye not that YE are the TEMPLE OF GOD, and that the Spirit
of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the TEMPLE OF GOD, him
shall God destroy; for the TEMPLE OF GOD is holy, which temple YE
are" (1 Cor.3:16,17). In this passage, three times he refers to
Christian believers - the church - as the temple of God.
"What? know ye not that your body is the TEMPLE of the Holy Ghost
which is in you, which ye have of God?"(1 Cor.6:19). Each
believer is as a stone, a living stone, in that great "spiritual
House", "the church of the living God"(1 Peter 2:5; 1 Tim.3:15).
This same truth is seen in 2 Corinthians 6:16: "And what
agreement hath the TEMPLE OF GOD with idols? For YE are the
TEMPLE OF THE LIVING GOD." Writing to the church at Ephesus, Paul
said: "Ye are built on the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone; in
whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy
TEMPLE in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an
habitation of God through the Spirit" (Eph.2:20-22).
None of these references could possibly refer to a literal Jewish
temple in Jerusalem!
Barnes states that Paul's use of the expression "temple of God"
refers to "the Christian church" and that "it is by no means
necessary to understand this of the temple at Jerusalem... The
idea is, that the Antichrist here referred to would present
himself in the midst of the church as claiming the honours due to
God alone... No one can fail to see that the authority claimed by
the Pope of Rome, meets the full force of the language used here
by the apostle." (Barnes' commentary, p. 1114).
When the Bible speaks of the complete, literal temple, the word
"hieron" is used. This word appears 71 times in the New Testament
in reference to the temple at Jerusalem. On the other hand, the
word that Paul used for temple is "naos" which refers not to the
complete, literal temple, but to the holy place, the dwelling of
God. And the dwelling place of God is now the church.
In what sense, then, are we to understand the term as used in 2
Thess.2:4? Since this verse links the "temple of God" with the
falling away, the term must be understood in the sense of
profession. The Church of Rome professes to be the one true
church, but is actually the fallen church, having departed from
the teaching that the church at Rome had originally received.
(cf. Book of Romans).
We see, then, that the man of sin was not to be merely a
political leader, but would claim to be above all others within
the very framework of professing Christianity! How different this
is from the futurist ideas about an atheistic, political superman
of the last days!
The man of sin is mentioned as he that "sitteth" in the temple
of God. His sitting within the church realm "as God" suggests
that he would claim a place of rulership there. The word
"sitteth" is translated from the word "kathizo." The sitting
implies a "seat" in which he would sit. The word translated seat
is "kathedra" which is a related term. From this term we get the
word "Cathedral" which means "the bishop's seat"; also "ex
cathedra", the expression used to describe the Pope's words as he
speaks from his seat officially, such pronouncements being
considered infallible.
Guinness says: "There, in that exalted cathedral position, and
claiming to represent God, the man of sin was to act and abide as
the pretended vicar, but the real antagonist, of Christ,
undermining His authority, abolishing His laws, and oppressing
His people" (Guinness, Romanism and the Reformation, p. 57).
The man of sin is further described as he that "exalteth himself
above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he
as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is
God" (2 Thess.2:4). We understand from this description that the
man of sin would exalt himself in great pride, would make great
claims, would magnify himself above all others.
Similar expressions are found in various ways through the
scriptures. The prince of Tyrus is represented as saying: "I am a
God, I sit in the seat of God" (Ez.28:2). The king of Babylon
being lifted up with pride is represented as saying: "I will
exalt my throne above the stars of God... I will be like the most
High" (Isaiah 14:4,15,14). Concerning a king in Daniel 11:36,37,
it is said that "he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself
above every god... for he shall magnify himself above all."
Another king is said to "magnify [exalt] himself in his heart"
(Dan. 8:25). Concerning Herod, certain ones after hearing his
speech, said: "It is the voice of a god, and not of a man" (Acts
12:21-23). Concerning Edom, Obadiah 4 says: "Though thou exalt
thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the
stars, thence will I bring thee down." Or concerning Capernaum,
Jesus said: "And thou, Capernaum which art exalted unto heaven,
shall be brought down to hell"(Mt. 11:23).
Verses which speak of kings, countries, or cities exalting
themselves unto heaven, exalting themselves above every god,
sitting in the seat of God, being like the most High, etc., are
expressions which convey the meaning of pride and arrogance. In
the case of the man of sin, he would exalt himself above all
others - above all others in the church! That is, he would not
only claim to be "a" leader in the church, but would actually
claim to be "the" leader of the church.
The man of sin would claim to be "AS God", exalting himself as
head of the church - a position that belongs only to the Lord
himself - "showing that he is God." There is no article before
"God" in this case; the meaning is that the man of sin would
claim to be divine. Concerning this passage, Barnes has written:
"This expression would not imply that he actually claimed to be
the true God, but only that he sits in the temple, and manifests
himself AS IF he were God. He claims such honours and such
reverence as the true God WOULD if he should appear in human
form" (Barnes' Commentary, p. 1114 - note on 2 Thes.2).
Have the Popes claimed to be above all THAT is called God, have
they claimed to be AS GOD in the temple of God, and have they
attempted to show that they are DIVINE? The answer is yes!
The Popes have claimed to be above all kings and emperors. They
have claimed not only the rule of the earth, but of heaven and
hell also - these three realms being symbolized in the triple
crown which they wear. They have claimed attributes and titles
which can rightly pertain only to God.
At the coronation of Pope Innocent X, the following words were
addressed to him by a Cardinal who knelt before him: "Most holy
and blessed father! head of the Church, ruler of the world,
to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed, whom the
angels in heaven revere, and the gates of hell fear, and all the
world adores, we specially venerate, worship, and adore thee!"
Moreri, a noted historian, wrote: "To make war against the Pope
is to make war against God, seeing the Pope is God and God is the
Pope." Decius said: "The Pope can do all things God can do." Pope
Leo XIII said of himself in 1890: "The supreme teacher in the
Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires,
together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete
submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman
Pontiff, as to God himself." In 1894, he said. "We hold the place
of Almighty God on earth."
On April 30, 1922, in the Vatican throne room before a throng of
Cardinals, bishops, priests, and nuns who fell on their knees
before him, Pope Pius XI in haughty tones said: "You know that
I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on earth, the
Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on the earth."
The pagan Caesars were styled, "Our Lord and God." For centuries
the Popes accepted the same title! On the arches raised in honour
of Pope Borgia were the words: "Rome was great under Caesar; now
she is greater: Alexander VI reigns. The former was a man: this
is a god"!
Pope Pius X, when Archbishop of Venice, said: "The Pope is not
only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ
himself hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak?
It is Jesus Christ who speaks."
The following is an extract from the actual wording that has been
used by Popes in making their claims: "The Roman Pontiff judges
all men, but is judged by no one... We declare... to be subject
to the Roman Pontiff is to every creature altogether necessary,
for salvation... That which was spoken of Christ, 'Thou has
subdued all things under his feet' may well seem verified in
me... I have the authority of the King of kings. I am all in all
and above all... I am able to do almost all that God can do...
Wherefore if those things that I do be said not to be done of man
but of God: what can you make me but God?... Wherefore no marvel
if it be in my power to change time and times, to alter and
abrogate laces, to dispense with all things, yea, with the
precepts of Christ; for where Christ biddeth Peter to put up his
sword and admonishes His disciples not to use any outward force
in revenging themselves, so do not I, Pope Nicholas, writing to
the Bishops of France, exhort them to draw out their material
swords?... Wherefore, as I began, so I conclude, commanding,
declaring, and pronouncing, to stand upon necessity of salvation,
for every creature to be subject to me", etc.
The man of sin is referred to as "the son of perdition" (2 Thess.
2:3). This same title was applied to Judas Iscariot - John
17:12).By this duplication of the term, the Holy Spirit is
apparently showing that the man of sin would resemble Judas.
Judas was to outward appearances a bishop and apostle (Acts
1:20,25). Nevertheless, he "was a thief, and had the bag, and
bare what was put therein" (John 12:6). Such things are a picture
of Papal practices, especially during the dark ages. Claiming to
have apostolic authority, the Popes propagated such things as
indulgence selling, prayers for the dead in purgatory, payment
for masses, relic sales, offerings before idols, etc., by which
they enriched themselves. Though Judas had received thirty pieces
of silver to betray Jesus, he approached him in the garden with a
kiss and the words, "Hail Master"? And likewise, the Papacy has
claimed to be Christ's apostle and friend, but has betrayed the
Lord by promoting doctrines and practices which are contrary to
what Christ taught.
The man of sin's rise to power was to be accompanied by claims of
supernatural signs and wonders. "Whose coming is after [according
to) the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying
wonders" (2 Thess.2:9). The rise of the Romish church to a
world-wide system of religion is in itself a wonder, for though
claiming to be the church of Jesus Christ, it has actually
promoted practices and teachings that are the opposite of what
Christ taught. Millions have been deceived by its claims.
A full account of all the miracles which have supposedly happened
within the Romish system would fill volumes. The following are a
few of the claims that have been made:
crucifixes have spoken; images have come down and lit their own
candles; idols have sweat, turned their eyes, moved their hands,
opened their mouths, healed sicknesses, raised the dead, mended
broken bones; souls from purgatory have appeared on lonely roads
and begged that masses be said in their behalf; many have claimed
that the virgin Mary visited them, etc. All of these miracles -
whether supposed, real, or faked - greatly increased the fallen
church.
We see, then, that the man of sin would appear in connection with
the falling away; he would rise to power within the very
framework of Christianity, claiming to be above all others, as
God; and his rise to power would be accompanied with lying signs
and wonders. We have seen the evidence, point by point, that
these things have found their fulfillment in the Papacy.
(Yes, the Church at Rome was in the beginning a very real part of
the body of Christ, a very real part of the true Church of God.
In the second century we have recorded in church history that
Polycarp and Polycrates, went to debate with the bishop of Rome
over the Passover/Easter issue and practice. The bishops of Asia
Minor still help the church of Rome to be part of their
fellowship and part of the true Church of God. And so indeed it
was that the "man of sin" - did come from within the true
fellowship and body of Christ. The bishop of Rome was in the
second century A.D. beginning to fall away from the true word and
teachings and practices of the true Church of God. And so the
prophecy of Paul in 2 Thes 2 came to pass, and the man of sin,
came from within the "temple of God" - the Church of God - Keith
Hunt).
Some object to this interpretation on the basis that Paul spoke
of "the man of sin" and that such wording must refer to one
individual man, not a succession of men. But this is not
necessarily true. For example, "the" is used in the expression,
"the man of God" (2 Tim.3:17) - a reference to a class of men of
a certain character, a succession of similar individuals. Or we
read about "the high priest" (Heb.9:7) - meaning a succession of
high priests.
The church - the long line or succession of believers through the
centuries - is spoken of as "one new man" (Eph. 2:15), but
certainly no one would insist that the church is one man in a
literal sense. The statement about a "woman" called "Babylon the
Great, the Mother of harlots" (Rev.17) is not taken to mean one
literal woman, nor is the "woman clothed with the sun" (Rev.12)
thought of as a literal woman. A single beast in prophecy often
represents a whole empire or kingdom in all its changes and
revolutions from beginning to end. The four beasts of Daniel 7
are mentioned as four kings, yet the meaning is not limited to
individual kings, for each of these empires referred to included
a succession of rulers.
Gramatically, the expression "the man of sin" could mean either
an individual or a succession of similar individuals. The use of
the singular expression neither asserted nor excluded a dynastic
meaning.
However, there was a strong hint that such could be a succession
of men, for since "he that letteth" was a line or succession of
Caesars, it would not be inconsistent to believe that "he that
sitteth" would also be a succession of men.
It has been said that prophecy is a wonderful combination of the
clear and the obscure; enough to show the hand of God, but not
enough to make fatalists of the readers; enough to prove the
message to have been from God, but not enough to enable man to
know all the details of how that purpose is to be realized. We
believe that such has been the case here.
Since the man of sin was to come to power upon the fall of the
Roman Empire, and would not be destroyed until the Lord's coming,
it is evident that one individual man could not be meant. Such
requires a succession of men. Nevertheless, the idea of ONE MAN
is not actually eliminated by this interpretation, for there is
only one man at a time who occupies the Papal office.....
Rome did fall, but it was a decline and fall - taking place over
a period of years. The rise of the Papacy was also gradual, many
years passing before it met all the requirements of the
prophecy. With its rise to power, darkness covered the earth, and
very little preaching was done on prophecy. But when the light of
the Reformation began to shine through, the study of prophecy was
revived. People began to re-examine things. They knew Rome had
fallen and had been divided into ten kingdoms. They could now see
that the power that rose up in Rome which thought to change laws,
wore out the saints, and made great claims, was the Papacy....
.............
End of study by Ralph Woodrow
END NOTE by Keith Hunt
Realizing that the church at Rome, into the second century was
still regarded by the bishops of Asia Minor as part of the
"church" of Christ, makes then full sense to understand that Paul
was prophesying that a large and very significant "falling away"
would come to the "church" the Temple of God, after the
constraining power of the civil Roman Empire had come to an end
or had been "taken away." God was working it all out according to
His time plan for the restraining power of the Empire of Rome to
be taken away, and then would come the panicle of the falling
away in the Church of God, with the rise of the full Papal force
of the vicar or bishop of Rome - who became known as the Pope.
THERE IS ONE LARGE DIFFERENCE I WOULD HAVE WITH MR.WOODROW
And that is that I fully BELIEVE THERE WILL BE A **ONE** MAN OF
SIN, A **FALSE PROPHET,** OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION, THAT WILL
COME ON THE WORLD SCENE, FOR ESPECIALLY THE LAST THREE AND ONE
HALF YEARS OF THIS AGE, BEFORE JESUS RETURNS IN POWER AND GLORY.
2 THES.2:8 CLEARLY TELLS US THAT AT JESUS' COMING, A MAN OF SIN,
"THAT WICKED" SHALL BE DESTROYED BY THE SPIRIT OF HIS MOUTH AND
BY THE BRIGHTNESS OF HIS COMING. THIS VERSE THEN GOES WITH
REVELATION 19:20.
THE MAN OF SIN AT THE END OF THIS AGE WILL INDEED TO IN THE PAPAL
OFFICE OF THE POPE OF THE BABYLON WOMAN CHURCH, WHICH NEARLY ALL
THE PROTESTANT BIBLE COMMENTARIES SINCE THE REFORMATION, HAVE
DECLARED TO BE THE PAPACY.
...............
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment