THE MAN OF SIN— 2 THESS. 2 #1

 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...

                               ............

I AGREE THERE IS NO 7 LAST YEARS AT THE END OF THIS AGE. 

REVELATION SPEAKS OF42 MONTHS, 1260 DAYS. THE BIBLE TEACHES

NO SUCH THINGS ABOUT A "SECRET RAPTURE" OF SAINTS TO HEAVEN.

ALL THIS IDEA CAME FROM  DARBY AND SCOFIELD AROUND THE 

LATTER PART OF THE 19TH CENTURY INTO THE BEGINNING OF THGE 20TH 

CENTURY, AND THEN POPULARIZED BY THE FUNDAMENTAL PROTESTANTS.

TODAY, THE MAJORITY OF FUNDAMENTAL PROTESTANTS, DO NOT TEACH

THESE IDEAS OF SCOFIELD.  FEWER, AND FEWER PEOPLE TODAY TEACH

THE 7 YEAR PERIOD [RAKEN FROM A WRONG UNDERSTANDING OF DANIEL

CHAPTER 9] AND THE "SECRET RAPTURE"— BECAUSE PEOPLE SEE THERE

IS NO TEACHING IN THE NEW TESTAMENT OF TWO SECOND COMINGS OF

CHRIST; THERE IS ONLY ONE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST TO THIS EARTH.

I CAN ACCEPT WOODROW'S EXPLANATION TO A POINT, ONLY TO A POINT.

WE'LL CONTINUE HIS STUDY TO  SEE WHAT ELSE HE SAYS.

 

Keith Hunt

TO BE CONTINUED