Truth Magazine

By Forrest D. Moyer

Anytime we look at Bible prophecy we are faced with the problems of finding a genuine fulfillment unless, of course, there is inspiration to tell us the meaning and the exact fulfillment. In the New Testament we have some inspired statements telling us the precise fulfillment of some Old Testament prophecy. For example, Acts 2:16ff tells us of the fulfillment of Joel 2:28ff. Luke 3:3-6 tells us the fulfillment of Isaiah 40:3-5. Matthew 1:21ff shows the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. These are but a few of the many examples that could be given.

However, in a case where there is New Testament prophecy that would be fulfilled after the close of New Testament revelation, it becomes much more difficult to interpret since we are not inspired. I am sure that the time will come when we shall fully understand all that inspiration wrote. Until then we must continue to study earnestly and seek to understand with an open mind what the Lord teaches.

One very perplexing bit of New Testament prophecy is found in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. The question, “Who is the man of lawlessness?” is not an easy one to answer, and there are several different interpretations of this passage. There are three basic positions taken regarding this “man of sin.”

1. The Papacy. Many early Protestant commentators and several current ones take the position that this refers to the development of Catholicism and the rise of the papacy. For a full discussion of this position, see Lenski, Interpretation of Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon (pp. 432-436). 1 would also refer you to Clarke’s notes at the end of his comments on 2 Thessalonians 2. Also MacKnight discusses this. I would encourage you to look at these discussions.

2. The “Anti-Christ. ” This position is that just prior to the coming of Jesus there will arise a person who is so diabolical and evil that he will be known as the “antiChrist.” He will lead many people into great iniquity. He will attempt to totally overthrow Christianity, but Jesus will come and obliterate him. For a full discussion of this position, see Hendricksen, New Testament Commentary, Exposition of I and II Thessalonians (pp. 170-179).

3. For lack of a better terminology, I will refer to the third position as the Roman Emperor. This position may be stated in this way: The “man of sin” is the Roman emperor(s) who brought severe persecutions against Christians as foretold by Daniel and pictured in Revelation l3ff. 1 should like to discuss this and ask you to carefully consider the reasoning that I shall use. Before presenting some arguments for this position, it would be in order to look at the passages under consideration.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-5 Paul is correcting a false impression that the Thessalonians had. They believed that the coming of Jesus was imminent. He wrote so that they would “not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed” (v. 2). Paul did not want them to lose their heads over this matter but to keep their mental balance. Evidently, someone claimed that Paul or Silas or Timothy had received a prophetic revelation (“spirit”) claiming that the time of the coming of Jesus was here. Perhaps someone said that there was a letter from them to that effect. Paul is denying any such revelation or letter. So, he said, “Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way about this matter. Remain firm.”

The reason that they should not be shaken is that the coming of Jesus would not take place until there was a falling away and until there was the revealing of “the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction” (v. 3). A time would come when “because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold” (Matt. 24:12). This would be a “falling away.” Then there would also be a man of lawlessness, one who would have “contempt and violation of law” (Thayer, p. 42). This man would act with utter contempt for God and his way. He is called the “son of destruction.” Apoleia.- “the destruction which consists in the loss of eternal life, eternal misery, perdition . . . a man doomed to eternal misery. 2 Th 2.3” (Thayer, p. 71). This man of sin would be eternally damned as a result of his godless iniquity and opposition to all that is holy.

In verse 4 this man of sin “opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god (all that is called God) or object of worship so that he takes his seat in the temple of God displaying himself as being God.” His lawlessness consists in opposing God and God’s people and in exalting himself to a position of honor and worship that belongs only to Deity. He claims a higher position than could ever belong to man, a position in which he demands worship from man.

In verses 6-12 this lawless one is described. But at the time of Paul’s writing, there was something that restrained the diabolical work of this man of sin. The Roman empire and emperors controlled the world. The Christians were protected to some extent by the Roman authorities. Rome looked upon Christianity as an extension of Judaism, and, therefore, considered it as legal. (Any religion that existed when Rome captured a nation was accepted as legal. However, no new religion was allowed to begin.) When Rome became aware that Christianity was not a part of Judaism, it was then declared to be illegal. This explains why Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment and yet executed for spreading an illegal religion during his second imprisonment. In Acts 21 when the Jews sought to kill Paul, the Roman commander rescued him (22-29). In Acts 18 when some Jews were trying to stop Paul’s preaching, it was the Roman proconsul who protected him (12-17). However, when Rome began to look on Christianity as illegal, this changed and there was no restraining power to stop persecutions against Christians.

This man of sin would be used as an instrument of Satan (v. 9). He would come with “all power and signs and false wonders and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish.” But one thing is for sure: this man of sin will be destroyed by the power of the Lord Jesus Christ (v. 8).

Who Is This Man Of Sin? Daniel 7

In order to adequately answer our question, we need to consider Daniel’s vision and what it symbolizes. Let us look at Daniel 7:1-12. Daniel tells of his vision of the “four great beasts . . . coming up from the sea” (v. 3). The first was like a lion and had the wings of an eagle (4), the second resembled a bear (5), the third was like a leopard with four heads (6) and the fourth was “dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth . . . and it had ten horns” (7). While Daniel looked, he saw “another horn, a little one, came up among them . . . this horn possessed eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth uttering great boasts” (8-9). “Then I kept looking because of the sound of the boastful words which the horn was speaking; I kept looking until the beast was slain, and its body given to the burning fire” (v. 11).

In vv. 15-28 Daniel was quite distressed about the vision and asked one standing by (an angel?) the exact meaning. “So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of these things” (v. 16). He was told that the four beasts were four kings or kingdoms (v. 23) which will arise. These correspond to the four kingdoms of chapter 2. Daniel was especially concerned about the fourth beast, the ten horns and the other horn which came up (v. 20). “1 kept looking, and that horn was waging war with the saints and overpowering them. . . ” (21). “The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms, and it will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it” (23). The horns represent kings; the little horn that came up represents a king who “will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One . . . and they will be given into his hand for a time, times and half a time” (25). Yet the time will come when his dominion will be taken away and the kingdom of God will prevail (26-27).

We recognize Babylon as the kingdom represented by the lion. Medo-Persia was the second followed by Greece symbolized by the leopard. The great and terrible fourth beast represented the Roman Empire. Therefore, the horns were emperors. The number then should be taken in the sense of a completed number rather than ten literal kings. There would arise a persecuting emperor who would severely make havoc of the people of God. He would be arrogant and boastful even against God.

Revelation 13

Daniel’s vision is complimented by John’s vision in Revelation 13. In chapter 12 we saw the dragon (Satan) trying to destroy the man child (Jesus) but failing in his attempt. Then he turned to the people of God in an effort to overcome them. Chapter 13 tells of the agency he was using to overcome God’s saints. There was a beast that came up out of the sea (remember Dan. 7:3?). This beast was an amalgam of the four beasts of Daniel. He was like a leopard with feet like a bear, and a mouth like the mouth of a lion. He is that dreadful and terrible beast that Daniel saw. He had ten horns and seven heads. One of his heads was wounded and yet his fatal wound was healed. He received worship from the people of the earth. “And there was given to him a mouth speaking arrogant words and blasphemies; and authority to act for forty-two months” (5). The forty-two months correspond to the three and one-half years of the “horn” of Daniel 7. As in Daniel 7, this beast makes war with the saints and seeks to overcome them (7), “and all who dwell on the earth will worship him” except those whose names are in the book of life.

Then we see a second beast arising. This one looks like a lamb but has the voice of a dragon. His sole activity is to persuade the people of earth to worship the first beast whose fatal wound was healed (12). In doing so, he performed “great signs, so that he even makes fire come down out of heaven to the earth . . . and he deceives those who dwell on earth because of the signs.” He enforces emperor worship.

We have little difficulty in seeing the persecuting emperor(s) of Rome in this chapter and the committee going through the Roman Empire seeking to enforce emperor worship. Whether this refers to Nero or Domitian (“the fatal wound healed”?) or both is not the particular point of discussion at present. We just want to see that both Daniel and John saw the diabolical evil “king” persecuting the people of God for “forty-two months” or 31/2 years or 1,260 days. Of course, this is not a specific, literal time-frame, but an incomplete time (one half of the perfect number, seven).

The Man of Sin

Now, how does all this help us define the man of sin?

1. His “coming is in accord with the activity of Satan” (v. 9) just as in Revelation 13:2,4. He is acting as an agent of the devil.

2. He comes “with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish” (vv. 9-10). This is also seen in Revelation 13:14.

3. There is the claim of deity – “exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship displaying himself as being God” (v. 4). We also see this in Revelation 13:4, 14.

4. Paul predicted a “falling away” in which souls would be deceived and be lost (vv. 3,11). Daniel told how the “little horn” would “wear down the saints of the Highest One” for 31/2 times. In Revelation 13 the beast would “make war with the saints and overcome them” (v. 7). Jesus said, “And because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold” (Matt. 24:12). (I realize that Jesus is speaking of events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in this context. The comparison is that lawlessness causes the people to fall away.)

5. This “lawless one” will be slain by the Lord with the breath of his mouth and brought to an end by the brightness of his coming (v. 8). Daniel saw the beast slain and its body destroyed and given to the burning fire (7:11,26). In Revelation the beast was defeated, seized, and thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone (19:19-20).

Because of these similarities, it seems most logical that Paul is speaking of the same person as was Daniel and John. In so doing, he was helping prepare them for the coming persecutions that many of them would have to face. I fail to see that advantage to these people for Paul to be speaking of some far removed event. I urge you to study this diligently and reach your conclusions carefully. In so far as it is possible, we need to allow the Bible to help us under stand prophecy. We do not need speculation.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 4, pp. 115-117
February 18, 1988

By Larry D. Siegle

It was a common practice during the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry for those who were stricken with the loathsome disease of leprosy, to stand off at a distance crying, “unclean, unclean,” lest they contaminate someone else with their dreaded malady (Luke 17:11-14; Lev. 13:46ff). In the past several weeks, I have developed a greater understanding of what some of those people must have felt like. The difference in my case, is that many of my former brethren have come to the conclusion that I have some form of “spiritual leprosy,”which must be avoided at all costs!

As one who considers himself to be an honest student of God’s Word, I have never been afraid to investigate any biblical subject, even though it might mean that I have to change my viewpoint. Those Jews who were listening to Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost came to a point in time when they realized that a change was in order (Acts 2:37ff). For quite some time, I had become free in using such terms as “liberal” and “anti,” without really considering how those terms actually apply. Thus, I began an honest quest to discover where such labels come from, and for what purpose they are used.

With the help of some conservative brethren living in and around the Kansas City area, I spent about six months looking at the “institutional question,” and why those who stood opposed to such things were branded as “antis.” I was given an opportunity to read material written by learned men on both sides of the “issues.” I read brother Thomas B. Warren’s book dealing with congregational cooperation and found many of his arguments to be weak at best. I was also afforded the opportunity to read portions of debates, such as the Cogdill-Woods discussion, which took place even before I was born. The only honest conclusion that I could come to was that those who support “institutionalism,” do so apart from the authority of God’s Word.

At the suggestion of several of the brethren who preach in conservative congregations, I began to teach some of members of the “liberal” congregation I preached for the truth concerning these things. However, the general attitude displayed by the majority of those I approached was that of “pooh-poohing” the whole thing, not even willing to consider the matter seriously. The point in time came when I could no longer, in good conscience, participate in their 46social gospel” philosophy. To eat at their fellowship meals seemed somewhat like partaking of meats which had been sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8). 1 also found that I could no longer feel the freedom to contribute to the church treasury, because of their involvement in the so-called “sponsoring church” arrangement, a clear and blatant violation of the biblical autonomy of a local congregation.

It was on a Wednesday evening that I decided to call the men of the congregation together for a meeting to discuss the conclusions I had come to in my personal study. It was at this point in time that the dreaded disease of “spiritual leprosy” began to appear.

In the beginning of the meeting, the men seemed to listen attentively to the biblical evidence surrounding the subject of scriptural cooperation between congregations. Most of them followed along in their Bibles as we discussed the sufficiency of the church of Christ to fulfill its mission in a local sense, without the seeming benefit of human plans and devices. However, the biblical evidence was not destined to prevail. I soon found myself under a barrage, being flooded with a multitude of hypothetical situations and “what if’s.” This line of ,argumentation continued for over an hour, at which point it was decided by the men that I should not be allowed to preach on Sunday morning. A vote was taken, and I was being quarantined, lest someone else become a victim of this spiritual leprosy! It was also decided that we should meet again on Saturday evening to discuss the matter further.

Over the next few days, there were many phone calls, some encouraging me for the position I had taken regarding these issues, others were not quite as thrilled, wondering why I wanted to be an “anti.” One of the men in the congregation was quick to remind me that I have a wife and three children to support, and that such a stand could prove fatal to “my career.” If it had not been for the prayers of faithful Christians throughout the Kansas City area, I am not sure the pressure would not have overcome me.

Saturday evening soon came, and fourteen men were in attendance at this meeting. One of the “leading” men stood up to take charge of the gathering by informing all of those present, that the meeting was going to be conducted in a “scriptural fashion.” It was his contention that I should not be allowed any opportunity to speak, and that to do so would be as bad as allowing a person from the Christian Church to come and teach. The men, however, still wanted to know more about the subject before deciding my fate. We discussed the “issues” for over an hour, with very little progress being made. Once again, the men were filled to overflowing with “what if” questions.

I summed up the biblical contention that Bible authority is established in three ways: (1) by direct statement, (2) by approved example, and (3) by necessary inference, and that for something to be an “expedient” (the institutional catchall), it must first be “lawful.” I also affirmed that the local church is sufficient to fulfill its own mission, without the outside influence and interference of another congregation. It did not take very long for them to make a decision on my future work there. Within fifteen minutes the verdict was in, and I was guilty of being “anti.” The result was that I was released from my duties with that congregation.

Since that time, I have begun working with a “sound” congregation in the city of Topeka, Kansas. In fact, it is the only conservative congregation in the area. We do not yet have the amount of support we need. The congregation is small in number, and are unable to support us fully. Any help you can give us will be greatly appreciated. Most of all, we ask that you continue to pray for us as we seek to do God’s will.

Much has happened to us in the last month, and I am committed to the fact that if being faithful to God makes me a “spiritual leper,” then so let it be!

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 5, pp. 129, 151
March 3, 1988

By Dennis C. Abernathy

“Because strait is the gate and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matt. 7:14).Most brethren claim to be seeking the “strait and narrow” gate that leads to eternal life. But isn’t it strange that many of the same are unable to find the door of the church building on Sunday and Wednesday evening?

These same brethren say they love the Lord. But it appears that their love for him is limited to the Sunday morning worship hour only! (And some do not even attend that regularly.)

The prevailing idea seems to be that one can manage to find the church building on Sunday morning (that is, if something more important does not come up). They may then act as though Sunday and Wednesday evening services do not exist. But, these same people want to be considered and treated as though they were sincerely seeking the kingdom first (Matt. 6:33), and walking the “strait and narrow way.

“If the “strait and, narrow” way could be found in front of the television, on the lake or golf course, or at the campsite; if it could be found resting in bed, at the family reunion, the little league game, scout meeting, or at various social and community club meetings, I would not worry so much about some of my brethren, for I am sure they would find and seek it out!

Brethren and friends, let’s face the truth of the matter. If you cannot find the doorway to the place of worship regularly, where Christ is present with those who are his and those who attend to the work in his kingdom, then don’t expect to find the “strait and narrow” way which leads to heaven! You just may be disappointed.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 4, p. 117
February 18, 1988

By Ron Halbrook

My wife and I recently discussed Sewell Hall’s article “Deal Gently With the Young Man” (Christianity Magazine, October 1987, p. 293). The Halls have been dear friends of ours for a number of years and we appreciate the tender appeal of this article for consideration to be given toward our children who may err. Donna and I have talked at times about the possible prospect of facing a time when one or more of our children might not be faithful to the Lord, a sadness that invades the homes of preachers as well as other Christians. We appreciate the good job the Halls have done raising their children and especially the fact that their son Gardner has been faithfully laboring in the gospel. May God raise up many more such faithful laborers from such godly homes! If and when such young men stray, may God help us all to show the love and patience that restores such an one with meekness (Gal. 6:1). I am thankful to have known faithful preachers of the gospel who have followed that very course of action, as we are always admonished to do in 2 Timothy 2:24-26.

As brother Hall observed, “Some young men who start on a course of error cannot be saved regardless of approach. . . . ” As Donna and I discussed the possibility of such an apostasy in our own family, we conclude that an additional plea is needed with the one made by brother Hall, and we believe he will agree with us in making this plea to our brethren. Our plea is: Uphold the truth, no matter what our son does.

David mourned for his son Absalom who died in apostasy, as any godly parent would have done. Absalom had been guilty of treachery against his own father and had betrayed the love of his family, not to mention the love of God. David cried, “O my son Absalom! My son, my son Absalom! Would God I had died for thee, 0 Absalom, my son, my son” (2 Sam. 18:33).

A father cannot forget that he is a father; and the more holy and generous his nature, the more powerfully will the fatherly feeling assert itself. As seen in our Savior’s case, when he wept over Jerusalem already doomed because of sin against him, equal to, yea, worse even than, that of Absalom, the natural feelings of the heart may flow forth in most touching strains, while there is in the soul a most perfect accord with the righteous judgment of God. . . . There is no complaint against the wisdom or justice of God, no trace of a spirit of discontent with the administration of divine love; it was pure sorrow for a ruined life. David’s humanity was not lost in his kingly office. The love of a father’s heart is not eradicated by a son’s ingratitude. The parable of the prodigal son is evidence of this and also of its divine counterpart. And in the case of David, the remembrance of his own sad fall having possibly exercised a detrimental influence over Absalom, just in the most critical period of his life, could not but render both just and natural this great lamentation (Pulpit Commentary: 2 Samuel, p. 449).

In spite of David’s sorrow and in spite of his love for Absalom, he never wavered in his lovefor the Lord and for the truth. We as parents need that vital lesson today.

If the plea of parents and others does not bring my child to godly sorrow and repentance, if he is going into apostasy and sowing the seeds of digression in the hearts of others, what should be the reaction of those who are my friends and brethren? There is the danger of their failing to expose error and to uphold the truth as they should because our friendship blinds them to the reality of the dangers unfolding. There may be the conscious or unconscious fear of offending the young man or his parents when it involves the children of our own dear friends. We need to be reminded at such times of Matthew 10:34-39, where Christ said,

Think not that I came to send peace of the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law: and a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that doth not take his cross and follow after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

My own love and loyalty toward Christ would be tested if Sewell’s son went into apostasy, because of my deep love and respect for the Hall family and their children. I have friends who love me and my family so much that it would test those friends’ love of the Lord and truth if my children went into apostasy.

For the sake of my friends and even my children who will read this, should such a time of apostasy and testing come to our family (God forbid!), please “deal gently with the young man.” But, then, what if he does not repent and correct his course? If he dodges the truth, covers his apostasy with double talk, works undercover to lead others away from the truth, casts aspersions on those who question his teaching, and seeks sympathy for error by playing the martyr, please do not aid and abet his sin by defending him and criticizing those who suffer the agony of exposing the apostasy. Please do not do so because it will harden my son in error and apostasy, it will result in the precious sons of other brethren being led away from the truth, it will damage the cause and church of our Lord by fostering an atmosphere of softness and compromise, and it will manifest the sin of thinking of men “above that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). Such a course may be mistaken for love, mercy, peace, and unity, but it is not upright “according to the truth of the gospel” (Gal. 2:14).

If necessary, face my son in the public arena and withstand him. “Let God be true, but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4). “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet” (Isa. 58:1). There will be pain and tears in your heart, and some who ought to help and encourage you will charge you with meanness and with “driving” my son deeper into error – I speak from experience. Do not cease or desist in the face of these charges. Please love the Lord above my son! Recall the incident of Peter’s compromise in Galatians 2. Had you been Peter’s father, whom would you have appreciated: Barnabas, who also was carried away and loathed to challenge his dear brother, or Paul, who withstood Peter to the face? Who contributed to Peter’s error: Barnabas or Paul? Who understood true love both for Christ and Peter: Barnabas or Paul? Who followed the course which turned Peter from the error of his way and so saved a soul from death: Barnabas or Paul?

Dear brother and friend, if you find my son in Peter’s place, please, please be a true friend to Christ, to the truth, to the church, to my son, to other sons, and to my wife and myself – be a Paul and not a Barnabas! I will thank you and love you through all eternity for your efforts, whether it produces the desired result or not. Do not imagine that you can be wiser or more gentle than God who directed the beloved apostle Paul. Warn and plead with our son in the words of John, the apostle of love:

Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not his teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting: for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works (2 Jn. 9-11).

May God help us all to use wisdom and love as we seek to save the erring and to protect the church from apostasy. “Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 4, pp. 113-114
February 18, 1988