Truth Magazine

By Harold Fite

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines the “social gospel” as “a movement in American Protestant Christianity, esp. in the first part of the 20th century to bring the social order into conformity with Christian principles.”

The purpose of the social gospel is the improvement of living conditions and social problems. Its method is the application of “Christian principles” to social problems. The main thrust of the Social Gospel, therefore, is to alleviate the social inequities of the world. The “Church” becomes the instrument by which and through which the thrust or emphasis is made.

When the primary purpose of the gospel of Christ is diverted from the saving of the soul to the betterment of the physical man on earth, a social gospel has been created. Churches that believe, support, practice and proclaim it become nothing more than social institutions.

In the latter part of the 1800s this country was beset with many social problems. The influence of the common man on religion was reflected in the growing social consciousness of religious leaders. They began to offer solutions to the social injustices of that day. By making social injustice the main topic and purpose of the gospel of Christ, the social gospel was born in this country, and has continued to grow.

Today denominational leaders are concerned over the social and moral effects of unequal distribution of wealth; bleak and revolting slums (which prompts essays on “the dignity of man”); unemployment and oppression of racial minorities, etc. Churches have been involved in Urban Renewal and Housing, fair labor laws, and all types of social welfare agencies – some of which are subsidized by the government. Churches are adding trained counselors and other specialists to their staffs to perform a variety of functions in which religion and social work are combined.

These social programs of churches reflect the “whole man” concept. They see the necessity of meeting the whole needs of the whole man. It is a fusion where religion is interpreted broadly enough to embrace the individual’s physical, psychological and social rehabilitation along with the spiritual.

While the Social Gospel has been popular among denominations for many years, only since World War II has it found any appreciable acceptance among churches of Christ.

Brethren who are rather liberal and loose in their approach to the Bible have learned that the social gospel and social programs will draw more people than the pure gospel of Christ. To gain numbers (and keep them), appeal is made to the flesh. Through this method it is hoped the spiritual man will be strengthened (as if games, food and frolic can strengthen the inward man). One cannot substitute carnal and fleshly means for the Word and expect real spiritual strength to follow. A congregation can grow in number, but not in the “strength of his might.”

Churches of Christ are now putting elaborate kitchens and gymnasiums in their buildings. Church sponsored youth camps, retreats, and encampments are commonplace.

Schools, colleges and hospitals have been built and supported from congregational treasuries. Day-care centers, hobby classes, talent shows, nursing homes, homes for unwed mothers, boy scout troops, bowling teams, basketball teams, softball teams, track meets, skating parties and various social welfare programs are being supported by local churches under direction of their respective elders.

Seminars are conducted on such subjects as “The Problem of Aging”; “Family Relations and Child Development” (to teach children about themselves and how to reach out to others); “Marriage Enrichment” for couples, etc. Many in these churches have come to look on the church as an institution responsible for the social welfare needs of man. It is evident that a great percentage of churches of Christ (especially city churches) have accepted the “whole man” theory – that the church is responsible for the social, mental and physical development of the individual (a theory borrowed from secular education psychology).

Because of all these social projects, churches and colleges operated by brethren, are offering courses to equip men and women for these various ministries on the congregational level. Churches of Christ now have “Youth Ministers” (hired mainly to see that the young people’s social needs are met). “Medical Missionaries” and “Counselors” who do not primarily deal with matters pertaining to religious faith and practice, but with a variety of psychological and social adjustment problems, are also receiving church support.

Not one of these programs, or all combined, will save one soul! How many young people in these churches would remain if all these programs were removed and these churches went back to just being New Testament churches?

Where are the Scriptures which authorize churches involving themselves in recreational pursuits and setting themselves up as social services agencies?

Brethren generally opposed the social gospel concept forty years ago. There are those who opposed it then, but have completely embraced it now without saying as much as “excuse me.” Was N. B. Hardeman wrong in 1942 when he said, “It is not the work of the church to furnish entertainment for the members. I have never read anything in the Bible that indicated to me that such was the part of the work of the church. I am wholly ignorant of any scripture that even points in that direction.” Was B.C. Goodpasture in error in 1948, when he wrote in the Gospel Advocate, “For the church to turn aside from its divine work to furnish amusement and recreation is to pervert its mission. It is to degrade its mission. Amusement and recreation should stem from the home rather than the church.” If brethren were in error in opposing the social gospel then, all need to repent and embrace it now. But if they taught the truth then, it remains truth today, and those of the contrary part need to repent and turn to that truth.

The church was purchased for a higher purpose than the pampering of the body. Its purpose is eternal (Eph. 3:10, 11), having to do with the culture of the soul. To direct it into social gospel channels is to denominationalize it; to drain it of its strength; and to destroy its uniqueness. The physical (recreation), mental and social development of the child is the work of the home – not the church!

I agree with Roy H. Lanier, Jr. when he wrote, “if any man can come forward with Bible teaching for churches to get into the recreation business, I would welcome him with open arms. If men and churches cannot find such Bible teaching, I strongly plead that they get back into scriptural work for which they have explicit Bible teaching.”

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, pp. 172-173
March 17, 1983

By Irvin Himmel

The lessons of the old Testament are for our learning (Rom. 15:4). A study of characters who lived in ages past can be both profitable and interesting. Naaman lived in the days of Elisha the prophet. His story is related in 2 Kings 5.

Naaman was captain of the Syrian army. Syria was Israel’s neighbor to the north. Although he was considered great, honorable, and mighty in valor or courage, Naaman was afflicted with a dreaded disease of leprosy.

The Syrians had gone oft in companies and raided the Israelites. In one of those hostile attacks they had captured a little maid. The girl became the servant of Naaman’s wife. One day she remarked that if he could he in Samaria with the prophet of God, Naaman could be healed of his leprosy.

In time, Naaman went into the land of Israel, and after some confusion he appeared before the prophet. When the Syrian arrived with horses and chariots, Elisha sent a messenger, saying, “Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean.” Naaman was full of anger and reacted according to the emotion that flooded his heart.

Despite his being noted for courage, Naaman lacked humility – a characteristic necessary for any man who seeks God’s blessing. Naaman was wroth because he expected the prophet to come out, stand, call on the name of the Lord, strike his hand over the place, and thus recover the leper. He said, “Behold, I thought. . .” His mistake was in supposing that God should operate according to Naaman’s plan. He expected show and ceremony.

Many people in our times are like Naaman in attitude. They expect God to conform to their plans. They stumble at His simple commands in their zeal for ceremony and elaborate schemes. They will either have their way about things or die and to go hell.

Naaman argued that if it was necessary to dip in a river he should at least be permitted to choose the river. After all, water is water, and Abana and Pharpar, rivers in his own country, appeared better and cleaner than the muddy Jordan. Overlooking the fact that the difference was in God’s choice in the matter, and ignoring the command given through the prophet by the messenger, “he turned arid went away in a rage.”

Before we become too harsh in censuring Naaman, let us ask ourselves if we have not acted in much the same way at times. The New Testament commands baptism for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21). Has anyone ever scoffed at baptism and argued that it is non essential? The Bible calls baptism a burial followed by a resurrection. Has anyone ever chosen to ignore Romans 6:3-5 and Colossians 2:12, reasoning that sprinkling and pouring will suffice, and either would be much more convenient than immersion? Has anyone ever turned away, perhaps even in a rage, when it was insisted that God means exactly what the Bible says?

Naaman’s servants reasoned with him, reminding him that if he had been asked to do some great thing he would have complied. But think how simple and easy the command of God was! The mighty Syrian captain humbled himself and dipped seven times in Jordan, according to God’s will, “and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.”

The waters of Jordan did not cleanse Naaman. God did it. But God would not cleanse him until he obeyed. When a person is baptized today, the water does not remit his sins. It is God who forgives sins. But God has not promised remission of sins until one obeys in baptism. As God used water to test the faith of Naaman, water is used to test our faith now. How strong is your faith?

Let us learn from Naaman that it pays to comply with God’s requirements. Let us humble ourselves, trust and obey the Lord. Our eternal salvation is at stake.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, pp. 171-172
March 17, 1983

By Aude McKee

Today in our examination of Olan Hicks’ tract on divorce and remarriage, we reproduce a portion of it that begins on page 10:

Some have contended that Paul, in Romans 7:2-3, indicated that God binds the two mates together in a marriage for as long as they live, without recourse, and declares a second marriage to be a state of adultery. This again represents a careless misreading of the text. This passage does not mention what a MAN may or may not do, only the WOMAN. It does not mention what is required of either under the GOSPEL of Christ. It simply says that the woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. It does not say BOTH are bound by the gospel or not bound. “Both” isn’t mentioned and “the gospel” isn’t mentioned, only the woman and the law. This is obviously a reference to the fact that under the law of Moses, the woman did not have the right of divorce, only the husband did. At the time the book of Romans was written Jewish converts to Christianity were still governed in civil matters by the law of Moses. Thus the woman who divorced her husband would be exercising an option not given her by the law and would therefore be legally declared “an adulteress” in a second marriage. Paul merely used their knowledge of this law to illustrate a point about how they were made free from the law of Moses to “be married to another, even him who is raised from the dead” (vs. 4). This is not a text on new testament regulations concerning divorce and remarriage.

In responding to what Olan has said about Romans 7:1-4, 1 have to say that in all my born days I never heard anything like that before! We want our readers to notice several things in the passage. First, the letter to the church in Rome was written probably in the latter part of the 50’s. The law of Moses had been nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14), and Jesus died, you remember, in the 33rd year of His life. So more than 20 years after the inauguration of the New Testament and the establishment of the church, the Holy Spirit had this letter penned. In verse two the Spirit used the present tense. “is bound” if the husband is alive and “is loosed” if the husband be dead. Olan’s argument reminds me of the way Jehovah Witnesses deal with the passage in Luke 16:19-31. By the time the Witnesses get through with that passage, you can’t believe a word in it, and that’s about what Olan has done with Romans 7:1-4. The fact is, in 58 A.D. a woman was bound to her husband as long as he lived, and at that time she was free from the law of her husband if he was dead. And friends, the law of the Lord has not been changed from 58 A.D. till 1980 A.D.!

A second thing we should observe is that Jesus, while he was on earth, took people back to the original law of God concerning marriage. In Matthew 19:4, He said, “Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain (two) shall be one flesh?” This, of course, destroyed the idea of divorcing and remarrying, so those present on that occasion ask, “Why did Moses then command to give’ a writing of divorcement and to put her away?” Jesus then replied, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. ” Now Olan would have us believe that the Holy Spirit, in Romans 7:1-3, is taking us back to the hardness of heart allowances that Moses provided. Ah no! Romans 7:1-3 is God’s law concerning marriage and the Spirit uses this law to illustrate how the Law of Moses died when Jesus died (Col. 2:14). Just as a woman becomes dead to the law that bound her to her husband when he dies, so the Jews became dead to the law of Moses when it died at the cross. And to continue the illustration further, since the man was dead, the wife was free to remarry and would not be guilty of adultery if she did so. Therefore, since the Jews were dead to the law of Moses (as a result of its death), they were now free to be “married” to someone else – Jesus Christ, and in that relationship bring forth fruit unto God.

Now is the time to say something about God’s law of marriage to which reference was made in the paragraph above. To save space we will give the scripture references and hope that our readers will give close attention to each one. First, note the origination of marriage in Genesis 2:18-25. His arrangement called for one woman for one man and the permanency of that relationship can be seen in verse 24. This is God’s marriage law.

Then notice Mark 10:2-12. The person who reads carefully will observe that the arrangement is a permanent one, and if either the husband or the wife puts the other away and marries again, adultery is the result. This is God’; marriage law. ‘

Now turn to Luke 16:18. “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. ” This is God’s marriage law.

Then that brings us to Romans 7:1-3. Turn there and read it again. Doesn’t it harmonize perfectly with the verses listed above? Why, of course. This is God’s marriage law.

Turn now to 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. The wife or the husband is not to depart (put away) the other, but if they do they are to remain unmarried or be ! reconciled. The harmony is beautiful! This is God’s marriage law.

Last of all open your Bible in the same chapter (1 Cor. 7) to verse 39. Here we are told, “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth: but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. ” What law is this by which the wife in this passage is bound? Why, by the same one by which the woman in Romans 7:2 was bound! Good reader, This is God’s marriage law. When Olan was commenting on the Romans 7:2 passage he said, “This is obviously a reference to the fact that under the law of Moses, the woman did not have the right of divorce, only the husband did.” The parallel between the statement in Romans 7:2 and 1 Corinthians 7:39 is certainly evidence of what we have been repeating – this is God’s marriage law.

But someone is certain to say, “The law of God concerning marriage says nothing about a divorce and a remarriage. It simply states that a man and woman are bound to each other as long as they both shall live.” That’s exactly right! But it must be remembered that the one who makes the law has the right to make an exception to the law. For example, God said, “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Heb. 9:27). Are there any exceptions to this law that all men must die! Yes, God that made the law has also made an exception. In 1 Corinthian 15:51, we are told, “Behold I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye . . . . ” The exception to the dying law is that those who are alive at the second coming of Christ will escape – not the judgment but simply the dying.

Is there an exception to the married till you die law? Yes, and the exception is found in Matthew 19:9. Putting away for fornication is the exception to God’s marriage law.

Almost all of four pages of the tract written by Olan Hicks on divorce and remarriage are taken up with the “Summary.” In this he treats us to his thinking on “grace” and “legalism.” But after all his talking about the love of God, the sacrifice of Jesus and human judicial concepts, we still remind him that his entire arrangement falls flat on its face because he has not given the word “adultery” its proper definition. Adultery is not a divorce paper or a marriage license! Adultery is “unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another.” So, the adultery does not take place when the divorce decree is granted, or when the couple say, “I do,” but when they go to bed together! This means that if the divorce and remarriage was not in harmony with the teaching of Matthew 19:9, the new relationship produces the sin of adultery every time they have a sexual relationship.

Now, how can the couple caught up in a situation like this get forgiveness? If either of them is not a Christian, God’s plan is simple. The unbeliever must believe, (Heb. 11:6; John 8:24) first of all. Second, he must repent of his past sins (Luke 13:3; Acts 17:30), and repentance means to have a change of mind about sin. Naturally, the change of mind (repentance) will cause the person to make a sincere effort to change his life. This would include ending the relationship that was producing the adultery. Third, the person must be willing to confess his faith in Christ and that before men (Rom. 10:9-10; Matt. 10:32). Finally, to be a child of God, the person must be baptized for the remission of sins (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38).

But suppose a person who is a member of the Lord’s church gets involved in an unscriptural marriage, what steps must he take to be back in fellowship with God? Step one is to repent. Peter told Simon (who had sinned as a Christian), “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee” (Acts 8:22). Now the man in our illustration was guilty of going to bed with a woman to whom he had no right. He was guilty of the sin of adultery every time they had a sexual relationship. Therefore, for him to comply with the teaching of the Spirit in Acts 8:22, he would have to have a change of mind (repent) of that sin. The change of mind, of course, would result in a change of conduct on his part. In other words, he would stop committing the sin!

It will also be observed that a second step is included in the inspired instructions Peter gave to Simon. That was to pray to God for forgiveness. And then yet another thing we must do as erring children of God is to confess our sins. John said, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us of all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). To summarize, the person who has never been a Christian must believe in the Lord, repent of his sins, confess his faith in Christ, and be baptized for the remission of sins. On the other hand, the person who is an erring child of God must repent of his sins, confess those sins, and then pray to God for forgiveness.

The only people who are able to lay hold of the grace of God are those who are humble enough to obey God’s instructions! The author of the Hebrew letter said, “. . . He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Heb. 5:9). As I read brother Hicks’ tract (especially the summary) I get the distinct impression that he is saying that God, in His mercy and love, would never have made a law that would cause some people to live the remainder of their lives without a mate simply because they did not make their first marriage work. This sort of approach to a subject reminds me of the man who argues that he can’t conceive of the God of mercy and love making a law about being baptized for the remission of sins that would keep his good and godly deceased mother out of heaven.

While we are talking about impressions, I seem to get the idea that Olan feels that living without a wife is too great a sacrifice to ask of a fellow in order to go to heaven. But it was Jesus Himself who said, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple. For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it began to mock him, saying, this man began to build, and was not able to finish. . . So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26-33).

In Matt. 5:29-30, Jesus said, “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is better for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”

Now, after you have read those two passages carefully, we urge you to observe what follows immediately after the “cast out your right eye and cut off your right hand” statement by Jesus. “It hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matt. 5:31-32). Again we say immediately after speaking of the sacrifices a person might be asked to make in order to be a faithful Christian, Jesus brought in this matter of divorce and remarriage. Would Olan have us believe that simply repenting of the act of getting a divorce is comparable to plucking out your right eye or cutting off your right hand? But when you see a person removing himself from an unscriptural marriage and living without a wife the rest of his life because he did not put away his first wife for “the cause of fornication,” then you see a man casting out his right eye and cutting off his right hand! One thing Olan, and all the rest of us, need to learn is -heaven is worth any sacrifice we might be called on to make.

This series has gone on much longer than anticipated when we began reviewing brother Hicks’ tract. We do believe every argument he made has been given consideration, and, we think, answered from the ward of God. We hope that nothing said in this series will be taken by anyone as an attempt to impugn the motives of brother Hicks. We do not doubt that he sincerely believes the doctrine set forth in his tract, but we just as sincerely believe he is in error. Also, before we wind up this review we want it understood that we have sympathy for all who have been caught up in an unscriptural divorce and remarriage. But sympathy cannot alter God’s way of getting the situation remedied. If a person has been guilty of horse stealing, lying, cursing, or whatever, the only way to get right is to repent and that will motivate a change of conduct. The horse stealing, lying, or whatever, will have to stop. And so it is with adultery. The repentance will mean that the person will stop committing the sin, and the sin of adultery is committed every time the person has a sexual relationship with someone to whom he (she) has no right.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, pp. 169-171
March 17, 1983

By Dan King

We now propose to consider some of the possible identifications of the “Man of Sin” figure and the arguments which have been offered to establish who he was, is, or shall be.

A Political Figure?

The tendency to connect the figure in 2 Thessalonians 2 with the”antichrist” of John’s epistles and the “beast” of the book of Revelation has led to confusion in a number of directions. At least one evidence of this is an attempt to find in this person a political figure who somehow imposes his will upon the servants of God. Every tyrant since Paul’s writing could have been made the “Man of Sin” of Paul’s epistle; and many have been so identified. At one time or other such men as Hitler, Stalin, and a host of others of like ilk have had the finger pointed at them. In fact, the person whom Paul refers to is a religious figure, at least primarily. He has his entrance onto the stage of history as the result of religious apostasy, not social anarchy or political and national rebellion. Assassination of some ruler does not herald his advent. His appearance is the outcome of a religious and spiritual rebellion, a departure from God and His Word. The place of his seat is not that of a political figure. He “sitteth in the temple of God setting himself forth as God” (v. 4). Reference to the “temple of God,” of course, brings to mind one of two possible things: either (a) The Jewish sanctuary of worship in the city of Jerusalem, or (b) The church of Christ. This second is a clearly figurative identification, but one which frequently appear in the New Testament literature (1 Pet. 2:5; 1 Tim. 3:15; Eph. 2:21; 1 Cor. 3:16-17; etc.)

A Roman Emperor?

Grotius held that an emperor of Rome was the one about whom Paul spoke. Caius . Caligula, who ordered universal supplication to himself as the supreme God and wished to set up his colossal statue in the temple of the Jews in Jerusalem, was his favorite choice. Wetstein thought it was Titus. He is said to have brought idols into the temple in Jerusalem, worshipped there with his men the gods of Rome, and accepted the homage of his men. Other emperors have also been pointed to at one time or another.

The view that says Caligula is the “Son of Perdition” flounders on the problem of date. This emperor entered the temple in 40 A.D., and was dead ten years before the writing of the book of 2 Thessalonians. Why should Paul speak the way he does of something that had already happened over a decade before? That Titus is not correct is obvious on technical grounds which would also exclude the Caligula identificiation and the view which seeks to include the whole line of Roman emperors in the “Man of Sin” (since most of the line accepted edification and wore divine epithets). Paul uses the Greek word sebasma in his description of the prideful boats of divinity. It is usually translated “above every object of worship,” so that it intimates this person will not allow worship of other deities alongside veneration of himself. The Roman rulers, however, did not persecute those who worshipped the gods of the state but encouraged them by their own participation in the various cults and veneration of the many gods of the Empire.

We also consider the necessity of interpreting the “manifestation of his coming” (referring to Christ, v. 8) as the fall of Rome to be an inherent weakness in this view. Our earlier comments on parousia have obvious application here.

Simon Magus The Gnostic?

A few interpreters have wanted to read into this passage a reference to some Gnostic leader such as Simon Magus. And, while there are some tempting aspects to this view, there are also insurmountable difficulties. Certainly some aspects of 1 Timothy 4:lff: may be taken as beginning to first surface in the church in the days of the Gnostic heresy’s challenge to original Christianity, but if these references are to be thus understood, then who is the “Man of Sin”? Simon Magus, a practitioner of magical arts in Samaria, whose conversion and first failure is recounted in Acts 8:9-24, has been chosen by some. References in the literature of Christians from the later centuries identify him as the founder of post-Christian Gnosticism, a dualistic religious sect advocating salvation through secret knowledge. The second century writer Justyn Martyr relates that Simon visited Rome at the time of the emperor Claudius (41-54) and was there deified by followers fascinated with his miracle working. Other documents of extremely dubious value make all sorts of claims about his abilities and speak of confrontations between him and the apostle Peter at Rome. This entire tradition smacks of fiction and makes it questionable whether this Simon is the one from Acts 8. If the Simon of Gnostic legend ever existed at all, identification of him as the “Man of Sin” runs into the problem that he was not brought low by the manifestation of Christ’s coming (2 Thess. 2:9) in any sense. Other Gnostic figures lixe Marcion and Valentinus were not deified and so do not offer a reasonable alternative to Simon from among the ranks of the early heretics.

A Jewish Pretender?

There have also been those who have identified the “Man of Sin” through some connection with Judaism. Whitby, for example, said he was the entire nation. They, by their Sanhedrin, sat in the temple of God, enacting laws and. elevating human traditions above divine statutes. But how could the Jews be seen as guilty of “falling away” from that which they had never embraced? How could the Sanhedrin, a body so strictly monotheistic in creed, ever sit in the temple of God and assume itself, or any member of it, to be God either in prerogative or in name?

A comparable view, known, so far as I am able to ascertain, only among our own brethren, is that some Jewish pretender entered the temple shortly before its fall, and so became the “Man of Sin.” Stanley Paher, in his recent book If Thou Hadst Known (pp. 107-108), casts his lot with the growing number that reads most everything in the New Testament as having somehow to do with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. We do not subscribe to his allegation that “the unrighteous high priest Phannias” is the “Man of Sin” or to another and similar view which asserts that some Zealot leader during the revolt of 70 is to be accepted for the office. Paher’s case falls flat on its face on account of the very evidence which he offers on its behalf. He refers to Old Testament instances in which people were described as claiming divinity for themselves (Isa. 14:4, 12-14, 22; Ezek. 28:2, 6; 11-12; and Dan. 5:2, 3), but conveniently fails to note these were pagan kings who commonly considered themselves as actually being divine. Our two earlier points apply equally to specific persons in the Jewish nation as to the nation as a whole. These views which read 70 AD into everything in the New Testament commanded little respect among serious Bible students and it is a shame they are growing in popularity among us.

An Eschatological Personage?

Premillennialists and dispensationalists have always seen the “Man of Sin” as a very significant part of their system. For them he is the supreme embodiment of evil, who is to appear immediately prior to Christ’s return. They identify him with John’s antichrists (1 Jn. 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 Jn.7), who are said to prefigure this final manifestation of wickedness. They also say he is the best of Revelation 13, forcing upon that figure a futuristic reading as well. They believe “Antichrist” will usher in a period of great tribulation at history’s close, in connection with a mighty empire like a revived Rome, and will dominate politics, religion, and commerce until Christ’s advent.

One major difficulty with this view of 2 Thessalonians 2 is that it does not adequately deal with the apostasy of Paul’s thinking. He sees it as already underway in his own time and destined to culminate in the parousia of the “Son of Perdition.” The “mystery of lawlessness,” he writes, “doth already work” (v. 7). There is also a fallacy in evidence in the combination of this passage with Revelation 13. John said the things of his book were to “shortly come to pass” and were “at hand” (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10). The beast of his book was an emperor of the Roman commonwealth, or perhaps more accurately, the whole line of persecuting emperors as they made their first appearance through Nero and Domitian (13:8; 17:18). The tendency to make the figure of 2 Thessalonians 2 a religious and political ruler is thus based upon borrowing his political connections from Revelations 13, which may not be done without doing serious injustice to the context of the Revelation.

A Roman Pope and/or The Line of Popes?

Gregory I (bishop of Rome, 590-604) taught that whoever assumed the title “universal priest” was Antichrist’s forerunner. How was he to know that the man who was to succeed him in his office would begin a long line of men who would make claims more and more blasphemous? It was not until much later that men would again make this connection of church leadership with the “Man of Sin.” Expression of this view at first came out in the conflicts between the emperors and the popes over control of earthly nations. But there were also those like Joachim of Floris (ca. AD 1190), the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and the followers of Wickliffe and Huss they came to see the pope thus, especially as the Reformation movement began to make itself felt. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, the translators of the KJV, and the writers of the Westminister Confession, these along with viturally every Reformation scholar, saw the pope and the papacy as the “Man of Sin” of Paul’s letter. The Catholics, in turn, saw Luther and the Reformers as the Antichrist.

Now that furor of the Reformation has cooled, the charges and counter-charges quieted, is it legitimate to see in the papacy and its evils the black figure of 2 Thessalonians 2? We believe so. In spite of the fact it may hurt the feelings of some religious people to say so, the pope still fits Paul’s description in every particular. He arose out of the rebellion against religious authority, manifested by all sorts of changes in church polity and organization. He is a man. He sits in the temple of God (the church), or so he claims. His arrival occurred as the result of what was already happening in the church in Paul’s time (cf. Acts 20:29; 2 Tim. 4:3, 4). He has not been removed through almost fourteen centuries and will no doubt continue in his office till the Lord returns to dethrone and punish him. Deceptive miracles have been claimed throughout his tenure in office and they are offered as evidence to bolster up his power in a host of places, “shrines” as they are called. These things need no proving; they are well known to all. Does he accept worship and claim for himself titles of deity? The answer is yes. In the Great Encyclical Letters there occur statements like these: “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” (193); and, “We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty” (304). It is their custom to call him “Vicar of Christ” and “Vicar of God,” which means, “in the place of God or Christ.” The Bible teaches the Holy Spirit is Christ’s only vicar on earth (Jn. 14:26). They call him “Holy Father” and “His Holiness,” performing acts of reverence and worship before him just as if he were God Himself. They kiss his ring and adore him in ways the lowly apostles of Jesus would have found repugnant! Acts 10:25 shows Peter would never have accepted such veneration and, were he alive today, would no doubt brand such a man a “man of sin” and a “son of perdition.”

We, therefore, conclude that the first pope and his line of successors are to be identified with Paul’s “Man of Sin,” that his temple is the church, and that the apostasy which made it possible for him to appear is the disposition to leave Jesus, His apostles, and their words (as concretized in Scripture) to embrace the doctrines and traditions of men.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, pp. 166-168
March 17, 1983