Truth Magazine

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

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: What do the scriptures teach concerning so called “If I have offended” . . . confessions?

Reply: The expression, “If I have offended,” which is sometimes employed by brethren is not an admission of anything. This statement is usually made by those who have been charged with some sin or sins. The person who is confronted and charged should know whether or not he is guilty. If he does not believe that he is guilty, then he has no confession to make. If he is guilty, then he should forthrightly admit his guilt and repent. But to say, “If I have done so and so,” is nothing short of a dodge. It is true, any of us may be guilty of sins of which we are not aware. But if a person has been charged with some sinful act, and the guilt is proven, the “if” kind of a statement does not in any way confess the misconduct. Sad as it is, this statement is often made when the guilty party is in trouble and is looking for a way out.

As a case in point, suppose a brother has lied to several members of the congregation and it was proven that he had lied. When he says, “I am sorry if I have done anything that has offended you,” he has by no means confessed that he has lied. He may mean by the word “anything” something other than lying. In fact, it is known in cases such as this that a person has been asked if his use of the word “anything” includes the specific sin or sins of which he has been charged and his reply was in the negative. This is not hypothetical, because some of us know of instances where this has occurred.

Some brethren contend that the “if” type of confession (7) is acceptable and that Luke 23:34 requires us to forgive a person whether he repents or not. The petition of Jesus upon the cross does not prove this contention. When Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do,” He was not praying for their unconditional forgiveness. On the day of Pentecost, some of those very ones were present and heard Peter’s sermon as recorded in Acts 2. He indicted them of having, by the hands of lawless men, crucified and slaying the Son of God (v. 23). They were convicted, and inquired of Peter and the rest of the apostles as to what they should do (v. 37). The conditions of forgiveness were declared in v. 38 to be repentance and baptism. The enemies of Jesus were not forgiven without complying with these conditions. Furthermore, Jesus said in Luke 17:3, “Take heed to yourselves: if thy brother sin, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.” Please take note of the condition for forgiveness: if he repent. Language could not be plainer in showing that forgiveness of a brother who sins against another is extended upon the condition of repentance. We have no right to offer forgiveness on less terms than does God. God has stipulated conditions for forgiveness. It is He who has decided this, not man. To assume that we are to forgive another whether he repents or not is an assumption without scriptural authority.

This reply does not argue that one must itemize and name each individual sin that he has committed. But in such cases as the one we have illustrated, acknowledgment and repentance is required if one is to be forgiven. When what is supposed to be a confession, is prefaced with the condition “if,” it is not really a confession at all. I have never been in sympathy with that kind of a statement.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, p. 166
March 17, 1983

By Lewis Willis

I make no apology for writing so frequently about greedy television preachers. It is hard to imagine how they come up with so many ideas to spend the money of their listening audience. I sometimes wonder how they can keep a straight face when they make their money appeals. If they decide they want to do something badly enough, they’ll spend half, three-fourths or all of their program time literally begging for money. If it were not so grave a sin it would be laughable. Of course, all of them have just had a miraculous visitation from God and He has revealed a new way for them to get into the wallet of those who hear them.

I made some comments about some of these promotions on our local radio program and several of our listeners responded by sending me newspaper clippings from their areas regarding them. From both Columbus and Mansfield, Ohio, I received copies of a Dear Abby column. It was the same article but each had a different heading – “`Miracle’ Cure Costly” and “A Prescription for Poverty.” The writer said, “I have a problem that is eating my insides out. I started writing to a T.V. evangelist because I have multiple sclerosis . . . . The problem is he always wants more money. I sent him $100.00. Then he wrote to me personally and told me something great was going to happen to me, but 1 had to send him another $100.00 first – even if I had to save my pennies and get the money any way I could! . . . That comes very close to saying God can be bought . . . . Please tell me something positive about these T.V. evangelists. I’m beginning to believe all they want is my money – money I don’t have.” Signed: Got To Know. Abby answered, “God cannot be bought, nor does He reserve His blessings for those who send money to a T.V. evangelist” (Edited, all emphasis mine, L.W.).

Bless her heart! This worldly woman knows more about the truth than these television preachers. Never have a group of preachers conducted themselves in a manner as to be so obviously condemned by the word of God! “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows” (1 Tim 6:10). Now, don’t be disturbed if these fellows look happy instead of sorrowful. The sorrow is coming! Judgment day for them shall be an unspeakable sorrow. There they shall not covet money – they will covet mercy.

The Akron Beacon Journal (1/10/83) reported a fund raiser by Jerry Falwell, leader of the Moral Majority. “An unidentified backer offered him $5 million if it could be matched with gifts from supporters by December 31.” He hit the airways and raised, not $5 million, but $14 million, “including $1 million in one day.” When Falwell announced the original gift, he set a target date for matching it. Do you think he announced before that date that the $5 million had been matched? Not on your life!! That’s how he got $14 million. He now has $19 million to buy more time which he will not so subtly use to raise that much more. It never ends. The coffers of these fellows are never filled. You can always think of something to buy if you’re spending someone else’s money.

I admit that I get somewhat exercised over the money raising exploits of these guys. It really gets under my skin when they lie to their listeners, saying the Lord told them to do this or that. The Lord has neither part nor lot in these things. The only way the Lord wants money raised is by the first day of the week contribution (1 Cor. 16:2). Their sin, like that of David of old, gives “great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme” (2 Sam. 12:14).

To illustrate what I mean, consider the following letter that appeared in the Cleveland Plain Dealer (1/25/83). “You report a colossal Jesus told Oral Roberts the other day to hit each of us for $240 to cure cancer? That sounds like blackmail to me. Besides, Roberts’ vision doesn’t hold a rubber shepherd’s crook to what my god (an omnipotent chicken that speaks in tongues) proposed this morning: She told me to ask each of you for $120 to create a disease that strikes only devious clergymen and the fools who buy them their Cadillacs. Make checks payable to yours truly. VISA and Master Charge accepted.”

We shall not engage in such promotionalism nor shall we be silent in opposition to it. I was just thinkin’. – if infidels and enemies of God can see the sham of such, why can’t the supposed friends of God see it?

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, p. 165
March 17, 1983

By Guthrie D. Dean

Calvinists teach total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, the perseverance of the saints, and other allied errors. These points can be found in such works as The New Hampshire Confession of Faith and The Philadelphia Confession of Faith. I would like to take note of what they teach regarding the sanctification of the Christian by means of the Holy Spirit. After affirming that the sinner is effectually called, regenerated and sanctified, they continue, “This sanctification is (1 Thess. 5:23) throughout the whole man, yet imperfect (Rom. 7:18, 23) in this life; there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part, whence ariseth a (Gal. 5:17; 1 Pet. 2:1 I) continual, and irreconcilable war; the flesh lusting against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. 3. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much (Rom. 7:23) prevail, yet, through the continual supply of strength, from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the (Rom. 6:14) regenerate part doth overcome. . .”(1)

We all agree with the verses used in the foregoing, and there is a great deal of truth stated in the entire chapter. But we want to especially call attention to the seemingly innocent statement (Number 3) again: “In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail, yet, through the continual supply of strength, from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome.” “The regenerate part” (the spirit of man) “doth overcome.” They don’t say, “might,” “may,” “maybe,” or “perhaps will.” There are other errors taught in this quotation, but the one which states that the sanctifying Spirit sees to it that the “regenerate part doth overcome” teaches irresistible grace, unconditional sanctification, and the impossibility of apostasy. The overcoming, they teach, is done through the continual supply of strength from the Holy Spirit, who continues to sanctify the saint through no effort of his own. They teach a direct operation of the Holy Spirit on the alien sinner to save him; and a direct operation (apart from his obedience) to keep the Christian saved. The Bible teaches no such thing.

While it is true that the Christian’s body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19); and that they are the holy temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16-17); and the abiding place of God through the presence of His Holy Spirit (Eph. 2:20-22); and that the Spirit dwells in us (Rom. 8:9-11); yet this is on the basis of our faithfulness. Jude 19 speaks of some who are sensual “having not the Spirit.” Hebrews 6:4-6 warns of some who “were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God” and fell away. Christians are told not to do despite to the Spirit of grace, not to lie to the Holy Spirit, not to quench, and not to grieve the Spirit. Yet these Calvinist confessions of faith indicate that the Holy Spirit will see to it that the Christian will continue to be sanctified by the Spirit and will overcome anyway. This is a grievous error. We are to endure, to overcome, to continue steadfastly, to watch and pray, to be faithful. There is a race to be run, a work to be done, and a war to be won. By the aid and sanctification of the Holy Spirit within us, by the guidance of the word of God, by the help of the Lord, and through the encouragement of fellow-saints, we can overcome. But to say that the Bible offers some kind of continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit, leaving the impression that there are no strings attached, is to deceive the hearts of the simple. We might be able to list fifty things the Holy Spirit does within us; but none are done without our faithfulness. The Philadelphia Confession of Faith does go ahead to say that the saint is to live a heavenly life, “in evangelical obedience to all the commands which Christ, as head and king in his word hath prescribed to them.” But this, to them, is after the fact; having nothing to do with the sanctification or salvation of the soul.

Though one is sanctified or set apart, at the moment of conversion, so far as mere state or relation is concerned, sanctification of the Holy Spirit, in one point of view, is unquestionably a progressive work. When Alexander Campbell denied a direct operation of the Holy Spirit in the conversion of sinners but contended for the personal indwelling of the Spirit to aid the Christian in living the sanctified life in conjunction with the word of God, some brethren accused him of being inconsistent. Yet he was not inconsistent, for two different subjects are under consideration. He gave this reply to his objectors, which I feel most appropriate for our time: “Some, indeed, ask, `Do Christians need more aid to gain eternal life than sinners do to become Christians? Is not the work of conversion a more difficult work than the work of sanctification?’ Hence, they contend more for the work of the Spirit in conversion, than for the work of the Spirit in sanctification. This, indeed, is a mistaken view of the matter, if we reason either from analogy or from divine testimony. Is it not more easy to plant than to cultivate the corn, the vine, the olive? Is it not more easy to enlist in the army, than to be a good soldier, and fight the battles of the Lord; to start in the race, than to reach the goal; to enter the ship, than cross the ocean; to be naturalized, than to become a good citizen; to enter into the matrimonial compact, than to be an exemplary husband; to enter into life, than to retain and sustain it for threescore years and ten? And while the commands `believe,’ `repent,’ and `be baptized,’ are never accompanied with any intimation of peculiar difficulty; the commands to the use of the means of spiritual health and life; to form the Christian character; to attain the resurrection of the just; to lay hold on eternal life; to make our calling and election sure, etc., are accompanied with such exhortations, admonitions, cautions, as to make it a difficult and critical affair, requiring all the aids of the Spirit of our God, to all the means of grace and untiring assiduity and perseverance on our part; for it seems, `the called’ who enter the stadium are many, while `the chosen’ and approved `are few,’ and many, says Jesus, `shall seek to enter into the heavenly city, and shall not be able,’ `Let us labor, therefore, to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.'”(2)

“This requires aid. Hence, assistance is to be prayed for; and it is promised. Now as the Spirit of God, under the administration of Christ, is the author of all holiness in us he is called the `Holy Spirit,’ `the Spirit of holiness’ . . . .The Holy Spirit is, then, the author of all our holiness; and in the struggle after victory over sin and temptation, `it helps our infirmities,’ and comforts us by seasonably bringing to our remembrance the promises of Christ, and `strengthens us with all might, in the new or inner man.’ And thus `God works in us to will and to do of his own benevolence,’ `while we are working out our own salvation with fear and trembling.’ Christians are, therefore, clearly and unequivocally temples of the Holy Spirit; and they are quickened, animated, encouraged, and sanctified by the power and influence of the Spirit of God, working in them through the truth. God `gives his Holy Spirit to them who ask him,’ according to his revealed will; and without this gift no one could be saved or ultimately triumph over all opposition. He knows but little of the deceitfulness of sin, or of the combating of temptation, who thinks himself competent to wrestle against the allied forces of the world, the flesh, and the devil . . . . To those, then, who believe, repent, and obey the gospel, he actually communicates of his Good Spirit . . . . He works in us, and by us, and for us, all that is needful to our present, spiritual, and eternal salvation.”(3)

The Bible teaches that the Spirit sanctifies, indwells, and aids the Christian in overcoming the flesh; but not passively on the part of the saint (as taught by Calvinists), but through active obedience on the part of the saint. Romans 8:13 says, “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” Moses E. Lard comments: “Still the will is to be your will, the effort your effort, and the result your deed. To you the whole is to seem to be your own unaided act. You will hence approve or blame whenever you succeed or fail, just as though wholly unassisted. Nevertheless the Holy Spirit will aid you. But this aid will all be tendered back out of sight. It will not be pushed out so as to come under the eye of consciousness. You will hence never be able to take any sensible notice of it. You will be conscious of the effort, and you can know the result. But you are told merely, that you are aided. Hence the fact that you are so is matter of belief, not of knowledge.”(4) Calvinists make man a robot; the Bible tells him to walk after the Spirit. Calvinists teach that the flesh is not responsible for its deeds. But the Bible teaches, “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:23). The very presence and indwelling of the Spirit of God within us makes us holy. We are sanctified unto the Master’s use, and the Spirit’s indwelling. He can use and dwell in those who keep themselves in the love of God (Jude 21).

Endnotes

1. The Philadelphia Confession Of Faith, Chapter X111, Sanctification.

2. The Christian System, by Alexander Campbell, 1835, pp. 48-49.

3. Ibid., pp. 49-50.

4. Paul’s Letter To Romans, by Moses E. Lard (1875), p. 263.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, pp. 163-164
March 17, 1983