12. The Man Of Sin
What might be called the traditional
interpretation of Paul's unique prophecy in 2 Thessalonians 2 goes something
like this. The Man of Sin is the pope, revealed as head of a mighty corrupt
system of religious apostasy. He calls himself God on earth, and makes many
other comparable claims, the spiritual despot over the lives of many millions.
Development in this direction was already under way, as Paul wrote (it is
asserted), but as yet real progress was slow because restrained by a greater
power (that of imperial Rome?) which would brook no rival. When this apostasy
flowered it would be accompanied by a wide variety of signs and wonders designed
to bolster up its authority, so that men unwilling to accept the spiritual
authority of the gospel would find this a titillating alternative, until the
great day of the manifestation of Christ in glory who will sweep away the Man of
Sin and all his system with an exercise of divine power.
In some respects this interpretation seems to
answer to the details in Paul's prophecy extraordinarily well. But there are
also other considerations, which should cause the modern student of the Word to
pause and question.
For instance, it should be recognized honestly
that as soon as Martin Luther's Reformation (which was less than half a
reformation) took place, this Scripture and Daniel 7 and the Babylon prophecies
in Revelation were immediately and for the first time given papal applications.
They were all splendid rods with which to beat the back of the pope. And of
course the Catholic experts were not slow to assert - and demonstrate- that the
boot was on the other foot, Martin Luther was the Man of Sin! From the
dispassionate viewpoint of the Truth in Christ all this now looks very much like
Satan rebuking Sin.
This "traditional" interpretation, then, should
be seen for what it is-an inheritance from men who themselves were a long, long
way from the Truth concerning many fundamental principles - principles which the
young Christadelphian takes in his stride today, and should thank God fervently
for. The question has to be asked in all solemnity: What likelihood is there
that Protestant divines who blithely and erroneously dogmatised about the
trinity, and the devil, and the nature of Christ, and the immortal soul, and
hell-fire, a present kingdom of God, and episcopacy, and baptism, and a good
many more teachings, should be given a marvellous insight into the most
intricate mysteries of Bible prophecy such as to make them the authorities,
guides and instructors of the faithful remnant who hold to the Truth in the Last
Days? Any decently instructed class of Christadelphian teenagers could explain
the real truth regarding these errors still held in Protestantism, and could
provide the simple Bible evidence! But come to the prophecies of Daniel and
Revelation - and Thessalonians - and the tables are turned: the learned fool
becomes the instructor of those blessed with rich insight into God's purpose in
Christ! Is there not something rather odd about these paradoxical
circumstances?
Further, when examined in greater detail this
conventional Man of Sin exposition begins to look a trifle threadbare. Why
should Paul spend so much time and effort (2 Th. 2: 5) warning his new converts
about the corruption of their new-found faith, long centuries
later?
Why should he speak of this Man of Sin as
"sitting in the temple of God"? Without exception the apostles used this
expression only regarding the Household of Christ. Would any believer of the
Truth accept the Vatican or St. Peter's as being "the temple of God"? But the
received exposition requires this! These Thessalonian converts had learned that
"the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands." But by the time the
popes had reached the point where their fantastic claims to divine authority
began to be plausible (is not A.D. 608 the classic date?), the Truth had as good
as disappeared from sight, and the pope was sitting enthroned not in the temple
of God but over a system which was already rotten right
through.
Again, with very obvious intention to call Judas
to mind, Paul described the Man of Sin as "the son of perdition" (John 17: 12).
What appropriateness, at all, is there in this? Judas was close to Christ, an
able and trusted helper, "the one of the twelve" (Mark 14: 10 Gk.). No
pope has ever been within a thousand spiritual miles of being a true disciple,
later turned false (Psalm 55: 13,14). Then did Paul's marvellous aptness of
phrase desert him here?
Another expression lines up with this:
´´whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs
and lying wonders." It is impossible not to be reminded of Paul's description
elsewhere of his own ministry: "Truly the signs of an apostle were
wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders
and mighty deeds" (2 Cor. 12: 12). In the Greek text the words are
identical except for the inclusion, in Thessalonians, of the word "lying", and
the substitution there for “in-working" in place of Paul's "thorough
working". So again the most obvious explanation would appear to be that Paul was
describing the personal activity of one who claimed apostolic status, but only
in order to undermine the whole fabric of the Ecclesia, the true temple of God,
from within.
The verb tenses in this prophecy have been given
but scant attention, have even been man-handled. Most of the way, Paul wrote in
the future tense. Then why the exceptions in verses 9, 10, 12?: "they received
not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. . . for this cause
God is sending them an in-working of error. " A worthwhile
explanation of this prophecy will find room for remarkable features of this
kind. The most natural conclusion to draw is that Paul had his eye on some
movement of stubborn refusal to accept the truth in Christ, which was current in
his own time and had already shown its hostile attitude in very effective
fashion.
From this point it is now possible to proceed
more positively:
That phrase "an in-working of error" (compare
v.7, 9) provides significant help. It certainly has a marvellous aptness as
allusion to the Lord's parable of the leaven (Matthew 13: 33). This is made all
the more likely by the fact that there are at least six or seven other
references to that gospel elsewhere in 2 Thessalonians - and a great many more
than that in 1 Thessalonians! The sequence in Matthew 13 should be pondered.
First, a parable about the preaching of the gospel; then another about the
malicious sowing of tares - a deliberate attempt to wreck the good work by
secret internal hostile activity; then a parable about leaven spreading its
corrupting influence till "the whole is leavened." Without exception every
allusion in the Bible to leaven makes it a symbol of that which is
evil.
This sequence, which continues through the
chapter, is a prophecy of the fate of the gospel. At the time Paul wrote, the
sinister process of defeating Christianity from within was already being carried
through with Judaist hypocritical efficiency and devilish
success.
A year or two earlier Paul had warned about
"false brethren unawares brought in to spy out our liberty which we have in
Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage" (Gal. 2: 4). Men of this
kidney had deliberately followed Paul and Barnabas round the newly-formed
Galatian churches in order to undo all their work, skilfully persuading
inexperienced Gentile converts that they must not only believe the gospel of
Christ but also accept all the obligations of the Law of Moses.
The same influential unscrupulous set had
practically won over Peter and Barnabas at Antioch to their gospel of salvation
by works of the Law (Gal. 2: 11-14). A year or two later the same clique were to
attempt identical subversive tactics at Corinth, with almost complete success.
The ecclesia there was ultimately saved to the Truth, but only after many a
heartache for Paul and his helpers.
At the back of Paul's amazing and
uncharacteristic self-vindication in 2 Corinthians 11, was the need to assert
himself against his detractors who had travelled to Corinth in his steps. "Such
are false apostles, deceitful workers, fashioning themselves into apostles of
Christ ("all power and signs and lying wonders"!). And no marvel; for Satan
himself (their leader) fashioneth himself into a messenger of light" (11:
13,14). Their derogation of Paul was clever and quite unprincipled: "his bodily
presence is weak, and his speech contemptible... he terrifies you by letters...
rude in speech" (10: 9,10; 11: 6). The tactics are familiar. They have even been
known in the ecclesias of the twentieth century: damn a healthy movement by
besmirching the character of its protagonists. The method is as old as human
nature.
Even though Paul had only been a few months in
Thessalonica, and a few more away from it, the efficient machine of the
opposition had already gone into action, creating a minor crisis among the new
brethren by means of a forged letter, purporting to have come from Paul himself:
"We beseech you...that ye be not soon shaken in mind (the same Greek word as in
Acts 17: 13) or be troubled, neither by spirit (i.e. one claiming to speak by
Holy Spirit guidance; cp. the usage in 1 John 4: 1-3; 1 Tim. 4: 1), nor by word,
nor by letter as from us" (2 Th. 2: 2). For this reason it became
necessary for Paul to provide undeniable authentication to his own epistles:
"The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every
epistle: so I write" (3 : 17). Having had bitter samples of the opposition's
tactics before, Paul had forewarned his new converts: "Remember ye not, that,
when I was yet with you, I told you these things?" (2: 5). Their very existence
in Christ was at stake. No wonder, then, that he gave them this rather bitter
forecast of yet greater evil impending. (For more details of this sort: "Acts"
H.A.W. App. 3).
Thus the picture emerges of a devilish influence
at work in the early church deliberately seeking to bring to ruin the preaching
of the gospel to the Gentiles. The evidence for this is hardly to be contested.
Then was this movement, and more particularly its leader, the Man of Sin whom
Paul warned against?
There is no single phrase in the prophecy, which
does not answer to this hypothesis.
Obviously the leader, whom Paul calls "Satan,
transforming himself into an angel of light" (2 Cor. 11: 14) was a man of great
personality and impressive qualifications, or how could he have undermined so
quickly and easily Paul's standing in that ecclesia? Obviously he was able to
parade such qualifications as would at least rival those of Paul. (It is
tempting to make guesses as to his identity. There is one N.T. character who is
a good candidate). He was of near apostolic status. If not actually having Holy
Spirit powers of his own (2 Th.2: 2-9; Heb. 6: 4-6), his cleverness and
unscrupulous methods enabled him to match the "signs of the apostle" which had
been seen in Paul. He dwelt in "the temple of God', being accepted in many
ecclesias as a believer of good standing.
But how would it be possible for even such a man
to "shew himself that he is God" (verse 4)? Here the Greek word occurs without
the definite article, as at the end of John 1:1. This rules out any claim to
divinity, of the kind that has been made for the popes, and brings the claim to
a lower level of divine authority, such as would be natural in anyone claiming
Holy Spirit power and such as Paul himself normally claimed for his own
work.
"The mystery of iniquity doth already work," Paul
warned; that is, the wicked secret movement is already busy among you
Thessalonians as, earlier, in so many other places. But at present its influence
and effectiveness were kept in check by Paul himself-"he that letteth,
hindereth". Who but Paul, would have dared to withstand Peter to the face?
Before many years he was to be 'taken out of the midst." And then the malevolent
hostility, already evident enough to Paul, though not to his apostolic
colleagues in far-off Jerusalem, would show itself in its true
colours.
Those Greek tenses mentioned earlier now present
no difficulty whatever. Al1 the other details in this short prophecy will now be
seen to chime in readily with the exposition set out here.
But, it may be objected, all these suggestions
fall to the ground before one big fact- the prophecy describes a power which
will be in existence till the coming of the Lord: "whom the Lord will consume
with the spirit of his mouth, and destroy with the brightness of his coming"
(v.8).
It is agreed that the words do require this Man
of Sin to meet with dramatic judgment from the Lord in person. But the idea that
therefore he must have a continuous existence right up to the Last Days is pure
(sic) assumption. The words mean no more than this - that this man, thoroughly
responsible to the Lord of Glory, will certainly be raised in the Last Day, and
condemned for his cynically evil work among the inexperienced saints whom he
misled in the first century. In an earlier passage in the same epistle (1: 6-10)
the same idea is readily traceable: "It is a righteous thing with God to
recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled
rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty
angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that
obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with
everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his
power."
Here it is time to pause. There is possible (so
it is submitted here) a detailed exposition of the Man of Sin prophecy with
reference to a Jewish conspiracy to wreck the early church, and especially its
Gentile extensions, from within. It is a fulfilment, which has strong New
Testament pointers to support it, which was marvellously relevant both to the
man who wrote it and those who received its warnings, and it fits into its
context as a hand into a glove.
Yet even now there are other facets of the
prophecy, which give it a yet greater fascination and instruction for saints in
Christ today.
Since the Letters to Thessalonica are shot
through with a strong emphasis on the Second Coming, it does not seem
unreasonable to look for a further fulfilment of the Man of Sin prophecy in the
present era, on similar lines to that already suggested.
How far does one have to look i n order to
identify a movement of the kind Paul had to contend against? - one which is
strongly Judaist in its emphasis, exclusive in its concept of fellowship,
aggressive in its conversionism, lopsided in its enthusiasm for sacrifices
rather than the Sacrifice, more at home with Moses and the Law than with Jesus
and the Gospels, incomparably zealous for the pronouncements of the "rabbis",
and better at interpreting Scripture by tradition rather than by
Scripture.
Those who live in "the uttermost parts of the
earth" are best fitted to judge whether or not Paul's searing prophecy about the
Man of Sin has relevance to their own circumstances. And having made their
assessment, they will be at least able to thank God for this fulfilment, however
depressing it may be, of another sign of the nearness of their Lord's
coming.
Paul, you should have been with us in this
hour also.
