Man of sin

Man of sin = Beast of Revelation

It is evident also that the “Man of Sin” closely resembles the “Beast” of Revelation:

This comparison leaves little doubt that the Man of Sin and the Beast refer to the same power.

Man of sin, first century

When the leaders of the Jews sought to contain the new movement led by Jesus of Nazareth, they used every subtle form of attack they were capable of. When these failed, they had to fall back on crude methods which involved using all the organized powers of religion and state to get him crucified.

With Jesus himself out of the way they next found that the hard facts of his resurrection, and of the transformation it wrought in his apostles, showed their problem to be still unsolved.

Now open persecution only seemed to make the movement prosper more than ever. But the old resources of craft and cunning were not used up completely. And so a deliberate attempt was made to wreck the new “sect” from within. Nowhere is this stated categorically in the New Testament, but the implication of numerous passages is very persuasive:

Galatia: To the Galatians Paul speaks of “false brethren” who had secretly infiltrated the churches, so as to enslave again (to the Law) those who had been made free by Paul’s own preaching (Gal 2:4,5). These agents had apparently been planted in the brotherhood, so as to work slowly and steadily either to draw believers back to the Law or, failing that, at least to create internal dissensions that would weaken the whole community and thus its appeal to others. Even Peter was practically won over to this philosophy (vv 11-14).

It soon became obvious that Paul — intelligent and resolute — posed the greatest single obstacle to their “satanic” objectives. And so the person and the claims and the worth of this great apostle to the Gentiles must be attacked also, as part of the overall plan of these subversives.

Corinth: In Corinth these enemies had some considerable success, in characterizing Paul as weak and contemptible as to his physical qualities (2Co 10:9,10; 11:6). By contrast, the leader of the subversives, called “Satan” by Paul himself, continues to present himself as polished and personable and wise and authoritative — the natural candidate to replace Paul as the leader of the ecclesias (2Co 11:22,23)! Such a sustained campaign of character assassination called forth from Paul the unusual expedient of a prolonged self-defense (2Co 11:13 to 12:12).

Jerusalem: Even in Jerusalem lies were being systematically spread about Paul, that he was teaching all Jews to forsake Moses and all the customs (Acts 21:20,21). While not true as to particulars, it had just enough plausibility to be accepted by gullible new converts. The faceless men who sought to pervert Paul’s work and keep the first-century ecclesia in bondage to the Temple and the priests had evidently been diligently at work in Jerusalem practically from the beginning. (It could not have been Paul’s open enemies among the Pharisees and Sadducees who told such lies, since their stories would have had no chance of being believed. This campaign was plainly carried on secretly, by whisper and innuendo, in the midst of the ecclesias.)

Rome: From Rome Paul wrote to the Philippians (Phi 1:15-17) of those who preached out of envy and strife, trying to add additional affliction to the bondage Paul was already suffering. It is clear that certain “believers” were finding malicious pleasure in preaching the gospel with some special emphasis, probably — because their work would only be another source of worry and vexation to Paul. Such were fulfilling the serpent’s role, by good words and fair speeches deceiving the simple (Rom 16:17,18).

Other hints of the same organized subversion are to be found in:

Eph 4:14: “the sleight of men” (a phrase used for deliberate cheating at games), “and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive”;

Col 2:4: “lest any man should beguile you with enticing words” — another plain allusion to the serpent in the garden.

Titus 1:14: Titus was warned not to give “heed to Jewish fables… that turn from the truth”, preached by the deceivers of the “circumcision” group (see also vv 4,9,10).

1Ti 4:1,2: Timothy was likewise warned of false teachers (“seducing spirits”, Paul called them), speaking hypocritical lies, and fostering undue concern for dietary matters.

Hebrews: The entire letter is a learned and reasoned attempt to forestall drift back to the Mosaic institutions and the synagogue system, a drift encouraged by this organized call of opposition in the very brotherhood.

It is plain, then, that there was a subversive, “Satanic” element at work in the ecclesia of Paul’s day: a group (with perhaps a formidable leader) who professed faith in Christ, but whose hidden agenda called for a “return to Moses.” This group (and its leader?) claimed apostolic authority that was rightly the province of Paul and the twelve, and they worked within the ecclesia, or the spiritual “temple of God” (2Th 2:4), being accepted as believers in good standing. It might be assumed that either some of their number actually had Holy Spirit gifts (“all power and signs and lying wonders” — v 9), or else deceived the simple-hearted into thinking they did. They systematically and subtly taught the “lie”, that men could be justified only by keeping the law of Moses.

It is reasonable to suppose that Paul actually had his eye on some apostasy current in his own time, and which had already shown its hostile attitude toward him in very effective fashion (v 7). Otherwise, it becomes very difficult to explain the immediacy and seriousness with which he describes the “man of sin.” These Jewish pseudo-Christians, along with their leader “Satan” (Paul’s “thorn in the flesh?”), were imposters; while professing the gospel, they had not really “received the love of the truth” but instead “had pleasure in (promoting) unrighteousness” (vv 10,12). Paul was using every ounce of his faith and energy to hinder this destructive work (v 6), but Paul would not always be with them: when he would at last pass from the scene, the Judaizers might be expected to flourish almost without restraint (v 7).

Therefore the same Paul who hoped and prayed for the return of Christ in his own lifetime (consider 1Th 4:15, for example) could also expect that the Lord when he appeared would overthrow and destroy this wicked pretender (2Th 2:8; cp 1:6-10). That Christ did not return during Paul’s day or even during the final years of the first century is no reflection on Paul’s faith or understanding: what else should he have done except look for his Lord’s coming? And the fact is, that the first-century “man of sin” (and his adherents) will be destroyed by Christ at his coming — being raised from the dead to stand before the judgment seat.

Appendix

There have been many forerunners, or advance messengers of the Anti-Christ:

1. Cain, the originator of religious war, who slew his righteous brother (Gen 4:4-8), when Cain’s religious deception had been uncovered.
2. Lamech, who boasted himself even against God — so great was his power, or so he thought (Gen 4:23)!
3. Nimrod, the first great “world-ruler”, who began the history of Babylonian power (Gen 10:8-10).
4. Balaam, the false prophet who for material gain seduced God’s people into immorality; the “anti-Moses”, so to speak (Num 31:17; 2Pe 2:15; Rev 2:14).
5. Goliath — the “man of sin”, closely associated with the number six, the representative terrorist, the “anti-David”, who opposed God’s Anointed (1Sa 17).
6. Antiochus Epiphanes, the devastator of the Sanctuary of God.
7. Nero, the great first-century persecutor of the Christians, certainly regarded as “anti-Christ” by those who suffered under his rule.
8. Mohammed, the “false prophet”, a deceiver and “Satan-adversary” in his own right, even though hostile toward the Catholic Church.

Man of sin, Zec 5

A first-century Man of sin (as outlined in Lesson, Man of sin, first century) can scarcely be the complete fulfillment of the words of Paul. The letters to Thessalonica are so dominated by the theme of Christ’s second coming; and the Judeo-Christian “man of sin” of Paul’s day has long passed from the scene (along with his adherents). So it is reasonable to expect that another “man of sin” will be a dominant element in the prophetic framework of the last days. There is one system, the Papacy, that is eminently “qualified” to fill this role, as the Notes on the Text which follow should demonstrate. The question remains, however: Is there a transition, and a discernible link, between the first-century “man of sin” and the Roman Catholic apostasy?

Zechariah 5 offers such a link: Some of its connections with 2Th 2 are set out below:

Zec 5 appears to be a prophecy of the evils of Judaism which were manifested in New Testament times, corrupting the early ecclesias, and which eventually became firmly established in the Roman Catholic church, along with many pagan ideas.

In its immediate context, Zec 5 presents a false worship in a detailed contrast to the true worship depicted in Zec 4. Zec 5 has the house of wicked women and unclean birds in the land of Shinar (Babylon) (vv 9,11), whereas Zechariah 4 has the true house of God, the true temple (v 9), wherein are the anointed ones (v 14) and the lampstand (v 12). In the picture of the false worship, the flying roll or scroll (v 3) is a “curse” which “declares innocent” (“naqah” — not “cut off” as in AV) those who steal and swear falsely. The dimensions of this scroll of wickedness (20 cubits by 10 cubits) (v 2) are the precise dimensions of the holy place of the temple and tabernacle, indicating again the nature of this worship: a deliberate parody of that which is true.

The scroll, then, represents wicked teaching, which releases men and women from their obligation to obey God’s laws. Such teaching, with a Jewish flavor, may be traced in the Pharisees’ use of “Corban” — a legal fiction that effectively released a man of his obligation to his parents (Mark 7:6-12). By some similar misapplication of law Pharisees enriched themselves by “devouring widows’ houses” (Mat 23:14) and swearing falsely (v 16). This same attitude was carried forward into the early church and became part of the Roman Catholic apostasy. So-called saints are alleged to have accumulated large excesses of virtue which could be transferred, at a price, to sinners. The clerics, from the pope down to the parish priest, claimed the power to excuse on God’s behalf sins of lying, stealing and so on at the confessional. Hence the links between Zec 5 and the Man of Sin.

Then there is the ephah (v 6), a unit of measure. This aptly portrays Judaism in New Testament times, where everything became a matter of measure, of keeping rules and regulations, rather than of developing a character pleasing in God’s sight. Again this entered the early ecclesias and became fully developed in the Roman Catholic church. Col 2:20-22 warns against making religion a matter of rules and regulations which results only in fleshly pride when they are kept. In 1Ti 4:3 Paul prophesied of the time to come when apostasy would make rules about “forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats”, these are examples of the kinds of rules and regulations which Roman Catholicism invented so that the keepers of those rules might be considered as especially virtuous. The idea of a religion of “measure” comes out in other ways too: the idea that, after attending church, the rest of one’s time is one’s own; and the idea that after a fixed sum of money has been handed over, the rest is one’s own to use exactly as one pleases.

Zec 5 is thus a portrayal of apostasy, not so much in its false doctrines as in its iniquitous practices. Hence its use in 2Th as the background for the Man of Sin prophecy. It is noteworthy that in Zec 5 it is a woman who goes to Babylon (Shinar) and builds a house there. The connection with the woman of Rev 17 is obvious. Note also the stork, the unclean bird; the “Babylon” of the Apocalypse is “a cage of every unclean and hateful bird” (Rev 18:2).

Indeed, without trying to trace actual historical links, the essential unity of the two false systems (apostate Judaism of Christ’s day and modern Roman Catholicism) is perfectly evident:

• Both are heavily dependent upon the sanctity (or presumed sanctity) of special places and special, “holy” buildings.
• Both appeal to tradition and antiquity.
• Both encourage the ideal of a spiritual “elite”, set apart and elevated above the mass of ordinary believers.
• Both teach the doctrine of “Salvation by works.”
• Both have specially consecrated priests, dressed in distinctive garments, offering incense and “sacrifices.”
• Both have well-developed machinery for extorting vast amounts of wealth under religious pretence.

As the great false religious system of the first century was destroyed by divine edict (in AD 70) so the great false religious system of the Last Days will be destroyed — by Christ in his coming in power and glory.