The Man of Sin

[Berean]

In his second letter to the Thessalonians the apostle Paul shows that two circumstances must precede the return of our Lord: (1) a great falling away from the original, apostolic faith; and (2) the appearance of the Man of Sin, the antichrist (2 Thess. 2:3). No interpretation of our Lord's second advent should be seriously considered which fails to identify these two events. Having proven that our Lord has already returned, we now proceed to show that the Man of Sin has indeed come, fulfilling every detail of the prophetic description.

Let us first note, however, the disharmony between this prophecy and some current views. Some claim that the Lord Jesus first comes secretly to take his saints—and then the Man of Sin appears. An examination of an error made in the early church is instructive on this point. Recognizing that Christ was to come invisibly, as a thief (1 Thess. 5:4, Rev. 16:15), some believers in Paul's day concluded that Jesus was already present and that the resurrection of the dead in Christ had, therefore, occurred (2 Thess. 2:1-2, 2 Tim. 2:18). In order to correct this mistake, Paul found it necessary to advise that they "be not soon shaken in mind…that the day of the Lord is present [Greek, enistemi]. Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition." 2 Thessalonians 2:2,3 Compare with the Revised Standard Version. Notice, the invisible presence of Christ is preceded, not followed, by the revealment of the Antichrist. Also verses 1 and 3 teach that the Man of Sin precedes two things: (1) "The coming of our Lord"; and (2) "our gathering together unto him." This eliminates the possibility of Christians being taken to heaven before the Man of Sin is revealed.

It should be observed further, that Paul did not attempt to correct their error by asking if they had seen Jesus with their literal eyes, or had heard a literal trumpet with their ears, or had seen large numbers of Christians suddenly disappear. Had such arguments been appropriate, Paul would certainly have employed them. The concept of the invisible presence was correct: the Day of the Lord would steal quietly upon the world and many would be overtaken by it unawares (1 Thess. 5:2-4). The mistake of believers in that day was not in regard to what they should expect, but when. Looking forward with great eagerness to the return of Christ, as the fruition of all their hopes, they were prone to accept uncritically any teaching to the effect that their longed for Lord was present, or near at hand.

 

[Berean]

Read 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8 again. In verses 7 and 8 Paul call the "Man of Sin" the "Mystery of Iniquity" and says that "it," not "he," already is a work in his day. This could not be a literal man. He would be nearly two thousand years old now. Why did Paul call the "Man of Sin" the "Mystery of Iniquity"? Remember the beautiful mystery Paul showed in (Eph. 5:30-32, Col. 1:26-27 and 1 Cor. 12:12-28). Christ is "not one member but many." Just as the human body is a union of many members, so the church is the body of Christ. Paul's lesson of contrast is clear. Just as there is a mystery class of righteous or justified believers who compose Christ, so there is a mystery class of iniquity (evil workers) who comprise Antichrist. Paul's use of the phrases, "Man of Sin" and Mystery of Iniquity" in verses 7 and 8 prove they are one and the same.

 

[Berean]

Origin of the Man of Sin​

To trace the origin of the Man of Sin, we must begin in Paul's own day. Writing to the church at Thessalonica, he warned them, saying, "For the Mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [Greek, restrains] will let [Greek, restrain], until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed." 2 Thessalonians 2:7, 8 Compare with the Revised Standard Version. In the ambitions of leaders to be "lords over God's heritage" (1 Pet. 5:3), and in the desire of some to avoid the path of sacrifice which Jesus ordained. the Antichrist principle found fertile soil. When the Roman Emperor, the restraining one, ceased his opposition to Christianity, this spirit of worldly ambition blossomed rapidly into the Papacy. "As ye have heard that [the] Antichrist shall come," wrote the Apostle John, "even now are there many antichrists." 1 John 2:18 Pointing out that the spirit of Antichrist was already at work, he proceeded in the remainder of the chapter to advise how to escape its influence when it did come.

That there was a great "falling away" from true Christian faith during the early centuries of the Gospel Era, no Protestant will deny. Pompous rituals and elaborate ceremonies replaced the simple preaching of the Gospel. Salvation was sought no longer through the blood of Christ alone, but from holy water, relics of saints, medals and amulets, the rosary and the intercession of Mary. Multitudes flocked to converted heathen temples to pray to and adore the very same idols which the Pagans had worshipped a short time before. The names of the statues were simply changed from those of Pagan gods and heroes to the names of Christian martyrs and saints. The Roman Emperor, who as Pontifex Maximus ("Chief Religious Ruler"), had been the head of all the Pagan priests, vacated his office in favor of the Bishop of Rome, the new Pontifex Maximus. Whereas the Roman emperors had claimed to possess the Keys of Janus and Cybele, the new supreme pontiffs, dressed in the same costume as their forerunners, claimed possession of the Keys of St. Peter and attempted to prove that the Apostle Peter had once been the Bishop of Rome,; something completely unsubstantiated by history

This Man of Sin, growing out of the apostasy, as foreseen by Paul, exalted "himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thessalonians 2:4 The temples to which Paul refers is not a literal building, but the Church of God, for he elsewhere declares, "Ye are the temple of the Living God." 2 Corinthians 6:16 The self-exaltation of the bishops of Rome in the temple (church) of God was extravagant beyond measure. Applying divine prerogatives to themselves, they claimed that every human being must be subject to their authority. "The pope holds the place of the true God," declared Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198-1216). The Lateran Council (A.D. 1123) acclaimed the pope as "Prince of the Universe." St. Bernard (A.D. 1090-1153) wrote that "none except God is like the pope, either in heaven or on earth." And Pope Nicholas (A.D. 858-867) boasted that Constantine had "conferred the appellation of God on the pope, who, therefore, being God, cannot be judged by man.
Astounding as these false claims are, they deceived the whole Christian world during most of Papacy's dark reign (Rev. 13:5, 6). Only a faithful few escaped their baneful influence and remained loyal to their true Lord and Head. And be it noted that the Greek prefix "anti" signifies not merely "against" or "opposing," but also "instead, in the place of." (See Strong's or Vine's) Thus, Antichrist is not simply an opponent of our Lord and his truth, but as impostor, a usurper of his position. Attributing the purest motives to the popes, the Papacy would still be the Antichrist; for claiming to be the "Vicar of Christ" on earth and supreme "Head of the Church," each pope in turn has applied the Messianic promises and appellations of Scripture to himself. Even kings were required to kiss the pope's great toe, in supposed fulfillment of Psalm 2:12, "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry."

We are not, of course, stating that any one pope was the Antichrist, must less that every Catholic or pope is a man of sin. What we are saying is that the Man of Sin, the Antichrist, the "Mystery of Iniquity" is the Papal system. It is not an individual.

 

[ewq1938]

Having proven that our Lord has already returned, we now proceed to show that the Man of Sin has indeed come, fulfilling every detail of the prophetic description.

Christ has not returned and the man of sin has not been revealed yet. All false doctrines, like Full Preterism you are teaching, are part of the end times deception.

I have noticed similar teachings about the antichrist/man of sin etc.

Doctrines like Pre-trib teach the church will be gone, so they don't worry about the antichrist or look for any of the signs of his arrival.

Various forms of Preterism including Amillennialism teach the antichrist already came in the past so there is no need to watch for him now.

Other doctrines teach that the antichrist isn't ever a singular man, or that denominations like the RCC and it's Papacy are the antichrist which is a mis-identification of the last and final antichrist and antichrist type system.

All false doctrines teach some version of doctrine where it's adherents need not worry about or watch for the not-yet-here antichrist. Seems like a great thing for satan to introduce into the churches so his antichrist (whoever he is) can slip right in and deceive those not watching. The antichrist is also known as a false christ and that is the most dangerous thing not to be knowledgeable about in the endtimes because of the apostasia (the Apostasy).


So, not watching for the antichrist or not believing in a singular future AC or thinking something/someone else is the antichrist can result in one being deceived and possibly committing Apostasy.

That is extremely dangerous. Beware!

 

[Berean]

So, not watching for the antichrist or not believing in a singular future AC or thinking something/someone else is the antichrist can result in one being deceived and possibly committing Apostasy.

That is extremely dangerous. Beware!

We don't have to watch for the antichrist, because he's already here, it's a system, not an individual. the antichrist system is the papacy.

 

[ewq1938]

We don't have to watch for the antichrist, because he's already here, it's a system, not an individual. the antichrist system is the papacy.

Which is part of the end times deception I mentioned. All false doctrines minimize or change what the AC actually is like in your post. The AC is a person according to scripture in fact all antichrists were people, being types of the one to come that John also wrote about. The AC will rule over a kingdom but the AC is never a "system" and not an individual person.

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

He says "now" there were many antichrists but does specifically speak of one certain antichrist (singular) that was yet to come (future arrival) which means John believed there was a future Antichrist. This is known as "the Antichrist" which is a specific Antichrist among all those who are antichrists.

 

[Ronald D Milam]

In his second letter to the Thessalonians the apostle Paul shows that two circumstances must precede the return of our Lord: (1) a great falling away from the original, apostolic faith;

That is not what it says, it says THE DEPARTURE in the first 7 English translations, the KJV changed it to falling away taking a swipe at the Church of England's rival the RCC.

So, whether you realize it or not you are off tracked. The very first verse tells us this is about the Gathering unto Jesus (Rapture or DEPARTURE of the Church)

NO WHERE in the whole passage is FATH even hinted at. Ad I have a blog that blows this thinking to pieces.

 

[ewq1938]

That is not what it says, it says THE DEPARTURE in the first 7 English translations, the KJV changed it to falling away taking a swipe at the Church of England's rival the RCC.

It's still a religious and moral departure exactly the same as a falling away. The word is apostasia, which means Apostasy. Pre-trib literally teaches people to be Apostates but hides it in the undefined "departure"!

 

[covenantee]

That is not what it says, it says THE DEPARTURE in the first 7 English translations, the KJV changed it to falling away taking a swipe at the Church of England's rival the RCC.

So, whether you realize it or not you are off tracked. The very first verse tells us this is about the Gathering unto Jesus (Rapture or DEPARTURE of the Church)

NO WHERE in the whole passage is FATH even hinted at. Ad I have a blog that blows this thinking to pieces.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Greek

646 [e]
apostasia
ἀποστασία
apostasy
N-NFS

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 646: ἀποστασία

ἀποστασία, ἀποστασιας, ἡ (ἀφισταμαι), a falling away, defection, apostasy; in the Bible namely, from the true religion: Acts 21:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:3;

 

[Douggg]

 

[Ronald D Milam]

That is not what it says, it says THE DEPARTURE in the first 7 English translations, the KJV changed it to falling away taking a swipe at the Church of England's rival the RCC.

So, whether you realize it or not you are off tracked. The very first verse tells us this is about the Gathering unto Jesus (Rapture or DEPARTURE of the Church)

NO WHERE in the whole passage is FATH even hinted at. Ad I have a blog that blows this thinking to pieces.

No......its is clearly not, where is faith spoken of? Nowhere.

Is the Falling Away a false teaching? or false understanding

I have evolved with much study on this. I used to argue to all that there had to be this great Falling Away myself. All because of this one passage. 2 Thessalonians 2:3. I do agree that the world gets far more evil towards the end as in now, as foretold in Romans chapter 1, and as Peter said, there will be scoffers in the last days et al. But I do not think the true church can "Fall Away", either you are of Christ/God or you are not, and will get left behind by the Bridegroom. Anyway, here is my understanding of 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

“Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction…” – 2 Thessalonians 2:3 (NASB) This verse is used by many and they say it implies a "Falling Away" from the faith. But a guy named Tommy Ice has shed some exceptional light on this passage.

Mr. Ice has pointed out that the Greek noun, apostasia, is used only twice in the New Testament. The other occurrence is in Acts 21:21 where it states that an accusation was made against Paul that he was “teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake [apostasia] Moses.”

The word is used in verb form a total of 15 times in the New Testament, and only three of these have anything to do with a departure from the faith (Luke 8:13, 1 Timothy 4:1, and Hebrews 3:12). In other settings, the word is used for departing from iniquity (2 Timothy 2:19), departing from ungodly men (1 Timothy 6:5), departing from the temple (Luke 2:27), departing from the body (2 Corinthians 12:8), and departing from persons (Acts 12:10 and Luke 4:13).

This insight about the use and meaning of the word was certainly compelling, but the argument Mr. Ice presented that was most convicting was his revelation that the first seven English translations of the bible rendered the noun, apostasia, as either “departure” or “departing.”

They were as follows:​

1.The Wycliffe Bible (1384)

2.The Tyndale Bible (1526)

3. The Coverdale Bible (1535)

4. The Cranmer Bible (1539)

5. The Great Bible (1540)

6. The Beeches Bible (1576)

7. The Geneva Bible (1608)

Mr. Ice also noted that the bible used by the Western world from 400 AD to the 1500s — Jerome’s Latin translation known as “The Vulgate” — rendered apostasia with the Latin word, discessio, which means “departure.” The first translation of the word to mean apostasy in an English Bible did not occur until 1611 when the King James Version was issued. So, why did the King James translators introduce a completely new rendering of the word as “falling away”? The best guess is that they were taking a stab at the false teachings of Catholicism.

One other point Mr. Ice made that I think is significant is that Paul used a definite article with the word apostasia. The significance of this is emphasized by Daniel Davey in a thesis he wrote for the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary:

Since the Greek language does not need an article to make the noun definite, it becomes clear that with the usage of the article, reference is being made to something in particular. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 the word apostasia is prefaced by the definite article which means that Paul is pointing to a particular type of departure clearly known to the Thessalonian church.

In light of this grammatical point, Tommy observed that “the use of the definite article would support the notion that Paul spoke of a clear, discernible notion.” And that notion he had already identified in verse 1 when he stated that he was writing about our gathering together to Him [Jesus]. This interpretation also corresponds to the point that Paul makes in verses 6 and 7 where he states that the man of lawlessness will not come until what “restrains” him “is taken out of the way.”

And what it is that restrains evil in the world today? The Holy Spirit working through the Church. I think when the Church Departs, the Anti-Christ will be free to come to power.

I do not think this has anything to do with a Falling Away from the faith. It is simply the church departing before the Anti-Christ is brought forth. The King James Bible changed the known understanding that had been around for over a 1000 years via the Latin Vulgate.

 

[covenantee]

Apostasy as rapture in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 was unseen, unsaid, and unknown in true Christian orthodoxy prior to the 19th century.

The Bible translations which it is claimed contain the dogma were all written by Reformers from the 14th to 17th centuries. No Reformer ever heard of a pretrib rapture. Suffering as they were under the apostate papal antichrist, they would have found the idea risibly absurd.

"Ice T." admits one J.S. Mabie as being the first to conjure it:

"J. S. Mabie is said to have presented the view that “the departure” refers to the rapture as early as 1859 during a prophecy conference in Los Angeles.[12] He later wrote his view in an article published in November 1895 in a periodical called Morning Star."

The “Departure” in 2 Thessalonians 2:3
Thomas Ice, Pre-Trib Research Center

Thoroughly debunked here.

 

[Truth7t7]

No interpretation of our Lord's second advent should be seriously considered which fails to identify these two events. Having proven that our Lord has already returned, we now proceed to show that the Man of Sin has indeed come, fulfilling every detail of the prophetic description.

Your claim that Jesus has already returned in the second coming would be considered heresy by many, and I wouldn't disagree

 

[TribulationSigns]

Thoroughly debunked here.

^^ Agreed! ^^

Thomas Ice is wrong with his interpretation.

 

[Berean]

Your claim that Jesus has already returned in the second coming would be considered heresy by many, and I wouldn't disagree

You wouldn't agree that it's heresy or you agree that it's heresy?