Man of Sin and the Restrainer

Post by **_schoel** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 3:07 pm

Regarding 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 (NKJV)

Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of *Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of *sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits *as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only *He who now restrains will do so until *He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

To whom or what is Paul referring to with the man of sin and "he who now restrains"?

Post by **_Steve** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:30 pm

The least-problematic explanation I have heard is that which was held by all the church fathers, as well as the reformers and Protestants until the 1800's (and not a few others before the Reformation).

This view assumes the identity of Paul's "Man of Lawlessness" with Daniel's "Little Horn" in Daniel 7. This "horn" grows up out of the fourth beast (generally regarded to be the Roman Empire). The little horn appears to begin its career of blasphemy and persecution after the fall of the Roman Empire—that is, when the beast has been killed and burned (Dan.7:11, 23-25). Based upon this prophecy, the early church expected an antichrist power to arise upon the fall of the Roman Empire (though they did not live to see the fall of the empire, so they never identified any entity with the little horn).

This view informed their interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2. The Man of Sin was seen as the little horn, expected to rise upon the fall of the Empire, and the Empire itself was seen as the restraining power preventing that development. Among the church fathers expressing this view in their writings were Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Lactantius, Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysostom. There was apparently no dissenting opinion about this in the first four centuries of the Church.

This view was regarded to be correct by the reformers (Hus, Wyclif, Luther, Zwingli, Knox, Calvin, etc., as well as the Wesley's, and all Protestants until the nineteenth century (when dispensationalism arose and became the predominant evangelical view). The Man of Sin was seen to have arisen upon the fall of the Roman Empire, as expected. The reformers identified the Man of Sin with the institution of the Papacy. This can be seen plainly to have been the view held by the KJV translators, expressed in their epistle of dedication to King James (paragraph 3). They had no difficulty pointing out how the Papacy's career of blasphemy and persecution paralleled that described of the little horn and of the Man of Sin.

As near as I can tell, no competing theory that has arisen in modern times has better arguments in its favor than does this historic viewpoint.

Post by **_schoel** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 8:46 am

I heard your argument regarding the dispensational view (i.e. Man of Sin = Future Anti-Christ and Restrainer = Holy Spirit in the Church) as contradictory on your eschatology MP3's.
Specifically, if the Anti-Christ cannot be revealed until the church has been raptured, this specifically contradicts Paul's earlier statement that the Day of the Lord (i.e. rapture) couldn't have come because the Anti-Christ had not been revealed yet.

I can't seem to see any response that would would suffice.

Have you heard any responses to this argument? If so, what are they?

Post by **_Steve** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 11:14 am

The main defense of the dispensationalist would be to suggest that "our gathering together unto Him," in 2 Thessalonians 2:1, is not a reference to the rapture, but to something else. If the rapture is not mentioned in verse 1, then it leaves open the possibility of the dispensationalist being correct in this passage—but possibility is not the same thing as likelihood.

Post by **_Anonymous** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 11:44 am

Paul began 2 Thessalonians 2:1, with these words:

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren, no to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to come from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come...

I think it obvious that Jesus is referring to the second coming of Christ --- the event that he described in 1 thessalonians 4:13-18. It was probably those words in Paul's first letter that was troubling the church at Thessalonica.

There is no doubt in my mind that the early Christians were right, that the Antichrist, the "man of sin" is still to come, and that prior to the second coming. The thing that will restrain him is the world government that will precede him. It will fail, and divide into ten nations. 3 will fall, and Antichrist will set up an 8th, which will eventually attain total political power.

Post by **_Anonymous** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 11:10 pm

I always get a chuckle when I see the name “antichrist” used so freely by some Christians to identify some future person.

The term antichrist is only used by John in 1 John and 2 John. It is not used in 2 Thessalonians nor in Revelation. And John doesn’t equate it with a specific future person, but uses the expression as a descriptive term to depict any person “who denies the Father and the Son” or “those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh.” And he indicates that in his day "many antichrists have come."

The “man of lawlessness” in 2 Thessalonians 2 certainly could be called AN antichrist, but not THE antichrist.

Post by **_Roger** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:57 am

It seems to me that Paul is describing an actual person in these verses.

2 Thes. 2:3 "the man of sin"
2:4 "he sits as God, in the temple of God,showing himself that
that he is God."
2:6 "he may be revealed in his own time."
2:8 "the lawless one will be revealed"

It doesn't make sense to say this is something other then an actual person. Whether you want to call him "antichrist " or use a term that Paul used. It seems like a real stretch to me to try to make this into a political system or "religious" system, unless "the man of sin" is the one who presides over such a thing.

Post by **_Allyn** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:37 am

The man of perdition can easily be confined to the papacy, IMHO, as we know that the papacy is that of a man (with one humorous exception when a woman actually became a pope pretending to be a man. An interesting story of its own).

However Roger, I know that this is not agreed upon by many, so I would be interested in hearing your take on who it might be or what ideas you have to share.

Post by **_Roger** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:11 am

My current opinion Allyn is that the Catholic "Church" is the harlot in Rev.17:16

"And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire."

Vs. 17 "For God has put in their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled."

I believe the "man of sin" will be the political head ( an actual person) who will be given "their kingdom" in whatever form it will be and he will destroy the Catholic church. So I can't see the man of sin being the papacy. That would be, kind of like, Satan casting out Satan.

I think the man of sin will be a person like Adoph Hitler, who gained immense power in the previous generation and brought death and destruction to tens of millions.

Who it is and what form "the kingdom" will take I don't know.

Post by **_Paidion** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:05 pm

The view that the Catholic Church is the "harlot" has been around for centuries. It was the view of 16th-century Protestants, and is still the view of many Mennonites to this day.

In my opinion, one might just as well say that the "harlot" is modern fundamentalism, or the United Church of Canada, or the Unitarian-Universalist Association, or any other group. It's mere speculation.

I have an idea as to who the harlot is, but I'm not prepared to add my own speculation to the potpourri, and thus only add to the confusion.

As for the "man of sin" being called "the Antichrist", what's the problem?
Second-century Christians called him "the Antichrist." I, personally, lean more to their way of thinking than modern speculation.

I hate labels, but if you want to label me, I suppose you would call me a
post-tribulation pre-millenialist. That seems to have been the position of second-century Christianity. In that day, no one ascribed our Lord's prophecies in Matthew 24 to the events of 70 A.D. They regarded those prophecies as future to their time.