2 Thessalonians 2:0 - Excursus On The Man Of Sin

THIS is one of the most remarkable prophecies in the New Testament. It occurs in the writings of St. Paul, whose practical mind constituted him rather the preacher of the present than the prophet of the future. There is an obscurity in the language which, as already observed, could not have been so great to those to whom the apostle wrote, for he had previously instructed his readers in the nature of the occurrence ( 2 Thessalonians 2:5 , 2 Thessalonians 2:6 ); but our ignorance of these instructions renders the passage to us enigmatical and difficult to understand; and perhaps, also, this obscurity is increased by reason of our distance from the time when the apostle wrote. There are in this prediction several points requiring consideration: the apostasy or falling away which was secretly working even in the apostle's days; a withholding or restraining influence which prevented its open manifestation and full development; the advent of the man of sin, his characteristics and final doom. We shall, first, give a history of the various opinions concerning this subject in past ages, and then consider those views which are most prevalent in our days.

The following is a literal translation of the passage, in accordance with the exposition given in the foregoing pages: "But we beseech you, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our assembling together unto him, that you be not soon shaken from your sober mind, nor be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle as from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is imminent. £ Let no man deceive you by any means, because that day shall not come, except there come the apostasy first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God, or is an object of worship; so that he sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Remember you not that when I was with you, I told you these things? And now you know what restraineth, that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already working, yet only until he that restraineth is removed; £ and then shall the lawless one be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth, and annihilate by the appearance of his coming; even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, in all power and signs and wonders of falsehood, and in all deceit of unrighteousness for them that perish, because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God sends to them the working of error, that they might believe the lie; that they might be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

According to these words, this much is evident—that the apostle expected a falling away from the purity of Christianity. Nor is this the only passage where St. Paul alludes to such a declension from primitive faith and holiness; there are allusions to it in his other Epistles, but especially in the Pastoral Epistles, where he describes the apostasy of the latter days: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth" ( 1 Timothy 4:1-3 ). So also, in his Second Epistle to Timothy, he alludes to the impending nature of this period of apostasy—the mystery of lawlessness was already working: "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come," or rather, "are present" ( 2 Timothy 3:1-5 ). And St. Peter affirms that there shall arise in the Church false teachers, who shall privily "bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and shall bring upon themselves swift destruction" ( 2 Peter 2:1 ); and that "in the last days there shall be scoffers, walking after their lusts" ( 2 Peter 3:2 ). And a similar declaration is made by St. Jude: "Remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts" ( Jude 1:17 , Jude 1:18 ). And our Lord himself, in his eschatological discourse, warned his disciples that there should arise false Christs and false prophets ( Matthew 24:24 )—a declaration which probably lies at the root of all similar apocalyptic assertions. £ In these passages, however, it is to be observed that a plurality of false teachers is asserted; whereas, in our passage, they are concentrated in an individual—the Man of Sin.

Especially in the Epistles of St. John—there is express mention of Antichrist of a person (or persons) who is the opponent of Christ. It is only in these Epistles that the word occurs, and it does so four times: "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that [the] Antichrist shall come, even now there are many Antichrists." "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." "Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an Antichrist" ( 1 John 2:18 , 1 John 2:22 ; 1 John 4:3 ; 2 John 1:7 ). Now, the Man of Sin of St. Paul has been identified with the Antichrist of St. John. They agree in several points: in both he is described as an individual, whose coming will be foreshadowed by many forerunners; £ in both his advent is future, but the evil principle, the apostasy or spirit of Antichrist, is already at work; and in both there is open opposition to God and Christ. It is, however, to be observed that in St. John the Antichristian error is more positively stated as consisting in the denial that Jesus Christ came in the flesh,—accordingly, as Gnosticism, which we know was already secretly corrupting the Church; and hence the reason why some have connected the Man of Sin with the errors of the Gnostics, whereas it does not appear from St. Paul's words that the characteristics of the Gnostics correspond with the characteristics of the Man of Sin; but, on the other hand, the denial of the Father and the Son is common to both.

It would far exceed the limits of this excursus to compare the Man of Sin with the declarations concerning the manifestations of evil in the Apocalypse of St. John. In that mysterious book there appears to be two centres or impersonations of evil: the one described as the beast coming out of the sea, to whom the dragon gave his power and seat and great authority ( Revelation 13:1 , Revelation 13:2 ); and the other, as another beast coming out of the earth, who had two horns like a lamb, and spake like a dragon ( Revelation 13:11 ), and who has been identified with the false prophet ( Revelation 16:13 ; Revelation 19:20 ; Revelation 20:10 ). £ Whether there is a resemblance between the Man of Sin and either or both of these beasts, we do not inquire; in both a manifestation or revelation of evil, and the concentration of it in an individual or individuals, is predicted.

The prediction of St. Paul bears a still more striking resemblance to the vision of Daniel concerning the wicked and persecuting king ( Daniel 11:1-45 .) than to either the Antichrist of St. John or the beasts of the Apocalypse. That prophecy of Daniel received its primary accomplishment in Antiochus Epiphanes, the great persecutor of the Jews, but the concluding portion is applicable to a future opponent of God and his people, and finds its full accomplishment in him. £ Now, the imagery employed by the prophet and the apostle is the same. Paul predicts a falling away; and Daniel tells us that the king shall "have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant" ( Daniel 11:30 ). Paul tells us that the Man of Sin shall sit in the temple of God, displaying himself as God; and Daniel, in the passage quoted by our Lord, speaks of the abomination of desolation being set up in the holy place ( Daniel 11:31 ). Paul foretells that the Man of Sin shall oppose and exalt himself against all that is called God or is an object of worship; and Daniel tells us that the king shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished ( Daniel 11:36 ). This resemblance between the persecuting king of Daniel and the Man of Sin is repeatedly noticed by the early Fathers. Thus Origen observes, "What is stated by Paul in the words quoted by him when he says, 'so he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God,' is in Daniel referred to in the following manner: 'And on the temple shall be the abomination of desolation, and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation'" (Origen, 'Contra. Cels.,' 6:46). £ There can hardly, then, be a reasonable doubt that Paul in his prediction had this prophecy of Daniel in view. £

The prediction of St. Paul concerning the Man of Sin made a deep impression upon the early Fathers, and the references to it in their writings are numerous. There is also a comparative unanimity in their sentiments. In general, they considered that the fulfilment of the prediction was future; that the Man of Sin was Antichrist, and an individual; and that the restraining influence was the Roman empire. Justin Martyr speaks of the Man of Sin as the man of apostasy, who speaks strange things against the Most High, and shall venture to do unlawful deeds on earth against Christians. Irenseus observes "that he, being an apostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored by God; and that, although a mere slave, he wishes himself to be proclaimed as a king. For he, being endued with the power of the devil, shall come, not as a righteous king in subjection to God, but as the lawless one; concentrating in himself all Satanic apostasy, and, setting aside all idols, he shall persuade men that he himself is God" ('Adv. Haer.,' Daniel 5:25 . 1). Tertullian alludes to the Roman empire as the restraining power: "What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which shall introduce Antichrist, for then shall be revealed the lawless one?" ('De Resurr.,' e. 24). And again, "We Christians are under peculiar necessity of praying for the emperors and for the complete stability of the empire, because we know that dreadful power which hangs over the world and the conclusion of the age, which threatens the most horrible evils, is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman empire. This is what we would not experience. And, while we pray that it may be deferred, we hereby show our good will to the perpetuity of the Roman state" ('Apol.,' c. 32). Hippolytus supposes that Antichrist wilt be a Jew, belonging to the tribe of Dan: £ "As Christ springs from the tribe of Judah, so Antichrist is to spring from the tribe of Dan" ('De Antichristo,' c. 14). Cyprian regards Antiochus Epiphanes as the type of Antichrist. And Jerome observes, "As the Saviour had Solomon and other saints as types of his coming, so we may rightly believe that Antichrist had, as a type of himself, that most wicked king Antiochus, who persecuted the saints and profaned the temple" (on Daniel 11:35 ). There was a diversity of opinion among them regarding the meaning of the temple of God, in which the Man of Sin was to seat himself. Some of the Fathers interpreted the expression figuratively as denoting the Christian Church; whilst others (Irenaeus, Cyril) took it literally, and referred it to the temple of Jerusalem, supposing that the Man of Sin would rebuild the temple.

It was an opinion in the early Church, continuing even to the date of the fourth century, that Nero was Antichrist. Of course, such an opinion cannot refer to the Man of Sin, as this would involve an anachronism; but can only be applied to Antichrist as described in the Apocalypse. Too much has been made of this Nero myth, as it is seldom alluded to by the early Fathers until the close of the third century. Nero was the first emperor who persecuted the Christians, and was therefore peculiarly obnoxious to them. After his death, there was a general impression throughout the Roman world that he was not really dead, but was living in concealment in Parthia, and would return to regain his empire. "About this time," observes Tacitus," a report that Nero was still alive, and on his way to the East, excited a false alarm throughout Achaia and Asia" ('Hist.,' Daniel 2:8 ). And Suetonius mentions that it was thought that Nero was still alive, and would shortly return to Rome, and take vengeance on all his enemies ('Nero,' 57). Mention is made in history of three impostors who personated Nero: one in Achaia and Proconsular Asia, in the reign of Otho; a second, also in Proconsular Asia, in the reign of Titus; and a third, protected by the Parthians, in the reign of Domitian. From this notion appears to have arisen the Christian idea that Nero would be again raised up as Antichrist. £ The earliest notice of this opinion appears in the fourth of the Sybilline books (A.D. 80), which, however, is considered by critics to be not of Christian, but of Jewish origin. In the fifth Sybilline book, supposed to be of the time of Hadrian, according to some by a Jewish Christian, and according to others by an Egyptian Jew, the Antichrist Beliar is identified with Nero. £ Not until the close of the third century does Victorinus, Bishop of Pettau, in his exposition of the Apocalypse, identify the beast rising out of the sea with Nero: "Now that one of the heads was, as it were, slain to death, in this he speaks of Nero;" and Chrysostom regarded Nero as the type of Antichrist. £ The great reason, however, on which certain writers ground their opinion that the author of the Apocalypse considered Nero to be Antichrist, was the declaration contained in Revelation 17:10 , Revelation 17:11 , "And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast which was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition"—a passage referred to by Victorinus. £ By the five kings they understand the five emperors who had already reigned—Augustus, Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, and Nero; by the sixth, Galba (or, according to others, Vespasian: Galba, Otho, and Vitellius being omitted, as their reigns were short); by the seventh, Otho (or, according to others, Titus); and by the eighth, who was also one of the seven, Antichrist or Nero restored to life. This passage is still appealed to by recent writers who adopt the Nero hypothesis. £ Lactantius, on the other band, repudiates this hypothesis as extravagant: "Some persons of extravagant imagination," he observes, "suppose that Nero, having been conveyed to a distant region, is still alive; and to him they apply the Sybilline verses concerning 'the fugitive who slew his own mother, being to come from the uttermost boundaries of the earth;' as if he who was the first, shall also be the last persecutor, and thus prove the forerunner of Antichrist. But we ought not to believe those who, affirming that the two prophets, Enoch and Elijah, have been translated into some remote place, that they might attend our Lord when he shall come to the judgment, also fancy that Nero is to appear hereafter as the forerunner of the devil, when he shall come to lay waste the earth and overthrow mankind." £

The opponents of hierarchical power in the Middle Ages regarded the pope as Antichrist, and considered the passage in question as a prediction of the origin and growth of the papal authority. Thus as early as the close of the tenth century, Arnulph, Bishop of Orleans, declared at the Council of Rheims that if the Roman pontiff was destitute of charity, and puffed up with knowledge, he was Antichrist. This view was entertained by Robert Grostete the celebrated Bishop of Lincoln, by Savonarola, by the Albigenses, the Waldenses, Wickliffe and the Wickliffites, the Hussites, and all those sects who were in opposition to the Roman hierarchy. Even St. Bernard uses this bold language: "The ministers of Christ are become the servants of Antichrist, and the beast of the Apocalypse has seated himself in the chair of St. Peter." £

The Reformers in general adopted this opinion. Such was the view of Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, Melancthon, Beza, and Bucer; and, among English Reformers, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, and Jewell. According to them, the apostasy is the falling away from evangelical doctrine to the traditions of men and the corruptions of popery; the Man of Sin, or Antichrist, is not, as the Fathers conceived, an individual, but the succession of popes —series et successio hominum; and the restraining power is the Roman empire, out of whose ruins the papacy arose. The Lutheran Church inserted this opinion as an article in their creed (Articl. Smalc., Revelation 2:4 ). In the dedication of the translators of the Authorized Version to King James, it is assumed that the pope is the Man of Sin; and that monarch is complimented for writing in the defence of the truth, which gave "such a blow unto that Man of Sin as will not be healed." And the assertion that the pope is Antichrist and the Man of Sin forms one of the articles of the Westminster Confession: "There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that Antichrist, that Man of Sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ and all that is called God" (ch. 25:6).

The Romanists, on the other hand, were naturally led by opposition to consider the passage as a prediction of the rise and growth of Protestantism. The apostasy was the falling away from the Romish Church by the doctrines of the Reformation. The Man of Sin denoted heretics in general, but especially Luther, the chief of the Reformers. The restraining influence was the German empire, considered as a continuation of the Roman empire. This, however, was not the general opinion of the Church of Rome; most of their theologians supposed that Antichrist, or the Man of Sin, was an individual whose coming is yet future.

The Greek Church was naturally led to regard the prophecy as a prediction of Mohammedanism; the apostasy was the falling away of many Greek and Oriental Churches to Mohammedanism; the man of sin was Mohammed; and the restraining influence the power of the Roman empire. £ Some of the Reformers (Melancthon, Bucer, Musculus) considered that there were two Antichrists—one belonging to the Eastern Church and the other to the Western; the Eastern Antichrist was Mohammed, and the Western was the pope. It is a remarkable circumstance that all three—the Greeks, the Romans, and the Protestants—were at one as regards the restraining influence; this they regarded as the imperial power—the Roman empire, either in itself or continued in the Greek and German empires.

The modern views concerning the Man of Sin are chiefly four: the Rationalists, who consider that there is no prophecy; the Praeterists, who consider the prophecy as already fulfilled; the Progressionists, who regard it as being fulfilled or in the course of fulfilment; and the Futurists, who regard the fulfilment as still future.

1. The first class of expositors are those who regard all the usual interpretations as proceeding from a fake assumption as if there were a prophecy, whereas there is in reality no prediction at all. This opinion is adopted by Koppe, Pelt, De Wette, Lunemann, Jowett, and Davidson. Koppe appears to have been the earliest who took this view of the passage. He idealizes the prediction, and supposes that the apostle is only stating his impressions of what might be the future state of the Church from a consideration of the times in which he lived. The apostle was profoundly impressed with the prophecies of Daniel, and from them he dreaded an outburst of evil after his death, and he expressed his forebodings in language coloured from Daniel. Pelt supposes that the mystery of iniquity was the inward principle of evil which the apostle foresaw would afterwards break forth in a more open and violent form; that the restraining power was the wilt of God holding back the kingdom of Satan; and that the coming of Christ was the final victory of good over evil. So also De Wette observes, "He goes altogether wrong who finds here any more than the apostle's subjective anticipation, from his own historical position, of the future of the Christian Church. Instead of rising to the example of Christ, acknowledging the limitation which there is to a definite foreknowledge of the future, the apostle pays a tribute to human weakness, since he wanted to know too much beforehand." £ Lunemann considers that Paul was so entirely engrossed by his ideas of the proximity of the advent that, carried away by his individuality, he "wished to settle more exactly concerning its circumstances and conditions the historical relations of the coming of Christ than is allotted to man in general to know, even although he should be the apostle, the most filled with the Spirit of God." £ "Such passages [ Colossians 2:8 , Colossians 2:16 ; Ephesians 6:12 ]," observes Professor Jowett, "are a much safer guide to the interpretation of the one we are considering than the meaning of similar passages in the Old Testament. For they indicate to us the habitual thought of the apostle's mind; 'a falling away first,' suggested, probably, by the wavering which he saw among his own converts, the grievous wolves entering into the Church of Ephesus ( Acts 20:29 ), the turning away of all them of Asia ( 2 Timothy 1:15 ). When we consider that his own converts and Jewish opponents or half converts were all the world to him; that through them, as it were in a glass, he appeared to see the workings of human nature generally, we understand how this double image of good and evil should have presented itself to him, and the kind of necessity that he felt that Christ and Antichrist should alternate with each other. It was not that he foresaw some great conflict, decisive of the destinies of mankind. What he anticipated for man nearly resembled the spiritual combat in the seventh chapter of the Romans." £ And Dr. Davidson remarks, "The passage does not contain a prophecy, but rather the writer's notion on a subject which did not concern the proper faith and duty of mankind. Those notions were shaped by the floating belief of his day, and have nothing beyond an historical interest. They belong to the past of Christianity—to its infantine state, when it was emerging out of Judaism, and assuming that independent position to which no man contributed so much as the apostle of the Gentiles. £

Such a view is at variance with the ides of inspiration—in other words, with the supposition that the apostle was guided in writing by a higher Spirit than his own. The supernatural is entirely overlooked; the apostle writes according to his own fancies; he is led astray by his erroneous opinions. How such a view is "entirely consistent with the apostle's inspiration" is difficult to understand, even although we employ the term "inspiration" in a very broad sense. The power of foretelling the future is denied to the sacred writers. "We take them," observes Dr. Davidson, "as guides to faith and practice generally without adopting all that they propounded, or believing that they could foretell events." £ It is evident the apostle is here giving a prediction of what shall take place; and therefore, if there were no real prediction, he was on this point mistaken and in error, and consequently uninspired. If we admit inspiration, we must receive the truths declared as the revelation of God: the Scripture contains truths to be received, and not the mere opinions of fallen men to be canvassed.

2. The second class of interpreters are those who, recognizing a prediction, regard it as already fulfilled. To this class belong Grotius, Wetstein, Hammond, Le Clerc, Whitby, Schottgen, Wieseler, Kern, Dollinger, and Baumgarten. These generally agree in considering that the prophecy received its accomplishment in Christ's coming in spirit to destroy Jerusalem, although they differ widely in details. Grotius supposes that the Man of Sin was Caligula, who demanded supreme and universal worship as god, and ordered his statue to be placed in the temple of Jerusalem; he who restrained was Vitellius, the Proconsul of Syria, who, at the risk of his life, refused to obey the order of Caligula; and the lawless one was Simon Magus. It seemed to Paul that the delineation of Antiochus Epiphanes in Daniel was to be realized in Caligula. £ But the distinction between the Man of Sin and the lawless one is incorrect, and besides, the interpretation involves an anachronism, as the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was written after the death of Caligula. Wetstein adopts the extravagant opinion that the Man of Sin was Titus, "the delight of the human race," whose army brought their idolatrous ensigns into the captured temple and offered sacrifices there; and that the restraining influence was Nero, that monster of iniquity, whose death was necessary for the rule of Titus. Hammond imagined that, by the Man of Sin, Simon Magus, together with his followers the Gnostics, was meant; the apostasy was the falling away of the Christians into Gnosticism; and the restraining influence was the apostles, who, by still preaching to the Jews, preserved the union still subsisting between Jews and Christians. £ Le Clerc supposes that the apostasy was the revolt of the Jews from the Romans; the Man of Sin was the rebellious Jews, and especially their leader Simon the son of Giora; and the restraining power was the chief of the Jewish nation, who were against the revolt. Whitby also considers the apostasy was the revolt of the Jews from the Roman empire or from the faith; the Man of Sin was the Jewish nation, with their high priest and Sanhedrim; and the restraining power was Claudius, during whose reign the Jews would not rebel, as they were under great obligations to him. £ Schottgen also agrees with Whitby in considering that by the Man of Sin is meant the Pharisees, the rabbis, and the doctors of the Law; but he differs from him in considering that the restraining power was the prayers of the Christians, which warded off the destruction of Jerusalem until they had left the city and retired to Pella. Much more ingenious is the opinion of Wieseler. He also considers the prophecy as a prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem. "He that restraineth" must be some good influence which delayed the catastrophe, and this he considers to be the pious Jews then living, particularly the Christians; and if the singular number requires an individual, then the restrainer is James the Just, the Lord's brother. Not until James was murdered and the Christians had removed from Jerusalem was the city taken. £ Kern considers that the Man of Sin is Nero; he that restraineth is Vespasian and his son Titus; and the apostasy is the revolt of the Jews or the departure of the Christians. £ Dollinger, like Kern, supposes Antichrist to be Nero. Nero was already adopted by Claudius, and was regarded by many as the future Caesar. "He that restraineth" was Claudius. The coming of Christ was his coming to execute judgment on Jerusalem; and although Nero did not personally undertake anything against the Jews, yet he did so by his lieutenant Vespasian. The apostasy was the departure of the Christians into the errors of the Gnostics. Dollinger, however, considers that there may be a more complete fulfilment in the last days. £ Baumgarten thinks that the prophecy reflects the experience of the apostle: the Man of Sin was the Jews who everywhere opposed his preaching the gospel; the apostasy was the renunciation of Jesus as the Messiah; and the restraining influence was the imperial authority which hitherto had protected the apostle and kept the Jews in check. This opinion appears to be partially adopted by Bishop Lightfoot: "It seems, upon the whole, probable,'' he observes, "that the Antichrist is represented especially by Judaism. With a prophetic insight, the apostle foresaw, as he contemplated the moral and political condition of the race, the approach of a great and overwhelming catastrophe ... It was to Roman justice and Roman magistrates that the apostle had recourse at this time to shield him from the enmity of the Jews and to check their violence." £ At the same time, he thinks that the prophecy has not yet received its most striking and complete fulfilment.

It would be a mere waste of time to examine these views seriatim. So far as they consider the prophecy as having received its full accomplishment, they do not satisfy its conditions, and have only a general and fancied resemblance. Especially it is fatal to the views of this class of interpreters that the coming of Christ alluded to is evidently not his coming in spirit to destroy Jerusalem, but, as the context shows, and as is the uniform meaning of the phrase in the Epistles of Paul, his coming in person to establish his spiritual kingdom.

3. The third class of exponents are those who regard the prophecy as being fulfilled, or as in the course of fulfilment; that is, as already partially fulfilled, but awaiting its complete accomplishment: we allude to those who find in the passage a prediction of popery. Besides the early Reformers, this opinion is advocated by Hooker, Hurd, Newton, Turretin, Benson, Bengel, Doddridge, Macknight, Michaelis, Elliott, and Bishop Wordsworth.

This opinion proceeds on the assumption that the restraining influence is the Roman empire. In the prediction, that influence is both masculine and neuter; by the masculine the emperor is meant, and by the neuter the empire. This opinion is that of the early Fathers, and was generally adopted with various modifications by Greeks, Romanists, and Protestants. £ it is in itself highly probable, and may have been handed down by tradition from the Church of Thessalonica, who had been instructed concerning its nature ( 2 Thessalonians 2:6 ). If the restrainer was the Roman emperor, we may understand the reason of the reserve of the apostle. If he had stated this in so many words, he would have been regarded as an enemy to the Roman government, because he would then teach the destruction of the empire, and would have involved Christians in persecution. Prudence required a discreet silence on this point. This reason for reserve was recognized by the early Fathers. "If St. Paul," observes Chrysostom, "had said that the Roman empire will soon be dissolved, the heathen world would have destroyed him as a rebel and all the faithful with him, as persons who took up arms against the state. But St. Paul means the Roman empire; and when that shall have been taken away, then the Man of Sin will come. For as the power of Babylon was dissolved by the Persian dynasty, and the Persian was supplanted by the Greek, and the Greek by the Roman, so the Roman will be dissolved by Antichrist, and Antichrist by Christ" ( in loco ) . Now, in the view of those who regard the pope as the Man of Sin, this prediction was fully verified. No sooner was the restrainer removed than the Man of Sin was revealed. As long as the Roman emperor continued heathen and resident at Rome, no ecclesiastical power was permitted to exalt itself; but no sooner did the emperor remove from Rome to Constantinople, than the papacy arose—the restraint on the Bishop of Rome was removed; and after the Roman empire in the West came to an end by the dethronement of Augustulus, the power of the pope mightily increased.

But the great point of inquiry is—Is there a sufficient resemblance between this prophecy and Romanism, so that we may conclude that they are related to each other as prediction and fulfilment? Are the characteristics of the Man of Sin found in popery? Those who belong to this class of interpreters assert that the resemblance is striking and obvious. An apostasy is predicted, and there is in Romanism a falling away from the pure gospel to the traditions of men; the doctrines of purgatory, transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the Mass, the adoration of the Virgin and the saints, are adduced as examples. The Man of Sin is represented as opposing and exalting himself against all that is called God or is an object of worship; and this is considered as receiving its fulfilment in the pope exalting himself above all human and Divine authority, claiming the title "king of kings, and lord of lords," applying to himself the words of the psalmist, "All kings shall bow down before thee," styling himself universal bishop, £ and asserting his power to dispose of the kingdoms of the earth. The Man of Sin is said to seat himself in the temple of God, showing himself as God. The temple of God is here understood to be the Christian Church, and the pope places himself in it as its supreme head, the vicar of Jesus Christ. He shows himself as God by claiming Divine attributes, as holiness and infallibility; assuming Divine prerogatives, as the power of pardoning sins and the opening and shutting of the kingdom of heaven; and using such Divine titles as "Our Lord God the pope," "Another God on earth." £ Every pope, on his election, is placed on the high altar of St. Peter's, and receives the adoration of the cardinals. The coming of the Man of Sin is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and wonders of falsehood. And this is considered as receiving its fulfilment in the false miracles of popery; in the impositions of indulgences and purgatory; in the wonders done by sacred images moving, speaking, bleeding; in the prodigies effected by sacred relics; in the supernatural visitations of the Virgin; and in the pretended power of working miracles which the Church of Rome still claims; as Bellarmine reckons the glory of miracles as the eleventh mark of the Catholic Church. God is represented as punishing sin by sin, "sending to them the working of error that they might believe the lie." The popish legends, which have gained such credit as to be admitted among their ceremonies, and especially the monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation, are regarded as the fulfilment of this part of the prophecy. £ And, besides, in the other passage where Paul predicts the failing away of the latter times, the marks which he gives find their counterpart in the corruption of popery: "Giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats" ( 1 Timothy 4:1-3 ).

Paul represents the system as working even in his days: "For the mystery of lawlessness is already working" ( 2 Thessalonians 2:7 ). It works inwardly; it is a mystery, something concealed and unknown until it is revealed; the germs of the Antichristian system were already in the Church; the leaven of corruption was at work. Paul knew this because he was inspired by the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost can see what man cannot see (Wordsworth). But, in truth, the germs of the Antichristian system are discernible in the false doctrines and superstitious practices alluded to in Paul's Epistles; and it is asserted that there is a striking resemblance between them and the doctrines and practices of Romanism; as, for example, the worship of angels ( Colossians 2:8 ), the abstinence from certain foods ( 1 Corinthians 8:8 ), bodily mortification ( Colossians 2:23 ), the traditions and doctrines and commandments of men ( Colossians 2:8 , Colossians 2:22 ); so that, as Bishop Newton observes, "the foundations of popery were laid, indeed, in the apostles' days, but the superstructure was raised by degrees, and several ages passed Before the building was completed, and the Man of Sin was revealed in full perfection." £

Of course, according to this view of the subject, the complete fulfilment of the prophecy is still future. The destruction of the Man of Sin—that is, according to this view, Romanism—is also predicted: "Whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of his mouth, and annihilate by the appearance of his coming" ( Titus 2:8 ). We have shown, in the Exposition, that by this cannot be meant the preaching of the pure gospel, or the diffusion of the Word of God at the Reformation; the language is denunciatory. As, however, this portion of the prophecy is unfulfilled, it is not required to offer any explanations. The interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy is probably beyond the powers of the human mind; the fulfilment is the only key to the interpretation.

To this view of the subject numerous objections have been raised: there are three which merit consideration.

Upon the whole, on an impartial review of the subject, we cannot avoid the impression that the points of resemblance between the prophecy and Romanism are numerous, varied, and striking. Our forefathers had no doubt as to the application of the prediction, and perhaps they were nearer the truth than we in modern times who hesitate. Such an opinion may be considered as uncharitable and unjust, and is certainly not in accordance with the more liberal spirit of our age, where popery is viewed as it presently exists, divested of its power to persecute, and as seen in the culture, refinement, and piety of many of its adherents. But when we reflect upon the abominable persecutions of the Inquisition, the monstrous wickedness of the popes prior to the Reformation, £ the atrocities perpetrated in the name of religion, £ the crimes committed by the priests, £ and the general corruption of the whole system; and when we think that it is only the restraining influence of Protestantism which prevents a repetition of such actions, we may see reason, if not to affirm positively, yet to suspect that such an opinion may be founded on truth, and, if so, be neither uncharitable nor unjust.

4. The fourth class of interpreters consider the fulfilment as future, and that we are not to look for any past occurrences as answering all its requirements. This opinion is the one which is chiefly favoured in our days. It has been adopted by Hofmann, Ewald, Olshausen, Riggenbaeh, Lunge, Alford, Ellicott, Lillie, Eadie, Meyrick, and Bishop Alexander, although there is a considerable difference in their views.

It is maintained that it is unwarrantable to consider the pope as Antichrist, and the papacy as an Antichristian system. The essential doctrines of Christianity are maintained and defended by the Romanists. The cross of Christ is exalted, and his sufferings are declared to be an atonement for sin. The great doctrine of the Trinity is not only maintained, but prominently brought forward. The influences of the Spirit are recognized and depended on. And the pope, instead of opposing himself to God, owns himself to be the servant and worshipper of God. £ Hence it is considered that in the future there may be a fuller completion than has ever yet taken place in the past. Prophecy has many partial fulfilments, until it reaches its climax in a complete accomplishment. Thus the Messianic prophecies of our Lord were partially fulfilled in David, in Solomon, in the Jewish nation. So it may be with this prediction; its final application may be reserved for the last days of this world's probation. The anti-christian elements, which are now found dispersed, may be collected and exhibited in an individual who will be the realization of the Man of Sin.

According to Hofmann, the whole passage refers to the visions of Daniel. Paul applies the prophecy therein contained to the latter days. The power that restraineth the outburst of evil is a good principle; just as Michael, the guardian angel of the Jews, withstood the Prince of Persia ( Daniel 10:20 ). When the good principle which was preserving the world in agreement with God is removed, then Antichrist will appear in the form of some mighty lawless conqueror. Hofmann appcars actually to expect the revivification of Antiochus Epiphanes. £ Ewald, again, applies to the prophecy the prediction of Malachi concerning the coming of Elijah. He supposes that by that which hinders the appearance of Antichrist the coming of Elijah is meant, and that Antichrist will not be revealed in all his atrocious wickedness until Elijah be taken out of the way and again translated to heaven. £

Omitting these interpretations, which must appear to our English minds fanciful and extravagant, based on mere conjecture, and wholly arbitrary in their nature, we come to the more rational statements of other divines. In general, according to them, the Man of Sin is an individual of gigantic mental power, enormous daring, and extreme wickedness, who shall appear on the earth in the latter days; and the restraining influence which prevents the appearance of such an individual is moral order or government. Thus, according to Olshausen, the Man of Sin is an individual. All the manifestations of evil, the revolt of the Jews from the Romans, Nero, Mohammed, the development of the papacy in the Middle Ages, the French Revolution of 1789, with the abolition of Christianity, and the setting up of a prostitute as the goddess of Reason in the cathedral church of Paris, and the present diffusion of infidelity and atheism, are the precursors of Antichrist; but they contain only some of his characteristics, not all. £ Similarly Dean Alford observes, "Though eighteen hundred years later, we stand, with regard to this prophecy, where the apostle stood; the day of the Lord not present, and not to arrive until the Man of Sin be manifested; the mystery of iniquity still working, and much advanced in its working; the restrainer still hindering. And let us ask ourselves—What does this represent to us? Is it not indicative of a state in which the lawlessness is working on, so to speak, underground, under the surface of things, gaining throughout these many ages more expansive force, more accumulated power, but still hidden and unconcentrated? And might we not look, in the progress of such a state of things, for repeated minor embodiments of this lawlessness; the many Antichrists ( 1 John 2:18 ) springing up here and there in different countries, the apostasy going onward and growing, just as there were of Christ himself frequent types and minor embodiments before he came in the flesh? Thus in the papacy, where so many of the prophetic features are combined, we see, as it were, a standing embodiment and type of the final Antichrist—in the remarkable words of Gregory the Great, the praecursor Antichristi; and in Nero, and in every persecutor as he arose, and Mahomet, and Napoleon, and many other forms and agencies of evil, other and more transient types and examples of him." ` £ And Bishop Ellicott remarks, "The adversary is Antichrist, no mere set of principles or succession of opponents, but one single person, being as truly man as he whom he impiously opposes." And he observes, "The restraining principle is the power of well ordered human rule, the principles of legality as opposed to those of lawlessness, of which the Roman emperor was the then embodiment and manifestation." £ Similiar views are adopted by Bishop Alexander, £ Dr. Eadie, Lillie, and Riggenbach. Meyrick, in his interesting and exhaustive article on "Antichrist," in the appendix to Smith's 'Dictionary of the Bible,' thus expresses his view of the sum of Scripture teaching with regard to Antichrist: "It would appear that there is to be evolved from the womb of the corrupt Church an individual Antichrist, who, being himself a scoffer and contemner of all religion, will yet act as the patron and defender of the corrupt Church, and compel men to submit to her sway by the force of the secular arm and by means of bloody persecutions. He will unite the old foes, superstition and unbelief, in a combined attack on liberty and religion. He will have the power of performing lying miracles and beguiling souls, being the embodiment of Satanic as distinct from brutal wickedness." Or, as Lange puts it, "Antichrist may proceed from a coalition between completed absolutism and completed radicalism."

Of course, according to this view, the fulfilment being yet future, we cannot apply to its truth or falsehood the characteristics given us in the prophecy itself. It appears to be the uniform doctrine of Scripture, as seen both in the prophecies of the Old Testament and of the New, that before the consummation of all things there will he a final and desperate struggle between the principles of good and evil. The revolt against all rule and authority, the spread of Nihilism, the increase of infidelity and agnosticism, the unblushing proclamation of atheism and the support given to it in the scientific and political world, the deification of materialism, are all the precursors of Antichrist. It may only require a dissolution of order and a corruption of morals, greater and more universal than that which occurred in the great French Revolution, to usher in the coming of the Man of Sin, who, amid the confusion, will seize upon the sceptre of dominion. We may figure him as an individual, a man of more commanding abilities and far greater wickedness than the first Napoleon; one who will subdue the world, and in the height of his impiety and ambition proclaim his atheism, and that man himself is God. We cannot penetrate into the future, but we may rest confident that, if such a state of things should happen, the final victory of the good over the evil cannot be doubted; the breath of the Lord is sufficient to overthrow the kingdom of Antichrist, and to baffle all his pretensions. "Whom the Lord shall slay with the breath of his mouth, and annihilate by the appearance of his coming."