Who Is "The Man of Sin"?

My efforts, for the next few minutes, are to present evidence that the "man of sin," about whom Paul writes, as recorded in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, is the Roman papacy. Men have presented other theories, some of which may be backed up with some reasoning; but none of these theories completely fit the bill, as does the papacy (succession of popes).

In his first letter to the church in Thessalonica, Paul wrote of the return of Christ. Unfortunately, some of the saints misunderstood - perhaps influenced by false teaching - and this prompted the need for a clarification, in a second letter, to correct the erroneous thinking. Apparently, some were advocating that the Lord had already returned. Paul begins addressing this error in 2 Thessalonians 2:1.

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

So, in these two verses, Paul was clear and emphatic in proclaiming that Jesus had not yet come and that the false teachers, who fostered that idea, were not to be believed. Based on the phrase "as from us" it is evident that some were basing their false teaching on what they asserted that Paul, and/or other apostles, had said. As we see in verse 3, Paul warned about these false teachers and proceeded to explain why what they were saying was not true.

3 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;

In this passage, Paul is saying there will be a "falling away" before the coming of Christ. Once we identify this "falling away," of whom the "man of sin" is associated, it will become apparent that the preterist's contention that Jesus came in AD 70, at the destruction of Jerusalem (a doctrine that has taken roots in the church in recent history), cannot be true. Paul made it CLEAR that a "falling away," an apostasy, must come FIRST, and that the "falling away" had not yet come. And we shall show that it did not come until sometime AFTER AD 70.

Before we proceed to the next passage in our text, which describes the character of the line of popes in some detail, let's look at what Paul wrote to Timothy about this same apostasy:

1 Timothy 4:1 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; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 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.

Clearly, Paul was informing Timothy of an apostasy. It would be unreasonable to conclude that he referred to a DIFFERENT apostasy than the one previously discussed in the letter to the Thessalonians, without there being some evidence to support that idea. It seems apparent that the text was intended to further describe the papacy, which helps clarify who the "man of sin" is. The phrase, "forbidding to marry" may not have originated with the Catholic church (I do not know), but they were guilty of it, and they continue to do it by asserting that divorce does not end marriage. By the way, anyone today who asserts that divorce does not end marriage, or that certain "unmarried" people do not have a right to marriage ("not eligible"), is guilty of the same thing, which Paul put into the category of "doctrines of devils". Paul settled this issue when he spoke of the "unmarried" and commanded "let them marry" (1 Cor. 7:8, 9).

Another phrase, "commanding to abstain from meats," is also understood to describe the Catholic Church, as certain meats are forbidden on specific days. This is further evidence pointing us in the direction of viewing the "man of sin" as being the papacy.

Now back to 2 Thessalonians 2:

4 Who opposeth and exalteth 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.

"The pope doeth whatsoever he listeth [wills], even things unlawful, and is more than God (Newton, p. 456)."

"Attwater, a Catholic writer, has shown that, according to Roman Catholicism, 'Tradition'" i.e., the voice of the church, is superior to the Scriptures (pp. 41-42)."

"Our Lord God the pope; another God upon the earth, king of kings, and lord of lords (Newton, p. 456)."

The pope claims that whereas Christ is the head of the church in heaven, the papacy is the head of the church on earth. So, what is prophesied about the "man of sin," relative to his thinking of himself to be equal to God and worthy of worship, and presenting himself as if he is God, is descriptive of the line of popes.

5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth (restrains) will let, until he be taken out of the way.

The early stages of this ecclesiastical apostasy was already at work in the early church ("doth already work"). Christ established his church in the first century (AD 33; Acts 2). Paul tells us, "He gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). There is no mention of a pope and neither Jesus nor Paul elevated one pastor over another. Unfortunately, men deviated from God's pattern, regarding bishops, pastors or elders (descriptive terms for the same office), in their quest for power, honor and praise.

The first indication of this apostasy was in making a distinction among the terms "bishops," "elders," and "pastors," which, again, are terms used interchangeably for the same office (Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5, 7; 1 Peter 5:1-4). The title "bishop" was given more significance and was applied to only one man who usurped authority over a local congregation. (Protestants do basically the same think by calling their evangelists "pastors"). That progressed to a bishop's ruling over not just the congregation where he worshiped, but over a "diocese," or several congregations in a certain area. Due to these attitudes and actions, eventually one man claimed authority over the entire church. While Catholics have endeavored to establish a successive line of popes, starting with Peter, these men did not begin to enjoy significant success in errantly usurping authority until around 366. Another important date is 496, and 606 has long been used as the date of the first recognized pope. But accuracy regarding these dates is not important. What is important is that we see the slow developing succession in fulfillment of Paul's prophecy of the falling away of the church and the rise of the man of sin.

The "man of sin" is the ultimate result of the falling away from the faith. It was an ecclesiastical issue that progressed from within the church - not from Roman emperors, not from Judaism, and not from some man who could be identified as the anti-Christ. (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.) Note also that the word apostasia (noun, translated "falling away") indicates a definite movement - not merely a principle of defection. It was yet to come! It had not evolved to the point where it could be identified. It awaited future development. And Paul did not say it was at hand, or near.

In some sense, the "man of sin" would sit in the temple of God (v. 4). The word "temple" is not a reference to the Jewish house of worship. The Greek word naos was used by Paul eight times. Never does this term apply to the Jewish temple. The implication of Paul's warning is that this sinful man would be viewed as being a "church" character.

"This person represents himself as God, either:
1) by making claims that belong only to deity;
2) by receiving adoration reserved exclusively for God; or,
3) by usurping prerogatives which only God can accomplish."

The expression "sitteth" hints of great arrogance. The language describes the "man of sin" as attempting to exact "divine homage" from people. The phrase "sets himself forth as God" is continual; it wasn't something that was happening at the time (certainly it was not in full bloom) and not something, or someone, that would soon be destroyed.

Paul spoke of some influence that restrained the emergence of the "man of sin" -- holding it in check, so to speak. This force was strongly associated with a person as suggested by the wording "he who restrains" (v. 7). Some have suggested it was Paul himself, but it more likely was some power not related to the church. Unlike the "man of sin," whose identity was later to be revealed, the early saints knew personally of this restraining force. "Now you know" (oidate) - Vine's says: "to know from observation." This restraining force, whatever it was, would be removed, making way for the "man of sin" (the succession of popes) to advance further and eventually become what we know it to be today.

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

After the restraining influence was taken out of the way, "that wicked" would be revealed. This wicked one (the succession of them) the Lord shall destroy when he comes. (By the way, if it is understood that the "man of sin" refers specifically to the succession of popes, then those who espouse the idea that Christ came in AD 70 have an insurmountable problem - one that destroys any hope of a foundation for what they insist is the truth.)

9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

He deceives those who love not the truth, by virtue of the lying wonders he effects (vv. 9-10). Bloomfield calls these "pretended miracles." These "wonders" are not in the category of Christ's miracles. In identifying the "man of sin," one must thus look for a post-apostolic movement that claims to prove its authenticity by miracles, as does the Roman Catholic Church.

11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

The "man of sin," though having roots in the world of ancient Christianity, will nevertheless endure, in some form or another, until the end of time, i.e., until the final coming of Christ, at which time He will deliver up the kingdom to God. (1 Cor. 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.) At that time, the "man of sin" will be destroyed along with others who "know not God and who obey not the gospel."

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

"In view of this, the 'man of sin' cannot be some persecuting enemy that faded into oblivion centuries ago. It is a matter of history that when imperial Rome fell in AD 476, great power was shifted into the hands of church clerics. After imperial Rome fell, the apostate church of that day accelerated in its power. The apostate church, an evolution from truth to error, clearly had its beginning in the first century; yet, this movement continues to this day, and, according to Paul's prophecy, will abide, in one form or another, until the final coming of Christ."

Conclusion:

That 2 Thessalonians 2:3-10 (our text) is a prophecy of the papacy (the popes being the "man of sin") has been the prevailing view for more than a thousand years. It is the view of some of the most brilliant scholars who ever lived. But the main reason I hold the view I have presented is that it is the only system that fits the demands of the passage under study - specifically regarding the "man of sin." "It is both ancient and modern, something that cannot be said of a Caesar, the Jewish zealots, a modern anti-Christ, etc."

Considering the number of people who have been deceived into following the pope over the centuries - the consequences of this gigantic false organization, and false doctrines that deceive - it is implausible that God would not warn of such an organization, but instead merely warn of something that soon ceased to exist. There can be no doubt that the "man of sin" is the succession of popes, who would be destroyed at the coming of Christ. Thus, preterists are mistaken in their view that the end came in AD 70, that Christ returned at that time (and not just in judgment on Jerusalem) and that there is not going to be any future coming. These people call themselves "full preterists" and they refer to those of us who look to a future and final coming of our Lord as "futurists." Until the arguments in this article are soundly defeated, I'll remain a futurist. My prayer is that preterists, and any who might be deceived by them in the future, will consider Paul's prophecy about "the man of sin" and see that the text presented in this article upholds the idea that the final coming of Christ is yet to come.

For further study, see Wayne Jackson's article, from which there are some quotations in the above article:
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/677-who-is-pauls-man-of-sin