2 Thessalonians (4)

🎵Music🎵

It's based on some verses out of Psalm 119, singing

God's Word. Let's turn in our Bibles please to 2

Thessalonians 2. Take care already, see you in a couple of weeks, Lord willing.

God bless you. We'll attempt not to be envious.

Now we're happy for them. Well, today is the fourth

Lord's Day that we've, in 2 Thessalonians, we were able to get through Chapter 1 and only two

Sundays. Going to be a few more here in Chapter 2 because it is addressing a very important matter, and a complex matter, and an issue of which good, sincere

Christians differ a great deal. And so, in our addressing this matter, we want to not only present what the text itself says, but we also want to trace what

Christians through history have understood about this passage. And for eighteen and a half centuries, the

Christians believed a lot differently than what is believed about this passage in the last hundred and thirty or forty years thereabout.

And so, last Lord's Day, we began to work through this section of Paul's epistle to the church, in which he was correcting errant beliefs regarding their understanding of the

Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Their wrong understanding of the

Second Coming may have been due to their failure to understand rightly the first epistle that Paul wrote, 1

Thessalonians. They misunderstood it or draw wrong conclusions. Or they may have just simply been led astray or deceived by false teachers.

That was always a problem that the churches that Paul began struggled against.

At the heart of the error of this church at Thessalonica regarding the Second Coming was their belief that the

Second Coming was imminent. In other words, Christ was going to return any moment, any time.

And really, there was nothing between now and the Second Coming of Christ. And Paul wrote and corrected them.

You're wrong about that. He basically says, Jesus isn't coming in an imminent way at any moment.

But rather, some things have to take place before the Second Coming of Christ occurs.

This is what he said. Now, that little description flies into the face of so many evangelicals and what they believe about the end times.

As we'll again point out. Paul assured them in verses 1 -3 of 2

Thessalonians 2 that the day of the Lord, that is, when true believers are gathered unto him, it will not occur in two events as is popularly proclaimed today.

Paul declared, rather, two events must take place before the Second Coming.

First, the rebellion must take place. And then, second, the man of lawlessness would be revealed.

These would occur before the Lord comes. And before we are gathered to be with him.

Let's read these three verses once again. Now, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him.

That's the Second Coming. We ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed either by a spirit or a spoken word or a letter seeming to be from us to the effect that the day of the

Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way, for that day will not come unless the rebellion occurs first.

And the man of lawlessness is revealed. The Son of Destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so -called

God or object of worship so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be

God. We showed last Lord's Day that this first event, the rebellion, should be understood as the falling away from the truth of true

Christianity, professing Christians that embrace heresy, error, fall away from the truth.

The falling away or apostasy is a departure from the Christian faith, the truth of the gospel, into heresy or unbelief.

That's what apostasy is. It describes a sinful departure from the truth.

It's not talking about a deterioration or degradation of the world.

He's talking about professing Christians. He's talking about Christendom. It's a departure from the faith, falling away from the truth, from the faith.

The Greek word that Paul used, again, apostasy, translated apostasy, apostasia is the

Greek word. It describes a falling away from the truth of the word of God, a departure from the faith of professing

Christians. The apostasy describes many who formerly had the truth, but who will have turned away from the truth, presumably due to the influence of false teachers and false doctrine.

And Paul is saying that this great rebellion or apostasy will take place before the

Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The second event that must take place before the

Second Coming is that the man of lawlessness is revealed. New King James uses the term man of sin, but it describes really a man who is in rebellion against the law of God, the man of lawlessness.

This is who he is, this is what he espouses. This is commonly, now

Paul never declares him to be the Antichrist, but this is commonly understood to be a reference to the Antichrist, and I think that's right.

And of course the Antichrist is mentioned in numbers of passages in the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the

New as well. The conclusion that must be drawn from 2 Thessalonians 2, and we could argue it from other places, is that the

Apostle Paul taught that the Second Coming of Christ was not an imminent event, that it would take place in the future, sometime after these two events transpired.

And as we pointed out last week, just a simple plain reading of verses 1 -3 discredits the common and popular dispensational teaching that the future

Second Coming of Christ will take place in two stages, the Rapture and the

Revelation, they say. The Rapture of the Church at the beginning of a 7 -year Tribulation, the

Revelation or the Second Coming of Christ at the end of the 7 -year Tribulation, and they describe both events as one

Second Coming in two stages. And that just does not coincide with what

Paul declared here in 2 Thessalonians 2, 1 -3. He's talking about Christians in our gathering to be with the

Lord. And he says that day will not take place until first, there is this great apostasy that takes place, and secondly, the man of sin,

Antichrist, the man of lawlessness, appears. Now who is this man of lawlessness?

Well, there are different interpretations that vary greatly from one another. The majority of evangelicals, those who profess to believe the

Bible, believe a futurist view of the man of sin, that the

Antichrist is a single individual who will rise in the future to rule over the world in a future 7 -year

Tribulation period. They argue that he will be primarily a political leader, and that's important.

They say the Antichrist will be a dictator over the entire world. They claim that he will be this world dictator who will come to power after the rapture of the

Church. There are others, however, who also hold to a futurist view that the

Antichrist is a single individual who will appear at the end of the age. But they believe that this man of lawlessness is a religious leader within the

Church, not a political leader. But they still hold the man of lawlessness to be an individual, a person who will appear at the end of the

Church age. And there are Reformed scholars who do not hold to a pre -Tribulation rapture of the

Church, but rather they believe that there is one second coming of Christ at the end of the age.

Nevertheless, they believe the Antichrist to be an individual who will rise at the end of the age.

And some of the commentators that I commonly refer to hold to that position. William Hendrickson, Greg Beal, Leon Morris, others.

Most folks hold that position, we would say. But in contrast to this futurist view,

Christians have held throughout Christian history until toward the end of the 19th century Christians throughout

Christian history for nearly 1900 years have held to what may be called the fulfilled interpretation of the man of sin.

These Christians have believed that the papacy of the Roman Catholic Church is what the scriptures describe as the

Pope is the man of sin, is the man of lawlessness. And so rather than a single individual, it is the institution of the papacy.

They affirm that the Pope of Rome is the man of sin, and he is the man of lawlessness. And that might sound rather strange to our ears because of what we are commonly hearing.

And it is commonly heard. I was the other night driving in my car somewhere, and I was listening to a

Christian talk program, a lady interviewing this supposed scholar, and he was parroting all of this stuff that most evangelicals believe, and I was just...

That's why I have trouble listening to Christian radio a lot of the time, I just get so upset about it. But it's so commonly taught.

And there's just the assumption, there's no true critical assessment.

It's just accepted as valid without question. And we should never get to that point.

We should always be willing to analyze our own views and positions in the light of the scriptures.

The belief that the Roman Catholic papacy is the man of lawlessness, or the Antichrist, is set forth in all of the older Protestant confessions of faith.

Every one of them. It's stated, for example, in the historic

Westminster Confession of Faith, which was drafted, I believe, in 1646.

It's stated this way, There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, the

Pope claimed to be the head of the Church, right? There is no other head of the

Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense behead thereof. But is that Antichrist?

That man of sin, that son of perdition, that exalts himself in the Church against Christ and all that's called

God? Now that's the direct approach, isn't it? That's the Westminster Confession, 1646.

The wording was somewhat modified by those who framed our own

Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689. A few more words, but the same statement. It was all based upon the

Westminster Confession. And so here it is, it's in Article 26, Paragraph 4 of our own

Confession that we espouse. The Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the Church, in whom, by the appointment of the

Father, all power for the calling, institution, and order or government of the Church is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner.

Neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense behead thereof. But is that Antichrist?

That man of sin, that son of perdition, that exalts himself in the Church against Christ and all that is called

God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of His coming? That's the language from 2 Thessalonians 2, isn't it?

This paragraph that we just read is the most debated statement in the Confession of Faith by Reformed Baptists themselves.

And the Confession of Faith of 1689 is a Reformed Baptist Confession. But most Reformed Baptists take issue with that paragraph.

There are those, though acknowledging the error of the papacy through history, nevertheless believe that an end -time

Antichrist may not be a Roman Catholic Pope. In our men's group, we go through the

Confession of Faith, and I think we're now going through the third time in 18 years.

I mean, we take our time going through it. And the copy

I have of the Confession is a little different than what the other men have. I have an updated version, modified a little bit for clarification in modern

English, edited by Peter Masters, who is a pastor in London. He pastors the church at Charles Spurgeon, the

Metropolitan Tabernacle in London. And so he has little explanatory statements in his

Confession, in my edition, that explains the meaning and perhaps the reaction of a statement.

And so this is what Peter Masters wrote about this paragraph in our Confession. This last paragraph is regarded by many who affirm this

Confession as the only debatable statement. There is no disagreement among them as to the heresy and darkness of the

Church of Rome, nor of its instrumentality as a tool of Satan down the ages. The papal system is certainly utterly anti -Christian in spirit, form, and effect.

The issue is, will the last Pope of time be a servant of the coming Antichrist, or will he be the

Antichrist himself? See, the Reformed Baptists differ on that. Or will the

Church of Rome prove to be the Antichrist? The man of sin may turn out to be a person, or even an atheistic ideology, according to Masters.

But very few teachers today are prepared to make a definite identification. However, at the very least, it must be said that the office of the

Pope of Rome is in the power of Antichrist. And any serving

Pope is a man of sin and a son of perdition who exalts himself against the true word and the message of grace.

And so here, you have stated that there are many Reformed Baptists who take issue with this statement.

But again, prior to about the end of the 19th century, especially the early 20th century, everybody who was not

Roman Catholic believed this about the papacy, the Pope, being the

Antichrist. So Masters acknowledge that many who otherwise affirm the teaching of this confession are not convinced that the papacy should be identified as the foretold

Antichrist of Scripture. Most of today's Reformed Christians would acknowledge

Roman Catholicism to be a corrupt institution that promotes heretical doctrine. Nevertheless, as Peter Masters says, few teachers today are prepared to make a direct assertion that the man of sin, the

Antichrist to come, is the Pope. And so we see that there are differences of opinion here.

And it's reflected down through history. And so it would be good for us to consider this carefully.

And we want to do so first of all by considering Paul's description of the man of lawlessness in verses 3 -10.

Let's read these verses. Again, Paul wrote to the church, Let no one deceive you in any way, for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so -called

God or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be

God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And you know what is restraining him now, so that he may be revealed in his time.

For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, only he who now restrains it will do so until he is taken out of the way, or until he is out of the way.

And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth, and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan, with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refuse to love the truth, and so be saved.

Now, aside from his first description of him as the man of lawlessness, which we have already addressed, Paul describes this man of sin, man of lawlessness, in the following ways.

First, he describes the Antichrist as the son of destruction. Verse 3.

The way that one views the noun destruction will determine his understanding of what the

Apostle meant by this term. And I won't go into great detail, but a noun can be in a form that is called a genitive case.

And it can carry different ideas, or a single idea, but depending on the context in which it is found.

And so, some might say that the Antichrist as the son of destruction means that he is a destroyer.

The son of destruction, he is always destroying. One who causes the destruction of others.

But probably the idea that Paul intended to convey was that the final destiny of the man of lawlessness was his own destruction.

He is the son of destruction. That's his end, that's his ruin. Interestingly, both the

King James and New King James versions translate the phrase as the son of perdition, rather than destruction.

Perdition is another term for hell, or damnation. The son of hell. The son of perdition.

Paul used the same Greek word in chapter 1 when he described the damnation of the unrighteous.

We read in 1 Thessalonians 3, 8 -10. He described the coming of the Lord, the second coming.

In flaming fire, taking vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our

Lord Jesus Christ, these shall be punished with everlasting destruction. Or perdition.

From the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power when he comes in that day. The idea that man of lawlessness experiencing his own destruction or perdition is most likely when we consider the context, other contexts in which this word is used in the scriptures.

For example, the Apostle Paul wrote of the damnation of nominal Christians, those who are not true

Christians, but they are Christians in name only. They claim to be a Christian, but they live otherwise. And so he wrote,

For many of whom I have often told you, and now tell you even with tears, they walk as enemies of the cross of Christ.

That does not mean they are opposed to Christ. It means that they refuse to embrace the cross of Christ as instructing their life.

They want to serve themselves, not Christ. Their end is destruction.

And there you have the word destruction in English, but it is the word perdition. Their God is their belly.

In other words, the Lord does not control them. Their own lusts, their own desires is what governs their thinking and their lives.

And they glory in their shame. With their minds they set on earthly things. They claim to be

Christian, but they live and love this world. And they refuse to deny themselves.

They are enemies of the cross. It means nothing to them. Clearly he is talking about hell there.

Perdition. The Apostle Peter wrote of some who twist the meaning of Scripture that results in their destruction or damnation.

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul so wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters.

There are some things in them that are hard to understand. Chalk up 2 Thessalonians 2 is one of those.

Which the ignorant and unstable twist or wrestle to their own destruction as they do the other scriptures.

So these are people who would argue that the Bible is the word of God, but they twist the meaning of it. Ending in their own damnation.

And then the Lord Jesus himself spoke of the damnation of Judas Iscariot. And this is the one that gives us the clear understanding of what

Paul was referring to, the man of lawlessness. As the son of destruction, or the son of perdition.

Jesus said of Judas, while I was with them in the world, I kept them in your name. He's praying to his father.

Those whom you gave me, I've kept. None of them is lost except the son of perdition. That the

Scripture might be fulfilled. And so the son of perdition here is the same

Greek phrase that the ESV, English Standard Version, translates in 2 Thessalonians 2 .3

as the son of destruction. And so that's why we conclude that the

Antichrist is one who will be destroyed. Although he destroys others, that's not what Paul was emphasizing.

Paul was emphasizing his certain end. He's going to be damned. A second description of the

Antichrist by Paul. The Antichrist opposes and exalts himself against every so -called

God or object of worship. Verse 4. And so the man of lawlessness seeks to exalt himself as against, or we could say above, every so -called

God or object of worship. He wants himself to be worshipped. He is the

Antichrist. And that carries two ideas. He's opposed to Christ, but also he's a supplanter of Christ.

He wants to take over the position that Christ has. Now some in the past have claimed that Paul meant to set forth the

Roman Empire as the man of lawlessness. This is interesting. During the end of the first century, living

Roman emperors began to claim that they were divine and therefore exalted themselves above every

God and every object of worship. And they demanded throughout the empire that all people worship the living

Roman emperor as divine, Caesar as Lord.

And this demand of Rome, the Roman Empire, became a major cause for the intense persecution of Christianity for the first few centuries of the

Christian era, continuing right to the 4th century until supposedly

Constantine was converted. Some, however, point to an early event in the 1st century that was contemporary with Paul's writing this epistle.

As Leon Morris pointed out, most commentators draw attention to the attempt of Caligula, he was a

Roman emperor, to set up an image of himself in the Temple at Jerusalem, an attempt that was frustrated only by his death.

This took place in AD 40. 2 Thessalonians might have been written in AD 52, so it would have been easier to understand.

The attempt raised widespread horror among the Jews. It may well be that Paul has this incident in mind in writing these words.

At the same time, what he says goes beyond anything Caligula attempted. The man of lawlessness is not pictured as setting up a statue of himself, but as taking his seat in person.

And so the man of lawlessness will want to be worshipped.

And the next statement confirms this understanding. Thirdly, the Antichrist takes his seat in the

Temple of God, proclaiming himself to be

God. People take this verse and it is amazing the amount of material that I believe is wrongly asserted based upon this verse.

Most argue that there must be a rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem. Otherwise, the

Antichrist cannot take his place in the Temple of God. But Paul was not talking about the physical

Temple in Jerusalem. He was talking about the Temple, which is the Church. This man comes into the

Church, into Christendom, and claims to be God.

Those who hold a future view of the Antichrist, whom they say will not come to the

Church, assume and assert a great deal from this verse. They say this is a prophecy of the future end -time

Antichrist, the world's dictator, who halfway through the seven -year Tribulation, three and a half years in, will enter the

Jewish Temple that is rebuilt in Jerusalem, which will one day be rebuilt. However, those who have held to a fulfilled view, not a futurist view, of the man of lawlessness, assert that Paul's reference to the

Temple here and elsewhere is a reference to the Church of Jesus Christ. They conclude, therefore, that this man of lawlessness is a false

Christ, an Antichrist, who asserts himself in Christendom as a true Antichrist.

He by far has the best commentary on Revelation available. Now it is on the Greek text, so it is not really accessible to everybody, but it is absolutely wonderful.

He has been our Bulletin Conference speaker in the past. He wrote this, What then does

Paul mean when he says this refers to the rebuilding of a literal physical

Temple for Israel in Jerusalem at the end of time and a setting up of the Antichrist in that Temple to deceive and to be an object of worship?

The problems with this view are manifold. First, chapter 2, verse 3, does not appear to be talking about an apostasy from the faith in a geographically conceived

Israel. The majority of Israel has not and does not believe in Christ and thus is incapable of falling away.

Good point. What are non -Christian Jews falling away from? They are not falling away from the truth because they do not accept the truth.

It is also difficult to conceive 2, verse 3 as alluding to an apostasy of unbelievers among the nations who are not part of the visible

Church. In other words, it is not an apostasy or rebellion of the world. It is within the

Church, Christendom. Again, since they possess no belief from which to fall away, rather, chapter 2, verse 3 appears to be alluding to a yet future massive falling away of the community of faith, the

Church, throughout the world. And so, Beal sees this as yet future from us.

Furthermore, that chapter 2, verse 3 is about a massive apostate movement toward the end of history in the Church and not in Israel is apparent from the phrase,

God's Temple in chapter 2, verse 4. This reference to the Temple shows that the

Church community is the place where the end -time prophecies about Israel and its Temple take place.

Paul is talking about the Church, not the Jewish Temple. I've got sitting next to my chair in my living room at home

Beal's book that I intend to start. And it's about 600 pages long where he presents the idea of the

Temple and the Church throughout the entire Bible. I'm looking forward to reading it. The same phrase,

God's Temple is found nine other times in the New Testament outside of 2 Thessalonians and it almost always refers either to Christ or the

Church. Not once in Paul, five other times outside 2

Thessalonians, does it refer to a literal Temple. Paul never refers to the Temple as the literal

Jewish Temple. Past or future, it's true that Matthew 26, verse 61 refers to destroying the physical

Temple of God and rebuilding it in three days, that is, rebuilding the spiritual Temple. Jesus was talking about his own resurrection, wasn't he?

So Matthew represents a transition to a spiritual Temple that is the only focus of Paul, and for that matter, the

Book of Revelation. He argues that the references to the Temple in Revelation are not to a physical

Jewish Temple, but to the Church. According to John 2, 21, when

Jesus referred to rebuilding or raising up of the Temple of God, he was speaking of his body and his own resurrection.

Jesus' resurrection was the beginning of the rebuilding of the Temple of God. Israel's former physical

Temple was but a physical foreshadowing of Christ and his people as the Temple. Because Jesus is the

Temple, Paul elsewhere refers to believers as the Temple of God because they believed in Jesus and are identified with him as part of his body.

And yet, again, these futurists take this statement of Paul at this meeting man of sin will seat himself in the

Temple of God, and therefore there has to be a rebuilt physical Temple during the

Tribulation period, or else how can he sit in that Temple? Paul wasn't referring to a physical, literal

Temple. He was referring to the Temple of the Church, Christendom, in which this man of sin comes in, and he claims to be

God, and demands to be worshipped. And so it is my opinion that Paul speaks of the

Antichrist being a person or persons within the professing Church. The Antichrist is chiefly, by the way, a religious leader, not a political one.

Most futurists argue the Antichrist is an end -time political leader, a worldwide dictator.

But Paul is presenting the man of lawlessness here as a corrupt, heretical, religious leader in the

Church. Fourthly, Paul says the Antichrist will not be revealed until he who now restrains him is out of the way.

And once again, so much is read out of this statement. It's incredible. Let's read the verses 6 -8.

You know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. He's writing to the

Church. You know what's restraining him. The Church at Thessalonica knew what was restraining the man of sin, the

Antichrist, from coming forward. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work.

Only he who now restrains it will do so until he's taken out of the way.

I tend to want to quote King James, but it's not. It's ESV. Until he's taken out of the way.

And then the lawless one will be revealed. And so there is this restrainer preventing the

Antichrist from coming upon the scene. Dispensationalists, futurists, assert that he who now restrains him, the

Antichrist, is the Holy Spirit. They argue that when the Church is raptured out of the world at the beginning of the seven -year tribulation, the

Holy Spirit who indwells Christians will therefore be caught out of the world, removed from the world.

And this will allow the Antichrist to immediately arise to power. And so they argue the restrainer is the

Holy Spirit. It should be noted, however, that Paul does not specifically say the restrainer is the

Holy Spirit. He just refers to him as the masculine pronoun, the third person pronoun,

He. Interestingly, the New King James Version capitalizes the

H in the pronoun He, which reveals the translators of the New King James Version thought it was

God, or the Holy Spirit who is the restrainer, preventing the Antichrist to come on the scene.

But Paul just refers to the restrainer as He. There have been other interpretations as to the identity of the restrainer, however.

Those who hold to the fulfilled view that the

Pope is the Antichrist, that he has already appeared in history, commonly call the

Roman Emperor, or the Roman Empire, as the restrainer, who prevented the rise of the man of lawlessness in the

Church. The fact is that the identity of one who restrains the appearance of the man of lawlessness is a very difficult matter to determine in history.

William Hendrickson, a Reformed commentator, said, "...far more difficult to answer is the question, what is meant by that which, or he who is now holding him, the

Antichrist, back?" From becoming revealed as the man of lawlessness, who is this restrainer?

We'll say more about this restrainer in a little bit. Fifthly, the

Antichrist will be killed by the Lord Jesus at His Second Coming. We read that in verse 8.

And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of His mouth, and bring to nothing by the appearance of His coming.

Dispensationalists believe that the appearance and influence of this end -time Antichrist will be seven years in duration, after the

Rapture, and then destroyed at the Second Coming, killed by the Lord Jesus. There are, again, others who are

Reformed who also believe in an end -time Antichrist, and they argue the scriptures speak of a man who will not appear until the end of the age, but of course they don't hold to a pre -tribulation

Rapture. They just say that, and it's not seven years, that he'll just appear at some point in the future, and the

Lord Jesus will kill this person, this individual, at His Second Coming. However, those who have held to a historical fulfillment, who have understood the papacy of the

Roman Catholic Church as the Antichrist, would argue that though the man of lawlessness will be killed by the

Lord at His Second Coming, the text does not say that the man of sin will only appear soon before the

Second Coming of Christ. That is an assumption that Beale makes, Hendrickson makes, and these

Reformed guys about the future Antichrist. They say since he'll be destroyed by the

Lord at His Second Coming, that means the Antichrist won't appear until the end. And I think that's a faulty argument on their part.

The fact is, we do not know who the Restrainer is. Paul knew, or what the

Restrainer was, and the church at Thessalonica knew who the Restrainer was. You know who it is who is restraining him from appearing.

The church knew, and Paul knew. He said, we talked about this when I was with you.

Don't you remember that? The church knew who the Restrainer was. Paul knew who the

Restrainer was. Do you not remember when I was still with you, I told you these things? You know what is restraining him, the man of lawlessness, now.

And actually, the way Paul described the Restrainer here gives, I think, strong evidence for the fulfilled view, as one wrote.

Now we can understand why Paul was careful when writing about it, not to mention the restraint by name.

To teach that eternal Rome would fall could have brought on unnecessary conflict with the leaders of the empire within which they lived.

I had Paul written in there, you know the Roman Empire is restraining the appearance of the

Antichrist. But when the Roman Empire is taken out of the way, the man of sin will appear. That's going to put Paul and the church at Thessalonica in hot water if somebody gets a hold of that letter.

And so Paul is talking in general terms and rather obscure terms. You know who it is who is restraining. I talked to you about this when

I was with you, especially when writing to the

Christians at Thessalonica, would this caution be in order? For it was there they had been accused of doing things contrary to the decrees of Caesar, and believing in another king, one

Jesus. Wisdom had it that he would simply write, Remember when I was yet with you, I told you these things.

And others argue, if it was the Holy Spirit, Paul would have said, You know the Holy Spirit is restraining Him. So the

Antichrist will be killed at the Second Coming. 6. The Antichrist will be empowered by the devil to do miraculous wonders.

Verses 9 and 10. The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan, with all power, false signs, and wonders, and with all power, and with all wicked deception, for those who are perishing, because they refuse to love the truth, and so be saved.

I am surprised at how the English translations vary. And I have listed a number of them.

They actually apply the deception or the lying to different, these three different words here within this verse.

And so the New King James Version, the first one says, that with all power, signs, and then notice the adjective lying is put in front of one word,

He is not saying that the power is a lie, or the signs are a lie, but the wonders are not true, they are lying.

However, notice the ESV, which we are using, it attributes the falsehood to signs, but not to wonders.

I don't know why they do that. The New American Standard says, that with all power, signs, and false wonders.

And so the ESV says false signs, the New American Standard says no false wonders. And then the

NIV attributes them all to be counterfeit, all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs, and wonders, they are all false.

And then the Revised Standard Version, from the 50s, the coming of the lawless one, by the activity of Satan, will be with all power, and with pretended signs, and wonders.

And so some of these translations set forth all the works of the antichrist as counterfeit. Another translation labels only the wonders as false, they are lying wonders.

Another translation identifies only the signs as pretended, or false, but not the power of the wonders.

Now, personally, as I look at the Greek text, for what it is worth, it seems that which is false is only applied to the things that are the third noun, the third term.

In other words, they are false or lying wonders. The devil has power to do supernatural things in order to further his evil purposes in the world.

Some people think that if they see something miraculous, that must be proof it is of God. Not so.

Remember that demon possessed girl? She brought great profit to her owners because she had the spirit of divination.

She could foretell the future. Just because something is miraculous doesn't mean it is of God, necessarily.

Now, I know our time is escaping. However, I definitely want to address the historic position that has understood the man of lawlessness to be the papacy of the

Roman Catholic Church. This is the majority view over the course of most of the 19th or 18th centuries of the

Christian Europe. Some argue that the view of the papacy is to be the

Antichrist was only the subjective view of the early Protestant reformers who were fighting against the

Pope, like Martin Luther, say, and Calvin. But actually, the view of the Antichrist becoming the corrupt leader within Christendom has been held and espoused throughout the entire

Christian era. So I would like us to consider the history of this doctrine by first examining the teaching of the early

Church Fathers. This was during the Roman Empire. This was during the papacy of the

Roman Catholic Church. After we address that, we will consider some comments from Roman Catholic leaders themselves.

The first one to declare the Pope was the Antichrist was the Pope. Amazing. And then thirdly, and not until next week, we will consider what the

Protestants said, the Puritans said regarding this man of sin.

And so let us consider first the understanding of the understanding of the Antichrist before the

Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. Again, when the modern evangelical reads in the confessions that the papacy is identified as the

Antichrist, he is taken aback. I remember when I read that years ago in the confession, I thought, this is strange, bizarre, because I was a dissensationalist.

I had been taught, you know, and affirmed in future political Antichrist or in tribulation.

And I remember oftentimes when we read these confessions, we assume, well, this was just developed out of the context of the

Protestant Reformers, Calvin, Luther. Those guys had been persecuted by Rome, and so they called the

Pope the Antichrist. But actually, you can go way back to the beginning of the Christian era, and you see the early church fathers taught repeatedly, we need to pray to God that he would preserve the

Roman Empire, because once the Roman Empire is dispersed, then the man of sin is going to arise within the church.

Incredible. In other words, they were anticipating and afraid of a future

Pope -like figure arising in the churches, long before there ever was a papacy.

And so let's consider early witnesses to the coming Antichrist. We're on page 8 of our notes, moving pretty quickly now.

The early church fathers were united in their agreement that the Roman Empire, while governed by the

Caesars, was that which Paul was referring to in 2 Thessalonians 2 as the

Restrainer. God used the Roman Empire to restrain the man of lawlessness, keeping him from arising to power.

Now this is the same teaching as the Reformers and Puritans in the 16th century, but it was true of the early church fathers that the

Roman Catholicism was really formulated. For example, Justin Martyr advocated that Christians pray for the

Roman Empire so that it would continue to restrain the onset of the reign of the Antichrist. Amazing!

He believed that if Rome fell, the Antichrist would rise within the church. And this is in the context of the

Roman Empire beginning to persecute Christians terribly. They were throwing the Christians to the lions.

But as bad as the Roman Emperor and Empire were, they said, Pray that he continues. You think it is bad now?

When he goes, the man of sin is going to arise in the church. This is what they all believed.

Tertullian, who was a church father toward the end of the second century, wrote this in his work called

The Apology. There is also another and a greater necessity for our offering prayer on behalf of the emperors, nay, for the complete destruction the empire.

And for Roman interest in general, for we know that a mighty shock impending over the whole earth, in fact, the very end of all things, threatening dreadful woes, is only retarded by the continued existence of the

Roman Empire. We have no desire then to be overtaken by these dire events, and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome's duration.

Incredible! He spoke more directly. These were his comments.

We are considering 2 Thessalonians 2. Now ye know what this time for the mystery of iniquity doth already were, only he who now hinders must hinder until he is taken out of the way.

What obstacle is there but the Roman State, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce

Antichrist, that the beast Antichrist, with his false prophet, made war on the

Church of God? Cyril of Jerusalem, 4th century, made the same assertion.

This, the predicted Antichrist, will come when the times of the Roman Empire shall be fulfilled. Ten kings of the

Romans shall arise together, among these the eleventh is Antichrist, who by magical and wicked artifices shall seize

Roman power. Now the Pope became the Bishop of the Church of Rome, didn't he?

And, by the way, this is after Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to the east,

Constantinople. He renamed it Constantinople. And so the

Roman Empire capital moved from Rome to the east. And with the vacuum of the political power of Rome going to the east, it was a vacuum in which the

Bishop of Rome rose in power. Chrysostom, one of the greatest preachers in Church history, he was called what?

Golden Mouth or Silver Tongue? Silver Mouth? I forget the exact title. Here are his comments on 2

Thessalonians 2. One may naturally inquire, What is it that which withholdeth?

In other words, hinders. And after that, would know why Paul expressed it so obscurely.

What then is it that withholdeth? That is, hindereth him from being revealed? Some indeed say the grace of the

Spirit, but others the Roman Empire, to whom I most of all accede. In other words, that's my view.

Wherefore? Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly. But even now, the grace of the

Spirit, that is the gifts withhold him. But because he said this of the Roman Empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly.

For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous enmities and useless dangers. For if he had said that after a little while the

Roman Empire would be dissolved, they would immediately have even overwhelmed him as a pestilent person, and all the faithful was living and warring to this end.

So indeed, he also says here, only there is one that restrains now until he be taken out of the way. That is, when the

Roman Empire is taken out of the way, then he shall come. And naturally, for as long as the fear of this empire lasts, no one will willingly exalt himself.

But when that is dissolved, he will attack the anarchy and endeavor to seize upon the government both of men and of God.

For as the kingdoms before this were destroyed, for example the Medes by the Babylonians, and that of the

Babylonians by the Persians, that of the Persians by the Macedonians or Greeks, and that of the

Macedonians by the Romans, so will this also be the Antichrist.

And he by Christ, and it will no longer withhold. And these things Daniel delivered to us with great clearness.

They were fearful of a Pope -like figure coming in the

Church. Jerome, who translated the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament into Latin, the common language of the people.

It was the Roman Catholic Bible that was the Latin Vulgate. He wrote,

He, Paul, shows that which restrains is the Roman Empire. For unless it shall have been destroyed and taken out of the midst, according to the prophet

Daniel, the Antichrist will not come before that. Let us therefore say what all ecclesiastical writers have delivered unto us, that when the

Roman Empire is destroyed, ten kings will divide the Roman world among themselves, and then will be revealed the man of sin.

And so the major leaders and writers of the early Church were united in their assertions that the power of the

Roman Empire was preventing the rise of the Antichrist to power. They might have been wrong, but if they were wrong, they were all wrong.

They were fearful of the rise of a Pope -like person in the Church. And the testimonies of these men were all given again before the disintegration of the

Empire, and before the rise of the Roman Papacy. But this is what they were anticipating was going to happen.

And again, this is just a few of the citations. We could have listed ten pages of them. There are so many of them.

And so the early Church, through the writings of the Fathers, tells us what it knew upon the subject, and with remarkable unanimity affirms that this let, the one who lets or hinders, was the

Roman Empire as governed by the Caesars, and that while the Caesars held imperial power, it was impossible for the predicted

Antichrist to arise, and that on the fall of the Caesars he would arise. All the

Protestant Reformers knew these early Church Fathers and what they wrote about. Their belief, the

Reformers' belief, that the Pope was the Antichrist was not newly invented by them. For them, they saw what the early

Church Fathers predicted and were afraid of came to pass in history. Let me just conclude with a few references.

I'm almost hesitant to do so, but some of the early bishops of Rome were the first ones to speak about the papacy as the

Antichrist, which is amazing to me. And so, of course,

Roman Catholicism claims that Apostle Peter was the first Pope, but it's not But really, only the

Church of Rome believes that. Nobody else does. Non -Roman Catholic historians differ in their views as to when the

Roman Catholic papacy was instituted. It occurred probably gradually. Popes began to assert more authority, claim more authority as the centuries unfolded, but probably in the 6th, 7th, 8th centuries is really when the

Pope came to authority and power. And so let me just look at this paragraph on page 10 and then we'll wrap things up.

The authority of the bishops of Rome increased gradually throughout the centuries until it reaches Zenith in Pope Gregory VII in 1085, 11th century.

Prometheus, who died in 560, wrote a commentary on the Revelation. He declared that the Antichrist would substitute himself for Christ in the

Church. Again, next week we'll address it, but the Pope claims to be the

Vicar of Christ. In other words, he's Christ in the Church. The Pope.

He has that authority. And, of course, the very word Pope means Father. He demands to be called

Holy Father. And Jesus said, Call no man on earth Father. You only have one

Father in Heaven. And this

Prometheus said that he would rule from the seven -hilled city of Rome. When Pope Gregory I became the

Bishop of Rome in the 6th century, he declared that whoever called himself the Universal Bishop would be a precursor to the

Antichrist. Amazing. There were those who desired to call him

Holy Father. They wanted to call Pope Gregory that. A title which he refused to assume.

He refused it. Don't call me that. Nevertheless, he is commonly regarded as a reformer of the

Church and an effective administrator. Many regard him as the founder of the medieval papacy, which exercised both secular and spiritual power.

His successor, Boniface III, however, was the first Pope to assume this title of Universal Bishop, his follower.

He claimed to be the primary head of the Christian Church. In the 11th century, Gerbert of Rheims declared that the

Pope sitting on his lofty throne in golden purple, that if he were destitute of charity, he was

Antichrist sitting in the Temple of God. Now, that's an assertion of a Roman Catholic about the

Roman Catholic Popes. This whole idea wasn't invented by Protestants.

It was believed and asserted by leaders in the Roman Catholic Church itself. They began to accuse one another of being the

Antichrist, by the way, depending on whoever became the Pope. As time passed, the

Popes increasingly became more bold and brazen in their claims. In fact, some of them claimed, you know,

I'm God. You know, you're to render worship to me.

What I say has the authority of Christ. What I say, God is saying.

He came into the Church and sat in that seat and claimed to have the authority of God himself.

And that was the institution of the Papacy, which became the great persecutor of anybody that refused to acknowledge that for centuries.

Until the breaking forth 500 years ago of the Protestant Reformation when

Martin Luther took, you know, boldly nailed those 95 theses primarily against indulgences there in that church door in Wittenberg, 500 years ago this coming

October. And so this view of the Pope as the Antichrist is not a strange or unusual or an unhistorical position.

But it's up to us to make determinations as to whether it's a correct understanding.

And so we'll continue to address this somewhat next week to Lord Willie. Let's pray.

Father, it's not our intention to offend or upset people, particularly our

Roman Catholic friends or family that may be listening to this. We're not against Roman Catholics. But we are against every falsehood,

Lord, that is contrary to your Holy Word that you've delivered to us. And we are against any and anything,

Lord, that would assert the person office of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.

And so help us, our God, to understand these things better. Lead us, our God, into truth and forgive us of our ignorance and of our error and help us, our

Lord, to promote the Lord Jesus Christ as the only Head of the Church, the Savior of His body.