Bible Study “that man of sinâ€Â

[JM]

Interesting note: In the preface to the AV, we read, "which hath given such a blow unto that man of sin, as will not be healed" this is speaking of the word of God dealing a blow to the papacy and the papacy is understood to be the "man of sin."

Interesting historical note, don't you think?

 

[D46]

Here's scripture on "the man of sin".

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 (KJV) 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; 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.

A commentary about this scripture...

2 Thessalonians 2:3

Verse 3. Unless the falling away - From the pure faith of the gospel, come first. This began even in the apostolic age. But the man of sin, the son of perdition - Eminently so called, is not come yet. However, in many respects, the Pope has an indisputable claim to those titles. He is, in an emphatical sense, the man of sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled, the son of perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers, destroyed innumerable souls, and will himself perish everlastingly. He it is that opposeth himself to the emperor, once his rightful sovereign; and that exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped - Commanding angels, and putting kings under his feet, both of whom are called gods in scripture; claiming the highest power, the highest honour; suffering himself, not once only, to be styled God or vice-God. Indeed no less is implied in his ordinary title, "Most Holy Lord," or, "Most Holy Father." So that he sitteth - Enthroned. In the temple of God - Mentioned Revelation 11:1. Declaring himself that he is God - Claiming the prerogatives which belong to God alone.

I think you may have hit on something here, JM! I must do further research. :-D

 

[CatholicXian]

Paul was not referring to the Papacy... he is referring to the Emperor Caligula, for the Christians in Thessolonica would know well who he was. Paul is personifying evil in the person of Caligula to make a point--even in the midst of evil and suffering in the world (and Caligula was a prime example), God is still in control, otherwise things would be a lot worse-- this is further clarified by Paul himself in 2 Thess 2:7, prior to the Age to Come, the forces of evil are ultimately restrained by the Lord (Jesus).. things could get a lot worse before they get better.

Or, are you going to tell me that the Christians in Thessalonica had a good understanding of the Papacy as it exists today? (and as you are interpreting the verse according to the modern day Papacy)

All in all, Paul is referring to/teaching about the parousia (Second Coming of Christ).. he's being a bit vague, but he's writing to give hope to the Thessalonians that they might continue to endure as they were when he wrote his first letter to them... nothing to do with the Papacy.

 

[D46]

I remember seeing something on the History Channel about this guy Caligula and he seemed to be a real sweetheart! Supposedly either was or went insane and was a bit sadistic. Even his own guards ended up killing him.

 

[CatholicXian]

I remember seeing something on the History Channel about this guy Caligula and he seemed to be a real sweetheart! Supposedly either was or went insane and was a bit sadistic. Even his own guards ended up killing him.

Yeah.. which is precisely why he fits the bill for Paul to personify evil in his letter to the Thessalonians. Any history buff (not me, I just recalled reading a commentary about that very verse in Thessalonians) will be able to tell you that Caligula was seriously insane, I don't think one could have lived under the reign of Caligula and not been absolutely terrified 24/7.

So it would seem that Caligula fits the bill much better than does the Papacy.

 

[memtherose]

I agree that Paul would be meaning Caligula.

Historically speaking, it is hard to figure out the true character of Gaius Caesar. It was a poorly documented period. However, the evidence that we DO have either portrays Caligula to be a crazed megalomaniac, (perhaps suffering from extreme paranoia and schizophrenia) or, he was just following in the tradition of the Greco-Italian tyrants - the typical "ancient ruler" It all depends on what sources you look at, but, one thing that all the documents agree on, are his excessive cruelty and immoral sexual "escapades." Owing to even just the history, I would agree with CatholicXian that Paul would be meaning Caligula. The man was terrifying!!

There's actually a fairly thought-provoking play about him - in French though, so you'd have to see if there's a translation somewhere.

God bless! +

 

[Rick W]

Welcome to the forum memtherose :smt039

 

[memtherose]

Hi there! :D

 

[Bick]

"The man of sin"

My interpretation of the 'man of sin' described by Paul, is that he will be 'the anti-Christ' in the coming indignation, or tribulation period of 7 years.
He is designated a number of ways. In the N.T.: The man of lawlessness (2 Thes. 2:3)CV; The son of destruction (2 Thes. 2:3,4)CV; The lawless one (2 Thes. 2:8)RSV; and The wild beast (Rev. 13:1,2)CV.

IMO those in the O.T. which are a type or figure of the "anti-Christ" are:
The Assyrian (Isa. 10:5,6; 30:27-33); King of Babylon (Isa. 14:4); Son of the dawn (Isa. 14:12)YLT; The little horn (Dan. 7:8, 9-12)AV; The king of strong presence (Dan. 8:23); The coming prince [governor](Dan. 9:26); and The willful king (Dan. 11:36).

I believe the prophecies of Daniel concerning the seventieth week (of years) in which Jerusalem will be again downtrodden by the Nations, are true. His writings match up with the book of Revelation, and I believe a careful reading of the literal translations would show it is all in the future.

To make the "man of sin" to be the Pope just doesn't make sense. And neither is he Caligula from the past.

Paul, in the Thessalonian letters, wanted to clarify that the day of the Lord had not already come, as had been reported by some, and causing anxiety among the believers. He assures them that our assembling to meet the Lord at his coming will be before the Day of the Lord. In 1 Thes. 4:15-18, Paul had already clarified that we, the living who are left at the coming of the Lord, would not precede those who have 'fallen asleep'. Evidently, all the believers knew before Paul's letters, was OT scripture which prophecied of a general resurrection after the coming of the Lord Jesus to the earth.

Another thought: Since the anti-Christ will be the great deceiver, making a peace pact between Israel and the nations, it is my understanding on reading Dan. 11:37 (within the context), that this 'willful king', the anti-Christ, must be a Jew, for it says "neither shall he regard the God of his fathers.."

All for now, Bick

 

[AVBunyan]

Re: "The man of sin"

Another thought: Since the anti-Christ will be the great deceiver, making a peace pact between Israel and the nations, it is my understanding on reading Dan. 11:37 (within the context), that this 'willful king', the anti-Christ, must be a Jew, for it says "neither shall he regard the God of his fathers.."
All for now, Bick

Amen - good study Bick. I bet you will find a little Syrian in this fella besides.

By the wasy folks, Judas went to his own place and will come back - he is the son of perdition (John 17) and 2 Th 2:3 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;

Looks like ole' Judas is coming back!!! :o :o :o

God bless

 

[JM]

Re: "The man of sin"

Another thought: Since the anti-Christ will be the great deceiver, making a peace pact between Israel and the nations, it is my understanding on reading Dan. 11:37 (within the context), that this 'willful king', the anti-Christ, must be a Jew, for it says "neither shall he regard the God of his fathers.."
All for now, Bick

Amen - good study Bick. I bet you will find a little Syrian in this fella besides.

By the wasy folks, Judas went to his own place and will come back - he is the son of perdition (John 17) and 2 Th 2:3 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;

Looks like ole' Judas is coming back!!! :o :o :o

God bless

Either a Jew or born of Christian parents.

 

[Georges]

Re: "The man of sin"

Another thought: Since the anti-Christ will be the great deceiver, making a peace pact between Israel and the nations, it is my understanding on reading Dan. 11:37 (within the context), that this 'willful king', the anti-Christ, must be a Jew, for it says "neither shall he regard the God of his fathers.."
All for now, Bick

Amen - good study Bick. I bet you will find a little Syrian in this fella besides.

By the wasy folks, Judas went to his own place and will come back - he is the son of perdition (John 17) and 2 Th 2:3 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;

Looks like ole' Judas is coming back!!! :o :o :o

God bless

Either a Jew or born of Christian parents.

Any which way....he will be a "man of sin" according to Jewish standards....that is he will be non Torah compliant.....

 

[Gendou Ikari]

Being that I don't believe that the Anti-Christ nor the Beast is some super-human, I believe the Man of Sin in this passage to be just a man. It is the Beast inside all of us. The part of us that exhalts us above all and claiming that we are God.

Now, I don't know what this is exactly refereing to but it could possibly be refereing to the blasphemous teaching of 'free will.' That would make sense seeing as only God the Father possesses Free Will.

 

[hisvessel1]

man of sin

I believe the man of sin to be a just man?? You've got to be kidding me...

 

[Gendou Ikari]

I believe the man of sin to be a just man?? You've got to be kidding me...

What do you think that the man of sin is going to be some wall street broker who is going to be wearing a fine tailored Italian suit, who sits in the temple and proclaims himself to be God, Creator of the Universe, the Omnipotent. And everyone, Atheists and Muslims and Buddhists will believe him. Come On!

I look for a spiritual application of the Beast. After all "the time is at hand" for whoever reads the Book of Revelation.

 

[Georges]

I believe the man of sin to be a just man?? You've got to be kidding me...

What do you think that the man of sin is going to be some wall street broker who is going to be wearing a fine tailored Italian suit, who sits in the temple and proclaims himself to be God, Creator of the Universe, the Omnipotent. And everyone, Atheists and Muslims and Buddhists will believe him. Come On!

I look for a spiritual application of the Beast. After all "the time is at hand" for whoever reads the Book of Revelation.

Gendou......Even the Jews in their Eschatology say the the False Messiah will sit in the Temple and claim to be "The Messiah". It is also Jewish eschatology that states that the future Jews will see that instead he isn't Torah observant as the Messiah should be. Once they discover this they head for the hills with the False Messiah in persuit.....

Bottom line....Jewish Eschatology agrees with Christian Eschatology in that the Man of Sin will be a man who is Torah non-observant ......

 

[JM]

I don't think so G, you're reading into that passage what isn't there. Does the passage in Dan. 11 say anything about him being Jewish or does it merely say he won't worship any god? As one person wrote on another site, it doesn't prove he'll be Jewish (quote in green) anymore then it proves he'll be gay ("...or for the desire of women")!

We can be sure the antichrist will be Roman, see verse 30, "ships from kittim is in reference to the envoy dispatched by the Roman Senate.

A little more: Verse 35 acknowledges that the centuries following the rise of Catholic Christianity would bring suffering for the saints: not what Christians would have expected in the optimistic decades of the fourth century! Verse 36 explains why: the new Roman leader, that is the ecclesial head of Rome, the Bishop of Rome, or the “Popeâ€Â, will be fundamentally anti-Christian. He will exalt himself as “God on Earthâ€Â. And he would “prosper†for a long, long time. Verse 37 shows the true spiritual reality behind the Roman antichristian Popes: they do not serve God at all, but themselves. They teach celibacy, in contradiction to the teaching of Scripture. Instead, in verse 38, we see that their ambition is for strength, power and wealth. Joe Haynes

 

[Georges]

I don't think so G, you're reading into that passage what isn't there. Does the passage in Dan. 11 say anything about him being Jewish or does it merely say he won't worship any god?

JM....to whom does the Book concern? Daniel concerns the Jews....therefore the interpretation must be in a Jewish context and setting.
Dan 11:37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

As the Rabbi's and early Christian fathers considered the false messiah as being from the tribe of Dan, I would say that his genealogy would be Jewish, or at least a son of Jacob.

As one person wrote on another site, it doesn't prove he'll be Jewish (quote in green) anymore then it proves he'll be gay ("...or for the desire of women")!

We can be sure the antichrist will be Roman, see verse 30, "ships from kittim is in reference to the envoy dispatched by the Roman Senate.

Kittim as Rome is in agreement with the Jewish rabbi's interpretation.

A little more: Verse 35 acknowledges that the centuries following the rise of Catholic Christianity would bring suffering for the saints: not what Christians would have expected in the optimistic decades of the fourth century! Verse 36 explains why: the new Roman leader, that is the ecclesial head of Rome, the Bishop of Rome, or the “Popeâ€Â, will be fundamentally anti-Christian. He will exalt himself as “God on Earthâ€Â. And he would “prosper†for a long, long time. Verse 37 shows the true spiritual reality behind the Roman antichristian Popes: they do not serve God at all, but themselves. They teach celibacy, in contradiction to the teaching of Scripture. Instead, in verse 38, we see that their ambition is for strength, power and wealth. Joe Haynes

Gotta go.....will address the last paragraph this evening when I get home...

 

[JM]

JM....to whom does the Book concern? Daniel concerns the Jews....therefore the interpretation must be in a Jewish context and setting.

The book concerns believers, does it not. In Christ there is no distinction between believers. Daniel concerns US because we believe in God...therefore the interpretation must be in a context and setting we can understand. That includes prophecy.

As the Rabbi's and early Christian fathers considered the false messiah as being from the tribe of Dan, I would say that his genealogy would be Jewish, or at least a son of Jacob.

Since Dan. 11 doesn't mention genealogy at all, you're assuming the Rabbi's were correct and you're reading into the passage something that isn't there. Where in the passage does it say he'll be of Jewish genealogy? A literal reading please.

Kittim as Rome is in agreement with the Jewish rabbi's interpretation.

Are there's Rabbi's believers in Christ? Can you site a source, you think so highly of them George, I'm thinking it's time for me to read them. Since you keep turning to historical interpretation, we should also look to the Reformation as well, or the historical view of Christian outside of state churches.

Gotta go.....will address the last paragraph this evening when I get home...

God speed brother.

 

[Georges]

JM....to whom does the Book concern? Daniel concerns the Jews....therefore the interpretation must be in a Jewish context and setting.

The book concerns believers, does it not. In Christ there is no distinction between believers. Daniel concerns US because we believe in God...therefore the interpretation must be in a context and setting we can understand. That includes prophecy.

How can I say this......hmmm.....Believers, yes,... but it concerns Israel and Judaism.....that can include Christianity in the parameters of Judaism (as Christianity originally was a sect of Judaism).
The book is in a context you can understand.....first you have to remove the traditional Christian trappings of neoplatonic Gentile commentaries, and retool your mind to view the subject from a Jewish perspective.

[quote:3520a]As the Rabbi's and early Christian fathers considered the false messiah as being from the tribe of Dan, I would say that his genealogy would be Jewish, or at least a son of Jacob.

Since Dan. 11 doesn't mention genealogy at all, you're assuming the Rabbi's were correct and you're reading into the passage something that isn't there. Where in the passage does it say he'll be of Jewish genealogy? A literal reading please.

Off the top of my head....here is one passage I know of that they interpret the False messiah as coming from Dan.

Gen 49:17 Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.
Gen 49:18 I have waited for thy salvation, O LORD.

You can do a search to verify that...but it is interesting to note that the AC is mentioned in verse 17 and the Messiah is mentioned in verse 18.

JM, as I quoted in the prophecy forum concerning a post to Preterist, this is not just a Rabbinical interpretation only, several early Church fathers state the same. I have a book that is cheaply available in any bookstore titled "A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs" edited by David Bercot. In the subject concerning the antichrist (False messiah), there are no less than 24 entries by no less than 9 Church fathers ranging from Justin Martyr to Lactantius....in some of the quotes they claim the future AC will be descended from the tribe of Dan. These are Christian fathers.....not Rabbis.

Kittim as Rome is in agreement with the Jewish rabbi's interpretation.

Are there's Rabbi's believers in Christ?

Absolutely....Paul (Saul) was one....there were many more when Christ walked the earth....just because you are Jewish you don't give up your Judaism when you accept Christ....on the contrary...as proven by the Apostles..belief in Christ enhanced their Judaism.

Can you site a source, you think so highly of them George, I'm thinking it's time for me to read them. Since you keep turning to historical interpretation, we should also look to the Reformation as well, or the historical view of Christian outside of state churches.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/index.jsp

A great resource to have....type in False Messiah, Anti Christ, Armilus into the subject line and the Jewish encyclopedia subjects will appear. The references for them are there. Don't forget to put http://www.jewishencyclpedia.com in your favorites...it's a great reference tool.

As far as Reformation era resources....The trouble with anything post 100 AD in Christianity is that as the Church moved for Jerusalem to Rome, it also made an antisemitic split with Messianic Judaism....Time and distance biased Christian commentators. For example....Do you think Martin Luther had any idea about Judaism, it's manners, customs or worship? That is really a simple example of Time, Distance and Culture distortion....Another example would be Me reading a book on the writings of Confucius (330 BC Chinese) using a Japanese commentary (written 1400AD) trying to explain a Chinese teaching to a 21st Century American. How in the world would a 1400's Japanese man know the customs and manner of a 330BC Chinaman? How can I trust the Japanese interpretation to be right? Why don't I go straight to the best resource...that would be an expert on early Chinese. Someone who would know the Manners, Customs, and History of the early Chinese?

Now with the advent of the internet we have that capability to find these experts and documents ourselves. Barclay didn't have a computer to do any research....his commentary is what he learned by tradition.

Gotta go.....will address the last paragraph this evening when I get home...

God speed brother.[/quote:3520a]


Nice dialogue......thanks.