The "Man of Sin": A Roman Figure of the 1st Century

The "Man of Sin": A Roman Figure of the 1st Century

Below is the 27th of multiple excerpts of commentary from Parts I and II of The Parousia, the late 19th-century masterpiece on the Second Coming by James Stuart Russell. The initial 31 posts on this blog deal with the Book of Revelation, which is cogently interpreted in Part III of Russell's magnum opus. (For all blog posts, see russellparousia.blogspot.com)

"[2 Thess. 2:3-12]---'Let no man deceive you by any means; for [the day of the Lord shall not come] unless there shall have come the apostasy first, and the man of sin [Greek: anomias, 'lawlessness'] shall have been revealed, the son of perdition: who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or an object of worship: so that he seateth himself in the temple of God, and openly declareth himself a god. ...' "In the third verse the apostle [Paul] intimates that ‘the day of Christ’ must be preceded by two events:---(1) The coming of ‘the apostasy,’ and (2) the manifestation of ‘the man of sin.’ Could we place ourselves in the situation and circumstances of the Christians of Thessalonica when this epistle was written; could we call up the hopes and fears, the expectations and apprehensions, the social and political agitations of that period, we might be better able to enter into the explanations of St. Paul. ... "The first question that presents itself is, Are the ‘apostasy’ and the ‘man of sin’ identical? Do they both point to the same thing? It is the opinion of many, perhaps of most, expositors that they are virtually one and the same. But evidently [i.e., it is evident] they are distinct and separate things. The apostasy represents a multitude, the man of sin a person; so that though they may be in some respects connected, they are not to be confounded; they may exist contemporaneously, but they are not identical. "The Apostasy "St. Paul does not at present dwell upon ‘the apostasy,’ but, having simply named it as to come, passes on to the description of ‘the man of sin.’ We may here, however, refer to the fact that ‘the falling away’ was no new idea to the disciples of Christ. The Saviour had expressly predicted its coming in His prophetic discourse, Matt. xxiv. 10, 12 [Matt. 24:10-12], and St. Paul elsewhere gives as full a delineation of the apostasy as he here does of the man of sin. (See 1 Tim. iv. 1-3 [1 Tim. 4:1-3]; 2 Tim. iii. 1-9 [2 Tim. 3:1-9].) It can only refer to that defection from the faith so clearly predicted by our Lord, and described by His apostles, as indicative of ‘the last days’ [of the Old Covenant]. ... "The Man of Sin "It is of utmost importance in entering upon this field of inquiry to find some principle which may guide and govern us in the investigation. We find such a principle in the very simple and obvious consideration that the apostle is here referring to circumstances which lay within the ken [sight] of the Thessalonians themselves [to whom Paul's second letter is dated A.D. 52-53]. "If the Parousia [Second Coming] itself, to which the development of the apostasy and the appearing of the man of sin were antecedent, was declared by the word of the Lord to fall within the period of the existing generation [as evidenced by Matt. 10:23, 16:28, 24:34, 26:64; Mark 9:1, 13:30, 14:62; Luke 9:27, 21:32, 22:69; Rev. 1:7], it follows that ‘the apostasy’ and ‘the man of sin’ lay nearer to them than the Parousia. Besides, if we suppose ‘the apostasy’ and ‘the man of sin’ to lie far beyond the [1st-century] times of the Thessalonians, what would be the use of giving them explanations and information about matters which were not at all urgent, and which, in fact, did not concern them at all? Is it not obvious that whoever the man of sin may be, he must be someone with whom the apostle and his readers had to do? Is he not writing to living men about matters in which they are intensely interested? Why should he [Paul] delineate the features of this mysterious personage to the Thessalonians if he was one with whom the Thessalonians had nothing to do, from whom they had nothing to fear, and who would not be revealed for ages yet to come? It is clear that he speaks of one whose influence was already beginning to be felt, and whose unchecked and lawless fury would ere long burst forth. All this lies on the very surface, obvious and unquestionable. But this is not all. It appears certain that the Thessalonians were not ignorant what person was intended by the man of sin. It was not the first time that the apostle had spoken with them on the subject. He says, ‘Remember ye not, that when I was yet with you, I kept telling you these things? [2 Thess. 2:5] and now ye know what hindereth his being revealed in his own time [2 Thess. 2:6].' This language plainly indicates that the apostle and his readers were well acquainted with the name ‘man of sin,’ and knew who was designated thereby. If so, and it seems unquestionable, the area of investigation becomes greatly contracted, and the probabilities of discovery proportionately increased. What the Thessalonians had ‘talked about,’ ‘remembered,’ and ‘knew,’ must have been something of living and present interest; in short, must have belonged to contemporary [1st-century] history. "But why does not the apostle speak out frankly? Why this reserve and reticence in darkly hinting what he does not name? It was not from ignorance; it could not be from the affectation of mystery. There must have been some strong reason for this extreme caution. No doubt; but of what nature? Why should he have been in the habit, as he says, of speaking so freely on the subject in private, and then write so obscurely in his epistle? Obviously, because it was not safe to be more explicit. On the one hand, a hint was enough, for they could all understand his meaning; on the other, more than a hint was dangerous, for to name the person might have compromised himself and them. "From what quarter, then, was danger to be apprehended from too great freedom of speech? There were only two quarters from which the Christians of the apostolic age had just cause for apprehension,--- Jewish bigotry and Roman jealousy. Hitherto the Gospel had suffered most from the former: the Jews were everywhere the instigators in ‘stirring up the Gentiles against the brethren' [Acts 14:2]. But the power of Rome was jealous, and the Jews knew well how to awaken that jealousy; in Thessalonica itself they had got up the cry, ‘These all do contrary to the decrees of Cæsar.’ [Acts 17:7] "Which of these causes, then, may have sealed the lips of the apostle? Not fear of the Jews, for nothing that he could say was likely to make their hostility more bitter; nor had the Jews any direct civil authority by which they could inflict injury upon the Christian cause. We conclude, therefore, that it was from the Roman power that the apostle apprehended danger, and that his reticence was occasioned by the desire not to involve the Thessalonians in the suspicion of disaffection and sedition." Next excerpt: The Identity of the Man of Sin ------ Visit russellparousia.blogspot.com to see all posts