Page 14 - BV16

14 The Antichrist Most Definitely Is Not a Person!

Some object that the Catholic Church cannot be the Antichrist because Paul spoke of “the
man of sin” -- meaning an individual man, not a succession of men or an entity patterned after a
kingdom. But this simply is not true. “The” is used in the expression “the man of God” (II Timothy
3:16) -- a reference to a class of men of certain character, a succession of similar individuals. We
read about “the high priest” (Hebrews 9:7) -- meaning a succession of high priests. The true church
-- the long line or succession of believers through the centuries -- is spoken of as “one new man”
(Ephesians 2:15). A single beast in prophecy often represents a whole empire or kingdom in all its
changes and evolutions from beginning to end. The four beasts of Daniel 7 are mentioned as four
kings, yet the meaning is not limited to individual kings, for each of these kingdoms included a suc-
cession of rulers.

Grammatically, the expression “the man of sin” could mean either an individual or a succes-
sion of similar individuals. There is a strong hint, however, that a succession of men is meant. “He
who now restrains” was a line or successions of Caesars, so it certainly would not be inconsistent to
believe “he [that] sits” would also be a succession of men. Even so, the idea of one man is not elimi-
nated by this interpretation, for there is only one man at a time who occupies the papal office.

Early Christian Writers

What did the early Christians think about these passages? Though Paul does not call this
“let” or restraint by name, his words clearly show it was not something unknown or obscure. He
knew what it was. The Christians at Thessalonika knew what it was. Solid evidence shows that the
Christians of the early centuries believed it was the ROMAN EMPIRE that was in the way -- the fall
of which would bring on the “man” of sin. When they were accused of holding this belief, they did
not deny it. Their reply was that they did not wish the fall of the Empire, for its fall would bring on
the Antichrist. As Lactantius phrased it: “Beseech the God of heaven that the Roman State might be
preserved, lest, more speedily than we suppose, that hateful tyrant should come” (Porcelli, The
Antichrist -- His Portrait and History, p. 49).

Those writers whose lives overlapped the lives of the apostles are called Apostolic Fathers.
Their writings are fragmentary and few have been preserved down to our time. Christian writers
who were born after the death of the apostles, but before 325 A.D. and the Council of Nicea, are
called Ante-Nicene Fathers. Ancient writers who lived after 325 A.D. and the Council of Nicea are
called Post-Nicene Fathers. Many writings from these times have been preserved and are extant to-
day. I think it would be interesting to see what these “fathers” thought about these verses barely fifty
years after they were penned -- and before they were fulfilled. The incredible thing is that the “fa-
thers” knew the general outline of future events. They, therefore, were not as I Thessalonians 5:4
states:

But you, brethren, are not in darkness, so that this day should overtake you as a thief.

And WHY were they not in darkness? Because they knew that as long as the Roman Empire
had not yet fallen the second coming of Yeshua was not imminent! Let’s see what they have to say:

The Berean Voice July-August 2002