In the interest of not just disagreeing with popularly held theological systems, but providing some alternatives, I've decided to do a post about the Man of Sin. In popular Christian "non-fiction" these days, you'll generally have this individual conflated with the Antichrist of Revelation (who I remind you is not mentioned by that title in Revelation). And you'll hear it in churches quite a bit, too. So is there any real alternative? Well, yes.
I'm planning on keeping this fairly light. Let me know if I succeed. Here's the passage. Paul is writing to the Thessalonians to assure them that the "Day of the Lord" has not already happened. Right...here it is:
5 Don’t you remember that I told you about all this when I was with you? 6 And you know what is holding him back, for he can be revealed only when his time comes. 7 For this lawlessness is already at work secretly, and it will remain secret until the one who is holding it back steps out of the way. 8 Then the man of lawlessness will be revealed, but the Lord Jesus will kill him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by the splendor of his coming.
So what are the qualifications for the title of the Man of Sin? (Man of Lawlessness in the NLT):
- Exalts himself
- Defies God
- Sits in the Temple of God
- Claims to be God
I was going to go through these one at a time, but I found an article that does it better than I would. (Yeah, I know. Shocker.) Check it out at your leisure, but first let me throw out a couple of Man of Sin candidates I've found in various places. These are the most popular:
- A future Antichrist
- Muhammad
- The Papacy
As someone who's tried, for some time, to properly understand Catholic doctrine and dogma (Remember what the Immaculate Conception is? Betcha don't!), it pains me to admit I find the arguments for Option #3 the strongest. And for me, the strongest reason is Paul's reference to "what is holding him back." If Paul meant, as Futurists believe, that the Church or the Holy Spirit was holding him back, why not just come out with it? But if, instead, he was making a sly reference to the Roman Empire (which fell as the Papacy rose), it'd be understandable for him to be less-than-blatant in referring to that fact. Because referring to the Empire being "taken out of the way" could get you into some hot water back then.
But if you'd like to read more on it, you can go to the article. It's a good read. But even if you don't go read it, just know that Option #1 isn't the only possible interpretation of this difficult passage. There's what I like to call Theological Wiggle-Room. And I likes me some wiggling.