The Pulpit Commentary — 2 Thessalonians — Section 61

abst!~enco from cer_tain foorls (1 Cor. viii. 8), bodily In<?~tification (Col. ii. 23), the tmd1t1011s and 1loctnnes and commandments of men (Col. 11. 8, 22); so that, as Bishop Newton observes, "the 'foundations of popery were laid, inrleed, in the apostles' days, but the superstructure was raised by degrees, and several ages passed before the build ing was completed, and the Man of Sin was revealed in full perfection." 1 Of course, according to this view of the subject, the complete fulfilment of the prophecy is still futnre. The destruction of the Man of Sin-that is, according to thi ■ riew, Romanism-is also predicted: "Whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of his mouth, and annihilate by the appearance of his coming" (eh. ii. 8). We have shown, in thH Exposition, that by this cannot be meant the preaching of the pure F:Ospel, or the diffusion of the Word of God at the Reformation; the language is nenun- ciatory. As, however, this portion of the proohecy is uniulfilled, it is not required to offer any explanations. The interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy is prohably beyond the powers of the human mind; the fulfilment is the only key to the inter• pretation. To this view of the subject numerous objections have been raised: there are three which merit consideration. (1) It is affirmed that the Man of Sin is distinctly asserted to be an individual; he is called "the lawless one,'' "the son of perdition;" whereas, according to the above view, he is an ecclesiastical system, or a succession of indivi- duals. But, as Bishop Lightfoot observes, "in all figurative pa~sages it is arbitrary to assume that a person is denoted when we find a personification. Thus the Man of Sin here need not be an individual man ; it may be a body of men, or a power, or a spiritual influence." 1 1'he restraining influence, which is put at one time in the neuter and at another time in the masculine, is almost universally acknowledged to be, not a person, but an influence or series of persons. So, in like manner, the Man of Sin may be a succession of individuals; at least, there is no absolute necessity arising from the terms of the prophecy to regard him as a person.3 (2) It is affirmed that, even admitting all the striking coincidences, yet the idea of popery does not and never did fulfil the prophecy in· ver. 4. So far from the pope opposing and exalting himself against all that is called God or is an object of worship, his "abject adoration and submission to them has ever been one of his most notable peculiarities" t (Alford). But to this it has been replied that the arrogance of the pope, his assertion that he is the vicar of Christ, his claim of infallibility, which has lately been conceded to l:im, are a distinct fulfilment of this prediction. (3) It is said that " if the papacy be Antichrist, then has the manifestation been made and endured now for nearly fifteen hundred years, and yet the day of the Lord has not come, which, by the terms of our prophecy, such manifestation is immediately t-0 precede" (Alford). But to this it has been answered that it is not asserted that the coming of Chri~t follows directly on the coming of the Man of Sin, but merely that the Man of Sin will precede; the interval between the two comings is nowhere defined. Besides, it may be that there is a devdopment of Antichrist, and that his final destruction by the coming of the Lord will not occur until his full develop- ment. Thus, for example, the spiritual power of popery may be unfolding itself; the mystery of lawlessness may be st.ill working, as was lately seen in the introduction of two new dogmas into the Romish Church-the immaculate conception of the Virgin, and the personal infallibility of the pqpe. The career of the Man of Sin has not yet run. Upon the whole, on an impartial review of the subject, we cannot avoid the impression that the points of resemblance between the prophecy an,! Romanism are numerous, varied, and striking. Our forefathers had no doubt as to the application of the prediction, and perhaps they were nearer the trnth than we in modern times who hesitate. Such an opinion may be considered as uncharitable and unjust, and is certainly not in accordance with the more liberal spirit of our age, where popery ill viewed as it presently exists, di\'ested of it.a power to persecute, and as seen in the culture, refinement, and piety of many of its adherents. But when ,.. e reflect npon I Bishop Newton's 'Dissertation on the llfon of Sin.' • Smith's 'Diotionary of the Bible," artiole "Epistles to the Thessalonians." • See Elliott's ' Horro Apooe.lypticie,' vol. iii. p. 956, 5th euit. ; Newton, • On tho Pro- phecies.' • Alford'■• Greek Testament,' vol. iii., Prolegomeno, p. 66.  60 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. [oe. n. 1-17.