Page 6 - BV9

Now we can clearly understand why the apostle Paul was careful -- when writing about it
-- not to mention the restraint by name. To teach that "eternal Rome" would fall and be broken up
would have brought on unnecessary conflict with the leaders of the Empire within which they
lived. And, especially when writing to the Christians at Thessalonica, would this caution be in or-
der. It was at Thessalonica that the Christians had been accused of doing things "contrary to the de-
crees of Caesar" and believing in "another king, one Jesus" (Acts 17:7). Wisdom dictated that Paul
should simply write: "Remember...when I was yet with you, I told you these things?" (2 Thessalo-
nians 2:5).

Jerome understood exactly why Paul was so careful in this matter: "If he had chosen to say
this openly, he would have foolishly aroused a frenzy of persecution against the Christians" (op.
cit., Book 5, chapter 25), and Chrysostom added: "Because he said this of the Roman Empire, he
naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself
superfluous enmities, and useless dangers" (Homilies, p. 388-389).

Now that we understand it was the Roman Empire that would fall -- the fall of which
would bring on the man of sin -- we have a TIME FRAME for the prophecy! Since the fall of
Rome is now long past, it is strongly inferred that we should look for the rise of the man of sin in a
HISTORICAL context -- not the future! More of this in a moment.

If we look again at Paul's prophecy (2 Thessalonians 2:6-7) we find that he mentions that
something ("what") was restraining -- and also someone ("he). "What" is neuter in gender; "he" is
masculine. Paul plainly referred to the Roman Empire as "what," and the Caesar as "he." Logi-
cally, then, if Caesar would have to be "taken out of the way" for the man of sin to come to power,
we have a STRONG INDICATION of WHERE the man of sin would rule.

As an illustration, let's suppose we would like to build a home on a certain piece of prop-
erty -- but another building was in the way. Obviously it could not be said that the old building
was in the way -- and needed to be taken out of the way -- unless it was occupying the exact spot
where the new house was to be built! Understood in the context of the prophecy we are examining,
the man of sin would rise to power in the exact same location that the Caesar ruled -- Rome! The
man of sin would be a Roman power!

Therefore, we now know WHERE the Antichrist would rise to power and we know
WHEN! Looking into history, what power rose up in Rome following the fall of the Empire? All
the evidence points to the PAPACY. The highly esteemed Biblical commentator, Albert Barnes,
has well said: "To any acquainted with the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, nothing can be
more manifest than the correspondence of the facts in history respecting the rise of the Papacy, and
the statement of the apostle Paul here" (Barnes' Commentary, p. 1115).

The breaking up of the Roman Empire and the removal of the Caesar from power in Rome
took place over a period of some time. Records the historian Alexander Flick: "The removal of the
capital of the Empire from Rome to Constantinople in 330, left the Western Church practically free
from Imperial power, to develop its own form of organization. The Bishop of Rome, in the seat of
the Caesars, was now the greatest man in the West and was soon forced to become political as
well as spiritual head" (The Rise of the Medieval Church, p. 168). Cardinal Manning wrote:

6