by
Damien F. Mackey
“Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery
in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was
someone great, and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention
and exclaimed, ‘This man is rightly called the Great Power of God’. They
followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery”.
Acts
8:9-11
According to some, Simon the Magician
was, all at once, Book of Revelation’s Beast and 666; the Antichrist; “the man
of sin” and “the son of perdition”.
Jack Walton introduces Simon
Magus as “… the most important person in history you never
heard of” (https://www.henrymakow.com/simon_magus.html):
Simon Magus -- The lluminati's Jesus?
January
3, 2011
The full life of Simon Magus is mostly unknown ….
….
He was the towering figure of his
time, along with his wife, Helen, the Jezebel and whore of Babylon from
Revelation.
According to Bible Scholars Barbara Thiering and Hans Jonas, Simon Magus was
the founder of the Gnostic church and was the direct competitor with
Christianity for the hearts and minds of the Greco Roman world.
Simon is the Beast, the original
Antichrist, and the true identity of the number 666. He was so powerful in
fact, that he is known by many different names in the Bible. Once all his
"names" are learned, a very different picture of the Gospel emerges,
one in which Jesus and Simon were creating two very different religions, for
the reformation of Judaism, and the conversion of the Greco Roman/Pagan world
to the Judaic god.
The circles that Magus worked in
were the Illuminati of his time. At the time this consisted of what we would
consider both "white" and "black" magicians, including the
apostles of Jesus [sic] and the sects they led, (the "good" guys) as
well as the Herod family, and the higher echelons of Rome, and the gnostic
magicians (the Saturnalian or "black" magicians).
Thus, the "good guys"
and the "bad guys had their start together at this time and later split
up. Simon Magus was a Samaritan Jew, whose particular version of Judaism
incorporated the sexual licentiousness of the ancient Babylonian
religions.
According to Clement, the early
church father, Magus could, levitate items on command, speak with spirits,
summon demons and place them into statues making the statues walk and talk,
fly, and even raise the dead.
These were all deceptions
designed to indoctrinate his followers into believing he was a god. His
religion, the Gnostic religion, was the sect that preceded Christianity in the
Diaspora. The current Illuminati religion (freemasonry) is based on
Gnosticism and the ancient Babylonian mysticism (Satanism?) that he
incorporated into his version of Judaism that he was selling (quite literally)
to the masses of the Greco-Roman world.
He is the inspiration for Faust,
and modern televangelist deceivers continue his tradition whether they realize
it or not (i.e., religion based on deception.) Anytime there is a
reference to someone selling their soul to the devil, it is a reference to
Faust, who was inspired by Simon Magus.
The medieval Rosicrucians who
compiled the story of Faust understood all this (are they not
Illuminati?) One of the great untold stories of Christianity is how Peter
and Paul came behind Simon and converted his many followers to Christianity.
In the beginning, Magus had been
a follower of John the Baptist, and because of his genius and ability, was
accepted by … the other Apostles. Simon's early role in Judaism before his
diaspora career, would be seen today as like an intelligence operative. He was
of course, cast out of their ranks when they learned who he was.
One of the major things he did
was attempt to organize a mass revolt against Pilate and the son of Herod,
which was put down brutally. ….
….
Because of his stature, and the complexity of his life … Simon's accomplishments were divided by the Christians, and attributed to multiple people, under multiple pseudonyms. In other words, he was so dangerous, that he was practically wiped from history, except for those "in the know."
Because of his stature, and the complexity of his life … Simon's accomplishments were divided by the Christians, and attributed to multiple people, under multiple pseudonyms. In other words, he was so dangerous, that he was practically wiped from history, except for those "in the know."
A great animosity existed between
Simon and Peter. Simon's religion was based on deception, (Simon
represented himself as a god), allowed for sexual licentiousness (the origins
of "sex-magic", which included orgies and homosexuality by his
followers.
Peter taught abstinence in
marriage, except for procreation, and this drew a lot of women to his
flock. ….
[End of quote]
According to
David L. Eastman, in “Simon
the Anti-Christ? The Magos as Christos in Early Christian Literature”, Simon Magus was, for the early Christians, a “wicked, deceitful anti-Christ, the very embodiment of
evil”
None
of the early Christian sources denies that Simon had power to do things that others
could not do. He is consistently remembered and presented as a figure who could
perform amazing deeds to astound the crowds, even if he did so through the despicable
arts of sorcery. In his various, reimagined guises, Simon was formidable because
he was powerful, even if that power came from demons, as Peter asserts in
his prayers to strike down Simon. In the earliest Christian centuries, when
there existed a perceived threat of alternative Christologies, Simon is
presented as the champion of ‘heresies’ such as Modalism and Docetism.
….
The authors of the later apocryphal texts, writing in a different cultural and
ecclesiastical context, amend the earlier traditions and present a potent Simon
in order to highlight the even greater power of the apostles. Peter and Paul
confront and conquer this wicked, deceitful anti-Christ, the very embodiment of
evil. ….
[End of quote]
The
following description of “the man of sin”, “the son of perdition”, in Wayne
Jackson’s article “Who Is Paul’s ‘Man
of Sin’?”, seems to me to be perfectly applicable to
Simon Magus (though this is by no means the conclusion that Wayne Jackson
himself will reach): https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/677-who-is-pauls-man-of-sin)
Traits of the Man of Sin
Once a student has thoroughly read 2
Thessalonians 2:1-12, we believe that it is possible to isolate certain
tell-tale qualities of this diabolical force, and work toward a solution as to
the identity of the “man of sin.”
Consider the following factors.
The Man of Sin and The Apostasy
The Man of Sin is the ultimate result of the
falling away from the faith (v. 3).
The expression “falling away” translates
the Greek term
apostasia. Our English word “apostasy” is an
anglicized form of this original term.
In the Bible, the word is used of a
defection from the religion ordained by God. As a noun, it is employed of
departure from the Mosaic system (Acts 21:21), and, in this present passage, of
defection from Christianity. The verbal form of the term is similarly used in 1
Timothy 4:1 (cf. Heb. 3:12).
Note also that the noun is qualified by a
definite article (the
apostasia). A definite movement is in the apostle’s prophetic vision —
not merely a principle of defection.The Man of Sin Was Yet to Be Revealed
This sinister force, from a first-century
vantage point, was yet to be revealed (v. 3).
This appears to suggest that the movement
had not evolved to the point where it could be identified definitely by the
primitive saints. It awaited future development.
The Man of Sin and Son of Perdition
This persecuting power was designated as the man
of sin (v. 3), because sin was its “predominating quality”
(Ellicott, p. 118). This character, referred to in both neuter and masculine
genders (vv. 6-7), is the son of perdition (v. 3), because
its end is to be perdition, i.e., destruction, by the Lord himself (v. 8).
The Lawless One
This opponent of God is called the
lawless one (v. 8). This power has no regard for the law of
God. One cannot but be reminded of that infamous “little horn” in Daniel’s
vision: “[H]e shall think to change the times
and the law” (7:25).
Man of Sin: Opposes God, Exalts Himself, and Sits in the Temple of God
The Man of Sin opposes
God and exalts himself against all that is genuinely sacred
(v. 4). He feigns religiosity, but his true character reveals that he is
diabolic. His activity actually is according to the working of Satan
(v. 9).
In some sense, the Man of Sin will sit in
the temple of God (v. 4). The “temple” is not a reference to
the Jewish house of worship. The Greek word is
naos, used by Paul
eight times. Never does he employ this term of the Jewish temple.
In fact, after the death of Christ, the
Jewish temple is never again called the temple of
God (Newton, p. 441). Rather it is used of the Christian’s body (1 Cor. 6:19)
or of the church as God’s spiritual house (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; Eph. 2:21).
The implication of Paul’s warning is this.
This unholy being is viewed as being a “church” character.
The expression “sitteth” may hint of
unparalleled arrogance (Ellicott, pp. 119-120). Mason notes that the language
describes the Man of Sin as attempting to exact “divine homage” from people (p.
169).
Moreover, this Son of Perdition sets
himself forth as God. The present participle (“sets forth
continually”) reveals that this presumptive posture is characteristic
of the Man of Sin.
This person represents himself as God,
either:
- by making claims that belong only to deity;
- by receiving adoration reserved exclusively for God; or,
- by usurping prerogatives which only God can accomplish.Clearly, the Man of Sin is an ecclesiastical character. Recall the description of John’s lamb-like beast in Revelation 13:11ff.
The Man of Sin Deceives with Lying Miracles
He deceives those who love not the
truth, by virtue of the lying wonders he effects (vv.
9-10).
Bloomfield calls these “pretended miracles”
(p. 345). These “wonders” are not in the category of Christ’s miracles. Lenski
has well commented:
“So many are ready to attribute real miracles to Satan
and to his agents; the Scriptures never do” (p. 426).
….
Man of Sin Already at Work in Paul’s Day
The early stages of this ecclesiastical
apostasy were already at work in the early church
(v. 7). The Greek term (
energeitai, a present tense, middle voice form)
suggests that this movement currently was working itself towards a greater
goal.
The child, later to become a Man, was
growing in Paul’s day. The error was “already operative” (Lenski, p. 417), but
not yet “revealed” (v. 6). This is a crucial point.
Restrained During Paul’s Day
In Paul’s day there was some influence that
restrained the budding Man of Sin. This was some sort of
abstract force, as evidenced by the neuter form of
katechon, “the restraining thing” (v. 6).
And yet, this force was strongly associated
with a person/persons as suggested by the masculine, “he who restrains” (v. 7).
Likely the significance is that of a broad power, operating under individual
rulers.
Unlike the Man of Sin, whose identity was
later to be revealed, the early saints knew personally of this restraining
force. "You know (
oidate — “to know from observation” — Vine, p.
444).
This indicates that the restraining power
was an entity contemporary with Paul, not a modern one.
Restraining Force To Be Removed
The restraining force eventually would *be
taken out of the way", or, more correctly, “be gone.” And so, the Man of
Sin, in “his own season,” would be revealed openly (vv. 6, 7).
Ellicott says that it is a season
“appointed and ordained by God” (p. 121). One recalls that the “little horn” of
Daniel’s fourth beast only rose to prominence after three horns were plucked up
to make room for it.
Too, the earth-beast of John’s vision came
into full power after the sea-beast had received a death-stroke, but was
healed. And so here, the restraining power will give way to the horrible
revelation of the Man of Sin. ....
[End of quotes]
Movement
of apostasy, lawlessness, against all that is genuinely sacred, feignedly
religious, diabolical, working according to power of Satan, a pseudo-Christian pretender,
setting himself forth as a God, and so on. It reads just like the blasphemous profile
of Simon Magus.
No comments:
Post a Comment