John 14:30 I no longer will speak many things with you: for the Prince of this world is coming. And he has nothing in me. But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father has commanded me, so do I. 

Any question we might have on the integrity of John's text, as it has come down to us, should not deter us from clear recognition that Jesus made very important remarks to his apostles and disciples, and that he kept those remarks to the end of his association with them. He reserved those warnings for the end of his life. This is the only record we have from a living witness. Revelation of a severe religious persecution, and notice that a rebellious spirit personality was now "coming" on this world, should help us understand the circumstances or our day.

Modern people lost the reality of spirit transactions.  When we did, we opened the door to this rebel spirit.  Ancient people accepted such possibilities; otherwise Jesus would not have addressed them as he did. He would not make remarks that were totally obscure to his apostles. Emphatically, John placed them at a crucial point in his account. They carried significant weight for John.   Thus, for two thousand years, a very important warning from Jesus was preserved.

Can we neglect the testimony of the New Testament? The idea that a rebellious Spirit Personality was an immediate threat to everyone is a major theme. The author of I Peter said that he prowls about, seeking to devour, 5:8. The author of the letter of James stated that if we resist him he will flee, 4:7. John told us in Rev 12:12 that he now comes with exceeding anger because he knows his time is short. Such strong tradition had solid foundation in the teachings of Jesus. Only modern generations failed to grasp the significance of these revelations; only modern generations created skepticism and doubt to give the Prince freedom to exercise his diabolical schemes. We now pay a terrible price.

We viewed this Prince in mythological terms, a "devil" or "Satan," who, somehow or other, was around our planet deceiving mankind. We did not grasp him as a real personality bent on literally destroying mankind.

Jesus accorded him honor. "Prince" is from Greek archon. It means Ruler, and is applied to Jesus as Prince of the kings of the earth, Rev 1:5 (KJV), to rulers of the nations, Matt 20:25, judges and magistrates, Acts 16:19, and rulers of the synagogues, Matt 9:18. It is also translated "Prince" by both KJV and RSV in Matt 9:34 and 12:24. It denotes ruling authority. This Prince was assigned administrative responsibility for our world, but he rebelled.

The Greek word kosmos is translated "world." But it meant much more. It meant "order," as intelligently planned, "arrangement," as purposeful design, or "embellishment or decoration," as that by which God blessed creation. This word is the origin of the English word cosmos. In Rom 1:20 it is used for the universe, recognized by the Greeks for the order observable within it. In most applications in the New Testament it meant the earth as a body within the order of creation, the planet. This word must be distinguished from aion, the Greek word for "age."

Thus, the "Prince of this World" meant a distinct personality, ruler of this planet. If we used modern terminology we might more readily understand him as "Prince of this Planet." In more formal terms we might say "Planetary Prince," as a title of lordly administrative authority. Unfortunately, he rebelled. He brought dishonor upon himself, and untold affliction upon mankind. He also brought a final judgment upon himself and upon this planet.

Did Jesus have the power to remove him? Certainly. He is the Creator; he is God. This Prince was a divinely created being. Divine beings do not exist and do not function without the consent, approval and blessing of their Creator.

Why, then, did Jesus permit him to remain? Why did Jesus not remove this diabolical personality?

Jesus was following his Father's will.  Jesus did not permit the Prince to remain strictly because it was his own will. Jesus speaks plainly about it; he had nothing "in him." He wanted nothing to do with this fallen Prince.  The rebel had long since taken his own devious path, not aligned with his Creator. He was a rebel, pure and simple. The Father wanted this rebel to remain here. This the Father had commanded, and this Jesus would do. The will of Jesus was in perfect alignment with the will of the Father.

We should infer that the Father had reasons which must be for the greater benefit of creation, and for all his created children, reasons which we do not now appreciate, and reasons which Jesus did not discuss.

In order to more clearly determine the spiritual influence of this rebel I shall now examine the phrases in this passage and the other two references in John 12:31 and 16:11.

"Coming" is from Greek erchomai. It is a frequent verb, denoting "to come," "to go," or "to pass." In Matt 11:3 two apostles of John the Baptist inquired if Jesus was "the coming one," the Messiah. The remark in John 14:30 was intended to indicate that the Prince of this World is now coming, i.e. will be permitted to perform his diabolical work.  Jesus did not say when this "coming" would be.

This Prince had nothing in Jesus. "Nothing" is from Greek ouden. It meant "nobody," "nothing," "none." It was an emphatic word which removed all possibility that he had any connection with Jesus' goals, was in the same "spirit of intent" with Jesus, or was aligned with the will of Jesus.

"In" is from Greek en. It is used in a wide variety of applications, such as "upon," "among," "before," "in the presence of," "with," and so on. In Mark 5:2 it is translated as "with an unclean spirit." In John 14:3 Jesus meant that the Prince of this World, this Planetary Prince, has absolutely nothing to do with him. He is a rebel.

"Judgment" is from Greek krisis. The word meant "to separate," or "to make a distinction between," "to judge," and "to sentence."

"Cast out" is from Greek ekballo. It meant to "cast out," "eject by force," or "expel". A modifying word, eko, meant "outside." The Prince of this World would be ekblithisetai eko, cast out, completely removed from existence.  But not before his coming. He would be permitted to do his diabolical work. He would be given ample opportunity to demonstrate the justice of the judgment placed upon him. Our God is a God of mercy; he is merciful to all his created children. He will extend full mercy opportunity to this rebel Son. And he will extend mercy opportunity to all human beings to demonstrate their spiritual loyalties. But he cannot offer such mercy without spiritual trial.

This passage is the most crucial in the Bible for our understanding of events as they are unfolding today, yet the most confusing. That blinding confusion rests on the powerful tradition that a "man of lawlessness" will "take his seat" in the "Temple of God," proclaiming himself to be God.

In popular notion there must be a "man," there must be a "seat," there must be a "Temple of God," and there must be such intense megalomania this "man" believes himself to be God.

1. Examination of the attributes of this "man of lawlessness" suggests components of character which place him above ordinary human capacities; i.e. he seems almost as a god.

2. The "Temple of God" can find no easy location, although most expositors assume modern Jerusalem. Some expect the construction of a new temple, since the sectarian and ecumenical temples presently in Jerusalem do not seem appropriate to the tenor of these remarks.

3. We all have difficulty conceiving how a human being would somehow get it into his head that he is God. An ordinary mortal, reaching to such megalomania, would not have the sanity to function as a world leader, regardless of how depraved the world would become.

4. Of course, if a human mortal were driven by the power of an evil spirit entity within his head, he might aspire to believe he was God.  But then the human mortal would be merely an agent, and not the personality assuming the Godship.

Many entertain these notions out of a mythical mental framework; they do not take time to examine reality. If this is truly a man he must be born of a woman; he must grow up in some geographical location in some identifiable country; he must have social training; he must have been educated in some earthly school; he must have been reared in some political environment; he must have had association with scores of fellow human mortals. Given the mundane nature of ordinary human life how would he arrive at such extraordinary presumption?

We might argue that Jesus was the incarnation of God, yet his human nature and physical limitations prevented many from believing in him. Even the apostles had trouble coming to grips with his divine nature, for all the miracles they witnessed, until he appeared to them after his resurrection. If another fantastic personality were to appear we might not, at first, notice him. But the extraordinary role described by Paul would require our elevating a supposedly human mortal to godlike status.

The supposition almost requires another incarnation, this time of a diabolical personality.

This is not to say that somewhere on this planet the possibility does not exists that a man has been born who will assume such a role. If so, and if events are imminent, we should expect that he already has indicated his wild propensities to comrades and compatriots. This would mean he is a "sleeper." He has not yet asserted himself in such blistering megalomania. Regardless of how we view such plausibility, it is time to replace mythical notions with reality; we must get our feet on the ground where the mysticism evaporates and is replaced by down-to-earth hard criteria. It is easy to create boogie men out of our imaginations. It is time for us to exercise more discipline in our thinking.

This is not to deny the fearsome tone of this revelation. It carries portent which demands the utmost care. Is Christian tradition correct? What was Paul really trying to say? Did he confuse different elements in a destiny episode for this planet?

Much of the difficulty is linguistic. How did Paul use the Greek words? What did he intend in his statements? Another part of the difficulty is in his private revelations. He was not one to expound at length on those things which had been revealed to him; he made only passing remarks. Yet those aside comments provide us with important clues to God's plans for this world. A third difficulty is the limitation of Paul's understanding; depending on how information was given to him, his human mind may have tied the wrong two-and-two together, or otherwise confused planetary events.

All of these elements condition our understanding of this passage.

The New Testament uses two Greek words which are both translated as "Temple." The first is heiron; it meant a sacred place. In Mark 11:11 the word denoted the entire Jerusalem building with its precincts. This word was never used figuratively.

The second word is naos. It meant "a shrine or sanctuary." It was used both figuratively and metaphorically. The naos of the Jerusalem temple was the inner sanctuary, the holy of holies, where only the priests could enter. The word was used among Greeks and Romans as the "shrine" containing the idol of worship. The word was used figuratively by Jesus of his own physical body, John 2:19,21. In apostolic teaching it was used metaphorically for the church, the mystical body of Christ, Eph 2:21. It was also used by John, both literally and figuratively, in Rev 3:12, 7:15, 11:19, 14:15,17, 15:5,6,8, 16:1,17 and of the "Temple" of the new and heavenly Jerusalem, Rev 21:22.

As an illustration of the confusion which tradition and modern translation have placed upon the word naos, consider Paul's remarks in II Cor 6:14-16. There he draws out the contrasting parallels between the children of God and the children of darkness.

Righteousness with lawlessness. Fellowship in light with darkness. Christ with Beliar. Believer with unbeliever. A shrine of God with idols.

Or, we could use sanctuary, the alternate word:
 

This passage is universally translated as the "temple of God." But consider the difference between "sanctuary" and "temple." Although "temple" denotes a place of dedicated worship, perhaps even sacred, it carries with it the idea of physical structure. Shrine, or sanctuary, denotes a hallowed or holy place, not necessarily physical. By translating naos as temple we reduce the significance the term carried in the original writing. The two words were not directly synonymous for the ancient writers.

Temple can mean only that which is physical; it has no figurative application. Sanctuary, on the other hand, can mean any place that is hallowed or holy, physical or spiritual, figurative or metaphorical.

If we are the sanctuary of God he can dwell in our minds and our souls; the physical body then carries little significance, although Paul specified the physical body in I Cor 6:19. A living God does not occupy a physical structure; he dwells in a spiritual edifice. We must make our sanctuary holy for his indwelling; he would not indwell an unholy place.

When the "man of lawlessness" takes his place it is not in the "Temple of God," but in the "Sanctuary of God." That is what Paul wrote, and that is what Paul meant.

Therefore, Paul did not necessarily intend a physical location; he easily could have meant a spiritual place, or occupation of a spirit position. Such possibility would throw away interpretation which would identify Jerusalem or any other earthly location.

"Lawlessness" is not limited to human mortals; it can be practiced by divine beings. The statement strongly implies a personality who is in defiance against his Creator, and therefore, not human.

(This Greek word finds parallel in Latin inimicus and modern English inimical, enemy, and enmity.)

The Greek word is anthropos. We get such English words as anthropology, the study of man, and anthropomorphic, ascribing human characteristics. This one word throws understanding completely awry. Many interpreters believe the reference can only be to a human mortal.

The International Critical Commentary engages in discussion of the various scholars who have viewed this word as a reference to a divine personality, not a human mortal. The use by Paul could be metaphorical; he may have used the word in a derogatory sense. For example, I have often referred to the devil as the "Old Man." A difference in view comes about because the ancient manuscripts are not in agreement on use of the word describing this lawlessness. Some use the Greek word amartias, denoting error or offense, an act of the unaware human mortal, in contrast to anomias, an open defiance.

ICC offers these remarks about II Thes 2:  

Instead of anomias (found in some ancient manuscripts) the majority of uncials read amartias. Occasionally (the opposite is true). As these variants and the parallelism in Job 7:21, Ps 31:5, and Isa 53:5 show, the two words are similar in meaning, amartia being the more general. Though common in LXX (the Septuagint), both anomia (Rom 4:7, 6:19, II Cor 6:14) and anomos (I Cor 9:21) are rare in Paul. Unless (the more ancient manuscripts were) revised in the light of verses 7-8, or substituted anomias for amartias in light of an exegesis which understood "the man of sin" to be Belial, the more specific anomias is the preferable reading. It is tempting to identify the figure described in the four phrases with Belial (Beliar), though we cannot be sure that Paul would assent to this identification.

ICC goes on with a very important remark:  

(R. H.) Charles notably identifies "the man of lawlessness" with Belial but elaborates an hypothesis to account for the Antichrist as he appears in Paul and in later N. T. literature. The Anomos of Paul, a god-opposing man, a human sovereign armed with miraculous power, is the resultant of a fusion of two separate and originally independent traditions, that of the Antichrist and that of Beliar. The Antichrist is not, as Bousset supposes, originally the incarnate devil but a god-opposing being of human origin. The first historical person to be identified with Antichrist is Antiochus Ephiphanes; and the language applied to him "recalls, though it may be unconsciously, the old Babylonian saga of the Dragon's assault on the gods of

heaven." Beliar, on the other hand is a purely Satanic being. "It is through the Beliar constituent of the developed Antichrist myth that the old Dragon saga from Babylon gained entrance into the eschatologies of Judaism and Christianity. This fusion of Antichrist with Beliar "appears to have been affected on Christian soil before 50 A. D.," and is attested by II Thes 2:1-12.

These remarks well describe the situation facing us. Indeed, two episodes are fused together, one now unfolding in our day, and the other to come at the end of the millennium. I provide an exposition on the Gog and Magog revelations which appear in John's Revelation and in Ezekiel to demonstrate how this fusion took place. Refer to my paper on The Millennium.  We need not resort to Babylonian myth or obscure early Christian eschatology to show this confusion. Suffice it here to say that several revelations show rebel celestial personalities in human incarnation: Isa 14:12-20, Ezek 28:18-19, Psalm 82:6-7, and Ezek 38-39 with Rev 20:7-10.

Returning to verse four we can examine the attributes of arrogant character which lead us to assign these actions to a celestial personality. He is not an incarnate devil in our own day, keeping in mind that the designation "man" is part of the fusion from two different revelations.

1. He is impious: "the one who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship."

2. He has a spirit of self-exaltation: "so that he sits in the sanctuary of God."

3. He is blasphemous: "proclaiming himself to be God."

Paul gave us precedent for the phrase "so-called god" in I Cor 8:5 where he used the same word. He meant all those loyal gods and lords of the heavenly realms. This phrase is highly important to our understanding. The personality of this passage opposes those gods and exalts himself above them. He ranks himself with them but thinks he is better than they. He will not accept his divinely assigned role in creation. A human mortal would not rank himself with the gods of the heavenly realms. Only a celestial personality would presume to such cosmic arrogance.

We might believe that Paul made reference to pagan gods, not only from use of the word "so-called," but also when he uses the phrase "object of worship." For the true son and daughter of God there is only one place for our worship, the Father and the Son. Paul meant that the so-called gods were objects of worship to pagan people; again, they readily understood his reference. He was writing to people who believed in and were surrounded by pagan gods; they had been converted from those beliefs. Paul's remarks may reflect a struggle with their habit of mind which understood lesser beings of the heavenly realms as worthy of worship.

As a further example of how we have been influenced by early Christian attitudes, (and misunderstanding), and how Christian tradition has become chained to those early attitudes, consider the translation "so that he takes his seat in the Temple of God." This phrase has a subject "he", a verb "takes," and an object "seat."

The verb and the object do not exist in the Greek text. They are inferred from the form of the Greek phrase, and our view of Paul's intent.

Literally, from Greek to English:

ooste = so as
auton = him
eis = in
ton = the
naon = sanctuary
tou = ---
Theou = of God
kathesai = to sit

The verb "kathesai = to sit" is an aorist infinitive. An aorist verb "expresses action without further limitation or implication." An infinitive is a verbal substantive, which means it is not a verb in the full sense; it is a verbal noun. The infinitive then led to the idea of a "seat."

Consider how the identical word "kathesai" is translated in Acts 8:31.

"And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him."

Again, the identical word "kathesai" is translated in Rev 3:21.

"He who overcomes, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne . . ."

Simply, the word means "to sit." The Greek says nothing about taking a seat. The translation of verse 4 is properly rendered as "Who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god and object of worship, in order to sit in the sanctuary of God . . ."

Now we can understand how the sanctuary and the sitting take on a different sense.

The sanctuary need not be a physical structure in a geographical location upon earth. Rather, it is a spirit center. That spirit center is the naos, a sanctuary of God. He presumes against God in order to sit there. He was cast down but does not respect his judgment. The idea of God's sanctuary carries several possible implications.

1. The sanctuary offers protection from other spirit beings. Those other beings respect the sanctuary, just as the Jew respects the inner sanctuary of the Temple, the holy of holies. This being is using this sanctuary, in rebellion against God, and against the laws of the universe. The sanctuary may be nothing more than God's command to "leave him be."

2. The sanctuary may carry a functional advantage. By sitting in it he may be able to contact the minds of human mortals more directly. He is using God's laws to prosecute his wicked purpose. He is a rebel; he has no respect for holiness.

3. "Sanctuary" may be used metaphorically, as often in the New Testament. Although he was "cast down" he presumes to his former status, equal to that of loyal beings.

4. Or, he pretends to a status equal to loyal beings, that human mortals may believe he operates from the same holy estate.

From that sanctuary he openly blasphemes against God. He proclaims himself to be God.

We must get a tight grip on our attitudes. We must recognize that all loyal divine beings know he is not God. Only susceptible human mortals would not be able to descriminate. His proclamation as God therefore can only be to foolhardy human beings.

If this personality is divine, and not human, the proclamation as God now takes on more sense. We need not postulate a human scenario to interpret the passage. He is not now a deluded human mortal; he is a spirit being who is trying to delude mankind. Perhaps he is trying to reclaim the respect he possessed as our former planetary ruler, our planetary god, but which he lost when he rebelled. Held up against the reality of Creation his actions are truly insane.

Human susceptibility to belief that he is God will lead to the mass slaughter about to burgeon forth on our world.

In my previous letter I quoted a statement made by this rebel personality to Mark Farley. There he pretended to be Michael, as God. Current "spiritist" communications, now rampant around this planet, are rife with these pretenses and impersonations as God. A good example is the "Christ" of A Course in Miracles. Little did we recognize how this prediction by Paul would be fulfilled. Our mythological images prevented us, even now, at the last hour, from understanding the deadly transactions being prosecuted before our very eyes, by neighbors, friends and relatives. The current development of spiritist groups in all corners of the land is the practical fulfillment of Paul's prediction. This rebel does not appear as some mystical figure, taking his seat in some mythical temple, shouting to the world that he is God.  He appears in the minds of human mortals proclaiming that he is God.  And they believe him.

Return now to verses six-eight. These may be the most cryptic in the Bible, simply because Paul refers to conversations he had with the Thessalonians in which he provided details and a context, but which he does not relay to us. The Thessalonians may have known what was restraining or withholding "him"; we do not.

Speculation has soared around this passage. Many and diverse suggestions have been proffered for the identity of the lawless one, who or what is restraining him, when he will be revealed, and the context of the actions. Much of that speculation uses political scenarios, either of early Christian days, or others down through the centuries. Some interpreters believe it was Nero who was doing the restraining; others suggest other Roman emperors. Persons in later centuries suggested a Pope, or political leaders, or national dictators, and so on. All are in error. The context is religious, not political. These are divine transactions; not human activities. The context is heavenly; the environment is not geophysical, political, or commercial. These are cosmic transactions.

Through heavenly processes unknown to us, God held the devil in check. God limited his ability to function. God placed restraints upon him. He was cast down. Now those restraints have been removed. "He who restrains him will do so until he comes out of the midst" is so confusing because Paul was limited in his vocabulary. The "midst" may be the sanctuary. Or it may be a spirit environment not discernible to human kind. Or it may be a spirit restraint which God has now lifted.

The mystery of lawlessness is the permission by God that the devil remain on this world to prosecute his evil designs. We do not have a clear perception why God would allow this; hence it is a mystery. As Jesus stated, it was not his wish that this rebel remain, but he would do the will of the Father.

When Paul said the mystery of lawlessness was already at work he meant the methods employed by this rebel to destroy the world. Prior to the present release those methods were of two kinds:

a) the antagonistic spiritual environment this being created, the one spoken of by the apostles and Christians down through the centuries, and
b) phenomena displayed under the general designation of "spiritualism."

We were immune to the environmental influence as long as we remained righteous, as long as our hearts were centered to God. But when the world became godless we opened the way to an ever more powerful influence which now pervades our current social order. Furthermore, "spiritualism" was limited in cultural power, although it was pursued increasingly at many levels during the past 150 years. For example, Mary Todd Lincoln, the wife of Abraham Lincoln, sought out "spiritualist" phenomena, as did many reputable scientists.

The "coming" of the lawless one is the same word as used for the "coming" of Jesus. The Greek perousia means "a presence." His coming will be according to his celestial status, in power, with many signs and lying wonders. The demonstration of his power will reach beyond any traditional view, far beyond the current conceptual range of Jew or Christian. About to unfold upon this planet is an episode that escapes the most erudite religious theoretician, the most sophisticated theologian, the most perceptive Rabbi, and the most adamant fundamentalist Preacher.

In order to demonstrate how this release is understood by the rebel Prince, I quote statements he made to a spiritist group in Woods Cross, Utah. He made these remarks through the mind of Jan Messenger, a member of that group.  
 

 

. . . The gravity of the Son, the Eternal Son that is, has tremendous power and weight. Your spiritual sensitivity and capacity for receptivity will increase noticeably. His drawing power is unmistakable to the spirit, to the soul, which will increasingly respond to this feeling. Communication such as this will increase worldwide spread. Many people will respond.

With due regard to the caution that his purpose is to deceive, this statement probably captures the nature of the spiritual transactions transpiring on our world today. He is not afraid to discuss these elements because he needs justification for those individuals who are now following him. They may wonder how this is now coming about, why the exact form of this phenomena was not known in prior historical times. The reason is simple; a spiritual release has now come. Since this view of new spiritual transactions is totally outside the purview of Jews and Christians, not included in their theologies or popular notions of God's control of this planet, it could not have come out of the unconscious mind of Jan Messenger. These concepts are foreign to any historical view and could not have human origin.

It is not my purpose to provide justification for the authenticity of these remarks. Each of us must decide for ourselves the validity of the information being given to us, whether from holy and righteous sources, or from the vile Prince. We should remember that he mixes truth with lies. Everything he says is not false; otherwise foolish human kind would quickly see through him. The power of his appeal is in his judicious mixing of false concepts with truthful statements. And even his false concepts are centered in the wishful thinking of man. He uses their weaknesses to appeal to them. He is a very devious being.

Given this cautionary note we can now examine elements of the statement he made through Jan Messenger.

The spiritual changes taking place on our world are enlarging the capacity of human mortals to become receptive to "spirit" communications. The entire world is responding to the changes, but not for the general good of mankind. Self-centered people look for personal gain. Man's love is growing cold. Conversely, those who are dedicated to God are feeling stronger emotions toward him. But because of the mythologized and paganized elements within current religions their spiritual longings do not find appropriate expression. Witness the struggle in Christian churches for ecumenism, liberation from old forms, "charismatic movements" or "contemporary" services. Thus a great spiritual conflict now unfolds upon our world.

The goal of the Prince is two-fold. First, he is transforming individuals. His purpose is to get into their minds. That is his only purpose. When he has established himself inside their heads he can use them as he pleases. His ability to accomplish that feat is becoming more easy because of the changes taking place in the spiritual environment of our planet.

Second, his purpose is to spread, and to maintain this transformation. He wants to get control of as many human mortals as he can convert to his devilish scheme. His drawing power is increasing every day. He appears more and more as a "God" to those individuals. Indeed, the scope of his project is worldwide destruction.

The world is about to enter a spiritual judgment, the likes of which have never before taken place in God's creation. And we human mortals now living will respond according to our individual relationships with God. Willing or not, we are participants in a unique cosmic episode.