46
course, `No'. To sum up, we may conclude that, when the
apostle taught the glorious doctrine of the resurrection, he did
not go beyond the testimony of Moses and the prophets.
There is now only one other `mystery' to be considered: `The
mystery of iniquity' in 2 Thessalonians 2:7. It hardly seems
necessary to quote from the Book of Daniel to prove that the rise
of the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition, is entirely within the
scope of the Old Testament prophecy. The mystery of
Godliness, God manifest in the flesh, is enshrined in the Old
Testament title Emmanuel (`God with us'), and the mystery of
iniquity is but the Satanic travesty of the truth. The Man of Sin
sets himself up `as God' and will one day have his `parousia'
(coming) with its preliminary `lying wonders' (2 Thess. 2:9).
There is a possibility that the correct reading of Isaiah 11:4
should be as follows:
`With righteousness shall He judge the poor, and reprove with equity for
the meek of the earth: and He shall smite the Oppressor (ariz instead of
`earth' erez) with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips shall
He slay the wicked'.
The manifestation and destruction of this Man of Sin were
fully known to the prophets. That which has an end must
obviously have had a beginning, and that which finally dares to
come out into the light of day may well begin secretly at first.
In all this there is nothing that goes beyond the testimony of the
Law and the prophets.
We have now examined the various mysteries that are found
in Paul's early ministry, and have discovered nothing in any one