2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 (Man of Sin)

[mattrose]

It's time for me to teach through 2 Thessalonians again. Today I spent a good portion of my afternoon/evening trying to think through this bewildering passage. I think I came up with a fairly unique interpretation (which prolly means I'm way off!).

1. Paul had previously taught the Thessalonians about some of the details of the end-times (5)
2. Someone was persuading them toward a teaching contrary to Paul's teaching (2a)
3. The new/false teaching insisted that the day of the Lord was imminent (2b)*
4. Paul wanted to remind them that 2 things must happen before the 2nd Coming (3)
5. One of the things that would happen first would be a significant apostacy (3, 'the' rebellion)
6. The other thing that would happen first would be the revealing of the man of lawlessness (3)
7. Neither of those things had happened yet... so the 2nd Coming clearly wasn't imminent (3)
8. Currently, the secret power of lawlessness (Satan's Zeitgeist) is at work (preparing the way for the man of sin) (6-7)**
9. At some future point, Satan's zeitgeist will in some way be personified (a counterfeit incarnation) (8)
10. This personification of evil will proclaim deity (4), perform miracles (9), and even deceive Christians (4)
11. The wicked, especially, will buy into this self-proclaimed god (10). God will even assure that this happens (11)***
12. After some time (enough time to deceive many and do miracles, apparently), Jesus will return and gather the elect (1, 8)
13. The coming of Jesus will easily destroy the man of lawlessness (3, 8)
14. The wicked will be condemned along with satan and his system (12)
15. The righteous will be gathered to Jesus (1)

In Sum... The Thessalonians should have known better than to believe that the return of Christ was imminent because Paul had taught them, previously, that certain things must take place before the Lord returns. There had not yet been a significant apostacy. Nor had Satan's systems (for them, the Roman Imperial cult, for instance) given way to a personification of evil. They needed to remain aware of Satan's present schemes, but even more importantly cling to Apostolic teaching.

Over the past 2000 years, we've certainly seen apostacy and even candidates for the incarnation of evil. I believe each time either of these occurs, it should serve as a warning that the end could be right around the corner. We cannot guess when a given apostacy is THE apostacy or when a very sinful man is THE sinful man.

This interpretation avoids the problems of all of the more 'particular' interpretations while potentially including the best of them, it seems to me.

* It seems to be a possibility, in the Greek, that the false teaching did not insist that the day had 'already come,' but that it was already beginning to dawn.
** Yes, I equating the entity 'holding him back' WITH the secret power of lawlessness. This possibility is argued for in Gene Green's commentary. The Greek for 'holding back' or 'restrain' could be taken differently. The current zeitgeist is holding sway now, but will eventually give way to its own personification (Satan is behind all of this, of course).
*** I theorize that this is God's method of clearly and completely separating the wheat from the chaff at the end of the world (since people living at that time won't have as much opportunity to take their beliefs to their conclusions). I think of it almost as God setting up a magnet @ extreme evil... pulling all evil further towards it.

[Duncan]

Hi Matt,

My thoughts on 2 Thessalonians 2 are here. http://planetpreterist.com/content/man- ... s-part-one

[mattrose]

Yes thanks! Read that earlier today

[sonseeahray]

Daniel 12:11-12 (NIV2011)
11  “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.
12  Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.

Josephus tells us that this happened in 66 - 70AD.

This is not difficult at all - just follow history. You have to include the prophesies of not only Daniel but Jesus and Paul also.

The Restrainer was taken away - as per 2Thess
The Spirit of God was seen leaving the Temple and went to the top of the Mount of Olives and stood over the place where Jesus was crucified – Just the same as Ezekiel saw before the Temple of Solomon was destroyed. A few days later on the day of Pentecost 66AD the heavenly host was heard to be leaving the Temple also. From now on the violence would no longer be restrained, but was free to escalate.

The great “Falling away” now took place or a better translation would be “Rebellion.” This was the total rebellion of the Jews against Rome. This happened shortly after the restrainer was removed. The event that started it all is recognized by historians as the cessation of the daily sacrifices by the Temple for the benefit of the Emperor and the Roman people. This was an act of war against the Romans. Eleazar ben Ananus was the governor of the Temple and it was he who caused the sacrifices to cease. He was the grandson of the Ananus of Jesus' day and his father was Ananus ben Ananus the High Priest in 66AD,

The “man of sin” or “son of perdition” is revealed. This is not some “antichrist” in the 21st century. Inside of the city there were four different factions all vying for control. Ananus bar Ananus the high priest was leading the majority of the people to try to live at peace with the Romans. He was opposed to the three terrorist groups who themselves were fighting among themselves. These three groups were led by Eleazar ben Simon; John of Gischala, and Simon bar Gorius. In the conflict with Ananus bar Ananus' peace movement Eleazar ben Simon's (the man of sin the son of perdition) faction took over the Temple and used it as a fortress for their base of operations. There is a lot more detail to this account but I will omit it as it is of secondary importance.

The violence was escalating and when the news reached King Agrippa II – he sent an army of 2,000 troops to put down the rebellion. They were repulsed. Nero dispatched the 12th legion from Caesarea commanded by General Cestius Gallus to go to the city of Jerusalem and restore the peace. On Cheshvan 4th 66 AD Cestius was at the gates of the Temple attempting to gain access. He planned to burn the Northern door to the Temple on the following day. However on the 5th of Chesvan he decided to retreat – which he did for no known reason. The Zealot terrorists pursued the 12th legion and destroyed most of it. They were gone from the city and Judea for 8 days. Since they were killing everyone who was trying to leave the city it may have been that the Christians only had a window of 8 days to escape. This would account for Jesus' urgency in leaving Judea and Jerusalem.

Now the two events were in place that Jesus told his disciples to look for. The Temple takeover by the murderous terrorists and the city surrounded by an army. When they saw this they escaped to Pella according to tradition.

The 1,290 and 1,335 days. If you start counting the days beginning with Cheshven the 4th 66AD for a period of 1,290 days you arrive at Tammuz 17th . On Tammuz 17th 70AD Josephus records that under the Roman siege the daily sacrifice failed or ceased. The reason that he gave was a lack of Priests able to make the sacrifice. This was the morning and evening sacrifices of two (tamid) lambs. And so the daily sacrifice was taken away. The war continued and the Temple was burned out entirely and could no longer be used as a fortress. The two remaining terrorist groups decided that they would join together and fight against the Romans. They took over the Fortress of Herod which was so substantial that it was impervious to the Roman battering rams. The only way that they could be defeated was starvation. And so the days between the 1,290th day and the 1,335th day was 45 days. The war continued for 45 days past the failure of the daily sacrifice.

The days were shortened lest none should be left alive. Josephus records that the Romans were shocked and surprised when the terrorists came out of the Fortress of Herod and surrendered because they could have remained in the fortress as long as they had food. And so God cut the siege short for the elect's sake. Who was the elect? The people who came to God in this great tribulation because the obedient Christians all left the same time that Cestius did in 66AD. Paul said there was a hardening of the Jews and this is the way that God broke that hardness.

[sonseeahray]

duplicated

[steve]

Matt,

I like your approach. No need to commit to particulars—especially if fulfillment is still future. Interestingly, I just responded to a question about this from a guy in Mexico, who emailed me asking about the passage. Here is what I wrote back to him:

The "man of lawlessness" may be the same as the "little horn" in Daniel 7. This was the view of the church fathers. The little horn grows out of the fourth beast, who is generally regarded to be the Roman Empire. In Daniel 7:11, the body of that beast is killed and burned (the fall of Rome in the 5th century AD?). The fathers taught that the Roman Empire must fall before the little horn, or man of lawlessness, would rise to power. They believed that Paul was talking about the Roman Empire under the emperors as that which was "restraining" the rise of the man of sin, and that it was the empire which must be "taken out of the way." Paul's reason for not mentioning this more plainly, they said, was that he had been run out of Thessalonika on charges of saying subversive things against Rome (Acts 17:7), and that he did not wish for this letter (were it to fall into hostile hands) to appear to confirm this charge by predicting the fall of Rome. The readers would know what he was referring to because he had discussed this with them when he was with them (2 Thess.2:5).

The fathers did not live to see the fall of Rome, so they did not identify the man of lawlessness with anyone specifically. The reformers, however, did so. They said that the man of lawlessness (the little horn) would rise up in Rome (the fourth beast), would sit in the temple of God (Paul's expression for the Church—v.4; cf.,1 Cor.3:16; 2 Cor.6:16), would claim divine prerogatives for himself (v. 4); would work wonders by the power of Satan (v.9), and would persecute the true saints (Dan.7:21, 25). The reformers had no doubt that this role was filled by the rise of the papacy. They identified the papal institution with the "man of lawlessness" (you can see the translators of the KJV using Paul's term and applying it to the papacy, in their dedicatory remarks, paragraph 3, in parenthesis). Were they right in this identification? I don't know. However, they make a good case!

[RICHinCHRIST]

Matt,

I like your approach. No need to commit to particulars—especially if fulfillment is still future. Interestingly, I just responded to a question about this from a guy in Mexico, who emailed me asking about the passage. Here is what I wrote back to him:

The "man of lawlessness" may be the same as the "little horn" in Daniel 7. This was the view of the church fathers. The little horn grows out of the fourth beast, who is generally regarded to be the Roman Empire. In Daniel 7:11, the body of that beast is killed and burned (the fall of Rome in the 5th century AD?). The fathers taught that the Roman Empire must fall before the little horn, or man of lawlessness, would rise to power. They believed that Paul was talking about the Roman Empire under the emperors as that which was "restraining" the rise of the man of sin, and that it was the empire which must be "taken out of the way." Paul's reason for not mentioning this more plainly, they said, was that he had been run out of Thessalonika on charges of saying subversive things against Rome (Acts 17:7), and that he did not wish for this letter (were it to fall into hostile hands) to appear to confirm this charge by predicting the fall of Rome. The readers would know what he was referring to because he had discussed this with them when he was with them (2 Thess.2:5).

The fathers did not live to see the fall of Rome, so they did not identify the man of lawlessness with anyone specifically. The reformers, however, did so. They said that the man of lawlessness (the little horn) would rise up in Rome (the fourth beast), would sit in the temple of God (Paul's expression for the Church—v.4; cf.,1 Cor.3:16; 2 Cor.6:16), would claim divine prerogatives for himself (v. 4); would work wonders by the power of Satan (v.9), and would persecute the true saints (Dan.7:21, 25). The reformers had no doubt that this role was filled by the rise of the papacy. They identified the papal institution with the "man of lawlessness" (you can see the translators of the KJV using Paul's term and applying it to the papacy, in their dedicatory remarks, paragraph 3, in parenthesis). Were they right in this identification? I don't know. However, they make a good case!

The only flaw I can find in the reformer's view is that Christ didn't return at the height of the evil of the papacy. The pope today, as far as I've heard about him, appears to be a godly man. I heard that he adores st. Francis of Assisi and lives a very humble lifestyle. He also visited a prison recently and washed all the inmate's feet as a service to them. I suppose, perhaps, that the papacy could one day become evil once again or highly influential in world governments. If that was ever the case, then I could see it coming to pass. But doesn't it seem strange that the Catholic Church has pretty much cleaned up their act over the last 500-1000 years? Because of that reason, and since Christ has not yet returned, I must question this interpretation.