Paul's incomplete answer to the Thessalonians

[anochria]

I am sympathetic to the idea that the "man of lawlessness" was a Jewish apostate rebel in the Jewish revolt, so:

steve asked:

Can anyone who holds such a theory explain why Paul would say that such a man "must" be revealed before the Romans could destroy the city?

Well, I think the answer would be along the lines of when in the OT God said that the sins of the Amorites, etc.. had to reach their full measure before they were destroyed. Perhaps God would not destroy Jerusalem until the sins of apostate Israel had reached their full measure.

However, that said, I also like what Sean said. I'd never thought of equating the man of lawlessness with the released satan at the end of the millenium. Especially with the fire metaphor, that idea has merit. But, Sean, are you thinking of a human or would "man of sin" just be moniker for satan?