The Man of Lawlessness

[Duncan]

Part two of the chapter is up if anyone is interested. See here:
http://planetpreterist.com/content/man- ... s-part-two

[Allyn]

Great job, Duncan.
You articulated your answers thoroughly. Hopefully we will see that in return.

[Apollos]

Duncan,

I usually just peruse these kinds of articles, but I think you are on to something with this. I am not sure if there is anything of use to you, but G. R. Driver argued that the Qumran pesherim referred to Titus and the desecration of the Temple, but since I haven't finished his book yet (The Judean Scrolls), I don't know how useful to your position he would be.

I am a historicist, but carefully argued positions like your own might one day force me to at least hold to an immediate as well as more longer-term fulfillment (I am quite convinced that the papacy fulfills this particular prophecy in 2 Thes., and I do not believe the Bible speaks of a single antichrist figure).

[Duncan]

Duncan,

I usually just peruse these kinds of articles, but I think you are on to something with this. I am not sure if there is anything of use to you, but G. R. Driver argued that the Qumran pesherim referred to Titus and the desecration of the Temple, but since I haven't finished his book yet (The Judean Scrolls), I don't know how useful to your position he would be.

I am a historicist, but carefully argued positions like your own might one day force me to at least hold to an immediate as well as more longer-term fulfillment (I am quite convinced that the papacy fulfills this particular prophecy in 2 Thes., and I do not believe the Bible speaks of a single antichrist figure).

Thank you Apollos,

It is quite a compliment for someone from another paradigm to even give you a nod (which I think you just did).

Personally I have problems with historicism. Because there has been more and more history over time, a hisoricist from the 2nd century would be different from one from the 5th century, who would be different from the 8th century, who would be different from the 11th century, and so on to the present.

As to no single Antichrist, after 10 years of work and about a 1000 written pages (there is a volume II that just looks at the Antichrist in Revelation), I have to disagree! Here is something from chapter one. Scripture does show an opponent of God/Christ that is defeated by His coming (Dan. 7:21-22; 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 19:11-21).


THE ANTICHRIST
It is somewhat surprising that a term as well known as Antichrist is found only four times in the entire Bible. These references occur in the books of 1 and 2 John:

Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:18-22 (underlined emphasis mine)

By this you know the spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
1 John 4:2-3 (underlined emphasis mine)[

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

2 John 7

William Biederwolf provides an extensive discussion on the word antichrist (Gr. antichristos):

“antichrist”—the word may mean either “against Christ” or “instead of Christ”, i.e., a false Christ. The decision cannot rest on philology alone, but the context shows plainly that John used the word in a sense antagonistic to Christ, and this is now commonly recognized . . . John was acquainted with the Greek for “false Christ’ [Gr. pseudochristos], but he chose not to use it. He used “antichrist”, showing plainly that he meant the idea of enmity to be read in the word. Furthermore, in the Greek Fathers we do not find a trace of the idea of “false Christ” in Antichrist but it is always the thought of antagonism that is emphasized.

These antichrists in John’s time were the heretical teachers who had gone out from the Church, who were clothed with the attributes, had the spirit of and were the forerunners of the coming personal Antichrist. Does John in this verse [1 John 2:18] mean that the Antichrist is already here, i.e., in a collective sense, being in fact the aggregate of these many antichrists? In other words, is the Antichrist collective or is he personal?

1. Since the antichrists are personal so must the Antichrist be.
2. Christ and Antichrist stand over against each other and if one is personal the law of analogy requires that the other should be personal also.
3. Chap. 4:3 does not say that the spirit then prevalent was Antichrist, but it says that it is the spirit of Antichrist, and in this place the article “the” is used before Antichrist.
4. The present of fixed certainly (cometh), as referred to Antichrist [in 1 John 2:18] is set over against “have arisen” and “is”, as referred to the antichrists, showing that there is a distinction between the Antichrist who is to come and many antichrists who have already come.19

John (c. AD 60-65) was telling his first-century readers that the Antichrist was about to appear.20 He makes a distinction between “Antichrist” and “antichrists” (1 John 2:18). John uses the term “antichrists” to describe those who deny that Jesus was the Christ come in the flesh (1 John 4:3). He cites the fact that many antichrists had come as an indication that it was the “last hour” and that the Antichrist was about to come. It should be noted that John is mostly focusing on these “antichrists” in his epistles not the “Antichrist.”

Some would disagree with my position and say there is no such thing as an individual Antichrist, that there are only antichrists.21 Preterists especially have been attracted to this line of thinking because they have failed to produce a unified picture of Antichrist in one historical figure. If one cannot unify the Scriptures related to Antichrist, it is a clever defense to maintain there is no single Antichrist. One cannot be faulted for not coming up with an answer to a problem that does not exist! This sidestepping of the issue does not work, however; the problem does not go away. Whether one calls him “Antichrist” or not, the Bible consistently shows an opponent of God/Christ who is defeated by the coming of God (see below). To say there is no individual Antichrist does not get around this fact.

THE OPPONENT OF GOD/CHRIST
Looking at Scripture, one does not have to dig too deep to find the opponent of God/Christ who appears at the last hour (of the old covenant age; cf. Dan. 11:40-12:13; 1 Cor. 10:11 1 Peter 4:7; Heb. 9:26). Looking at Daniel 7, the little eleventh horn makes war against the saints and is defeated by the coming of God:

I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, until the Ancient of Days came and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom.
Daniel 7:21-22

Notice that the little eleventh horn has three horns pulled out before it (Dan. 7:8), making him an eighth horn (i.e., ruler), which is exactly what the beast of Revelation is (Rev. 17:11). Just as with the little horn of Daniel 7, the beast of Revelation is defeated by the coming of God. Revelation reveals this as the coming of Jesus, the coming of the Word of God:

Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war . . . He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God . . . Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword . . . And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. Then the beast was captured . . . [and] cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Revelation 19:11, 13, 15, 19-20

Consider some of the connections between the little horn of Daniel 7 and the beast of Revelation:

1. The little horn/beast is an eighth ruler (Dan. 7:8; Rev. 17:11).

2. The little horn/beast speaks great blasphemies against God (Dan. 7:8, 11, 20, 25; Rev. 13:5-6).

3. The little horn/beast wages war against the saints and overcomes them (Dan. 7:21; Rev. 13:7).

4. The little horn/beast has a three-and-a-half-year reign of terror (Dan. 7:25; Rev. 13:5).

5. The little horn/beast is defeated in AD 70 by the coming of God/Christ (Dan. 7:21-22; Rev. 19:11-20).

6. The little horn/beast is thrown into the lake of fire at the time of the Second Coming (Dan. 7:11; Rev. 19:19-21).

7. The kingdom of God is established (what the NT shows as the beginning of the millennium) at the AD 70 defeat of the little horn/beast (Dan. 7:7-11, 21-27; Rev. 19:11-20:4).

For a more thorough discussion, see here http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3203

There are too many specific correlations between the little horn and the beast for Daniel and Revelation to be talking about different rulers. These links also rule out the proposition that Revelation is retelling a second-century BC (pseudo) prophecy of Antiochus IV. It is the same ruler being shown in Daniel and Revelation, not two different rulers. The little horn/beast is the opponent of God/Christ who overcomes the saints for three-and-a-half years and is defeated at the parousia, ushering in the worldwide establishment of God’s kingdom at AD 70 (cf. Rev. 11). The little horn/beast is the Antichrist.
In Paul’s discussion of the man of lawlessness (the one who captures the Temple and is worshiped there; 2 Thess. 2:1-4), this theme of the opponent of Christ who is defeated by the Second Advent is found again:

For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.
2 Thessalonians 2:8

Note the connection between Revelation 19:15 (“Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword”) and 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (“the Lord will consume [him] with the breath of His mouth”). The Antichrist is defeated at the parousia by the sword/breath that comes out of Jesus’ mouth. These two sections speak of the same event and the same opponent; both speak of the Antichrist and the Second Coming. Note also that Paul draws from Daniel 11:36-12:13 in his discussion of the man of lawlessness. He is thus linking the king of the North with the man of lawlessness. The Antichrist was the opponent of God who would seek to exalt himself above God (cf. 2 Thess. 2:4 with Dan. 11:36-37).

Looking at the king of the North, he is defeated at the end of the old covenant age (Dan. 11:40-45), at the AD 70 destruction of the Jewish nation (Dan. 12:7). While the Second Coming is not shown explicitly in Daniel 12, the events associated with the Second Coming (e.g., the great tribulation, Dan. 12:1, cf. Matt. 24:21; the abomination of desolation, Dan. 12:11, cf. Matt. 24:15; and the resurrection and judgment, Dan. 12:2-3, cf. Matt. 25:31-32) are shown as happening at the defeat of the king of the North at the end of the age.

In the king of the North, we again we have the opponent of God who is defeated at AD 70 after a three-and-a-half-year reign of terror (Dan. 12:7; cf. Dan. 7:25; Rev. 13:5). As I mentioned earlier, Titus’ campaign against Israel took exactly three-and-a-half years, from March/April of AD 67 to August/September of AD 70.22 Whether one wants to use the term Antichrist or not, the Bible clearly shows an opponent of God/Christ who appears at the last hour of the old covenant age and is defeated by the Second Advent. To merely assert that there is no individual Antichrist does not change the facts of Scripture.

Endnotes:
19. William Biederwolf, The Millennium Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1964), 535. Reprinted from original printing in 1924.
20. I shall discuss the date of John’s epistles as well as the rest of the NT later. My position, similar to that of John A. T. Robinson (Redating the New Testament), is that the entire NT was written before AD 70.
21. Kim Riddlebarger, The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006), 80-87. Riddlebarger discusses B. B. Warfield and his disagreement with a composite picture of the man of lawlessness and the beast fused into an individual Antichrist. Riddlebarger takes a more moderate view and is thus open to the idea of a single Antichrist. We see Scripture clearly showing an opponent of God/Christ who appears at the last hour and is defeated by the Second Coming. Whether one calls this opponent “the Antichrist” or “the opponent of Christ” is really just a matter of semantics; the concept is the same. Scripture shows a specific individual who opposes God/Christ that is defeated by the Second Coming (Dan. 7:21-22; 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 19:11-21).

[Apollos]

Personally I have problems with historicism. Because there has been more and more history over time, a hisoricist from the 2nd century would be different from one from the 5th century, who would be different from the 8th century, who would be different from the 11th century, and so on to the present.

It makes a lot of sense to me. As with all these things, I need to do a whole lot more study of it. Historicist interpretations have been pretty consistent, in my opinion, since about the seventeenth century to today. Before that, there has been a consistent identification of the Man of Sin with the papacy, the roots of which date back to Jerome, and even to Tertullian. But ultimately I can't accept arguments like this because people always disagree over biblical interpretations, but that doesn't mean there isn't a correct way to understand the Bible. People have had different interpretations of Daniel, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a correct interpretation. In the early second century, no doubt some people identified the little horn as Antiochus IV.

As to no single Antichrist, after 10 years of work and about a 1000 written pages (there is a volume II that just looks at the Antichrist in Revelation), I have to disagree! Here is something from chapter one. Scripture does show an opponent of God/Christ that is defeated by His coming (Dan. 7:21-22; 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 19:11-21).

I think that the Beast is a system rather than a person, and that the Man of Sin has a specific prophetic fulfillment, but the Antichrist appears to simply be a description of the false gnostic teachers of John's day, who denied that Jesus came in the flesh. I don't see any future individual being spoken of. Of course I could be wrong, and I didn't used to hold that view, and I could go back to it again if I were persuaded that is what it's saying. I just am not persuaded that the Antichrist must be identified with the Man of Sin and the Beast.

These antichrists in John’s time were the heretical teachers who had gone out from the Church, who were clothed with the attributes, had the spirit of and were the forerunners of the coming personal Antichrist.

If this is true, then I would expect the personal Antichrist to be a Gnostic. I would expect that he denies the Father and the Son, just as the antichrists did. But who? Did Titus do this, or anyone else?

1. Since the antichrists are personal so must the Antichrist be.

Right there an interpretation has been imported in - there is no definite article in the Greek. It's 'Antichrist', not 'the Antichrist'.

3. Chap. 4:3 does not say that the spirit then prevalent was Antichrist, but it says that it is the spirit of Antichrist, and in this place the article “the” is used before Antichrist.

It seems to me that the article here is simply standing in for 'Spirit' as a pronoun would in English - this is the spirit, the one of Antichrist.
In fact, to my ear at least, I don't even think koine would allow τὸ ἀντιχρίστου.

4. The present of fixed certainly (cometh), as referred to Antichrist [in 1 John 2:18] is set over against “have arisen” and “is”, as referred to the antichrists, showing that there is a distinction between the Antichrist who is to come and many antichrists who have already come.19

This is not a valid argument either, since in Greek, the sequence of tenses is different. They didn't say: as you have heard that the Antichrist was coming. They can say 'as you have heard that the antichrist is coming', preserving the tense of the verb as it was when they heard it (in the past).

John (c. AD 60-65) was telling his first-century readers that the Antichrist was about to appear.20 He makes a distinction between “Antichrist” and “antichrists” (1 John 2:18). John uses the term “antichrists” to describe those who deny that Jesus was the Christ come in the flesh (1 John 4:3). He cites the fact that many antichrists had come as an indication that it was the “last hour” and that the Antichrist was about to come.

But he doesn't do this. If he did, I would agree. He doesn't reaffirm the coming of the antichrist in light of the many antichrists. He simply says, as you have heard that there would be antichrist, so now there are many. I'm not saying it all makes complete sense, and as far as I'm concerned, the above is a possible interpretation, but I'm not convinced it's the only one.

Notice that the little eleventh horn has three horns pulled out before it (Dan. 7:8), making him an eighth horn (i.e., ruler), which is exactly what the beast of Revelation is (Rev. 17:11). Just as with the little horn of Daniel 7, the beast of Revelation is defeated by the coming of God. Revelation reveals this as the coming of Jesus, the coming of the Word of God:

I'm wondering how Titus was defeated in 70AD in your view, when he actually went on to become emperor?

The little horn/beast is the opponent of God/Christ who overcomes the saints for three-and-a-half years and is defeated at the parousia, ushering in the worldwide establishment of God’s kingdom at AD 70 (cf. Rev. 11). The little horn/beast is the Antichrist.

I am not convinced that Nero's persecution began in November 64 - a date which I suspect was created to force a 3.5 year persecution. But nor can I see your view, since Titus came against the Jews in Jerusalem, not the saints.

Ultimately, I find only the historicist position to be satisfactory on these things, but I'm open to there having been a more immediate fulfillment, and I hold to an early dating of Revelation, since I believe that this dating, without question, alone fits the data.

[Duncan]

Hey Apollos,

My position is that what was destroyed and thrown in the lake of fire at AD 70 (Dan. 7:11; Rev. 19:20) was not Titus nor the Roman Empire but the demonic beast that "was about to come out the abyss" (cf. Rev. 11:7; 17:8 NASB) and work through Titus. Daniel and Revelation are unveiling the spiritual realm. The 8 kings of Revelation 17:9-11 are a confederation of demonic kings, like the kings and princes of Persia and Greece in Daniel 10:13, 20-21. This explains why there are only 8 of them; the Roman Empire had well over 100 emperors in its history.

As for the span of history, Daniel 7 shows 4 kingdoms (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome). The only kingdom after the 11 th ruler of Rome is the kingdom of God (Dan. 7:21-27). Interestingly, the classic Jewish position is that the little horn of Dan. 7 is Titus see here http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo ... rashi/true I found that out after I had come to my conclusions and was intrigued.

[Apollos]

Hey Apollos,

My position is that what was destroyed and thrown in the lake of fire at AD 70 (Dan. 7:11; Rev. 19:20) was not Titus nor the Roman Empire but the demonic beast that "was about to come out the abyss" (cf. Rev. 11:7; 17:8 NASB) and work through Titus. Daniel and Revelation are unveiling the spiritual realm. The 8 kings of Revelation 17:9-11 are a confederation of demonic kings, like the kings and princes of Persia and Greece in Daniel 10:13, 20-21. This explains why there are only 8 of them; the Roman Empire had well over 100 emperors in its history.

As for the span of history, Daniel 7 shows 4 kingdoms (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome). The only kingdom after the 11 th ruler of Rome is the kingdom of God (Dan. 7:21-27). Interestingly, the classic Jewish position is that the little horn of Dan. 7 is Titus see here http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo ... rashi/true I found that out after I had come to my conclusions and was intrigued.

Hi Duncan,
The problem, as I see it, is that the horns in Daniel do actually refer to concrete rulers. The 'princes' you refer to are not part of the visions of the beasts/worldly powers, and refer to the princes which were believed to rule over the nations in Jewish tradition. This is the bene elohim - the sons of God or 'divine council', in which the LORD judged. Therefore I can't accept the demonic kings idea - if the horns of Daniel had a literal, earthly fulfillment, so must those in Revelation, I believe. I think your view strikes one who isn't committed to it (i.e. myself) as somewhat forced. The eight horns = eight separate kingdoms of the historicist interpretation feels a little contrived to me as well, but I can just about accept it as a possibility.

I find the reference to Titus in the Jewish literature interesting, but not surprising, in light of Driver's book on the Qumran persharim, where Titus and the fall of Jerusalem were (as he argues) the foretold 'end of days'.

The interesting thing about Daniel 7 is it refers to the time when the Son of Man would come to the throne room of God and take authority over all nations and dominions - something Jesus seems to claim in Matt. 28. Also, and this is too involved to really get into here, but to an inter-testamental Jew, this speaks of the taking away of authority from the divine council, or sons of God, who are stripped of their authority over the nations they rule - the plundering of the principalities and powers spoken of by Paul. Nevertheless, Paul states that Jesus has ascended above all power and authority, which, even without accepting the background as I've briefly sketched it, should alert the reader that Dan. 7 was fulfilled 40 years earlier than the fall of Jerusalem, imo.

[Duncan]

Hey Apollos,

The eighth king of Revelation comes out of the abyss, what physical king or kingdom would that be? He is the same as the little horn of Dan. 7. By the way Daniel (2 and 7) shows 4 kingdoms and then the kingdom of God, not eight. Revelation 13:2 recognizes this. Making the 8 kings into 8 kingdoms is bogus (as I think you acknowledge). By the way, the eighth king was about to come out of the abyss when John wrote (Rev. 17:8 NASB). If that is true then the Second Coming (when he is defeated Rev. 19;11-21) was about to happen.

As to Daniel 7, two different comings are shown. The AD 30 coming of the Son of Man to God's throne and the AD 70 coming of God to defeat the little 11th horn (the Antichrist cf. 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 19:11-21). Here is the beginning of my chapter on Daniel 7 (in my view, the single most important chapter in Bible prophecy).

Chapter IV
The Little Horn of the Fourth Beast (Daniel 7)

The seventh chapter of Daniel revisits the subject of chapter 2. This chapter depicts the rise and fall of four world empires—Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and pre-AD 70 Rome—and the subsequent establishment of God’s kingdom. The main difference between these two chapters is that Daniel 7 provides more details about the four empires than does Daniel 2. Daniel 7 also gives us our first introduction to the Antichrist in the form of a little eleventh horn of the fourth beast/empire. This little horn represents Titus in AD 70, during a time in which his father Vespasian was emperor. While Titus would later become the eleventh Caesar of Rome, in AD 70 he was a general (a prince, cf. Dan. 9:26)1 and is thus referred to as a little horn.

The information provided in Daniel 7 is crucial, as it provides the clearest picture of the Antichrist in all of Scripture. More than that, however, Daniel 7 provides the foundation for a number of very significant eschatological concepts. Revelation will draw from this chapter in its discussion of the beast (cf. Dan 7:2-7 with Rev. 13:1-2) and the great tribulation (Dan. 7:21, 25; cf. Rev. 13:4-7). Daniel 7 prefigures the Second Advent. The coming of God against the little horn (Dan. 7:21-22) is shown in Revelation as the coming of the Word of God against the beast (Rev. 19:11-21). Daniel 7 gives detailed information as to when the millennium began (i.e., thrones are put in place at the defeat of the little eleventh horn by the AD 70 coming of God, vv. 7-11, 19-27; cf. Rev. 19:19-20:4; Matt. 19:28). This chapter also contains the well-known vision of the Son of Man coming with clouds (Dan. 7:13-14; cf. Matt. 24:30; 26:64; Rev. 1:7, 13; 14:14). Finally, Daniel 7 shows us the judgment (Dan. 7:9-10; cf. Rev. 20:11-12).

Daniel 7 furnishes a knowledge base upon which the rest of prophetic Scripture builds; it is one of the most important prophetic chapters in all of Scripture. Beale notes the significant influence of Daniel 7 on the book of Revelation: “. . . roughly more than half the references [in Revelation] are from the Psalms, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, and in proportion to its length Daniel yields the most . . . Among the allusions to Daniel, the greatest number are from Daniel 7.”2 To put it simply, Daniel 7 is a seminal chapter of Bible prophecy.

I was watching; and the same [little] horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, until the Ancient of Days came and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom.
Daniel 7:21-22

The coming of God in verses 21-22 is to earth to defeat the Antichrist; this is the Second Advent. As I have mentioned, this coming is shown in Revelation as the coming of the Word of God to defeat the beast (Rev. 19:11-21). In contrast, the coming of the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14 is to God’s throne in heaven to receive worldwide dominion. Clearly these are two different events. While the AD 30 coming of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days to receive universal dominion (vv. 13-14) and the AD 70 coming of God when the saints receive the kingdom (vv. 19-27) are different events,7 they are related theologically. It is by virtue of Jesus receiving all power in heaven and earth in AD 30 (cf. Matt. 28:18) that the saints could possess the kingdom of God at Jesus’ parousia in AD 70 (cf. Luke 19:11-27; Rev. 3:21).

CHRIST’S AUTHORITY IN THE MIDST OF ANTICHRIST’S PERSECUTION
While it may seem strange that Daniel 7 shows the ascension (in vv. 13-14) in the midst of the events related to the Antichrist and the Second Coming, Revelation chapters 11-13 (perhaps drawing from Daniel 7) contains a similar sequence. Revelation 11:7-10 depicts the Antichrist overcoming the saints (cf. Dan. 7:21), after which the kingdom of God is set up on earth at the AD 70 destruction of those who were morally ruining the land of Israel (Rev. 11:15-18; cf. Dan. 7:22).8 Revelation 12:1-12 digresses, showing the AD 30 ascension and enthronement of the Christ (cf. Dan. 7:13-14).9 Revelation 13 then returns to the subject of the Antichrist and the time just prior to the Second Coming, where he overcomes the saints for three-and-a-half years (Rev. 13:5-7; cf. Dan. 7:25-27). Thus, both Daniel 7:7-27 and Revelation 11-13 have a chiastic-like structure (A B A):

A. Events related to the Antichrist and his persecution of the saints just prior to the AD 70 full establishment of God’s kingdom (Dan. 7:7-12; Rev. 11:7-19).

B. Interlude depicting the AD 30 enthronement of Christ (Dan. 7:13-14; Rev. 12:1-12).

A. Continued discussion on the events related to the Antichrist and his persecution of the saints just prior to the full establishment of God’s kingdom (Dan. 7:19-27; Rev. 13).

The central focus of this structure is the AD 30 enthronement of the Messiah. It emphasizes the supremacy of Christ in the midst of the persecution of Antichrist, Jesus ruling in the midst of his enemies (Ps. 110:1-2).

Endnotes:
1. Titus became emperor in AD 79. Ultimately, however, the prince of Daniel 9:26 was a spiritual prince of the Roman people (cf. Dan. 12:1), that is, the spirit of Antichrist that worked through Titus.
2. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, eds. I. Howard Marshall and Donald Hagner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 77. Of course, in terms of sheer volume, Isaiah comprises the largest number of allusions in Revelation (followed by Ezekiel and then Daniel).
3. In Revelation, the Son of Man is shown with the characteristics of the Ancient of Days (i.e., white hair, symbolic of the eternality of the Ancient of Days; Dan. 7:9; Rev. 1:14); Jesus is both God and Man. In Revelation, we are told that God “is to come” (Rev. 4:8). This coming of God is shown in the coming of Jesus, the Word of God, in Revelation 19:11-21 (cf. Rev. 1:4-8).
4. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 396.
5. Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church, 4th Edition, 161-165.
6. I disagree with France that Matthew 24:30-31 is talking about the enthronement of the Messiah but not the parousia. See R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 923-929, for his discussion.
7. I disagree with those who say the Son of Man represents the saints (for an example of this position see N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 2 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 518-519). The Son of Man coming to the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7:13-14 represents the AD 30 ascension of Jesus; this was the time of the full establishment of the kingdom of God in heaven (cf. Rev. 12:1-12). The saints receiving the kingdom in Daniel 7:21-27 is the AD 70 full establishment of the kingdom on earth at the Second Advent (cf. Matt. 21:33-45). The Antichrist was defeated at this time and Jesus’ followers received the kingdom (cf. Rev. 3:21; 19:11-20:4).
8. The Greek word gē, usually translated as “earth” in Revelation, is often better translated as “Land,” i.e., the land of Israel. For an explanation of the translation of the second use of “destroy” in Revelation 11:18 as figurative of moral destruction, see footnote 47 in chapter 2.

[Apollos]

Hey Apollos,

The eighth king of Revelation comes out of the abyss, what physical king or kingdom would that be?

Hey Duncan,
The eighth king is referred to as a beast, which I take to be a kingdom. I would be inclined to take the historicist view of this also (i.e. the papacy), though it's been so long since I've studied that in any depth, that I cannot recall all the arguments for and against.

He is the same as the little horn of Dan. 7. By the way Daniel (2 and 7) shows 4 kingdoms and then the kingdom of God, not eight. Revelation 13:2 recognizes this. Making the 8 kings into 8 kingdoms is bogus (as I think you acknowledge).

I wouldn't say bogus just yet. I've read some good arguments for this view (in Elliot I think), or the view that it is the different forms of government at Rome. But either way, the beasts in Daniel refer to actual forms of government, not to the spiritual princes who governed the nations. So even if at this time I cannot work out which kingdoms this refers to, it still wouldn't be an option for me to apply the passage to the angels, since this is not consistent with the use of this kind of imagery in Daniel.

I think your presentation on Titus has some merit, and is worth exploring further. But ultimately I think the position is flawed. Perhaps all present eschatological systems are, I don't know, but that wouldn't be good enough reason for choosing one of them. Titus was an antichrist figure espousing a Gnostic gospel which denied that Jesus came in the flesh, for example. Titus wasn't destroyed, and I am not persuaded that we can simply remove those descriptions from him and ascribe them to the spirit that was upon him. Also, the 3.5 years refers to a persecution of the saints, and so I cannot see how you can apply this to the siege of Jerusalem against the unbelieving Jews. These points to me are serious problems for your view.

[Duncan]

I think your presentation on Titus has some merit, and is worth exploring further. But ultimately I think the position is flawed. Perhaps all present eschatological systems are, I don't know, but that wouldn't be good enough reason for choosing one of them. Titus was an antichrist figure espousing a Gnostic gospel which denied that Jesus came in the flesh, for example. Titus wasn't destroyed, and I am not persuaded that we can simply remove those descriptions from him and ascribe them to the spirit that was upon him. Also, the 3.5 years refers to a persecution of the saints, and so I cannot see how you can apply this to the siege of Jerusalem against the unbelieving Jews. These points to me are serious problems for your view.

Hey Apollos,

You are making me work! The Antichrist’s focus is on Israel. The prince to come destroys Jerusalem and the Temple. The king of the North comes against Jerusalem (Dan. 11:40-45); this is the time of the great tribulation (Dan. 12:1-3); it results in the shattering of the Jewish nation (Dan. 12:7). It was those in Judea who would need to flee at the time of the great tribulation (Matt. 24:15-21). The man of lawlessness would take control of the Jerusalem Temple (2 Thess. 2:1-4). The beast destroys harlot Babylon (usually seen as Jerusalem by preterists) the great city where Jesus was crucified (Rev. 17:18, cf. 11:8). While the great tribulation would come upon the whole world it would focus on the dwellers on the Land (Rev. 3:10, note: preterists contend that ge is usually better translated as “Land” rather than “earth” in Revelation).


THE DWELLERS ON THE LAND THAT WOULD NOT WORSHIP THE BEAST
WOULD BE KILLED
Revelation 13:3 says that the entire “world” would follow the beast. The chapter goes on to say that those who dwell on the “earth” (vv. 8, 12, 14), whose names were not in the Lamb’s Book of Life, would worship the beast. These references to “world” and “earth” (vv. 3, 8, 12 & 14) use the same Greek word, gē. As I discussed earlier, gē is usually better translated as “Land” in Revelation. It was those who were dwelling on the land of Israel, those whose names were not in the Lamb’s book of life that would follow and worship the beast (by acknowledging Titus Caesar as Lord). Some would do this sooner, others later, but eventually every knee of those dwelling on the Land would bow to Titus or face death (Rev. 13:15). Chilton, commenting on Revelation 13:3-4, notes the following on the meaning of earth/Land in Revelation 13

St. John is not speaking of the world (the “earth” following the Beast; the word he uses here should be translated Land, meaning Israel. We know this because the context identifies his worshipers as those who dwell on the Land (Rev. 13:8, 12, 14)—a technical term used twelve times in Revelation to denote apostate Israel.

That the dwellers on the Land in Revelation 13 is referring to those who dwelt in Judea is supported by the fact that the second beast (the false prophet, Rev. 16:13; 19:20; 20:10) comes out of the Land (Rev. 13:11). The false prophet was Jewish, coming out of the land of Israel (cf. Deut. 13:1-5).

Also supporting the fact that the reference to the dwellers on the Land is speaking of the land of Israel is the time period of forty-two months (Rev. 13:5) that the individual beast is allowed for his reign of terror. Forty-Two months is three-and-a-half years; it is a reference to the last half of Daniels’ seventieth week. The seventy weeks of Daniel were to focus on the Jews and Jerusalem (“Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city . . .” Dan. 9:24). The last half of the seventieth week was the time of the coming of the one who would make the Jewish nation desolate: “And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation which is determined is poured out on the desolate.” (Dan. 9:27; cf. Matt. 23:29-38; Luke 21:21-23). Forty-Two months is how long it took Titus to destroy the Jewish nation (cf. Dan. 12:7).

A further indication that the dwellers on the Land in Revelation 13 are the Jews is the form of worship the Land beast/false prophet requires them to adopt. The mark of the beast on the hand or forehead (Rev. 13:16) alludes to Jewish worship. The hand (or arm) and forehead are the location of the phylacteries ( little leather boxes containing portions of Scripture that Jewish men wear when praying; cf. Ex 13:9, 16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18). I will be going into detail on this later in the chapter. For now I just want to highlight that Revelation 13 (especially from vs. 5 on) is primarily talking about the individual beast. This is referring to the Antichrist and his war on the Jews; this was the demonic prince whose people would destroy Jerusalem and the Temple, (Dan. 9:26). This culminates with his destruction of harlot Babylon (unfaithful Israel) in Revelation 17-18.

REVELATION 13:5-8
5. And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months.
6. The he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven.
7. It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue and nation.
8. All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

In Revelation 13:5-8 the emphasis shifts from the mortal wound of the corporate beast to the individual beast, the Antichrist. This shift from the corporate to the individual beast in Revelation 13 parallels Daniel 7. In that chapter Daniel is first considering the fourth beast and its ten horns and then the focus shifts to a little eleventh horn that comes up (i.e., the Antichrist) who is speaking pompous words. Revelation 13:5-8 and its description of the individual beast is taken from Daniel 7 and its description of the little horn of the fourth beast. The Septuagint version of Daniel 7:7-8, 21, 25 is as follows:

After this one I looked, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible . . . and it had ten horns. I noticed his horns, and behold, another little horn came up in the midst of them, and before it three of the former horns were rooted out: and behold, there were eyes as the eyes of a man in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things . . . I beheld, and that horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them . . . he shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change times and law: and power shall be given into his hands for a time and times and half a time. Dan. 7:7-8, 21, 25 LXX

Revelation 13:5-8 connects the individual beast of Revelation 13 with the little horn of Daniel 7; they both refer to the same blasphemous ruler. The individual beast of Revelation 13 is said to speak “great things and blasphemies” (v. 5). This corresponds to the “great things” against God that the little horn speaks (Dan. 7:8, 11, 20, 25). This ruler wars against the saints (which in Daniel refers to the Jews, cf. Dan. 9:26-27; 12:1) for a time and times and half a time (Dan. 7:25), which is three-and-a-half years or 42 months (Rev. 13:5). This arrogant ruler was Titus in AD 70, or more accurately, the spirit of Antichrist from the abyss (Rev. 17:8) that worked through Titus in AD 70. Titus’ campaign of destruction against Israel took three-and-a-half years, AD 67-70 (cf. Dan. 12:7).

THE BLASPHEMIES OF THE ANTICHRIST
Revelation 13 elaborates on the Antichrist’s blasphemies as it says the individual beast would blaspheme God’s name, his tabernacle and those who dwell in heaven (vv. 5-6). It is possible that the individual beast blaspheming God’s tabernacle is a reference to him blaspheming the Temple. In Acts 6 Stephen was falsely accused of blaspheming God by speaking blasphemies against the Temple: “This man does not cease to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law; for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs which Moses delivered to us” (Acts 6:13-14). These blasphemous accusations that were falsely attributed to the Christ were carried out by the Antichrist in AD 70. Titus destroyed the Temple and changed Jewish law and customs (by allowing a new Jewish religious hierarchy to be set up in Yavneh). Ford had the following comments on the blasphemies of the individual beast:

“to blaspheme against God . . . His name and His dwelling, [and] those who dwell in heaven” (13:6). The blasphemy against God’s name may refer to the assumption of the divine names by the emperors in public documents and in inscriptions. The one against His dwelling may be against the temple, e.g. when Caligula…attempted to set his statue there . . . or when Titus entered the Holy of Holies at the end of the siege of Jerusalem. Blasphemy against the dwellers in heaven may refer to the angels or martyrs . . . .

While Caligula had ordered that a statue of himself be set up in the Temple, he died (in AD 41) before the order was carried out. It was Titus who committed the ultimate blasphemy against God’s Temple when he desecrated and destroyed it. Titus was the only Caesar who was ever directly worshipped in the Temple (cf. 2 Thess. 2:4). Consistent with Revelation 13:5-6, the Talmud refers to him as “the wicked Titus who blasphemed and insulted Heaven.”

Vespasian sent Titus who mocked, Where are their gods, the rock in whom they sought refuge? (Deut. 32:37). This was the wicked Titus who blasphemed and insulted Heaven. What did he do? He entered the Holy of Holies and with his sword slashed the curtain. Through a miracle blood spurted forth and he thought he had killed God Himself. He brought two harlots and, spreading out a scroll beneath them, transgressed with them on top of the altar. He began to speak blasphemies and insults against Heaven, boasting “One who wars against a king in a desert and defeats him cannot be compared to one who wars against a king in his own palace and conquers him.”

Titus’ claim of single-handedly killing Almighty God more than adequately fulfills the “pompous words” that the little horn was to speak against the Most High God (Dan. 7:8, 11, 20, 25) as well as the “great things and blasphemies” of the individual beast (Rev. 13:5-6). The mystery of lawlessness which had been restrained at the time of Caligula (cf. 2 Thess. 2:6-8) came to fruition in AD 70 with Titus’ desecration and destruction of the Temple.

When looking at the various descriptions of the Antichrist in Scripture, arrogance and blasphemy against God are the most common characteristics attributed to him. The little horn speaks “pompous words against the Most High” (Dan. 7:8, 11, 20, 25). The king of the north of Daniel 11:36-45 would “exalt and magnify himself above every god [and] speak blasphemies against the God of gods” (Dan. 11:36). The man of lawlessness “exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God.” (2 Thess. 2:4). The Antichrist blasphemes God by denying the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22). The individual beast speaks “great things and blasphemies” against God and his name, his tabernacle and those who dwell in heaven (Rev. 13:5-6). Again, Titus fulfilled these arrogant blasphemies when he destroyed the Temple and proclaimed that he had defeated the Almighty God of Israel. Commenting on the arrogance of Titus, Roman historian Michael Grant wrote the following: “Titus was conceited about the position he had won, regarding himself as the decisive factor in the rise of the [Flavian] dynasty to power, and showing little backwardness in parading this conviction.”

THE INDIVIDUAL BEAST’S FORTY-TWO MONTH REIGN OF TERROR
In Daniel 7 the little eleventh horn is said to prevail against the saints for “a time and times and half a time” (Dan. 7:25). “A time and times and half a time” is a reference to three-and-a-half: a time = one; times = two, half a time = a half (cf. Dan. 7:25 NRSV, “a time, two times, and half a time”). While it is open to debate how specific a time period “a time and times and half a time” refers to, it is usually taken to be three-and-a-half years. Revelation 13:5 supports this as it gives the length of time of the individual beast’s authority as forty-two months, which is three-and-a-half years: “And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months.”
This time period of three-and-a-half is the last half of Daniel’s seventieth week (Dan. 9:27); it would culminate with the parousia (Dan. 7:21-22). Forty-two months was the length of Titus’ campaign of destruction against the Jews. Titus began this campaign with his father around March/April of AD 67—he finished it (by himself) forty-two months later in September of AD 70. This resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (Dan. 9:26-27) and the shattering of the Jewish nation (Dan. 12:7).

Daniel 7:20-25 shows that the little eleventh horn “making war against the saints, and prevailing against them” (v. 21). Daniel would have been understood the “saints” as being his people (Dan. 9:24-27; 12:1-3). In Revelation the concept of “saints” is generalized to believers, both Jew and Gentile: “It was granted to him to make war with the saints and overcome them” (Rev. 13:7). The spirit of Antichrist working through Titus would be warring against both God’s new and old covenant people. Sulpicius Severus writes the following about Titus’ negative intentions toward both Jews and Christians.

Titus is said to have first summoned a council and deliberated whether or not he should destroy such a mighty temple, for some thought that a consecrated shrine, which was famous beyond all other works of men, ought not to be razed to the ground. Their argument was that to preserve it would bear witness to the moderation of Rome, while its destruction would forever brand her as cruel. Others, however, including Titus himself, opposed this view and said that the destruction of the Temple was a prime necessity in order to wipe out more completely the religion of the Jews and the Christians; for they urged that these religions, although hostile to each other, nevertheless sprang from the same sources; the Christians had grown out of the Jews: if the root were destroyed, the stock would easily perish.’ (Chronica 2.30.6-7)

THE GREAT TRIBULATION
While the individual beast would seek to overcome both Jews and Christians, his focus would be on the dwellers on the Land, the Jews (Rev 13:8, 12, 14). The three and half year reign of terror of Antichrist (Rev. 13:5; Dan. 7:25) was the time of the great tribulation; it was to focus on the land of Israel (Dan. 11:40-12:3); it would end with the destruction of the Jewish nation (Dan. 12:7). This focus of the great tribulation is highlighted in the gospel of Luke:

But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Luke 21:20-24

Notice that this time of great distress on the Land and the Jews is clearly referring to the time right before the AD 70 dispersion of the Jews into the nations (Luke 21:24). When one looks at the parallel section in Matthew, it refers to this time of great distress in the Land as the time of “the great tribulation” (cf. Dan. 12:1-7 LXX). Luke and Matthew are talking about the same event, the time when those in Judea would need to flee to the mountains.

Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything gout of this house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. Matthew 24:15-21

The “abomination of desolation” in Matthew 24:15 is a reference to Daniel 9:27 (and Dan. 12:7-11). It refers to the coming to the Holy Land of the Romans and especially the one who would make the Jewish nation desolate. Luke, writing to a more Gentile audience, explains this as Jerusalem being surrounded by invading armies. Both are referring to the time right before the AD 70 scattering of the Jews.