End Time Events

[dwilkins]

The hard part about quoting pieces of short letters is that you inevitably cut out something important. I'm tempted to just cut and paste the whole letter because it's one big thought. But, I definitely shouldn't have stopped at v.5. The reason is that the man of sin (proposed in Steve's paradigm as whatever person is holding the office of Pope) is explicitly seen below as being restrained from expressing itself in about 50AD when Paul wrote the letter. How is this possible?

2Th 2:5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.
2Th 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.
2Th 2:9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders,
2Th 2:10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
2Th 2:11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,
2Th 2:12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2Th 2:13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
2Th 2:14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2Th 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
2Th 2:16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace,
2Th 2:17 comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.

[steve]

The view that sees the man of lawlessness as the papacy believes that the restrainer is identified as the power of the Roman Empire. The presence of the empire, for several centuries after Paul's time, continued to restrain the rise of the papacy. This is why Paul could speak of it being restrained in his day (the days of the emperors). This doesn't seem difficult to me.

[john316yes]

Steve, how can you interpret this any other way? When did JESUS kill the man lawlessness with his coming splendor and the breath of his mouth? If he was revealed what man deceived the world with power signs and lying wonders? What man was possessed by Satan in such a major way like that?




1) The man of Lawlessness the son of destruction "and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,"

2) He is called the man

3) He exalts himself against every so called god or object of worship

4) He proclaims himself to be God

5) He has all power,signs and false wonders by Satan

6) When the lawlessness one is revealed he is killed by Jesus

[steve]

You will find my answers to these questions in my lectures on "The Antichrist" http://www.thenarrowpath.com/mp3s/esc/esc10.mp3 (begin at the one-hour mark) and on 2 Thessalonians 2 http://media.theos.org/Steve%20Gregg/Ve ... %201-2.mp3 .

[robbyyoung]

I know Steve is a Preterist, but as a Preterist how do you explain 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 ?


"Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, ...
Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

Heres what Ive been pondering about this verse:

1) in Context, when Paul write abouts the Coming of the Lord and our being gathering together to him, to me, indicates the second coming of Jesus.
2) With that in mind, he then sets up the qualifications indicating the Second Coming of Jesus our Savior.
3.) The Falling Away
4) The man of Lawlessness is revealed.
5) Later, we see that this man who is guided or empowered by Satan himself, does the following.
6) He exalts himself, proclaims himself to be God, with power, signs and false wonders. He deceives the world.
7) He is destroyed by the breath of Jesus and the splendor of his coming.

So the question is to Steve is does he believe this has already happened?

The "How" question regarding the fulfillment of this particular prophecy must first be approached in the spirit of, "was God faithful to the audience it was revealed to?"

Yes, God is trustworthy and accurate concerning His promises. Yes, God does know how to tell time and communicate to His audience in non-cryptic fashion.

Ed Stevens has an excellent teaching and study concerning the historical facts of the "Last Days" 30 -70 A.D. in which Eleazar b. Ananias is a prime candidate for 'The Man of Lawlessness" http://www.buzzsprout.com/11633/161872- ... horn-ad-66. Nonetheless, the time statements and the integrity of Jesus and The Apostles will not permit any of The Last Days prophecies to be outside that 1st Century generation.

Our lack of understanding concerning the nature of these events can be discussed and maybe even solved, but it's not required. The time statements stands firm. I believe what my 1st Century Brethren believed, and they were not disappointed or lied to or misled and neither are we.

Take a look at Brother Ed's teaching, you will not be disappointed in his diligent work. God Bless!

[steve]

Our lack of understanding concerning the nature of these events can be discussed and maybe even solved, but it's not required. The time statements stands firm.

I do not find any time statements in 2 Thessalonians 2. There is a discussion of chronology, but not of the timing of fulfillment.

I believe what my 1st Century Brethren believed, and they were not disappointed or lied to or misled and neither are we.

It would be nice to know what the first century brethren believed about this passage. Unfortunately, apart from the epistle itself, we have no record from the first century revealing the way the believers of that time understood Paul's reference. We do, however, have references from the second century onward, from multiple church fathers, supporting their belief that the fall of the Roman Empire was the "removal" to which Paul alluded, and that the Man of Lawlessness would arise after that point.

Any view that argues that the Man of Sin arose prior to AD 70, and was in the Jewish temple, must defend the notion that Paul would ever refer to the Jewish temple as "the temple of God" (especially since he used this term only two other times, in both of which, he meant the church—1 Cor.3:16; 2 Cor.6:16).

[robbyyoung]

Our lack of understanding concerning the nature of these events can be discussed and maybe even solved, but it's not required. The time statements stands firm.

I do not find any time statements in 2 Thessalonians 2. There is a discussion of chronology, but not of the timing of fulfillment.

I believe what my 1st Century Brethren believed, and they were not disappointed or lied to or misled and neither are we.

It would be nice to know what the first century brethren believed about this passage. Unfortunately, apart from the epistle itself, we have no record from the first century revealing the way the believers of that time understood Paul's reference. We do, however, have references from the second century onward, from multiple church fathers, supporting their belief that the fall of the Roman Empire was the "removal" to which Paul alluded, and that the Man of Lawlessness would arise after that point.

Any view that argues that the Man of Sin arose prior to AD 70, and was in the Jewish temple, must defend the notion that Paul would ever refer to the Jewish temple as "the temple of God" (especially since he used this term only two other times, in both of which, he meant the church—1 Cor.3:16; 2 Cor.6:16).

Hello Steve and God Bless,

Paul, as you know, isn't speaking on his own accord but only confirming what was already preached and prophesied by Jesus Himself; Matt 24:12. Therefore, from 2 Thess. chapter 2 onward, to the relevant passages, we see nothing but signs from the Olivet Discourse that absolutely only refers to the 1st Century. Yes, context matters and there is no escaping the facts. Paul is discussing The Parousia in vs.1 to his audience only to ensure his audience in vs.3 that until this happens, The Parousia is still pending but will indeed happen in their lifetime (1 Thess. 1:10; 2:19;).

So I'm perplexed in how you don't see any time statements regarding this prophesy using exegetical principles. Presuppositions are strong but this is nothing to struggle over. Again, there isn't one conversation in the entire New Testament that hinted to any last days prophecy to the relevant audience to happen outside that generation, not one.

Now to comment on your "No Written Record" of the 1st Century believers concerning anything in the New Testament is very easy to explain. The reason there was an approximate 40 year silent period that has puzzled many scholars is this, all the believers were taken just like Jesus & Paul said and wrote about - 1 Thess chapter 4 (the so-called rapture). This is why the gnostics went unchallenged in their err of scripture concerning these things, nonetheless, the gospel seed was planted and here we are today. The early church, after 70 A.D., IS NOT what is orthodox. The only orthodox Church that matters and is The Only True Orthodox Church is what we proudly proclaim in scripture. EVERYTHING else is subordinate and must fall in-line with our 1st Century Brethren. Not that complicated.

Our dear Brother Ed Stevens has put together some of the best scholarly work I've seen in regards to the historical facts of what our 1st Century Brethren went through. God was faithful in all his time statements in regards to what the mockers of our day hold as false prophecies, and uninspired men after all. But to God be the glory, everything happened exactly like He said it would and those who continue to err in it's nature of fulfillment continue to this very day.

2000 years and counting, but it doesn't matter at all, He's here, His kingdom has no end, and it's in the realm He said it will always be - John 18:36

By the way Steve, great work in regards to your ministry bringing people to Christ. Eschatology differences is not a deal breaker for salvation in my opinion, but it is indeed exciting and noteworthy. God Bless!

[steve]

Hi Robby,

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I have a few problems seeing some of your points.

Therefore, from 2 Thess. chapter 2 onward, to the relevant passages, we see nothing but signs from the Olivet Discourse that absolutely only refers to the 1st Century.

Which of the signs from the Olivet Discourse do you find mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2?

The Parousia is still pending but will indeed happen in their lifetime (1 Thess. 1:10; 2:19;).

I do not see any mention in the verses you referenced to the parousia occurring in the lifetime of the readers. To say that they are waiting for something is not the same as affirming that it will come in their time. Abraham himself was "looking for a city whose builder and maker is God." It didn't come in his lifetime. I am still waiting for the second coming of the Jesus, though I have no reason to believe it must happen in my lifetime. It sounds as if there is some eisegesis in your approach to these verses.

Now to comment on your "No Written Record" of the 1st Century believers concerning anything in the New Testament is very easy to explain. The reason there was an approximate 40 year silent period that has puzzled many scholars is this, all the believers were taken just like Jesus & Paul said and wrote about - 1 Thess chapter 4 (the so-called rapture).

I have not read Ed Stevens' documentation (though I once had a long telephone conversation with him, back in the 90s), but I don't think he has access to historical Christian documents other than those accessible to all students of church history. Clement of Rome seems to have written shortly after AD 70, and Papias talked with people who had known the apostles. Ignatius and Polycarp had sat at the feet of the apostle John, and Irenaeus at the feet of Polycarp. In all of their writings, none of these people mentioned the removal of all Christians from the earth in the generation previous to theirs, and many of them spoke as if they still anticipated the fulfillment of the parousia prophecies. What's up with that?

This is why the gnostics went unchallenged in their err of scripture concerning these things...

I don't think the Gnostics went unchallenged at any point in the first century. In fact, they were opposed before their movement even blossomed, by Paul, in Colossians, and by John, in his epistles.

[robbyyoung]

Steve said,

Which of the signs from the Olivet Discourse do you find mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2?

2 Thess 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him

Compare with:
1 Thess 4: 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
1 Thess 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1 Thess 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
1 Thess 4:18 Wherefore (Thessalonians) comfort one another with these words.
Matt 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
Matt 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven:…
Matt 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Matt 24: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
Matt 24: 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Next…
2 Thess 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2 Thess 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Again Compare:
Luke 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.
Matt 24:10 "At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another.
Matt 24: 11 "Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many.
Matt 24: 12 "Because lawlessness is increased, [fn]most people's love will grow cold.

This should be enough to suffice.

Steve said,

I do not see any mention in the verses you referenced to the parousia occurring in the lifetime of the readers. To say that they are waiting for something is not the same as affirming that it will come in their time. Abraham himself was "looking for a city whose builder and maker is God." It didn't come in his lifetime. It sounds as if there is some eisegesis in your approach to these verses.

Steve, all I can say is where you see eisegesis in these verses supporting the Parousia, 1 Thess. 1:10; 2:19;, I see your presupposition of futurism. Especially regarding 1 Thess 2:19 where the word "Parousia" is actually used. Also, God never promised Abraham he would live to see what was clearly to come through his descendants. This comparison is no comparison at all. Find an Old Testament prophecy where soon means far into the future and far into the future means soon. God doesn't play tricks with time statements when communicating with mankind where time does matter.

Steve said,

While I have not read all of Ed Stevens' documentation (though I once had a long telephone conversation with him, back in the 90s), I don't think he has access to historical Christian documents other than those accessible to all students of church history. Clement of Rome seems to have written shortly after AD 70, and Papias talked with people who had known the apostles. Ignatius and Polycarp had sat at the feet of the apostle John, and Irenaeus at the feet of Polycarp. In all of their writings, none of these people mentioned the removal of all Christians from the earth in the generation previous to theirs, and many of them spoke as if they still anticipated the fulfillment of the parousia prophecies. What's up with that?

Well Steve I spoke with Ed and here are the facts. Ed's reply is - Nope, that is not correct. Clement of Rome wrote in the mid-60’s before AD 70. Those people that Papias supposedly talked to were not true Christians before AD 70, and might not have been true Christians after AD 70 either (especially if they were associated with the Ebionites, Nazarenes, or other Unitarian Judaizers in Palestine and Syria). Ignatius and Polycarp do not claim to have sat at the feet of apostle John. It was the late second century Irenaeus who made that mistaken claim, NOT Ignatius or Polycarp. Furthermore, Apostle John died in the Neronic persecution (AD 64), at least five years before Polycarp was born.

So Steve can you produce statements from those apostolic fathers (internal evidence) to back up any of your claims here? What we need is verifiable testimony at the mouth of two or more reliable first century eyewitnesses. Can you produce that?

Also, I meant the gnostics went unchallenged after 70 A.D. by true believers because they where GONE. Hence futurism begins!

God Bless

[steve]

First, I am not seeing the parallels you see between the Olivet Discourse and 2 Thessalonians. That both passages speak of people losing their faith is not particular enough to indicate identity of subject matter. The Galatians fell away around AD 50, and Demas fell away, probably closer to AD 65. These were not the same fallings away, and there have been many more throughout history. As for many false prophets, in Matthew 24...I don't know how these morphed into one "Man of Lawlessness" in Thessalonians. Not all apostasies are the same apostasy; not all bad religious figures are the same person; not all uses of the word parousia refer to the same event. The Lord "coming" in Isaiah 19 was not the same event as the Lord's "coming" in 2 Thessalonians or in Matthew 24. These "parallels" aren't sufficiently parallel to persuade me of the point.

Second, I would challenge the revisionist history of the fathers provided by Stevens:

Clement of Rome wrote in the mid-60’s before AD 70. Those people that Papias supposedly talked to were not true Christians before AD 70, and might not have been true Christians after AD 70 either (especially if they were associated with the Ebionites, Nazarenes, or other Unitarian Judaizers in Palestine and Syria). Ignatius and Polycarp do not claim to have sat at the feet of apostle John. It was the late second century Irenaeus who made that mistaken claim, NOT Ignatius or Polycarp. Furthermore, Apostle John died in the Neronic persecution (AD 64), at least five years before Polycarp was born.

No one knows exactly when Clement wrote, but it was certainly written some time after the death of Paul (he mentions Peter's and Paul's martyrdoms as well-known facts to his readers, in chapter V), whose death was probably around 67 AD. 1 Clement is unlikely to have been written before AD 70, and most scholars put it considerably later. If Ed Stevens thinks it was prior to AD 70, this may be due to the necessities of his system, rather than anything like scholarly consensus.

I suspect the same to be true of his other revisionist claims, since they go considerably against mainstream historical scholarship and common sense. I am aware of two conflicting stories from the patristic writers of John's death. One is that he died shortly after his brother James (Acts 12), which is way too early, and the other that he lived through most of the first century. I was not aware of any authority affirming his death under Nero.

And how is Ed Stevens' claim that Ignatius and Polycarp did not sit under John more to be believed than the claims of Irenaeus, who personally sat under Polycarp?

On what basis does Stevens say that Papias' friends were not "true" Christians? Papias certainly does not suspect this of them. On whose authority does Stevens know this?

I suspect that all of these deviations from standard historical scholarship reflect the same motivation: the necessities of a peculiar theological paradigm. I personally don't care when any of these men lived or wrote, and neither do the mainstream scholars who disagree with Stevens. However, there can be no doubt that Stevens has a major stake in his revisionist dates, and may not be viewing the material objectively.

I would add that the Didache, which still was looking forward to the second coming, was probably written within a generation of AD 70, and yet exhibits no memory of the disappearance of all Christians a few years earlier.

Even Don Preston, who accepts all the same time-texts as applying to 2 Thessalonians, as you do, does not suggest a literal removal of all Christians from the earth occurred in AD 70. Your suggestion, and the ad hoc historical revisions that go with it, sound rather unsupportable. Just sayin'.

Finally, I have not seen your answer to my question about the "temple of God" referring to the Jewish temple, in your system, but never in Paul's terminology elsewhere. Sometime between the writing of Thessalonians and Corinthians, did Paul change his mind about what the temple of God is?