The Narrow Path Ministries

The man of lawlessness is one of the most enigmatic figures in all of eschatology. He is up there with the king of the North of Daniel 11:36-12:13. This should not be surprising, however, as both sections or Scripture are talking about the same person and his attack attack against Jerusalem at the end of the age.

The following is from my book, The Antichrist and the Second Coming: A Preterist Examination. The chapter on the man of lawlessness is the last chapter of the book. Because of its length I will be breaking it up into four sections. Let me bring the reader up to speed a little. The basic thesis of the book is that the Antichrist was ultimately a demonic spirit that worked through Titus in his three-and-a-half year destruction of Israel (Dan. 7:25; 9:26-27; 12:1-7; cf. Rev. 11:2; 13:5). Notice that the beast comes out of the abyss (Rev. 11:7; 17:8). This is a spiritual ruler, (cf. 1 John 4:3), just like the kings and princes of Persia in Daniel 10:13, 20-21 (although he would work through a specific man, cf. Rev. 13:18). This explains what was destroyed and thrown in the lake of fire at Jesus’ Second Advent in AD 70 (Rev. 19:11-21). It was obviously not the Roman Empire that was destroyed at that time, it was not the man Titus; it was the beast from the abyss working through Titus.

The Antichrist is the opponent of God/Christ that appeared at the last hour of the old covenant age (1 John 2:18). He was destroyed by the parousia at AD 70 (Dan. 7:21-22; 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 19:11-21). For parallels between the little horn of Daniel 7 and the beast of Revelation see here http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3203 Notice that this rules out Nero as the man of lawlessness. Nero died in mid AD 68; he can not be the one who was defeated by the AD 70 parousia. He had been dead for over two years by that time. Another thing that rules Nero out is the fact that the man of lawlessness takes control of the Temple and is worshipped there (2 Thess 2:4)—Nero never even set foot in Judea, let alone the Temple. It was Titus who captured the Temple and was worshipped there.

In talking about the man of lawlessness, Paul is teaching from Daniel 11:36-12:13 and the attack against Jerusalem by the king of the North (cf. Dan. 11:36-37 with 2 Thess. 2:4). This was the Antichrist, the coming prince who would destroy Jerusalem and the Temple (Dan. 9:26). I will discuss the parallels between Daniel 11:36-12:13 and 2 Thessalonians 2 below (note, in my book I go into detail on Daniel 11:36-12:13 in chapters 5 and 6).
For the rest of the article see here, http://planetpreterist.com/content/man- ... s-part-one

I'm pretty sure I disagree with your view, but want to give you a fair hearing. I won't have time to read your book, but perhaps you could just help me over a few initial obstacles. You wrote:

The man of lawlessness is one of the most enigmatic figures in all of eschatology. He is up there with the king of the North of Daniel 11:36-12:13. This should not be surprising, however, as both sections or Scripture are talking about the same person and his attack attack against Jerusalem at the end of the age.

I am not seeing where you derive your belief about the man of lawlessness waging an attack against Jerusalem. In 2 Thessalonians 2 there is no mention of Jerusalem. There is the mention of "the temple of God," but Paul never speaks of the temple in Jerusalem this way, and twice elsewhere uses this term to identify the church.

The King of the North is said to "enter the Glorious Land" (Dan.11:41), which is probably Israel, and to "plant the tents of his palace between the seas and the glorious holy mountain" (probably Jerusalem), but there is no specific mention of his hostility or an intent to attack Israel. Instead, it says he will attack the King of the South (v.40), and shall enter many countries (v.40), and his main victims will be Edom, Moab, Ammon and Egypt (v. 41-42). We are told that he will come to his end without help while encamped between "the seas" and Jerusalem. Are you saying that something in these details resembles Titus' campaign in AD 70?

You wrote:

the man of lawlessness takes control of the Temple and is worshipped there (2 Thess 2:4)

Was Titus worshipped in the temple? Just asking. I wasn't aware of it.

steve wrote:I'm pretty sure I disagree with your view, but want to give you a fair hearing. I won't have time to read your book, but perhaps you could just help me over a few initial obstacles. You wrote:

The man of lawlessness is one of the most enigmatic figures in all of eschatology. He is up there with the king of the North of Daniel 11:36-12:13. This should not be surprising, however, as both sections or Scripture are talking about the same person and his attack attack against Jerusalem at the end of the age.

I am not seeing where you derive your belief about the man of lawlessness waging an attack against Jerusalem. In 2 Thessalonians 2 there is no mention of Jerusalem. There is the mention of "the temple of God," but Paul never speaks of the temple in Jerusalem this way, and twice elsewhere uses this term to identify the church.

The King of the North is said to "enter the Glorious Land" (Dan.11:41), which is probably Israel, and to "plant the tents of his palace between the seas and the glorious holy mountain" (probably Jerusalem), but there is no specific mention of his hostility or an intent to attack Israel. Instead, it says he will attack the King of the South (v.40), and shall enter many countries (v.40), and his main victims will be Edom, Moab, Ammon and Egypt (v. 41-42). We are told that he will come to his end without help while encamped between "the seas" and Jerusalem. Are you saying that something in these details resembles Titus' campaign in AD 70?

You wrote:

the man of lawlessness takes control of the Temple and is worshipped there (2 Thess 2:4)

Was Titus worshipped in the temple? Just asking. I wasn't aware of it.

Hi Steve, I understand that you are busy, but you are saying you are pretty sure you disgree with me even though you have not looked at the book? Hmmm, anyway let me give something from part two of the article

WHAT TEMPLE WAS THE MAN OF LAWLESSNESS TO TAKE CONTROL OF?
Some commentators, unclear on a first-century identification of the man of lawlessness, argue that the temple Paul was talking about really refers to the church. Beale writes the following along these lines:

What does it mean that the antichrist will sit in the temple of God? It does not refer to some future rebuilt temple in Israel, nor is it likely to refer to some past desecration of the temple in Jerusalem . . . It is more probable that the temple is a more specific metaphorical reference to the church as the continuation of the true cultus . . . Consequently, [2 Thess.] 2:3-4 teaches that the latter-day assailant will come into the midst of the church and cause it to become predominantly apostate and unbelieving. He will then try to take control of the church by carrying out further deception in it.31

Beale argues that the other places in Paul’s writings where he uses the phrase God’s temple, it is always a symbolic usage.32 While this is true, and initially sounds persuasive, it is not so compelling when one actually looks at the verses cited. Although Paul elsewhere uses the temple as a metaphor for both the church and the believer’s body (see below, underlined emphasis mine), he makes it quite clear that the literal Temple is not meant in those contexts:

Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.
1 Corinthians 3:16-17

Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?
1 Corinthians 6:19

And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: I will dwell in them and walk among them. I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
2 Corinthians 6:16

Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostle and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
Ephesians 2:20-22

Now look at 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4; the obvious symbolism in the above verses simply does not exist:

Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. (underlined emphasis mine)

If we are going to follow Beale’s lead and allow the other places that Paul uses the phrase God’s temple to dictate the meaning of temple in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, one could almost as easily conclude that Paul was teaching that the man of lawlessness would take his place in the physical bodies of believers some time in the future! Martin makes the following cogent point on this question of whether Paul was referring to the literal Temple.

Paul commonly used naos [temple] metaphorically of the believer as the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16). But here it must be used literally if the passage is to depict an observable, symbolic event the church could recognize as an indication of the nearness of the day of the Lord.33

It would be very strange if, in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, Paul was not talking about the Jerusalem Temple. First, Paul was writing c. AD 50, when the Temple was still in existence and would remain standing for another twenty years. Given that there is no indication whatsoever of a symbolic reference to the Temple in verse 4, the Thessalonians would have logically concluded that Paul was talking about the physical Temple in Jerusalem.
A second (more decisive) indication that Paul is referring to the Jerusalem Temple is the fact that he draws from Daniel 11:36-45 in his teaching in 2 Thessalonians 2. Daniel 11:36-45 describes the king of the North’s attack against God’s holy mountain (v. 45), his attack against the literal Jerusalem Temple at the end of the old covenant age. Thus, Paul is expounding on a section of Scripture that describes a physical assault on the Temple in Jerusalem. To say that Paul is, in this context, using the Temple as a symbol for the church makes absolutely no sense. Lastly, the object of Paul’s discussion is Jesus’ parousia (2 Thess. 2:1, 8). When Jesus discussed this topic of his Second Coming, it was clearly in the context of the assault and destruction of the Jerusalem Temple at the end of the age (Matt. 24:1-3).

TITUS’ CAPTURE OF THE TEMPLE
Titus was worshiped in the Temple after his capture of it in late summer of AD 70. Josephus relates that, as the Temple was burning, Titus’ troops brought in the Roman standards and offered sacrifices to them:

As the rebels had fled into the city, and flames were consuming the sanctuary itself and all its surroundings, the Romans brought their standards into the Temple court, and, erecting them opposite the Eastern gate, they sacrificed to them there, and with thundering acclamation hailed Titus imperator.34

The Roman standards would have held images of the reigning Caesar as well as his name (cf. Rev. 13:17):

Under the eagle or other emblem was often placed a head of the reigning emperor, which was to the army the object of idolatrous adoration (Josephus, The Jewish War 2,9,2; Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars Tiberius 48, Caligula 14; Tacitus, Annals 1.39,40; 4.62). The name of the emperor, or him who was acknowledged as emperor, was sometimes inscribed in the same situation (Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars Vespasian 6). . . . [Later, when] Constantine had embraced Christianity [in the fourth century AD], a figure or emblem of Christ, woven in gold upon purple cloth, was substituted for the head of the emperor.35

Since Titus was the son of the reigning emperor and had been given the title of Caesar by his father in AD 69, and since his troops were proclaiming him as Imperator—a title that, during this time in the empire, was almost exclusive to the emperor—there were almost certainly images of Titus on the standards. Since Titus had the same name as his father (Titus Flavius Vespasianus), it is certain that some form of his name was on the standards being worshiped.
Given Titus’ inflated ego from his triumph, and given how Daniel 11:36-37 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4 describe the large ego of the king of the North/man of lawlessness, it is probable that the only images on the standards were those of Titus. Having captured the Temple, Titus was not inclined to share his glory with anyone, even his father. Roman historian Michael Grant describes Titus’ conceit over his conquest of the Jews:

Titus’ capture of Jerusalem caused honours to be showered upon him in the east. At Memphis, in Egypt, as part of a traditional ritual, he allowed himself to be crowned with a diadem. For a short time too, eastern coinages issued in his name have him the prefix of imperator, to which only the emperor was entitled; and his legionaries, who greatly admired him were said to have hesitated initially whether to offer the throne to his father or to himself.
Moreover, after Titus’s success in Judaea, the senate voted him an independent Triumph. But this was soon afterwards converted into a joint Triumph with his father. For the situation had begun to get somewhat out of hand. Titus was conceited about the position he had won, regarding himself as the decisive factor in the rise of the dynasty to power, and showing little backwardness in parading this conviction.36

While I believe that Josephus’ version of what happened when Titus captured the Temple is enough to fulfill the prophecy of the man of lawlessness being worshiped in the Temple, I have suspicions that Josephus is not reporting all the facts. As mentioned previously, Josephus likely minimized or omitted Titus’ more reprehensible acts against the Jews. This would have been especially true when it came to Titus’ actions against God’s Temple. This probable minimization was not to preserve Titus’ reputation with the Romans as much as it was to preserve Josephus’ reputation among his fellow Jews (he had been Titus’ right-hand man in these events).37
The Roman historian Dio Cassius presents a very different picture than Josephus of Titus’ intentions concerning the Temple. Dio writes that it was the Roman troops who were afraid to violate the sanctity of the Temple and that Titus compelled them to profane it: “. . . the temple was now laid open to the Romans. Nevertheless, the soldiers because of their superstition did not immediately rush in; but at last, under compulsion from Titus, they made their way inside.”38
I believe that Jewish tradition gives an even more correct (albeit exaggerated) sense of Titus’ actions when he captured the Temple. The Babylonian Talmud records that Titus entered the Holy of Holies, spread out a scroll of the Law, and fornicated upon it with a harlot:

Vespasian sent Titus who said, Where is their God, the rock in whom they trusted? This was the wicked Titus who blasphemed and insulted Heaven. What did he do? He took a harlot by the hand and entered the Holy of Holies and spread out a scroll of the Law and committed a sin on it. He then took a sword and slashed the curtain. Miraculously blood spurted out, and he thought that he had slain [God] himself,39 as it says, Thine adversaries have roared in the midst of thine assembly, they have set up their ensigns for signs.40 (emphasis in original)

While admittedly a bit over the top, the account of Titus fornicating on God’s Law in the Temple’s most holy place certainly sounds like behavior consistent with the man of lawlessness! Interestingly, the curtain of the Temple, torn in two when Jesus completed his mission (Matt. 27:50-51), is again torn as Titus completes his own mission: Christ and Antichrist.

Finally, Mickelsen (who is not a preterist by the way) makes the following observations about how Daniel 11:40-44 fits Titus:

Dan[iel] 11:40-44 seems less appropriate to Antiochus IV Epiphanes than to the Roman ruler Titus who invaded the area in A.D. 66-73. The king of the south will wage war with the king of the north by thrusting out his forces (Dan. 11:40). According to the text the king of the north comes with ships, then he enters the lands, overflows, and passes through. Antiochus IV would not have to pass through countries to reach the “glorious” land, or Israel (Dan. 11:41), because his kingdom adjoined it.
These verses better illustrate the coming of the Romans into Palestine under Titus. In that case, the king of the south would not be Egypt. From the Roman perspective, it would have been the Jewish nation because of their treatment of Roman officials. The Jews (especially the Zealots) attacked Roman troops and initiated the tragic war of A.D. 66-73. When the Romans decided to insure their full control of the eastern Mediterranean, they cared nothing about the areas occupied in past times by the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites on the east side of the Jordan River (Dan. 11:41). Instead, their primary concerns were the land of Egypt, the upper Nile, and the northern coast of Africa (Dan. 11:43) . . . Dan. 11:45 describes the approach of the Romans to Jerusalem after their victorious campaign in Galilee. [A. Berkley Mickelson, Daniel & Revelation: Riddles or Realities?, 208-209]

31. Beale, 1-2 Thessalonians, 209-210.
32. Ibid., 207-208.
33. D. Michael Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians, 236.
34. Josephus, The Jewish War, 6, 6, 6 (!), trans. Gaalya Cornfeld, 429.
35. James Yates, “Signa Militaria” in A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, 1875, ed. William Smith, Bill Thayer’s Website, LacusCurtius, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... taria.html.
36. Michael Grant, The Twelve Caesars, 229.
37. Titus’ liaison to the Jews during the Jewish war, Josephus’ mission had been to convince the Jews to submit to Rome. If it was admitted that Titus had deliberately profaned and destroyed the Temple, Josephus would be even more loathed in the eyes of his fellow countrymen than he already was. Josephus, besides needing to please his financial backers (Vespasian and Titus), was attempting damage control in his writings to help his reputation with his fellow Jews and posterity.
38. Dio Cassius, Roman History, 15, 6, 2, Dio’s Roman History, vol. VIII, trans. Earnest Cary, 269.
39. In the original, it says Titus “thought that he had slain himself,” but the translator notes that this is a euphemism by the writers for claiming he had killed God. The blasphemy attributed to Titus was so repugnant that the Talmud writers dared not repeat it directly. Similarly, the sin that Titus committed with the harlot is not named (although it is clear what it was) because it was too blasphemous.
40. Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 56a, trans. Maurice Simon. Some parts of this section are clearly mythical. For example, the narrative goes on to say that Titus was killed by a gnat that bored into his brain, which is not how he died. Even though this section of the Talmud contains mythical elements, the part about Titus’ blasphemous attitude against God when he captured the Temple is consistent with Titus’ egotistical nature.

Duncan,
You wrote:

Hi Steve, I understand that you are busy, but you are saying you are pretty sure you disgree with me even though you have not looked at the book?

Yes, that is precisely what I am saying. People who write books often think that no one should form any opinions until they have read their particular work. Most of us have other things to do in life, besides reading every book that expresses someone's opinion. Yet, we may reach certain conclusions, at least tentatively, based upon the material we have had occasion to consider.

I will never have the time to read all of the self-published books that people have sent to me for my perusal. Therefore, it seems reasonable for me to ask anyone who posts opinions on this forum whether they can defend their most disputed affirmations with a brevity suited to this medium, rather than requiring everyone to read a book-length treatment. Don't be offended. Each of us has only so much time to devote to reading, and we usually invest that time in reading books on subjects that interest us, by authors whose authority we have come to respect.

When it comes to identifying the King of the North at the end of Daniel 11, I have often taught that, among the various theories of who this character was (or will be), I think the identification with Rome (though not necessarily Titus himself) best fits the context, so we are not going to have a major disagreement on that.

However, I am not tracking with you in the following:

Now look at 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4; the obvious symbolism in the above verses simply does not exist:

I do not see why this claimed a lack of symbolism here should be regarded as "obvious." I have no reason to believe that Paul would ever refer to the condemned Jewish temple as "the temple of God," when he, along with other New Testament writers had already identified the Church as the habitation of God, through the Holy Spirit. It may be possible to find multiple scholars to believe with you that this case (2 Thess. 2) is the one exception, but I find it unconvincing.

The suggestion that we would then have to absurdly picture the man of sin residing in the body of the believer is a non sequitur (although I have heard some few people suggest this idea, and your own idea seems to be that the man of sin is a spirit that resides in Titus, unless I misunderstand you). Paul may speak of the individual's body as the "temple of the Holy Spirit" in one place (1 Corinthians 6:19), but everywhere else, the imagery of the temple is identified with the Church, the Body of Christ, being the corporate temple of God, built out of Christians, as living stones (e.g., 1 Cor.3:16-17; 2 Cor.6:16; Eph.2:20-22; 1 Tim.3:15; Hebrews 3:6; 1 Peter 2:5).

A second (more decisive) indication that Paul is referring to the Jerusalem Temple is the fact that he draws from Daniel 11:36-45 in his teaching in 2 Thessalonians 2

Can you show me some evidence that Paul is drawing from anything in Daniel 11 in his prophecy of 2 Thessalonians 2? It is not obvious to me that he is doing so on any point. I will admit the likelihood, however, that he is drawing on the imagery of the "little horn" in Daniel 7. To my mind, the identity of this little horn with the King of the North, in chapter 11, remains to be established.

steve wrote:Duncan,

A second (more decisive) indication that Paul is referring to the Jerusalem Temple is the fact that he draws from Daniel 11:36-45 in his teaching in 2 Thessalonians 2

Can you show me some evidence that Paul is drawing from anything in Daniel 11 in his prophecy of 2 Thessalonians 2? It is not obvious to me that he is doing so on any point. I will admit the likelihood, however, that he is drawing on the imagery of the "little horn" in Daniel 7. To my mind, the identity of this little horn with the King of the North, in chapter 11, remains to be established.

Steve,

Why not lend to book to someone you respect, who has the time and interest in it and have them report back to you. I am sure you know somebody who would like to do the task. It is a shame for it to just collect dust on your shelf (I am assuming you got the book some months ago). As to connections between 2 Thessalonians and Daniel 11-12, here you go.

THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE MAN OF LAWLESSNESS
AND THE KING OF THE NORTH
In his discussion of the man of lawlessness, the one “who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God” (2 Thess. 2:4), Paul expounds on the king of the North of Daniel 11:36-45, the one who would “exalt and magnify himself above every god [and] speak blasphemies against the God of gods” (Dan. 11:36). Thus, both the king of the North and the man of lawlessness oppose God and try to exalt themselves above God. Both are vanquished at the time of the Second Advent (2 Thess. 2:8; Dan. 11:45). Although Daniel 11:36-12:13 does not actually depict the parousia, it shows the events that the NT associates with it, that is, 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). All of these events are shown as happening at this time, at the end of the age attack by the king of the North on Jerusalem.

Both the man of lawlessness and the king of the North are defeated after laying siege to the Temple in Jerusalem (2 Thess. 2:4; Dan. 11:45). As I mentioned previously, the Antichrist’s defeat at this time is not talking about the death of a man but the destruction of a demonic ruler that worked through a man (cf. Rev. 11:7; 17:8). This was the end of the spiritual ruler that worked through Titus in his destruction of the Jewish nation. This resulted in the casting of this demonic ruler of the Roman people (Dan. 9:26; cf. Dan. 10:13) into the lake of fire (cf. Dan. 7:11; Rev. 19:20).

The king of the North/man of lawlessness would be a man who would do as he pleased; he would “do according to his own will” (Dan. 11:36). In the words of Paul, he would be a “man of lawlessness” (2 Thess. 2:3 NASB). The king of the North/man of lawlessness would “destroy and annihilate many” (Dan. 11:44); in Paul’s words, he would be “the son of destruction” (2 Thess. 2:3 NASB).12 Both Daniel and Paul are talking about the ultimate day of the Lord in their discussion of the king of the North/man of lawlessness. This is made clear by the fact that the great tribulation and resurrection are shown as occurring at the time of the king of the North’s attack on the Temple (Dan. 11:45-12:2).13 In his discussion of the man of lawlessness, Paul also talks about the time of the resurrection on the day of the Lord. Compare Daniel 12:2 (“And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake”) with 1 Thessalonians 4:14 (“For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus”).14 Both contexts are speaking about the resurrection that was to happen at the end of the age.

Added to all this, both Daniel and Paul speak of Michael the archangel (cf. Jude 9) being active at this time (Dan. 12:1; 1 Thess. 4:16), and both writers speak of it as a time of severe tribulation (Dan. 12:1; 1 Thess. 3:3-4). This great tribulation would be completed by the time of the destruction of the Jewish nation in AD 70 (Dan. 12:7; cf. 1 Thess. 5:3). According to Daniel (12:10-11 LXX) this would be a time when lawless ones would commit lawlessness (cf. Matt. 24:11-12). Drawing from this, Paul writes about the ultimate “lawless one” (2 Thess. 2:8). Beale elaborates:

The expression man of lawlessness (anthrōpos tēs anomies) echoes Daniel 12:10-11 which . . . refers to the end-time trial as a period when “the lawless ones [anomoi] will do lawlessness [anomeō], and the lawless ones [anomoi] will not understand” (i.e., they will mislead, be misled or both).15 (brackets in original)

THE MAN OF LAWLESSNESS AND THE COMING WRATH ON ISRAEL
Daniel 11:36 talks of the Antichrist bringing God’s wrath on Israel. The king of the North would “prosper till the wrath has been accomplished . . .” (cf. Dan. 9:26-27). Paul, referring to this wrath, tells the Thessalonians that it would be directed at unbelievers (the Jews in particular, cf. Luke 21:20-23) not God’s people: “When they say ‘Peace and safety!’ then sudden destruction comes upon them . . . [but] God did not appoint us to wrath but salvation . . .” (1 Thess. 5:3, 9; cf. Jer. 6:10-30). In 1 Thessalonians 1:10 Paul tells his first-century audience “to wait for His [God’s] Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.” Approximately two decades earlier, John the Baptist warned the Jewish leaders of this coming wrath:

But when he [John the Baptist] saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly cleanout His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
Matthew 3:5-10; cf. 22:1-14; 2 Thessalonians 2:1

Indeed, the Jews who were troubling the Thessalonian believers (either directly or by proxy; cf. 1 Thess. 2:14-16; Acts 17:1-15) would be repaid “with tribulation” on the day of the Lord (2 Thess. 1:6). This tribulation—the great tribulation mentioned in Daniel 12:1—was the coming judgment of God on the Jews (cf. Matt. 21:33-45; Rev. 15:1; 16:19):

Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say “If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.” Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your father’s guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
Matthew 23:29-36

This coming wrath is clearly described by Luke in the context of the AD 70 judgment and dispersal of the Jewish nation.

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

When Saul was persecuting believers he did so under the authority of the high priest (Acts 9:1-2, cf. 22:4-5). With the fall of Jerusalem, the institutions of the priesthood and the Temple were destroyed. In fact, when Titus captured the Temple he had all the surviving priests put to death. After AD 70, the Jews throughout the empire would not trouble believers as they had before; they (the Jews) would have to worry about their own safety. The end result was that Jesus’ parousia gave his followers rest from Jewish persecution: “it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels” (2 Thess. 1:6-7). It may be hard to fathom that this coming of Jesus with his angels happened at AD 70, but it is what Jesus taught:

For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. 16
Matthew 16:27-28

If, as futurists claim, the Second Advent is still future, then Paul’s first-century audience at Thessalonica never lived to see the rest that Paul had promised them at the soon-coming parousia.

THE TWO INDICATORS GIVEN FOR THE DAY OF THE LORD IN DANIEL 12 AND 2 THESSALONIANS 2
Finally, seeing as how Paul is elaborating on the end of the age spoken of in Daniel 11:36-12:13, it seems quite likely that the two indicators he gives to identify the timing of the day of the Lord are related to the two indicators given in Daniel 12 for the countdown to the end of the age. The two markers given in Daniel 12:11 are (1) the taking away of the daily sacrifice and (2) the abomination of desolation (i.e., the coming of the one who would make Israel desolate, cf. Dan. 9:27). The two markers that Paul gives in 2 Thessalonians are (1) “the rebellion” (Gr. apostasia) and (2) the revelation of “the lawless one” (2 Thess. 2:3 NRSV).

The Jewish rebellion (which was referred to as an apostasia)17 began in AD 66 with the taking away of the daily sacrifice for the emperor (or any foreigner). The Roman response to this resulted in the coming of the one who would make the Jewish nation desolate. This was the abomination of desolation, the coming of the Antichrist (Dan. 9:27, 12:11); it equates with the second of Paul’s markers, the revelation of the man of lawlessness.

Notice that Paul, in his teachings in 1-2 Thessalonians, is not only drawing from Daniel 11:36-37 in his discussion of the man of lawlessness and the day of the Lord, he is drawing from the whole final section of Daniel (Dan. 11:36-12:13). This should not be a surprise, as both Daniel and Paul are speaking of the same subject, the attack of the king of the North/man of lawlessness against God’s holy mountain and his capture of the Temple (Dan. 11:36-37, 45; 2 Thess. 2:4). This would happen on the ultimate day of the Lord; it would be the time of the great tribulation and the beginning of the resurrection (Dan. 12:1-3; 1 Thess. 4:16; 2 Thess. 1:6-7).

Endnotes:
13. It should be noted that the partial preterist distinction between the great tribulation (which they say happened at AD 70) and the resurrection (which they say occurs at a future final advent) does not hold up to scrutiny. Daniel 12:1-2 depicts the two events as occurring sequentially; the resurrection commences at AD 70 right after the great tribulation (cf. Rev. 11:3-18). The resurrection, of course, continues from that time for those who are in Christ. It is therefore more correct to say that the resurrection began at AD 70.
14. In his teaching on Daniel 11:36-12:13, Paul is not reinterpreting a second-century BC event to describe what he was expecting in the first century (unless one wants to say the resurrection happened in the second century BC; Dan. 12:2). In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul was elaborating on the soon-coming fulfillment of Daniel 11:36-12:13.
15. Beale, 1-2 Thessalonians, 206.
16. Some try to connect this with the transfiguration. To say only some would be alive for the coming that Jesus was talking about does not fit the transfiguration, however; it would happen a mere six days later. Moreover, the transfiguration was not the time when Jesus came with the angels and rewarded each man according to their works. That is a reference to the judgment at the end of the old covenant age (cf. Dan. 12:1-3; cf. James 5:7-9), not the transfiguration. Jesus was saying that this judgment would happen in the lifetime of some of his hearers (cf. Rev. 22:10-12).
17. The Greek word that Paul uses for the “falling away” in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is apostasia; it is the same word that Josephus uses for the Great Revolt of the Jews in AD 66. I discuss this in greater detail later in the chapter.

Duncan,

You seem to think I have some staff members around to do my reading for me. I have no staff—not even a secretary—and if I did, they would probably have duties to fill their time. As for friends who would want to read your book, I am not saying anything against your book, but I am not aware of any of my friends who would be likely to see this as a particularly practical or important subject. Is it?

steve wrote:Duncan,

You seem to think I have some staff members around to do my reading for me. I have no staff—not even a secretary—and if I did, they would probably have duties to fill their time. As for friends who would want to read your book, I am not saying anything against your book, but I am not aware of any of my friends who would be likely to see this as a particularly practical or important subject. Is it?

Hi Steve,

Had to chuckle at your question. Yes, I do believe it is important :- ) My book looks at Daniel 2, 7, 11:36-12:13; the day of the Lord in the OT; the day of the Lord in the NT and 2 Thessalonians. I believe those sections of Scripture are significant. In volume II (which is written but I am still revising) I focus on the Antichrist in Revelation (chapters 13, 17, 18, 19 20-22).

Daniel 2 (vv. 34-35; 44-45) shows the full establishment of the kingdom of God. Daniel 7 does the same. We are told that the saints fully possess the kingdom at the defeat of the little horn by the coming of God. I would say it is important question as to whether this has happened or we still await it.

17. ‘Those great beasts, which are four, are four kings which arise out of the earth.
18. ‘But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.’
19. “Then I wished to know the truth about the fourth beast, which was different from all the others, exceedingly dreadful, with its teeth of iron and its nails of bronze, which devoured, broke in pieces, and trampled the residue with its feet.
20. “and about the ten horns that were on its head, and about the other horn which came up, before which three fell, namely, that horn which had eyes and a mouth which spoke pompous words, whose appearance was greater than his fellows.
21. “I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them,
22. “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.

Has the end of the age happened (which is shown in Dan. 11:36-12:13) or do we still await it? Is Satan still the god of this age? (2 Cor. 4:4; 1 John 5:19). I see Revelation showing the kingdom of this world fully becoming the kingdom of God at the AD 70 destruction of those who were (morally) destroying the land of Israel (Rev. 11:15-18). These are very important questions is terms of who we are today and what our authority is as Christians. If your friends disagree, perhaps you need some new friends?

Here is something from my intro to 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.

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).

By the way, I was interested to learn that my interpretation of the little horn being Titus is the classic Jewish interpretation (i.e., Rashi) see here http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo ... rashi/true An inroad for discussion with the Jews here. If Titus is the little horn, should not that mean that the saints have possessed the kingdom? (as it is at the defeat of the little horn that the saints possess the kingdom)

Duncan,

Thanks for your posts. Your participation on the forum is very much welcomed by me and I assume many others reading as well. You have stimulated me to research deeper and try come to a better understanding of Biblical prophecy.

Thanks again for your input on this subject and please keep up the good work.

Doug

Douglas wrote:Duncan,

Thanks for your posts. Your participation on the forum is very much welcomed by me and I assume many others reading as well. You have stimulated me to research deeper and try come to a better understanding of Biblical prophecy.

Thanks again for your input on this subject and please keep up the good work.

Doug

Thanks for the kind words Douglas. It nice to know that someone is getting something out of what I wrote. I plan to put up the whole chapter on the man of lawlessness here, http://planetpreterist.com/content/man- ... s-part-one I am doing it in four parts and plan to put a new part up every week (I would put the rest up on the next three Saturdays if you are interested).

Duncan

Douglas wrote:Duncan,

Thanks again for your input on this subject and please keep up the good work.

Doug

Thanks to you again Doug,

Here is something from part three of the chapter; I think it is interesting. The coming (Gr. parousia) of the man of lawlessness in 2 Thess. 2:9 is said to be attended with lying signs and wonders. Interestingly enough, when Titus made his final invasion of Israel in Spring of AD 70, it was indeed attended by Satanic miracles (his father, Vespasian, suddenly started performing miracles at this time!). By the way Titus' invasion of Israel at this time (it was from Egypt cf Dan. 11:42-45) was his second coming! (his first coming was with his father in early AD 67, cf. Dan. 11:40-41.)

LYING SIGNS AND WONDERS
Second Thessalonians 2:9 says that the coming of the man of lawlessness would be “according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders.” The Roman historian Tacitus tells us that Titus’ AD 70 second coming to the Holy Land was indeed attended by demonic signs and wonders as well as oracles and prophecies. He said that when the Flavians gained the Roman throne, it made believers out of the Romans as to the reality of these signs: “mysterious prophecies were already circulating, and . . . portents and oracles promised Vespasian and his sons the purple [i.e., the throne]; but it was only after the rise of the Flavians that we Romans believed in such stories.”46

F. F. Bruce makes a very interesting observation in terms of what kinds of lying signs and wonders might be expected to accompany the coming of the man of lawlessness:

What form these seductive displays take is not said. In Rev 13:13 the false prophet persuades people to worship the beast by making fire come down from heaven, but if the elect are to be led astray, something more in the nature of healing miracles might be expected. However, it is not the elect who are led astray in the present context, but those who are on the way to perdition, whose unbelief had made them gullible.47

In light of Bruce’s comments, consider the healing miracles that Suetonius records Vespasian to have performed at the end of AD 69 and beginning of AD 70 (the exact time that Titus was preparing for his second coming to Judea):

Vespasian, still rather bewildered in his new role of Emperor, felt a certain lack of authority and impressiveness; yet both these attributes were granted him. As he sat on the Tribunal [in Alexandria, Egypt], two labourers, one blind the other lame, approached together, begging to be healed. Apparently the god Serapis had promised them in a dream that if Vespasian would consent to spit in the blind man’s eyes, and touch the lame man’s leg with his heel, both would be made well. Vespasian had so little faith in his curative powers that he showed great reluctance in doing as he was asked; but his friends persuaded him to try them, in the presence of a large audience too—and the charm worked.48

What I find fascinating about these miracles Vespasian performed is that they exactly mimic the signs that Jesus said attested to the fact that he was the Christ:

And when John had heard in prison about the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples and said to Him, “Are you the Coming One, or do we look for another?” Jesus answered and said to them, Go and tell John the things which you hear and see: The blind see and the lame walk . . . .
Matthew 11:2-5

Interestingly, Vespasian’s spitting on the eyes to heal the blind closely mimics the method Jesus used to heal the blind (Mark 8:23). Just as miraculous signs attested to the authority of the Christ, so too did they attest to the (demonic) authority of the Antichrist (cf. Rev. 13:4-7).

Tacitus also documents the miracles of Vespasian during this period. His version of events is essentially the same as Suetonius’, but instead of a lame man Tacitus records that it was a man with a withered hand who was healed (yet another of the signs that Jesus performed, cf. Matt. 12:10-12):

In the course of the months [of early AD 70] which Vespasian spent at Alexandria [Egypt], waiting for the regular season of summer winds when the sea could be relied upon [so he could set sail for Rome to assume his position as Emperor], many miracles occurred. These seemed to be indications that Vespasian enjoyed heaven’s blessing and that the gods showed a certain leaning towards him. Among the lower classes at Alexandria was a blind man whom everybody knew as such. One day this fellow threw himself at Vespasian’s feet, imploring him with groans to heal his blindness. He had been told to make this request by Serapis, the favorite god of a nation much addicted to strange beliefs. He asked that it might please the emperor to anoint his cheeks and eyeballs with the water of his mouth. A second petitioner, who suffered from a withered hand, pleaded his case too, also on the advice of Serapis: would Caesar tread upon him with the imperial foot? At first Vespasian laughed at them and refused. When the two insisted, he hesitated . . . Vespasian felt that his destiny gave him the key to every door and that nothing now defied belief. With smiling expression and surrounded by an expectant crowd of bystanders, he did what was asked. Instantly the cripple recovered the use of his hand and the light of day dawned again upon his blind companion. Both these incidents are still vouched for by eye-witnesses, though there is now nothing to be gained by lying.

To everyone’s surprise (especially Vespasian’s!) he was suddenly performing miracles. Tacitus continues his description of these events:

This deepened Vespasian’s desire to visit the holy house of Serapis, for he wished to consult the god on matters of state. He had everyone else excluded from the temple, and went in alone, fixing his mind on the deity. Happening to glance round, he caught sight of a leading Egyptian named Basilides standing behind him. Now he knew that this man was detained by illness far from Alexandria at a place several days’ journey distant. He inquired of those he met whether he had been seen in the city. Finally he sent off a party on horse, and ascertained that at the relevant time he had been eighty miles away. Thereupon he guessed that it was the god whom he had seen and that the reply to his query lay in the meaning of the name Basilides.49

Vespasian sought to validate that what happened at the temple of Sarapis was truly a sign from the god. A hardheaded military man, not a miracle-working mystic, Vespasian wanted to be certain he was not being taken in by some trick. The sign Vespasian was given related to the name “Basilides,” which means the “king’s son.”50 This was most likely a reference to Vespasian’s son Titus; he would be the key to monumental events that were about to happen (cf. Dan. 7:23-25). As I mentioned earlier, Sarapis was the “foreign god” that would help the king of the North in his assault on the Holy Land (Dan. 11:39).

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT VESPASIAN WAS THE ANTICHRIST?
If not for the fact that Suetonius and Tacitus were non-Christian historians, scholars might easily have accused them of putting a messianic spin on the signs and wonders that accompanied Vespasian’s accession to the Roman throne. Given the impressive miracles that Vespasian was working, it would be easy to mistake him for the Antichrist. Second Thessalonians 2:9, however, says that although the coming of the man of lawlessness would be attended by satanic “power, signs, and lying wonders,” it does not say he would necessarily be the one performing the signs. As a case in point, Revelation 13 states that it is not the Antichrist, the beast from the sea (v. 1), performing the miracles but rather his accomplice, the beast from the land (v. 11). That is not to say that Vespasian was the land-beast, however. (I discuss the sea and land beast in volume 2 of this work.) Tacitus writes that Vespasian performed “many miracles” during the winter of AD 69/70; thus, a number of other satanic signs and wonders must have accompanied the Flavian rise to power.

While Vespasian, the tenth ruler of Daniel’s fourth kingdom (Dan. 2:42-45; 7:7), was the one who would be on the throne at the time of the coming of God’s kingdom, it was the little eleventh horn (Titus) through whom the Antichrist spirit would work (Dan. 7:7-12, 21-22). It was Titus who would wage war against Daniel’s people for three-and-a-half years (Dan. 7:23-27; 12:7; cf. Rev. 13:5-7), not Vespasian, who waged war against Daniel’s people for only two-and-a-half years. In mid-AD 69, Titus was given sole authority over Syria (the domain of the king of the North); he was the ruler who would invade the Holy Land from Egypt (cf. Dan. 11:43-45). Vespasian stayed in Egypt waiting for favorable winds so he could sail back to Rome. Thus it was revealed in the spring of AD 70 that Titus was the evil ruler who would attack God’s holy mountain (Dan. 11:45) and demand worship in the Temple (Dan. 11:36-37; 2 Thess. 2:4).
Duncan McKenzie, The Antichrist and the Second Coming: A Preterist Examination, 362-366

Endnotes:
46. Tacitus, The Histories, 1,10, trans. Kenneth Wellesley, 27.
47. F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 173.
48. Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, rev. ed. Vespasian, 7, trans. Robert Graves (New York: Penguin Books, 1986), 284.
49. Tacitus, The Histories, 1, 10, trans. Kenneth Wellesley, 263-264.
50. Kenneth Wellesley, Tacitus: The Histories, 264, footnote 2.