Subject:

�� [dispatch76] Five Questions Answered‑ man of sin.htm

�� Date:

�� Sun, 15 Jul 2001 01:01:32 ‑0400

�� From:

�� "Char|es" <[email protected]>

�Reply‑To:

�� [email protected]

�� To:

�� "3‑DISPATCH76" <[email protected]>

�� TAKEN FROM "BEYOND END TIMES" BY: JOHN NOE

�� What about Paul's "Man of Sin" Who First Had to be Revealed?

�� The Apostle Paul wrote that the coming (parousia) of the Lord

�� would not take place until the rebellion occurs and the "man of sin"

�� (NJV) or "man of lawlessness" (NIV) was revealed. We suggest you

�� read about it in 2 Thessalonians 2:1‑12 before continuing on. This

�� revealing was a definite prerequisite!

�� The most popular postponement tradition claims that this

�� wicked one is some future "Antichrist" figure who has yet to be

�� revealed. Over the centuries, he has been variously identified as

�� Attila the Hun, Napoleon, the Pope, Martin Luther, Mohammed, Hilter;

�� Mussolini, Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt, Henry Kissinger; and Mikhail

�� Gorbachev. Virtually every unpopular public figure has qualified.

�� Obviously, this tradition has proven totally inept at identifying Paul's

�� "man of sin" Unfortunately, it's a tradition that has not died.

�� For a number of scriptural and historical reasons, the identity of

�� Paul's "man of sin" should not be arbitrarily lifted out of its 1st. cen‑

�� tury context. So here's our pick: a contemporary of Paul's who

�� fulfilled Paul's prophetic prediction and fit his destructive descripion

�� to a tee. The following is a condensed version of an apologetic

�� presented in The Man of Sin of 2nd Thessalonians 2, by Evangelist

�� John L. Bray .

�� The Man of Sin. A study of 2nd Thessalonians 2:1‑12.

�� Verses 1‑2. concerning the coming (parousia) of our Lord

�� Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, broth‑

�� ers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some

�� prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, say‑

�� ing that the day of the Lord has already come."

�� If the understanding of the nature of the coming (return) of

�� the Lord by Paul's first readers was in keeping with most

�� traditional, modern‑day notions of a rapture‑removing, visible,

�� world seeing, or world‑ending coming, they could not have been

�� led to believe that it had already come (see again our evidences

�� 3 and 4 in the last chapter).

�� Verses 3‑4. "Don't let anyone deceive you in any way for

�� that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man

�� lawlessness [man of sin] is revealed, the man doomed to de‑

�� struction [son of perdition ‑ KJV]. He opposes and exalts himself

�� over everything that is called God or ts worshiped, and even

�� sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God."

�� Paul wrote during the time of a literal, standing, second Temple.

�� He gave no hint that this event would occur centuries later in

�� some other"rebuilt" temple. His first readers apparently expected

�� this fulfillment in their lifetime. That's why some feared that

�� that"day of the Lord" had already occurred. Also, let's note how

�� Paul's prophetic words here match up with Jesus' Olivet Dis‑

�� course (Mt. 24). Both speak of the same set of events, use similar

�� language, and convey a strong sense of imminence. 2

�� History records that the Jewish rebellion against Rome and

�� apostasy from the faith was already underway in the early 60s,

�� and reached its climax in the Jewish‑RomanWar of A.D. 66 ‑ 70.

�� We propose that Paul's "man of sin" was, most likely, a specific

�� person who set himself up in theTemple that was standing when

�� Paul was writing. He could have been (take your pick) Nero,

�� Titus,a Zealot leader; the corrupt chief high priest, or a Christian

�� Zealot. All except Nero physically entered the Temple. Mthough

�� Paul never calls him "antichrist;' the Apostle John tells us that

�� there were many "anticlirists" at work at that time (1 Jn. 2:18;

�� 4:3). No doubt this "man of sin" was one of them. But he was

�� also a special person who had to come on the scene prior to the

�� Lord's return in A.D. 70 and before the Temple was destroyed.

�� Verses 5‑7. "Don't you remember that when I was with

�� you I used to tell you these things? And now you know what

�� is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper

�� time. For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work;

�� but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till

�� he is taken out of the way"

�� Paul had mentioned this power of lawlessness on other oc‑

�� casions (see 1 Th. 2:14‑16; 1 Ti. 4:1). The Jews were revolting

�� against Rome and rejecting the sacred practice of biblical Juda‑

�� ism. Some followers of Christ who remained zealous for the

�� Temple system were departing from the new faith and falling

�� back into the old ways. But behind it all was "the secret power

�� of lawlessness." It was "already at work," there and then, but

�� something and/or someone was holding the "man of sin" back

�� at the time Paul wrote this letter (circa A.D. 51 ‑ 52). Whatever

�� that was, Paul reminded his first readers that they already knew

�� its/his identity. So Paul didn't have to tell them. And he didn't.

�� Since they knew who or what it was, it could not possibly have

�� been something or someone that would not exist for some nine‑

�� teen or more centuries. But who or what was it?

�� Throughout Church history endless speculation has revolved

�� around the identity of this restrainer. However, we do know

�� that this restraint was in force when Paul wrote,‑ and was

�� actively holding back a "man of sin" alive at that time. This

�� fact is a time indicator and should answer the question of when.

�� Some have suggested that the "who" was Nero or the Roman govern‑

�� ment, which held back Jewish persecution of the early Jewish

�� Christians. Futurists say it's the gospel, the Church, the Holy

�� Spirit, or an angel. But if any of these is what was really meant,

�� why did the writer use such veiled language? None of these

�� things is ever portrayed in Scripture as restraining lawlessness

�� or being removed from the world.

�� The best answer‑we believe‑is that it was both an office

�� (the "what") and a person (the "one who" or "he"). More spe‑

�� cifically, it was the institution of the Jewish priesthood led by

�� Ananus, the high priest. The priesthood opposed the Jewish,

�� Zealot‑led rebellion. And Ananus wanted peace with Rome. As

�� long as he and the priesthood stood in the way, the lawlessness

�� of the Jewish Zealots was held back, the "work of Satan" couldn't

�� reach its full realization, and the "man of sin" couldn't appear on

�� the scene and cause the final destruction. In A.D. 68, however,

�� Jewish Zealots, with the assistance of the Idumaeans, murdered

�� Ananus and over 12,000 other priests and left their bodies un‑

�� buried‑a violation of the Jewish Law Thus, the priesthood was

�� "taken out of the way" As Josephus wrote in his history of the

�� fall of the city:

�� I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the

�� beginning of the destruction of the city; and that from this very

�� day may be dated the overthrow of her walls, and the ruin of her

�� affairs, whereon they saw their high‑priest, and the procurer of

�� their preservation; slain in the midst of their city;. for he was thor‑

�� oughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered. He

�� also foresaw that of necessity a war would follow, and that unless

�� the Jews made up matters with them very dexterously, they would

�� be destroyed: to say all in a word, if Ananus had survived tha~

�� would have certainly compounded matters... and I cannot but

�� think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruc‑

�� tion, as a polluted city, and was resolved to purge his sanctuary by

�� fire, that he cut off these great defenders and wellwishers.

�� Verses 8‑10. a Ad then the lawless one will be revealed

�� whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his

�� mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming [parousia].

�� The coming [parousia] of the lawless one will be in accor‑

�� dance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of

�� counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of

�� evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish be‑

�� cause they refused to love the truth and so be saved!"All this

�� happened in the very Temple that was standing until A.D. 70. As

�� the war between the Jews and Rome developed, a strong leader

�� of the Jewish Zealots emerged who would fullfill Paul's proph‑

�� ecy. He would soon become the key man in inciting the Jews

�� against Rome, in bringing abominations into the Temple area,

�� and in causing the final destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

�� After Ananus' murder and the removal of the priesthood. Josephus

�� records that a man named John, the son of Levi, fled to Jerusa‑

�� lem from the Roman conquered area of Gischala in Galilee and

�� became the treacherous leader of the Jewish Zealots in control

�� of theTemple area. Also Josephus wrote,"Now this was the work

�� of God, who therefore preserved this John, that he might bring

�� on the destruction of Jerusalem."

�� Josephus also records that before this John of Gischala, the

�� son of Levi, was established as the Zealot leader in control of the

�� Temple area (there were three Zealot factions), the power of

�� Satan was already doing his deceitful and treacherous work. This

�� John physically entered the Temple, presented himself to the

�� Zealots as a God‑sent ambassadot; and persuaded them to defy

�� the laws of Rome and go to war to gain independence. He also

�� instigated the calling in the Idumaeans to keep the Jewish sym‑

�� pathizers from submitting to Rome. He ordered the death of

�� Ananus and the removal of the priesthood. After these atroci‑

�� ties, he became the official leader of the Zealot group m control

�� of theTemple area‑john held the temple" and began disre‑

�� garded the laws of Rome, God, and man, and promising

�� deliverance from the Romans. Then he broke off from the Zeal‑

�� ots and began "setting up a monarchial power." He "set on fire

�� these houses that were full of corn, and of all other provision

�� which would have been sufficient for a siege of many years"

�� He deceived the Jews about the power of the Roman armies

�� In possession of theTemple and the adjoining parts, he

�� cut the throats of anyone suspected of going over to the

�� Romans.13 He performed many sacrileges, such as melting down

�� the sacred utensils used in Temple service, and defiled the Temple.

�� In short, this John established himself in the Temple, the one

�� standing when Paul wrote, and put himself above Rome and

�� above God, thereby taking the place of God in the Temple.

�� All this happened, right then and there, and exactly as Paul had

�� said the "man of sin"would do.

�� After the coming of the Lord and the destruction ofJerusalem

�� and theTemple in A.D. 70, John of Gischala was "condemned

�� to perpetual imprisonment" by the Roman authorities. Thus

�� was fulfilled Paul's prophetic and symbolic language that this

�� man would be destroyed by "the spirit of his Jesus mouth and

�� brightness of his [parousia] coming" (see Isa. 11:4; 30:27‑33;

�� Hos. 6:5; also Da. 7:8, 19‑28).

�� Verses 11‑12. "For this reason God sends them a powerful

�� delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be

�� condemned who have not believed the truth but delighted

�� In wickedness."

�� Josephus records that the Roman General Titus had no in‑

�� tention of destroying the Temple. The Romans wanted to

�� preserve it as a trophy and monument of their conquest. Even

�� Josephus personally pleaded with John of Gischala to surrender.

�� But such a "madness" swept through him and his Jewish fol‑

�� lowers that they taunted the powers of Rome and refused to

�� listen. This man, John, through the power of Satan and the delu‑

�� sion sent by God upon the Jewish people, forced the Roman

�� armies to act. Instead of accepting Jesus as Messiah, King, and

�� Deliverer, the unbelieving Jews placed their hopes in this false

�� messiah a man of deceit and wickedness. They looked to the

�� "man of sin" to lead them to victory and independence. The

�� priesthood, which stood in their way, had been removed. And

�� by August or September of A.D. 70, Paul's entire "man of sin"

�� prophecy of� 2nd Thessalonians 2:1‑12 was fulfilled. The city and

�� the Temple were burned and destroyed. The covenant nation of

�� Israel and biblical Judaism were forever destroyed.

�� Only within this first century context does the Apostle Paul's

�� "man of sin prophecy make sense and have its greatest signifi‑

�� cance. No justification exists for separating Paul's words from

�� either the Temple standing at the time of his writing or the end

�� of the Jewish age. John of Gischala, the son of Levi, was a con‑

�� temporary of Paul. He was Paul's "man of sin." The eyewitness

�� account of Josephus, a Jewish‑Roman historian, trutliflilly and

�� impartially documents his treachery and his critical role in

�� Jerusalem's demise. No one else in history‑Gains Caesar, Nero,

�� Titus, or Domitian‑comes as close to fulfilling this prophecy as

�� this most influential and deceiving Zealot leader John of Gischala

�� took over the forces of iniquity He stood in the Temple itself

�� and exalted himself above all that is called God. He put himself

�� above both God and Caesar He regarded neither the laws of

�� God nor those of man ~ome). He therefore "set himself up" in

�� the Temple, taking the place of God.

�� ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

�� Judas betrayed Jesus. John of Gischala betrayed the

�� Jews, fulfilling Paul's "man of sin" prophecy to a tee.

�� ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

�� in dramatic parailled fashion, Scripture gives this "man of sin"‑

�� John of Gischala,the son of Levi‑the name of" the one doomed

�� to destruction" or"the son of perdition," the same name given to

�� another infamous betrayer,Judas Iscariot (comparejn. 17:12 with

�� 2Th. 2:3 KJV). Both appeared in the same "last days" time frame

�� of the Old Covenant age. Judas betrayed Jesus. Jobn of Gischala

�� betrayed the Jews, fufilling Paul's "man of sin" prophecy to a tee.

�� He was that 1st‑century man who had to be revealed before the

�� day of Christ in A.D. 70, and who was destroyed when it came.

�� No future "man of sin" need come and fulfill this prophecy; it

�� has already been fulfilled.

KNOW THE TRUTH AND BE SET FREE

http://dispatch76.faithweb.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!