Watchman Willie Martin Archive



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!

Terms of Service.



Reference Materials