Post by Josh on Jan 29, 2007 17:54:03 GMT -8
Originally posted 12/17/05:
Who is the Man of Lawlessness (2 Thess. 2) according to the Preterist perspective?
I was recently asked this question about the 'Man of Lawlessness', according to a preterist understanding:
"What about 2 Thessalonians 2: 3-4:’...so the he sets himself up in Gods temple, proclaming himself to be GOD.’(NIV). Who was the anti-christ during this time (66-70 AD)?"
My current view (which could best be described as partial preterist) would hold that the man of lawlessness was either:
Nero (the Roman emperor who claimed to be God and persecuted the Christians, putting Peter and Paul to death),
Titus, the Roman general who destroyed the temple in 70 AD and set up the Roman standard there,
or a Jew named John of Gischala who was described in the writings of Josephus. Josephus gave a detailed account of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70. This John was a rebel who commandeered the temple mount, insisting on continuing the Jewish rebellion against the Romans. He inspired the people to evil acts that desecrated the temple and he had false prophets who were predicting their victory over the Romans- a quite despicable character. He was eventually defeated when God brought the destruction promised by Jesus upon Jerusalem.
Destroyed by the Coming of Christ?
Note that this passage 2 Thess 2:1-17 seems to say that the man of lawlessness will be destroyed by the coming of Christ (verses 8 and 9). So how can this be a past event if the coming of Christ is still future? Well, the Greek in this passage (2 Thess 2:8-9)is difficult to translate and can be rendered like this instead:
"(8) And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and will overpower at the time of the appearance of his coming (9)–whose coming is according to the working of Satan . . . . "- as translated by Dr. Larry Pechawer
Here God does the destroying, but not through the coming (paraousia) of Christ per se.
For a fuller explanation of this perspective, and how this verse can be translated this way,see
www.lostjabez.com/rapture/manoflawlessness.php
although the article may need further clarification if you're not familiar with partial-preterism. It's hard to just jump into the middle of the preterist argument, but...
Having said this, the whole "Man of Lawlessness" thing is a pretty new part of the puzzle for me, having always just assumed he was the same person as the Beast/ Anti-Christ .
What about the Anti-Christ?
According to this view, the Anti-Christ may be the "Man of Lawlessness" or it may be "the Beast", but the Beast is not necessarily equivalent to "the man of lawlessness". We could have one person described by all three terms, or two people described. Hope that makes sense. I think I currently see it like this:
The Beast:
Nero and/or Vespasian, and Rome itself more generally
Man of Lawlessness:
Nero, John of Gischala, or Titus (all three are described above)
Anti Christ:
John the apostle says there are many anti-christs but he seems to foresee a specific ANTI CHRIST (capital letters) as well. This may be John of Gischala or it may be Nero and Rome as a whole.
Who is the Man of Lawlessness (2 Thess. 2) according to the Preterist perspective?
I was recently asked this question about the 'Man of Lawlessness', according to a preterist understanding:
"What about 2 Thessalonians 2: 3-4:’...so the he sets himself up in Gods temple, proclaming himself to be GOD.’(NIV). Who was the anti-christ during this time (66-70 AD)?"
My current view (which could best be described as partial preterist) would hold that the man of lawlessness was either:
Nero (the Roman emperor who claimed to be God and persecuted the Christians, putting Peter and Paul to death),
Titus, the Roman general who destroyed the temple in 70 AD and set up the Roman standard there,
or a Jew named John of Gischala who was described in the writings of Josephus. Josephus gave a detailed account of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70. This John was a rebel who commandeered the temple mount, insisting on continuing the Jewish rebellion against the Romans. He inspired the people to evil acts that desecrated the temple and he had false prophets who were predicting their victory over the Romans- a quite despicable character. He was eventually defeated when God brought the destruction promised by Jesus upon Jerusalem.
Destroyed by the Coming of Christ?
Note that this passage 2 Thess 2:1-17 seems to say that the man of lawlessness will be destroyed by the coming of Christ (verses 8 and 9). So how can this be a past event if the coming of Christ is still future? Well, the Greek in this passage (2 Thess 2:8-9)is difficult to translate and can be rendered like this instead:
"(8) And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and will overpower at the time of the appearance of his coming (9)–whose coming is according to the working of Satan . . . . "- as translated by Dr. Larry Pechawer
Here God does the destroying, but not through the coming (paraousia) of Christ per se.
For a fuller explanation of this perspective, and how this verse can be translated this way,see
www.lostjabez.com/rapture/manoflawlessness.php
although the article may need further clarification if you're not familiar with partial-preterism. It's hard to just jump into the middle of the preterist argument, but...
Having said this, the whole "Man of Lawlessness" thing is a pretty new part of the puzzle for me, having always just assumed he was the same person as the Beast/ Anti-Christ .
What about the Anti-Christ?
According to this view, the Anti-Christ may be the "Man of Lawlessness" or it may be "the Beast", but the Beast is not necessarily equivalent to "the man of lawlessness". We could have one person described by all three terms, or two people described. Hope that makes sense. I think I currently see it like this:
The Beast:
Nero and/or Vespasian, and Rome itself more generally
Man of Lawlessness:
Nero, John of Gischala, or Titus (all three are described above)
Anti Christ:
John the apostle says there are many anti-christs but he seems to foresee a specific ANTI CHRIST (capital letters) as well. This may be John of Gischala or it may be Nero and Rome as a whole.
