A reading from 2 Thessalonians 2, verses 13 through 17. But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which he called you by our gospel for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace, comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work. Amen. Father, we thank you for your word. And as we dig into this epistle, I pray that it would open to us that you would cause our hearts to glory in all that you have done in the past and all that you mean for us in the future. We bless you in Jesus' name. Amen. Well, in our series through the Bible, we've come to what some people at least consider to be the second most controversial and difficult book in the New Testament to interpret, Revelation probably being a little bit more difficult. But this has been one that has puzzled people from all schools of eschatology, whether dispensational, historic, pre-mill, awe-mill, post-mill, preterist, you name it. There is some tough stuff in there, and we'll pray that the Lord would help us to sort through these things. Now let me just give you a little bit of background. Within months, maybe even within weeks of Paul having written 1 Thessalonians, he gets another letter from that church indicating that there were heretics and troublemakers there that were stirring up all kinds of problems. According to chapter 2, verse 2, at least one of those heretics had written a letter in Paul's name, pretending that that letter was a prophecy from Paul. I mean, talk about audacious. This is incredible. In that letter these heretics told the Thessalonians that the day of Christ had already happened, that they really didn't need to worry about the future anymore. Those false prophets had said the same thing in 1 Thessalonians 5, verse 3. They basically contradicted Paul's warnings and said, no, no, there is only peace and safety in your future. That's 1 Thessalonians 5, verse 3. And so Paul is understandably pretty upset that somebody is audacious enough to write a pseudepigrapha in his name. So if you take a look at chapter 3, verse 17, he gives a way that they can tell whether a letter is a counterfeit or whether it's really come from him. He says, the salutation of Paul with my own hand, which is a sign in every epistle, so I write. So Paul always signed his name to every epistle that he wrote, which is one of many reasons why I believe Hebrews was not written by Paul. I believe that Luke wrote the book of Hebrews. But in any case, if the day of Christ that we talked about last week had already happened, it would mean that Israel and Rome had already been judged, which obviously hadn't happened. It would mean that the great tribulation was over, a big fat lie. And it would mean that the beast and the man of sin was taken away, a lie, and that the great apostasy was over, another lie. And it would mean, therefore, that they really didn't need to prepare for the worst, perhaps the most disastrous lie of all. And by the way, the second half of the book answers that particular lie. Because many commentaries are futurist on this book, They don't see any logical connection between the second half of the book and the first half of the book, but we're going to be seeing they are very logically tied together. Now the false prophets had made these Christians naively secure about the future. And demons will always try to get Christians to downplay potential danger, to not take the actions that they need to take. And if they're not successful in doing that, they'll then make the Christians fearful. Because either way, we're not operating with the act of faith that pleases God. And so 2 Thessalonians was designed to correct two problems. The first correction says, far from their trouble, they haven't seen anything yet. The mystery of lawlessness has actually been restrained to some degree, believe it or not, he is saying, and soon troubles are going to burst open like a dam. The second correction has to do with laziness, irresponsible, fatalistic attitudes toward the future, failure to prepare. So with that as a background, I don't think anything more is needed. We'll dive into this epistle. In verses 1 through 2, Paul encourages the saints with positive greetings of their security in Christ and grace and peace in that order. Grace can only come as we are in Christ, and peace can only be had as we are appropriating His grace. And so the answer to fear in this epistle is to be Christ-centered, to appropriate His grace, and to have His supernatural peace, which is a perfect antidote to fear. But after this introduction comes the first correction that they had gotten things wrong about the day of Christ that he had talked about in the previous epistle. Now whether, to what degree it's from misunderstanding him, and to what degree it's from believing the lies of the false teachers, we're not told. But he's going to correct their eschatology. Even though this is a long section of correction, he begins even this section with positive words of affirmation, beginning at verse three. We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is fitting, because your faith grows exceedingly, and the love of every one of you all abounds toward each other, so that we ourselves boast of you among the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations. that you endure. And so Paul leads with thanksgiving and praise, even bragging on these Thessalonians. Those two verses, I think, deserve a sermon all on their own, which we won't give today. But even though there were things that these Thessalonians had gotten wrong, he appreciates what they had gotten right, and he boasts on them. And just as a side note, self-boasting is never appropriate. The Bible condemns that as prideful. but it does not condemn receiving or giving boasting of others. Okay, so for example, Proverbs 27 two says, let another man praise you and not your own mouth, a stranger and not your own lips. But the next few verses give a few hints that what Paul is gonna be talking about in this whole section all the way to chapter two verse 12 has nothing to do with the coming of Christ at the end of history. There is an urgency about His teaching because they were not taking the imminent troubles very seriously. Here is the problem. If you apply, like I have for years, these two passages to the last day of history, there are going to be all kinds of contradictions that arise, all kinds of sections that are going to be inexplicable. And this is why I said a lot of people really do treat this section to be one of the toughest passages to teach on. Let's look though at the first indicators that he's talking about first century realities. Verses four through five indicate that the Thessalonians were already experiencing the beginnings of the persecution that Paul had said would arise in the last days of the Old Covenant. They should not have been surprised. And the next verses talk about God's payback to those persecutors, not persecutors 2,000 years later, to those persecutors. Verse six, since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation Repay who? Not people 2,000 years later, but to repay those who trouble you. That's in the present tense, those who are troubling you. Those are the ones that God's going to pay back. Remember, we saw last week in Acts chapter 17, the Jews had stirred up the whole city of Gentiles to be persecuting the church, and Paul escaped by the skin of his teeth. And God here says He's going to make both the Jews and the Gentiles who have been persecuting the Christians suffer tribulation. This section definitely relates to the first century Thessalonians. So reading again at verse 6, Now let's think about that verse 7, because that also is in the present tense. The words, you who are troubled, is literally you who are being troubled. The very people who were currently troubling them would have Christ and his angels fighting against them and bringing immediate relief from those persecutions. Now, if these words are referring to the last day of history, how did these Thessalonians get rest or respite from a persecution in a day that has not yet even come for us? How did they get rest or relief? Well, you might say, well, their persecutors would be punished in hell at that point. There would be payback to them. And yes, that's true. But this says that they're getting relief. How would that give them relief from their current persecutors? And some people might respond, well, they get relief when they get to heaven, you know, when they die. But aside from the text insisting that the relief will happen when the Lord is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, you've got the additional problem of the definition of that word for rest or relief. The word anesis means, quote, partial relief, relaxation of custodial control, and some liberty. It's not total relief, it's partial relief. If you get to heaven, you're gonna get total relief, right? Total rest. But this word indicates they're still gonna have some suffering. but they're just going to get some relief, a degree of relief from their current persecutions, and they did get this relief in the first century. The persecution would be hugely relaxed once Rome attacked Israel in 8066 and counted the Jews to be their enemy, because that was where most of their persecution to that point had come from. From that date on, Jews were so preoccupied with Rome's persecution of them, they didn't have time or the inclination to persecute Christians. In Matthew 24, Jesus had said that if he did not cut that tribulation short, no one amongst the elect would have been saved. And so the logic of Paul's argument demands a first century fulfillment. Now in our revelation series, we pinpointed that spectacular revelation of Christ in the sky to May 18 of AD 66. The revealing of Jesus and his armies in the sky is documented by Roman historians, Jewish historians, and Christian historians, and that angels were involved may be hinted at in verse eight. In flaming fire, taking vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. When you start reading those first century eyewitness accounts of what they saw in the sky, you see these evidences that the whole sky was ablaze with angels. I'll just give you one example. This is Sefer Yosipon, he said, moreover in those days were seen chariots of fire and horsemen, a great force flying across the sky near to the ground coming against Jerusalem and all the land of Judah, all of them horses of fire and riders of fire. I disagree with the full preterists who only see Israel as being under covenant judgment. We're going to be seeing in these two chapters that both Israel and Rome were under God's wrath as well. But people do question, and for years I questioned how this could be that verses 8 through 12 could possibly refer to anything in the first century. Even partial preterists like Ken Gentry don't see it as first century. Let me continue reading in verse nine so you can see the difficulty. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power when he comes in that day to be glorified in his saints and to be admired among all those who believe because our testimony among you was believed. Was there both a judgment of the wicked and a glorification or resurrection of the saints in AD 70. And I say, yes, last week we looked at a number of scriptures, and I'm going to be giving some additional scriptures today. And the reason it is so important to see an AD 70 resurrection and judgment is because I think this is the only answer to theological liberals who have brought up all kinds of passages that promise an immediate, soon, near, about to kind of language for a judgment on the world and for a resurrection that would happen. They claim it didn't happen and therefore the Bible is wrong. And we say no, both scripture and history say that it did happen. Now we do need to deal with errors on all sides here. Full Preterists think this is the only judgment and resurrection. But there are other passages like 1 Corinthians 15, 2 Peter 3, Revelation 20 that speak of another judgment, another resurrection at the end of history. Now, futurists think that the one at the end of the history is the only one. Both extremes fail to adequately answer the heresy of theological liberals. Let me give you a tiny sampling of imminency passages that speak of a judgment and a resurrection glorification of the saints that would happen very, very soon. These passages stand in stark contrast to other passages that speak about a judgment and a resurrection that's going to be far off. long time in the future. Each one of these passages uses the Greek word mellow, which means something that is about to happen. And I'm not going to read all of them, but I'll just give you a few. Matthew 3 verse 7, John the Baptist warned the Pharisees, brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath that is about to come? In verse 10 he says, even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. In verses 11 through 12 he says, 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 fend is in his hand and he will thoroughly clean out his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. That is clearly first century and very soon. The last verse, by the way, of the Old Testament prophesied about John the Baptist and said the whole purpose of his coming was to bring repentance to Israel so that there could be an averting of an immediate judgment but it was only averted for 40 years. But it did, it came within that generation. Now let's look next at Matthew 16, verse 27. Matthew 16, verse 27. It says, 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. And people have been conditioned to think, that's gotta be the last day of history. But in the very next sentence, Jesus says, no, he's talking about something that's gonna happen in their lifetime. He says, 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. Which coming? Well, it's the coming he's just finished talking about, that 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. Next, I'll read from Acts 17, verse 31. It says, because he has appointed a day on which he will judge, and the Greek word for judge has mellow added to it. It should be literally translated, he is about to judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has ordained. He has given assurance of this. to all by raising him from the dead. Now the New King James Version just ignores the word mellow, it just sits there, it doesn't get translated, because that would make it look like it was a first century judgment, but it is. And Jews of the first century would not have been surprised by that because there are so many Old Testament passages that connected the first coming with this kind of a judgment, the first coming of Christ. So to repeat, Acts 17.31 promises that God has, quote, appointed a day on which He is about to judge the world in righteousness by the man whom He has ordained. I don't think that can be put off 2,000 years. Next, Acts 24, verse 15. This is Paul speaking. He says, I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. Now, the word will be is the Greek word mellow, which indicates something very, very near. So it should be more literally translated that there is about to be a resurrection of the death. Well, he said that 10 years before the 8070 resurrection. So it was literally true. And by the way, Daniel 12 did not prophesy that all people would be raised from the dead in AD 70. What it says instead, it says, and many of those, not all, But many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to everlasting contempt. Now, the next verse indicates that 100% of the elect who had died by 8070 would be raised. But since it says that there's only going to be many, but not all, not all of the non-elect were raised at that time. Some were, but not all. Now, in verse 25 of the same chapter, Mellow occurs again. Acts 24 verse 25, now as he reasoned about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come, literally the judgment about to come, there's that word mellow again, Felix was afraid and answered, go away for now. When I have a convenient time, I will call for you. It was the very imminence of this judgment that made Felix afraid. 2,000 years later is not imminent no matter how you slice it. And to say that it is, I think, makes theological liberals mock. Just one more verse, 2 Timothy 4, verse 1. I charge you, therefore, before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge, and it's literally, who is about to judge the living and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom. The end of history is not when Jesus gets his kingdom. 1 Corinthians 15 says that's when he hands the kingdom back to the Father. He already has been given all authority in heaven and on earth. So the problem with full preterists is that they lump the barley and the wheat harvest together as if there is only one harvest and they deny that we're going to have a future resurrection and a future judgment. Basically what they're doing is they're flattening out all eschatology to the first century. The problem with the other extreme, the futurists, is they're also flattening out all eschatology to one time, it's at the end of history, and they're failing to see that there is a barley and then a wheat harvest. They're lumping the two together as well. But if you see a resurrection in AD 70 and another one at the end of history, all tension is removed from numerous passages that are otherwise extremely tough to explain to apostates. You see, apostates will repeatedly look at these scriptures and say, look, the Bible's wrong. He promised he was coming and he was going to bring a judgment. He was going to bring a resurrection. It didn't happen. Daniel 7, 13 through 14 says that the kingdom was given to Jesus in AD 30 when he ascended to the right hand of the Father, but then in verses 26 through 27 of the same chapter, he says that the kingdom was given to the saints of Jesus in AD 70. And AD 70, according to Daniel's, when the kingdom is rested away from Satan and away from the beast, and where they would be consumed. So it's a very significant date. It's not as significant as 8030. 8030 is the reversal. The cross reverses history. Everything going down to the cross, everything going up from there. But 8070 is very significant nonetheless. Well, Paul ends chapter one by saying that his prayer is that all the Thessalonians would be counted worthy of this calling. But in chapter 2, we have verses that have been even more confusing to some people, and I want to go through each of those first 12 verses. Most of the sermon is just going to be focused on this because it has been such a tough passage for so many. Let's begin at verse 1. Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. The letter of the false teachers that purported to be from Paul claimed that the day of Christ had already come and that the gathering together of the saints had already happened. Now the only other place that that exact language, the gathering together of his saints, is mentioned is Matthew 24, 31, which says, and he will send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together his elect from the four winds from one end of heaven to the other. I believe that was a reference to the resurrection of the bodies of all of the saints scattered around the world. But then three verses later in Matthew 24, Jesus assures his disciples, assuredly I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place, including the verse that I just read about the gathering together. Anyone who had paid attention to the Gospel of Matthew, which the church at large had had in its possession for eleven years, or the Gospel of Mark, which they had had for six years, would have known that there were a bunch of prophecies that had not yet been fulfilled yet, that Christ said had to happen before this great event happened. And just to show you how audacious these false teachers were, let me list some of the prophesied things that had to happen prior to the AD 70 resurrection and judgment. Nero had to sign a seven-year covenant with Israel, the purpose of which would be to destroy the church. Now that happened in 8062, and it was at the instigation of his Jewish wife and all of the other Jewish counselors that he had before he had turned against them in his court And it was a severe persecution. Both Rome and, from 62 on, both Rome and the Jews were ganged up together against the Christians. And Jesus indicated if this had not been cut short, no one would have survived. Another thing that had to happen was every eye had to see Christ's very visible appearance in the sky, accompanied by fiery angels. Okay, that hadn't happened yet, and that was prophesied to happen, what, three and a half years before Jerusalem was destroyed. Now I'm assuming you've been through the revelation series to understand some of this, but third, they had not yet heard the trumpet that Jesus had promised, that Paul had promised would happen. We looked at that last week. Fourth, they had not seen the massive earthquake and movements of every island, mountain, and landmass, sometimes by several meters going upwards. That would have been impossible not to notice. How could people say, oh yeah, that must have happened already? It's like, well, we've talked around. We haven't seen anybody that's had that kind of a shaking of the landmasses. And so again it shows the falsity of these false teachers' assurances of peace and safety. Fifth, the sun would have to become darkened at midday and the moon would have to be turned blood red. That hadn't happened. Now it did happen in the first century, but not by 8051 when this book was written. Six, there had to be a massive meteorite showers. Seventh, Israel would have to get invaded by Rome. That hadn't happened yet. Eighth, Nero would have to die and the empire fall apart and revolutions happen in every part of the empire with massive loss of life. That hadn't happened. Ninth, Jerusalem would have to be conquered and the temple be burned. But in these next verses, In 2 Thessalonians, Paul gives even more things that have to happen. All of these things are verifiable in history and illustrate, they don't demonstrate, but they illustrate the inerrancy and the perfect accuracy of these and many other prophecies. First part of verse 3 says that the great apostasy had to happen first. Let no one deceive you by any means, for that day will not come unless the falling away comes first." Now the word for falling away is apostasia, and normally we just translate it, transliterate it as apostasy. That's the way I take it. But just to be fair to other partial preterists, since the Greek word apostasia can refer to either a political rebellion or to religious rebellion against God, I will point out there's debate amongst scholars as to whether this was political or religious or both. Both, by the way, did happen prior to the day of Christ. I think it is an apostasy of the church, and there are many, many scriptures that describe that as happening in the last days of the old covenant. We're not looking forward to the great apostasy. It's already happened. 1 Timothy 4, 1 through 5 speaks of a great apostasy that was already happening in AD 65. That's when that book was written. 2 Timothy 3, 1 through 9, also written in AD 65, speaks of that same apostasy using the present tense and tells Timothy, and from such people turn away. For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various laws. He could hardly turn away from those people if they don't appear for 2,000 years. He's telling Timothy to turn away from them. Whole context is first century, apostasy that they were seeing before their eyes. He concludes that section by saying in verse 13, but evil men and imposters will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things you have learned. This is not in our future. The grammar dictates that it is first century. 2 Peter 2 says that they shouldn't be surprised by the rise of heretics since Christ and the apostles had predicted that this would happen in the last days of the old covenant. He says much the same in chapter 3. Using the present tense, he indicates those apostates were present in the church. Jude 17-19 says that Christ and the apostles had warned them about the heretics that would arise during the last days, and using the present tense, he says, these are sensual persons who cause divisions, not having the Spirit. So here's the point. The first century did indeed see the greatest apostasy to ever happen in world history, And they were very, very distressing times. But there are also other political events that happened. The Jewish revolt is called by Josephus an apostasia from Rome, falling away from Rome, when they stopped offering sacrifices for the emperor in AD 66. And he declared independence. That's what Ken Gentry believes 2 Thessalonians 2, 3 is referring to. Others have seen it as the breakup of Rome in AD 68 into three factions fighting against each other. And others say, well, there is all kinds of other regions that were falling away and breaking off and revolting against Rome. And I really don't have to settle that debate, even though I strongly lean in the direction that this was the apostasy within the church. that was happening. But both kinds of apostasy had definitely happened in the last decade leading up to 8070. Now verse 3 gives a second thing that had to happen. 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. Now in my revelation series I identified the man of sin as Titus, the man who conquered Jerusalem, blasphemed God in the temple, was worshipped in the temple as God. Not all agree. Ken Gentry I believe that this man of sin was Nero and that the restrainer was Claudius. And he was a man who, in Nero's youth, restrained Nero. There's no doubt about that. And Claudius's name actually means restrainer, so Gentry's view has a lot going for it. But while verse 7 says that this demonic mystery of lawlessness was already at work 14 or 15 years before Titus would be revealed to be the man of sin, and even though I believe that Nero was inhabited by the same demon that Titus would later be inhabited by, Yet Nero, by himself, bad as he was, does not fit all of the evidence of this chapter and of the book of Revelation. And for me, every little piece of the puzzle has to fall into place. Nero never sat in the temple declaring himself to be God. the man of sin would. Nero wasn't even alive when the temple was burned, and this passage necessitates that he be alive then. In any case, I believe that the man of sin was Titus. The specific demon that possessed him was the same demon that possessed Nero. The demon was called the beast that arose from the abyss, one of the living creatures that had fallen. In my Revelation series, I show many, many identifiers. For example, Nero fits the name that adds up to 666. It fits it in the Greek, in the Hebrew, and in the Latin. And they wouldn't have had to do a lot of research to figure that out. All they'd have to do is reach into their pockets, pull out a coin, and they'd say, huh, I wonder if it's Titus. His name adds up to 666. And it did in the Greek coins as well. So this was not a mystery. This was something very straightforward. If it was Nero, it would have been very, very difficult for people to figure out who he was talking about. For Titus, it would have been right there on the surface of it. It's the simplest explanation. Moving on, verse 3 says that there will be a time in the future when the man of sin is revealed. There's some kind of revelation, just as there was inspired revelation of Jesus being the Messiah, there would be demonic revelation to reveal Titus as the savior of Rome, an empire that had fallen apart and which Titus rescued from oblivion. He and his father were both considered to be the savior of Rome. We saw in the revelation series that the revelation of Titus involved dreams, visions, miracles, oracles at temples, and strange omens. And because of these revelations, the entire army embraced Titus basically as being a messiah, they hailed him as the emperor of Rome even though his father was on the throne and even coins were minted while his father was still on the throne that said Titus is the Caesar. And he was the one really that was in control until he became the sole emperor. We also saw that Titus worked with Josephus and a rabbi by the name of Yohanan to deceive the Jews with miracles, signs and wonders. And to me, this is the most amazing aspect of this history, that Jews who were the stated enemies of Rome could be brought to the place through all of these revelations, these miracles, these things that happened to say, wow, Titus is anointed by God and to receive Titus as their Messiah to worship him. And we'll get to that in a bit. But this points to a time when there would be a revealing of the man of sin, something that would be so publicized that no one could have missed it. And so for the false teachers in Thessalonica to claim that all of this had already happened was ludicrous. Next, this man of sin is called the son of perdition. The only other place in the Bible where that phrase son of perdition is used is in John 17, verse 12, where Judas is called the son of perdition after Satan entered into him. So it seems to be a reference to a demon-possessed man. And then Revelation 17 is another passage that associates the ruler Titus with a demonic beast that came up from the pit and then would later be cast down into the pit to perdition. Perdition is the same word. Gaventa's commentary states, the son of something is one who belongs to that realm, and the realm of perdition is the realm of hell. So this is a demonic representative of the realm of hell. This is made doubly clear when you see the numerous verbal correspondences between Ezekiel 28 and this passage here. Andy Johnson shows how the man of sin in Ezekiel 28 was the demon-possessed king of Tyre. And this man is something like that Old Testament man of sin, man of lawlessness. And just as Ezekiel alternates between speaking to the demon and speaking to the king as if they were one and the same, Paul does as well. Titus and this creature of perdition are linked together when Titus was possessed. So basically Titus became the embodiment of the beast from the pit. Verse 4 gives some of the things that will characterize Titus and this demon who possesses him. Who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he sits as God on the temple of God showing himself that he is God. Now obviously Nero had some of those characteristics as well and That should make sense since Revelation says that this beast possessed two emperors. He possessed Nero and then later possessed Titus. But Nero never got to the Jerusalem, certainly never sat in the temple. Titus was the only Caesar who was ever directly worshipped in the temple. He was the only Caesar who ever blasphemed inside the temple. For that matter, he's the only Caesar who ever got inside the temple. Here's a quote from a second century Jewish source. The Spassians sent Titus, who mocked, where are their gods, the rock in whom they sought refuge? This was the wicked Titus, who blasphemed and insulted heaven. What did he do? He entered the Holy of Holies, and with his sword slashed the curtain. Through a miracle, blood spurted forth, and he thought he had killed God himself. He brought two harlots, and spreading out a scroll beneath them, transgressed with them on top of the altar. He began to speak blasphemies and insults against heaven, boasting, one who wars against a king in a desert and defeats him cannot be compared to one who wars against a king in his own palace and conquers him. So in saying that, Titus is basically saying he's more powerful than Yehoah. He has conquered and killed Yehoah. That's what Titus was saying when he got into the temple. Now his actions on top of the altar, on top of the spread out Bible scroll was a very deliberate attempt to blaspheme God and dare God to do anything about it. As 2 Thessalonians describes the man of sin, Titus opposed and exalted himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he sat as God in the temple of God showing himself that he is God. In many ways he was just like Antiochus Epiphanes of old. Here's another quote from a very early Jewish rabbi by the name of Rabbi Nathan, possibly second century. He said of this entry into the Holy of Holies, What is more, he dragged a prostitute into the Holy of Holies, and he began to blaspheme, curse, vilify, and spit toward him on high, saying, so this is the one who you say slaughtered Sisera and Sennacherib. Here I am in his house and in his domain. If he has any power, let him come out and face me. He's daring God to a fight. The same rabbi said that when he took shiploads of prisoners to Rome for the triumphal entry, that, quote, a gale arose to drown him in the sea. He stood on the deck of the ship and began to blaspheme, curse, vilify and spit toward him on high. He said, when I was in his house and in his domain, he did not have the power to come and face me. But now here he has come forth to meet me. It seems that the God of the Jews has power only where there is water. Now in the book of Revelation, we saw the miracles that were ascribed to Titus, and he used those miracles to induce people to worship him and his father. And when people refused to worship him, he tortured them. Even Josephus, who by the way was a friend, he was demon possessed as well, but he was a friend of Titus and therefore motivated to say good things about Titus, he admits Titus did indeed do this. He describes how the Jewish leaders captured over 600 Jews who refused to worship Caesar, handed them over to Titus to show the Jewish leadership's total allegiance to Titus, and then when 600 refused to worship him, Josephus describes what happened. He says, subjected to every form of torture and bodily suffering that could be thought of, for the one purpose of making them acknowledge Caesar as Lord, not a man gave in or came near to saying it, but rising above the strongest compulsion, they all maintained their resolve and it seemed as if their bodies felt no pain and their souls were almost exultant as they met the tortures and the flames. But nothing amazed the spectators as much as the behavior of young children for not one of them could be constrained to call Caesar Lord. I've often wondered if those Jews were Christians, Christian Jews, Josephus doesn't say, but the evidence is so strong, and I'm not getting into all of the evidence we did in our revelation series, but it's so strong that even an idealist like G.K. Beale admits that the evidence perfectly fits Titus. No other candidate that we know of actually sat in the temple, declared himself to be God there, and blasphemed God in the temple as 2 Thessalonians 2 requires. Nero didn't do it. Caligula tried, but he wasn't able to do it. Only Titus fits. Now Paul goes on to chastise them for forgetting that he had told them all about this while he was ministering in their midst earlier in the year. Verse five, do you not remember that when I was still with you, I told you these things? And based on his previous instruction, he says, and now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his time. And so many commentators say, boy, it's too bad that the Thessalonians knew because then he might explain who this restrainer was. It would have settled a lot of debate that we've had in the last few centuries on verses six through seven. There are literally, I went through and looked at every one of my commentaries, 167 commentaries to see if anybody, where they came. Man, there's over a dozen identifications of this restrainer all over the map. Many of these modern interpreters follow Augustine, who said he didn't have a clue who the Restrainer was. So it may seem a little bit presumptuous for Phil Kaiser to say that he knows, and I do, I do know who this Restrainer is. And there's actually a handful of of commentators who hold the same view. But it's like all of the other puzzles that we've gone through. We lay out every single clue and then see which candidates and never settle until every piece of the puzzle fits together. And it does. The main problem that has puzzled commentators has to do with the Greek text. The word what in verse six, in that phrase, what is restraining? is in the neuter gender in the Greek, while the he in the phrase he who now restrains in verse seven is in the masculine, and yet almost everybody agrees it seems to be referring to the same restrainer, restraining. So why the switch from neuter to masculine? The vast majority of interpretations simply do not do justice. They cannot account for that switch between the two. By the way, You need to realize in the New King James, most translations do not capitalize the pronouns he and you and things like that, because it's not in the Greek. Anytime you see a capital he, it's an interpretation in the New King James. It could be a small he. If you look at the margin, you'll say it could be a small he. It could be a big he. But anyway, that's a by the way. I'll give you a couple of examples of wrong interpretations. The problem with saying that the neuter what is the kingdom and the masculine he is the king is that both words are masculine in the Greek. Kingdom is masculine, so that's not neuter. The problem with McKenzie's view that the neuter what is the abyss that chains and restrains the demon, and that the he is the beast himself, is that abusis is feminine. It is not neuter. And similar problems can be seen with many other views. There are only four interpretations that take seriously, at least out of the 167 commentaries I went through, there's only four that really do justice to this transition. And I'll go through all four. The last one is the view I hold to. Some have tried to resolve this by saying that the Holy Spirit is a neuter noun, and that's true. The word spirit is always neuter. And yet the Holy Spirit is always modified by a masculine pronoun when only the pronoun is used, which is also true. Because he's a person. He's a masculine person. So that interpretation does make sense of the switch in the Greek. Dispensationalists take this interpretation. So do a few preterists you see in your New King James. The New King James does as well. And it's certainly possible. But commentators point out, why would Paul not simply say the Holy Spirit? Why is he cryptic about this? And in what way, here's another problem, in what way was the Holy Spirit taken out of the way? That seems odd to speak about the divine third person of the Trinity. That's the last clause of verse seven. Is it really possible for the omnipresent Holy Spirit to no longer be present? Now while this interpretation is a possibility, I'm not going to diss it that way, and it's possible even on the Preterist view, I don't think it perfectly fits. Others say that since Paul has already clearly alluded to an evil spirit The neuter what in verse six refers to this evil spirit who restrains the he, the man of sin from acting until such time as Satan wants Titus to act. Now that could make sense of the Greek genders, but it doesn't seem to fit the idea that it's God himself who determines the timing, not Satan. And why would an evil spirit try to restrain another evil spirit anyway? Or as some say, restrain Titus. So even though it's possible, it seems a bit odd. A similar view, but with the added strength that this demon has a name, is that the demon called the Beast was restraining Titus. The name Beast is in the neuter. So that fits. But since the demon inhabiting Titus was the same demon inhabiting Nero, it seems unlikely that the beast could inhabit one while restraining the other. He's not omnipresent. Most commentators believe that what restrains must be a good force, not an evil force. Now my interpretation is that there are angelic beings whose title is neuter and whose pronoun is masculine. Both the living creatures around the throne and the warrior cherubim have the noun for their titles as neuter, yet the pronouns describing them are always masculine. And the commentaries that have taken this approach have given numerous clues as to why this must be a good warrior angel from among the cherubim, like Michael the archangel. It must be a reference to him who is keeping the beast demon in check, not allowing him to possess Titus until the timing is right. It fits the immediate context. It definitely fits the Old Testament background passages. I've already alluded to Ezekiel 28 being one. Andy Johnson lists a whole bunch of verbal identities between the two, and it says that that man of lawlessness, that man of sin in the Old Testament, that king of Tyre, was possessed by a fallen evil cherub, one of the fallen cherubim. So That's a parallel. And then Beal shows that the verbal correspondences to Daniel point to a good cherub angel keeping a demonic prince in check until it is time for him to be revealed. So let me just read verses 6 through 7. I will identify every word in those verses if you've been curious. Verses 6 through 7. And now you know what is restraining, that is Michael the archangel, The only warrior cherub strong enough to restrain the beast. So the neuter cherub is restraining that he, that is Titus, may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness, that is, the beast who will later possess Titus, is already at work. The beast was clearly at work in Nero, according to Revelation, only he, not capital H, but small h, he, Michael the archangel, who now restrains, will do so until he, Michael, is taken out of the way. Now, this interpretation fits on many levels. It fits the Old Testament background passages. It especially fits Daniel 10, verse 13, where Gabriel says that Michael, the archangel, was helping him to, here's that word, restrain the demonic prince of Persia. makes sense of the grammar of Titus, of the temple, of the fact the demon was already at work in Nero, but would later come to rest upon Titus in order to destroy the temple. And Daniel 12 begins the prophecies about that destruction of the temple in AD 70 by explicitly identifying the first century restrainer as being Michael, the prince who stands watch over the sons of your people. And yet in that chapter, no longer stands watch over them. He gives up the people to destruction, the temple to destruction, so Michael no longer restrains the beast. Gary Shogrin summarizes a bit more of the evidence saying this, this sort of angelic combat occurs also in the New Testament. In Jude 9, Michael contends with the devil himself for the body of Moses. Michael with his angels expels the dragon and his angels from heaven in Revelation 12, 7 through 9. There are also four angels who hold back the four winds, Revelation 7, 1, using yet another synonym for hold back, krateo. Likewise, an angel is told to let go the four angels bound at the river Euphrates. Revelation 9, 13 through 15. They're released in order to kill a third of mankind. They had already been, quote, kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year, that is, much like the man of lawlessness, they were bound by God precisely until His plan was ready, then loosed by Him to do their work of destruction. Another passage that yields some light is Revelation 9-1, and probably Revelation 21-3, where an angel holds the keys to the abyss and can lock up or let loose the devil and other demonic beings. There is thus a substantial amount of background that suggests that in 2 Thessalonians 2, a restraining angel is the agent whom God sends to hold back the work of Satan's man until God's own time. Okay, back to 2 Thessalonians 2, verse 8 covers the whole three and a half year period that this demon would be at work in Titus. And then the lawless one, that would be the demonic beast, will be revealed whom the Lord will consume with the breath of his mouth and destroy with the brightness of his coming. Now commentators point out that the lawless one isn't destroyed the moment he is revealed, or he wouldn't be able to do all of the things that are listed in these verses and the following verses. And by the way, Titus didn't do any of these things on his own. It was the demon who did the miracles through Titus. So he's the one that would be destroyed. Only the demon could do that. In any case, verse eight covers a period of time. In my interpretation, the demonic revelations of the beast, the lawless one, occurred in 8069, and the destruction in 8070. And Gordon Fee, though not a preterist, gives the proof of this rather well. He points out that the language used by Paul here is word for word identical to Isaiah 11, verse 14, with one difference. Isaiah says that the Messiah would destroy the ungodly and the land with the breath of his mouth. So until the land is destroyed, the lawless one could not be destroyed. So was Titus destroyed in 8070? No, that's the whole point. Though his death appears to be supernatural, he didn't die until 8081. But McKenzie points out that the demon who would characterize him is the one taken away, and taken away and rendered inoperative is a better translation anyway, the word does not mean cease to exist. And Titus' personality changed overnight into a benevolent dictator after he lost this demon, after that demon was destroyed. He didn't act this way after the war against Jerusalem. By the way, it's a seven-year war that went all the way up to 74 AD. Now before any of that could happen, the demon has to move Titus to do the things listed in verses 9-12. And verses 9-12 give a perfect description of how Titus would deceive the Romans, would later deceive the Jews into receiving the mark of the beast going along with his evil program. Titus worked with Agrippa II, Josephus, and Yohanan. And in my sermon on Revelation 13, 11-15, I go through the specific miracles, dreams, prophecies, and signs that made those three so successful in deceiving both the Romans and the Jews. Let me just read these verses. We can't get into the details, but verses 9 through 12. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan with all power, signs, and lying wonders. and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason, God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, and that they all may be condemned, who did not believe the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." Just as a side note, if you compare that language with 1 Thessalonians, he's referring to the persecuting Jews there. In one sermon, I just cannot get into all the details, but in my Revelation series, I showed how every detail of this passage was fulfilled. Both Vespasian and Titus were demon-possessed. Titus was one possessed by the beast, but both of them were possessed by demons, and their personality changed. They were suddenly able to prophesy, to perform amazing miracles, miracles like, get a load of these miracles, that Vespasian and Titus could do. Making a statue move and talk. Fire falling from heaven. Blind people being healed. Cripples being healed. Lightning decapitating all the statues of previous Caesars. What Tacitus calls, quote, many miracles, and in another place, numerous signs and wonders. These are all documented by historians that were not known to be superstitious. Now here's an application I just want to make from this. The ability to perform healings and miracles is not a sign that you're a Christian. It's not a sign that you're spiritual. I know pastors who deny the inerrancy of Scripture, deny justification by faith alone. They have other heresies that show that they're wolves, they're not sheep at all, and yet they've been able to do miracles. You don't need to be a true Christian to do miracles. Out in Ethiopia, the witch doctors who were self-consciously devoted to Satan were instantly able to curse a person with a disease with death, or they could heal a person, and they were able to prophesy, they were able to speak in tongues. And so the bottom line is that demons can perform miracles as well. Paul warned the Galatians about deceivers who would come into the church, and he didn't care how amazing those people were, how good of Christians they pretended to be. He said this, but even if we, he's including himself, the apostle Paul, even if we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. This shows the priority of the Bible above even the Apostle Paul. 1 Corinthians 1.22 says, Jews request a sign. They were enamored with miracles, and yet they did not follow the true gospel. Jesus said, an evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah, Matthew 12, 39. So don't ever underestimate the deceptive power of demons to make people prophesy, speak in tongues, or do miracles. Witch doctors out in Ethiopia did all three. And we actually heard them speaking in German and French, other languages that they had never learned. These people were uneducated. They didn't know other languages than their own language. But when they called upon the demons to inhabit them, they were able to do this. And by the way, sometimes it was blaspheming God in those languages. Here's the bottom line. The only infallible thing in life that you can absolutely bank on is the Bible. Can't bank on miracles, anything else, it's the Bible. It is the test by which we should live. And that's all I'm gonna say on the man of sin, I've said quite a bit. We're gonna go on now to the verse 13 through chapter three, verse 15 is the second correction to the church, and I'm gonna be much, much shorter on this. Characteristically, he once again begins with praise and affirmation, almost the same words that he began the first correction with. But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which he called you by your gospel for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." And then he calls them to stand fast, hold to the biblical traditions he's taught them. But I want you to notice in chapter 3, verse 6, he tells them, but we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. Now this ostracizing of a brother, this shunning of a brother is a step of discipline that comes prior to excommunication, and it's with the intended purpose of making the brother realize the seriousness of his sin and bringing him to repentance. If you look at verses 14 through 15, you'll see that he repeats it again. And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person. Do not keep company with him that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. So it's not excommunication, but it's shunning of a brother who is still in the church. And we're very, very thankful that we have not in the history of this church had to engage in this form of disciplinia, but I just want you to be aware it is something that is out there in case it ever has to be exercised in the future. But what was it that these brothers needed to be disciplined for? Commentators identify four sins. Verse six says that they were being disorderly or divisive. Greek word is ataktos, It's defined in the dictionary as indefiance of good order. May have been a critical spirit against the leaders, may have been just sowing discord. Verse 11 adds that they were being busybodies. The Greek word for that is periagodzomai, and the dictionary just defines it as meddlers. That's the only definition, meddlers. A meddler does the opposite of what Paul had commanded in 1 Thessalonians 4.11, quote, to mind your own business. They're always in everybody else's business. These were people who loved to talk about what's wrong in the church and who has this and that problem and meddling with issues and problems that are not theirs to meddle with. The third sin was laziness and the fourth issue was mooching off of others. Now, he had already addressed this subtly in the previous epistle, but he really lays it on thick. In verses 7 through 9, he says, look, I modeled exact opposite. Then in verses 10 through 13, he says, for even when we were with you, we commanded you this, if anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread. But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary in doing good." Now what on earth would motivate them to do this? Paul had counseled them to prepare for tough times. Now they're doing the exact opposite. Well, I believe it was these false teachers. 1 Thessalonians 5.3. Paul says, for when they say, and now he's quoting these false teachers, for when they say, peace and safety, then sudden destruction comes upon them as labor pains upon a pregnant woman, and they shall not escape. These false teachers were discounting the imminence of danger. They were preaching peace and safety. They were not taking seriously Paul's warnings about preparing for difficult times. And every generation has had people who simply will not work hard to prepare for contingencies. In this epistle, Paul laid out a roadmap of exactly what was going to happen over the next 15 years. And he wanted the Thessalonians to take it seriously. They would need to plan, get a load of this. These are worldwide issues. He wanted them to plan for the great tribulation, for wars and rumors of wars. for falling apart of Rome, for Rome's invasion of Israel, for disruption of food and finances, and for other potential problems that typically happen when you got worldwide catastrophes. So that makes this epistle especially appropriate for our times. No matter which president gets in this coming fall, There is no quick fix to the economic problems that have been heaping up in exponential fashion. If things fall apart under Trump, they will blame it on capitalism, when in reality, Trump's been a fascist. He's not a pure capitalist. It's a mixture. If things fall apart under the Democrats, they'll still blame Trump. Trump gets blamed for everything, even though it's the Democrats who have started this whole thing, and they've been far, far worse. So either way, we are facing some imminent, tough times just in the realm of finances. We don't even need to think about the other realms. Many economists are predicting that without massive tax increases or massive inflation, who knows which choice they'll make, we won't be able to pay the interest on the debt. And the way our messed up economy is linked with other faltering economies, there could be a domino effect. Could be. So whether you're thinking about finances, war, riots, germ warfare, and EMP, terrorism, other possibilities, it is good to study what kind of stewardship the Bible calls for during crisis times. And we're living in crisis times. God does not want us to be paralyzed. He wants us to plan. It doesn't mean your plans are going to be successful, but he wants you to try, right? And there is going to be a member-only time of strategizing later in October. If you're able, I think it would be good to come to that. By the way, don't count on handouts. We don't want this recorded. Don't count on recordings. This will be person-to-person. If you miss that meeting, well, we'll try to catch you up person-to-person, but that's the way it's going to be. But it is appropriate. to remind ourselves that working and planning for problems is not the same as fear. In fact, it's one of the antidotes to fear. We should not fear the future. Verse 16 promises us God's supernatural peace in every situation and at all times. That means our times. What a fantastic remedy for fear. Paul signs off in verse 17 and ends by saying, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. And I pray the same grace upon you, our beloved congregation. Let's pray. Father God, we thank you for the warnings in your word, but the comforts in your word as well. And they're so, got such a good balance. Help us to be balanced in our lives and our approach to the difficulties that we face as well. May all fear be banished from our minds, but may all irresponsibility also be banished as well. Help us, Father, to face the future as you would have us face it. And may you be honored and may you be glorified. In Jesus' name we pray, amen.