# Vespasian?



## earl40 (Dec 13, 2011)

In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is there biblical reasons why Vespasian ,under Nero's empire, is not the man of sin? I do not want to dispute that the confession spells out it is the office of the pope but I ask as if I were a Thessalonian alive the time the letter was written to them and how they would have understood Paul's letter.

Please understand I am asking the biblical warrant why Vespasian could not be the man off sin.


----------



## jonatan (Dec 13, 2011)

Interesting question... really dont know... I hope someonce can help you out!


----------



## Philip (Dec 13, 2011)

Why would one be led to believe that he was, Biblically?


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Dec 13, 2011)

Would this analysis, at least historically, not also be directly impacted by whether one "holds" to the early Nero era or the latter Domitian era dating to the book?


----------



## TimV (Dec 13, 2011)

A Roman general defeated a rebellion by people who had persecuted Christians like no others and the Christians of the day thought he was particularly sinful?  I doubt it.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 13, 2011)

Paul was writing to the Thessalonian with a warning to watch out and get out of town when you see the man of sin. I remember a sermon a long time ago that the Thessalonians knew exactly who Paul was speaking about they indeed got out of Jerusalem before the Romans tore it down.


----------



## TimV (Dec 13, 2011)

Thessaloniki was a city in Greece, and a whole world away from the Roman Provence of Judea. There was no military disturbance any where near there at the time, or (If I recall correctly) until over thousand years later. Vespasian got most of his initial support from Egypt and the Mideast provinces, but later everyone else got on board. He never saw any military action in Greece unless I'm sadly mistaken.


----------



## Presentist (Dec 13, 2011)

earl40 said:


> I am asking the biblical warrant why Vespasian could not be the man off sin.



2 Thessalonians 2:8 says "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:"

Vespasian died in AD 79. He was not "destroyed by the coming of the Lord."

The confession says that the Pope of Rome is "that man of sin"...


----------



## earl40 (Dec 14, 2011)

TimV said:


> Thessaloniki was a city in Greece, and a whole world away from the Roman Provence of Judea. There was no military disturbance any where near there at the time, or (If I recall correctly) until over thousand years later. Vespasian got most of his initial support from Egypt and the Mideast provinces, but later everyone else got on board. He never saw any military action in Greece unless I'm sadly mistaken.



Thanks Tim. So do you think those in Thessalonki scratched their heads and wondered who the man of sin was?


----------



## Presentist (Dec 14, 2011)

earl40 said:


> Thanks Tim.



It still seems like the "biblical reason" you are seeking why Vespasian could not have been "that man of sin" is...

2 Thessalonians 2:8 says "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:"

Vespasian died in AD 79, so he was not "destroyed by the coming of the Lord" and therefore could not have been "that man of sin."


----------



## TimV (Dec 14, 2011)

Earl that was always the big question at the dipsy church I grew up in, and boy were there lots of opinions!! Everyone from Henry Kissinger to Kennedy to Antiochus E. As near as I can figure out, Paul is speaking typologically, and there are more than one, but I may be way off!


----------



## earl40 (Dec 14, 2011)

TimV said:


> Earl that was always the big question at the dipsy church I grew up in, and boy were there lots of opinions!! Everyone from Henry Kissinger to Kennedy to Antiochus E. As near as I can figure out, Paul is speaking typologically, and there are more than one, but I may be way off!




I guess I will scratch my head with you. 

---------- Post added at 11:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:33 AM ----------




Presentist said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Tim.
> ...



Just looking at a partial prederist POV.


----------



## Presentist (Dec 14, 2011)

earl40 said:


> Just looking at a partial prederist POV.



If you decide when you believe the Lord's "coming" is (mentioned in 2 Thess 2:8), then you could decide who "that man of sin" is, because "that man of sin" is destroyed at the Lord's coming...

2 Thessalonians 2:8 says "And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:"

I agree with the confessions that the Lord's coming (mentioned in 2 Thess 2:8) is still future...


----------



## earl40 (Dec 14, 2011)

Presentist said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Just looking at a partial prederist POV.
> ...



I also agree He is yet to come and I currently am not expecting a man of sin (singular) to appear before His coming. Now on the chart it looks like Jesus is coming very soon within the next couple of years?


----------



## TimV (Dec 14, 2011)

> Now on the chart it looks like Jesus is coming very soon within the next couple of years


?


----------



## Presentist (Dec 14, 2011)

earl40 said:


> I also agree He is yet to come and I currently am not expecting a man of sin (singular) to appear before His coming.



Then there is your answer... Vespasian cannot be "that man of sin."

The confession states that the Pope of Rome is "that man of sin"...


----------



## earl40 (Dec 14, 2011)

TimV said:


> > Now on the chart it looks like Jesus is coming very soon within the next couple of years
> 
> 
> ?



Look at the chart The Coming of Jesus is a tad past the year 2,000.


----------



## TimV (Dec 14, 2011)

Yeah, I caught that. But those conspiracy theories always leave the uninitiated in a mind spin.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 14, 2011)

*Mark*


GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> Would this analysis, at least historically, not also be directly impacted by whether one "holds" to the early Nero era or the latter Domitian era dating to the book?



I think you're talking about the Book of Revelation. The Epistles to the Thessalonians were written by Paul who was killed in the mid '60s under Nero.

Bahnsen and Gentry and others held that it was a Roman Emperor, like Nero. I can't remember all their reasoning. They are partial preterists.

See Gentry's and Bahnsen's works on this, some of which may be online.

The fact that he sits in God's temple may have been interpreteted by them to mean that Vespasian sat in the remains of the temple in Jerusalem (?) and offered gifts to the gods on the Roman standards (?)

It's more significant In my humble opinion that the Papacy didn't emerge until the Roman Empire was taken out of the way, and that the Papacy sits in the Church (the Temple of God) as Prophet, Priest and King i.e. Christ.



> And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time.For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. (II Thess 2:6-7)





> so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. (II Thess 2:4)





> And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.(II Thess 2:8)



I believe that the end of the Papacy will be achieved through our Lord coming by His Word, by His Spirit and in His Providence, long before the end of this present world (see Revelation 19).



> the mystery of lawlessness
> 
> and with all wicked deception



There's something mysterious about this man of lawlessness that you don't have with the Roman Emperors but do have with the Papacy, because who would believe that the head of the largest denomination in the visible Church is a walking, talking idol set up in Christ's place.

People are also led astray by deception under the man of sin, which you didn't get with the Roman Emperors, who used plain persecution to browbeat Christians.


----------



## Presentist (Dec 14, 2011)

earl40 said:


> Look at the chart The Coming of Jesus is a tad past the year 2,000.



The Protestant View (as supported in the confessions) was that the Pope of Rome (who is "that man of sin") would reign 1,260 years. I made the chart to reflect their view as accurately as possible.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 14, 2011)

> would reign 1,260 years.



I don't think the Confessions say how long the Papacy will last, although some Reformed commentators may have speculated on that.


----------



## Presentist (Dec 14, 2011)

Peairtach said:


> I don't think the Confessions say how long the Papacy will last, although some Reformed commentators may have speculated on that.



True, the confession does not say. But it was the standard teaching of the Protestants of their day that the Papacy was "that man of sin" and that the Papacy would reign 1,260 years.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 15, 2011)

Presentist said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think the Confessions say how long the Papacy will last, although some Reformed commentators may have speculated on that.
> ...



Is there no way to redo the chart? Why 1,260?


----------



## Presentist (Dec 15, 2011)

earl40 said:


> Why 1,260?



Because the Bible says "forty [and] two months" (Revelation 13:5) and "a time and times and the dividing of time" (Daniel 7:25). They believed that "prophetical time" is to be counted as "each day for a year" (Ezekial 4:6).

Spurgeon thought the best commentary on Revelation was Horae Apocalypticae...
Link to Vol. I
Link to Vol. II
Link to Vol. III
Link to Vol. IV


----------



## earl40 (Dec 15, 2011)

Presentist said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > Why 1,260?
> ...



I will read. Thanx. Though, what if your grandchildren see this chart 100years from now?


----------



## Presentist (Dec 15, 2011)

earl40 said:


> I will read. Thanx. Though, what if your grandchildren see this chart 100years from now?



I am not saying that they were right or wrong. I simply created a chart that represents the view of the Protestants during the time the confessions were drafted. It remained the standard Protestant View until fairly recently. The Presbyterians did not remove the statement that "the Pope is that man of sin" from their confession until AD 1903. The Baptists have left the statement in the confession but some printings include a disclaimer.

It is still too early to know if they were correct or not. The Pope became a temporal ruler in AD 755/756 and they thought the he would reign 1,260 years. If our grandchildren are here in 100 years, I think the confession will be changed.


----------

