Daniel 7 helps prove when Revelation 20:4 is meaning

[iamlamad]

The Restrainer is, I believe, the Roman Government, the 4th Beast of Dan 7, who unites the Roman Empire, preventing the breakup of that Empire into 10 nations. Antichrist is thus prevented from appearing, since he can only come after the Empire is broken up to unify it under himself. That is explicitly what Dan 7 teaches!

My guess is that's why Paul emphasized a Restrainer, and did not name it. Naming it in the presence of Roman authority would get him jailed. And he surely knew the only prophecy in the Bible that explicitly spoke of Antichrist, the Little Horn! That was Dan 7.

I think you are right, Paul wrote this so that if his letter fell into Roman hands, they could not understand it! Only those who had understood his first letter could understand it. However, we MUST believe Paul expected his readers to understand. Perhaps this is the verse Peter had in mind when He wrote that Paul wrote things hard to understand!

I would say the Roman government is LONG GONE, yet Jesus was speaking of things future to us still today.

Rome had an eastern leg and a western leg. That old government is long gone, yet people live in those same areas. Dan. 7 is a tricky chapter. AT first read, one supposes those 4 beasts were the ancient empires long gone, but then Daniel throws us a curve ball and tells us that at the end, ONE King, the little horn, will be put to death, but AT THE SAME TIME, the other three kings will be allowed to stay alive for ..what was it...a time and a season?

This tells me that these for Beasts represent nations on the maps of TODAY. Iran is still there as Persia, Iraq is still there as Babylon, and Greece is still there as the leopard beast.
How does that final beast fit? It believe it is the empire of the Beast after He rises to power.
Daniel said there are 4 kings. I suspect the leader of Iran today is one of those four.

 

[Timtofly]

This may sound good in someone's imagination, but for this to be true, one would have to MOVE the start of the Day of the Lord from Revelation 6 (where God and John put it) to Revelation 19 where Jesus comes to Armageddon. Why?

It is simple: Paul places the start of the Day AFTER the rapture or the departing. (Paul's letters MUST agree. If it seems his second letter does not agree with his first letter, then there must be a misunderstanding somewhere.)

The Day of the Lord comes like. The Day of the Lord is not the thief in the night moment.

Most use Revelation 19 as the obvious "Second Coming".

Most say the layout of Revelation is different camera views all resulting in Armageddon. Even Revelation 20 is a countdown scenario to Armageddon and the Second Coming to Amil.

But viewing Revelation in that mode of multiple countdowns is very wrong. Armageddon is not even the Second Coming. The thief in the night moment is the 5th and 6th Seal.

The rapture and Second Coming is the 5th and 6th Seal. There is no countdown any where to Armageddon being the Second Coming and thief in the night moment.

The fact is Jesus, the angels, and the 144k leave Jerusalem if Satan is allowed 42 months. Jesus is already on the earth and sitting on His throne in His temple when the 7th Trumpet sounds. The 42 months happen in the midst of the 7th Trumpet sounding. There is no countdown to Armageddon. Armageddon is just when Jesus returns after those 42 months, to take back the throne from Satan. That is when Satan is bound and the Day of the Lord starts.

The thief in the night moment is like a snow plow clearing the road after a heavy snow. The Day of the Lord is the road without any snow present. So the Day of the Lord comes like a snow plowing clearing out any residual effects of the snow. The 42 months is given to those humans beheaded as an opportunity to remain in the Lamb's book of life.

 

[Timtofly]

I basically agree with what you submitted here. Except I'm assuming you are taking those things in a literal sense, while I myself am not. Revelation 11:2 and that 42 months is clearly meaning the same 42 months recorded in Revelation 13:5. Except I disagree that any of this involves the literal city of Jerusalem and a literal rebuilt temple there. I don't know how anyone could possibly read Revelation 13 and see that involving the literal city of Jerusalem and a literal rebuilt temple there? That is reading things into the text big time things not remotely found in the text.

If you argue that Matthew 24:15, for instance, proves this involves the literal city Jerusalem, the fact it indicates those in Judea are to flee, you should be interpreting that in light of what is recorded in Revelation 13 first, rather than interpreting Revelation 13 in light of what is recorded in Matthew 24:15. IOW, by interpreting Revelation 13 based on how one is interpreting Matthew 24:15 first, makes nonsense out of the entire 13th chapter in Revelation. That chapter is involving global events, not regional only events.

Of course the AoD is the same event in verse 15 as in verse 7

"And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him."

"When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:"

People all over the earth don't have to flee Judaea. Only those around Jerusalem need to flee. But this AoD is global. Revelation is explaining Matthew 24 in greater detail. The throne and temple trampled are in Jerusalem. Those in the vicinity of Jerusalem do need to flee. Those all over the earth will be forced to worship Satan and the FP. They will have 100% authority, because the 7th Trumpet just declared all kingdoms/nations now are under the authority of Jesus as King. People question why would Jesus hand over that authority. Daniel 9:27. Jesus confirms the Atonement Covenant. The many are found in God's foreknowledge who will be beheaded in the next 42 months. These beheaded will be the last on earth to remain redeemed and found in the Lamb's book of life. That is what is being confirmed.

When these future souls are declared still in the Lamb's book of life, God gives them 42 months to make that choice between Satan and being beheaded. Those 42 months are given to Satan allowing the AoD and all activity of Jesus and the 144k in the temple to cease. That they are overcome does not mean defeated in war, nor killed. At this point escaping Adam's dead corruptible flesh and to receive eternal life boils down to the decision between the mark and beheadings. The 144k are not beheaded. Those unbelievers who accept Christ are beheaded as in overcome, but the act itself allows them to be saints, as they are resurrected as saints, not killed for becoming saints. That is the difference between now in the church age, and this horrible time of abomination and desolation. Being beheaded is not out of despair nor suicide. It is an act of faith, cause we know they will be resurrected. They may not have that assurance at this time. But they will make a conscious and free will decision.

 

[rwb]

I'm trying to understand what you're saying, but it's not clear to me. Is it your view that Paul was saying that the gathering together of the church unto Christ can't happen until the church first departs from the earth? If so, isn't that pretty obvious? It goes without saying that meeting with Christ "in the air" (as Paul wrote about previously) would require us departing the earth, doesn't it? Was he really making such an obvious point like that in 2 Thess 2? If so, why?

How could they have known that gathering together with Christ would be when believers meet the Lord in the air? Like most first century believers, and many Christians today they would be expecting Christ to come to them on this earth to establish a physical kingdom, and that is how believers would gather together unto Him. So, Paul tells them and us when Christ comes and we gather together with Him, it will not be on earth, because this earth will be consumed by fire when Christ comes again. When Christ comes again, we will gather together with Him, not on earth, but in the air as we depart from this earth. When the Church gathers together with Christ in the air, departing from this world it will be impossible for lawless man to deny the obvious. The ungodly will be revealed and destroyed by Christ's coming. There won't be a kingdom established on this earth, because time shall be no more.

Again, I am not interested in debating OSAS vs. NOSAS here in this thread. But, regardless of what the departure from the faith in the latter times means in 1 Timothy 4, why can't that be what Paul was talking about in 2 Thess 2 as well?

Because Scripture shows us that men have been physically departing from the Church from the beginning. How could falling away from the faith be what keeps them from being deceived since antichrists have always departed from the faith that saves because they did not have the Holy Spirit faith to give them eternal life. Paul gave conclusive evidence that would keep them and us from being deceived into believing Christ's second coming was imminent or had already come and the Church was left behind.

1 John 2:18-19 (KJV) Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

With all of this said, I'd like to get some clarification on your understanding of something. Do you believe there will be a short time period before Christ's return when wickedness is increased? Is that not what Jesus talked about in Matthew 24:10-14 and is that not what is implied in Revelation 20:7-9?

Yes, I absolutely do believe that when the seventh trumpet begins to sound the time, likened to a thousand years will be finished, Satan will have his "little season." That will be a time of unimaginable persecution for Christians still alive at that time. I have no idea how long Satan's "little season" will last, but I do know that it will be AFTER the thousand symbolic years have expired. And I believe it will be a time of mass martyrdom of Christians, that will last until God sends down fire from heaven to destroy them all.

 

[RandyPNW]

Randy, the word "Revelation" comes from the word "reveal." What is John talking about in verse 6? I believe by "revealed" it means NO ONE WILL KNOW who the man of sin is, until He enters the temple and declares He is the God of the Jews.

For the moment I'm leaving the "temple" part out, since that contains a 2nd argument, which I don't want to confuse with the 1st argument. Yes, Antichrist is "revealed." That is not an obscure statement. He will "come" and be seen. He will "appear" at the appropriate time, when his coming is no longer being restrained.

Many people imagine they will know who the Beast will be at the beginning of the week. (not you, because you imagine the week is historyy.) That is when some covenant is confirmed by the man of sin.

Again, I'm leaving out discussion of the 70th Week, since once again, this contains a separate argument, which I do not wish to confuse and to therefore conflate things that may not belong together.

The 1st thing to decide is what Paul is saying in 2 Thess--not in Dan 9.

 

[RandyPNW]

It is amazing how two people can read the same scriptures and imagine they are meaning things so apposed to each other.

It is what it is. I've changed many views in my eschatology over the last 50 years. We have to remain open to correction, and carefully listen to every argument.

Let's link all these things together:
What are they to flee from? Jesus said from the abomination. Daniel 9:27 tell us that the week will be divided in half. (The half is the definition of the Hebrew word translated as "midst."

There are different views of Dan 9.27. My own is that the 70th Week is actually a half Week ending with the crucifixion of Christ. This terminates the 70 Weeks Prophecy. But the prophecy continues by declaring that the city and the sanctuary will be destroyed by "the people of the prince to come."

This was, I believe, the Roman Army that arrived in 70 AD, destroying both Jerusalem and the temple. And it happened in the same basic generation as the one in which Jesus was crucified.

Jesus told his disciples that the coming Jewish Punishment was not for his Disciples, and that they should flee when they see this Army approach. That happened in 66 AD, when Cestius Gallus withdrew from Jerusalem, giving Christians time to flee to Pella.

 

[RandyPNW]

By the very definition of revealed.
"make (previously unknown or secret information) known to others."

I don't see any difference in "appearance" and revealed. When he is revealed, he will appear to all who are looking.

Yes, "revelation" and "appearance" I use interchangeably.

 

[RandyPNW]

I know I am slow, but I am not getting this. Can you please explain this more fully? It seems like we are going in circles and not getting anywhere.

I understand, of course the restraining power is NOT the one being restrained.

The restraining power is the Holy Spirit and the thing being restrained or held back is the revealing (so all will know who he is) of the man of sin.

For example, chapters are 99.99999% that he is alive on earth at this point in time, but NO ONE knows who he is. Some imagine he is our former president. We won't know until he enters the temple and declares he is the God of the Jews. THEN He is "revealed."
(But this cannot happen until the Holy Spirit is taken out of the way at the rapture. He is working through the church to hold back this revealing.)

What you're not understanding is that I don't believe the Holy Spirit is the "Restrainer." You assume everybody agrees on this, but the Early Church Fathers largely believed it was a reference to then-current Roman Government. Dan 7 indicated that the 4th Kingdom, Rome, had to be divided into 10 before Antichrist could be revealed.

 

[RandyPNW]

iamlamad said: ↑
We are left with two possibilities: a falling away (from what Paul did not specify) that was the restraining power taken out of the way or else the departing of the church as in the rapture as the restraining power taken out of the way. It must be one or the other, for Paul to write that the man of sin IS revealed in 3b.

This is why we're not understanding one another! You insert only 2 possibilities when that is not the case. You say that one possibility is that it is a "Falling Away" with the necessary corollary that it was "the restraining power taken out of the way."

I don't believe this is true, and it certainly isn't what I believe! I do agree that one possibility is that apostasia is a "falling away." But I do *not* agree with your corollary that it has anything to do with removing the restraint of Antichrist.

The "falling away" has to do with a return to paganism in Christian history, perhaps beginning with the Renaissance or with the Enlightenment, which will lead to Antichrist's full on return to paganism in the heart of original Christianity. This "falling away" is referenced in Dan 7 and has nothing to do with removing the restraint of Antichrist's appearance.

What restrained Antichrist's appearance, in my opinion, was the existence of ancient Roman government, which had united the Empire under the Caesars. Until this ancient form of the Roman Empire fell, it was impossible that Antichrist be revealed.

 

[RandyPNW]

I think you are right, Paul wrote this so that if his letter fell into Roman hands, they could not understand it! Only those who had understood his first letter could understand it. However, we MUST believe Paul expected his readers to understand. Perhaps this is the verse Peter had in mind when He wrote that Paul wrote things hard to understand!

I would say the Roman government is LONG GONE, yet Jesus was speaking of things future to us still today.

Rome had an eastern leg and a western leg. That old government is long gone, yet people live in those same areas. Dan. 7 is a tricky chapter. AT first read, one supposes those 4 beasts were the ancient empires long gone, but then Daniel throws us a curve ball and tells us that at the end, ONE King, the little horn, will be put to death, but AT THE SAME TIME, the other three kings will be allowed to stay alive for ..what was it...a time and a season?

This tells me that these for Beasts represent nations on the maps of TODAY. Iran is still there as Persia, Iraq is still there as Babylon, and Greece is still there as the leopard beast.
How does that final beast fit? It believe it is the empire of the Beast after He rises to power.
Daniel said there are 4 kings. I suspect the leader of Iran today is one of those four.

I see it differently. I apologize if I'm a bit repetitive today--I'm revisiting this subject more completely. I see the Roman Empire as the "4th Kingdom" in Dan 7, which is the final one in history, and the one Antichrist assumes control over. The "death" of the Beast may have to do with the fact the Roman Empire fell in its ancient form, only to be divided into 10 nations and reunited under the Antichrist. The "Beast," in the book of Revelation, identifies the Antichrist as both an empire and an emperor. They are virtually interchangeable, and only the context determines which is being referred to.

 

[iamlamad]

This is why we're not understanding one another! You insert only 2 possibilities when that is not the case. You say that one possibility is that it is a "Falling Away" with the necessary corollary that it was "the restraining power taken out of the way."

I don't believe this is true, and it certainly isn't what I believe! I do agree that one possibility is that apostasia is a "falling away." But I do *not* agree with your corollary that it has anything to do with removing the restraint of Antichrist.

The "falling away" has to do with a return to paganism in Christian history, perhaps beginning with the Renaissance or with the Enlightenment, which will lead to Antichrist's full on return to paganism in the heart of original Christianity. This "falling away" is referenced in Dan 7 and has nothing to do with removing the restraint of Antichrist's appearance.

What restrained Antichrist's appearance, in my opinion, was the existence of ancient Roman government, which had united the Empire under the Caesars. Until this ancient form of the Roman Empire fell, it was impossible that Antichrist be revealed.

It seems you imagine that in verses 6-8 Paul changed the subject. I assure you, he did not. He is still talking about the coming and the gathering as he wrote in verse 1. Did you not notice how Paul wrote this passage with parallels?

3) verses 7-8: restrainer removed; THEN the lawless one will be revealed

2) Verse 6: And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed

1) Verse 3: ... if the [apostasia]* may not come first, and the man of sin be revealed...

I am convinced this was no coincidence. This is one reason why I am sure the restrainer is hidden in the word, apostasia. There is no other word in verse 3a that could possibly be something departed or taken out of the way.

 

[RandyPNW]

It seems you imagine that in verses 6-8 Paul changed the subject. I assure you, he did not. He is still talking about the coming and the gathering as he wrote in verse 1. Did you not notice how Paul wrote this passage with parallels?

3) verses 7-8: restrainer removed; THEN the lawless one will be revealed

2) Verse 6: And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed

1) Verse 3: ... if the [apostasia]* may not come first, and the man of sin be revealed...

I am convinced this was no coincidence. This is one reason why I am sure the restrainer is hidden in the word, apostasia. There is no other word in verse 3a that could possibly be something departed or taken out of the way.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Certainly the whole passage is predicated on the fact Jesus' Coming for his Church is not something that has already happened, that something must precede it.

Talking about what is presently hindering the appearance of Antichrist is where we can't agree. To me it's simple, but you seem to want to construct the sentences to form an argument for what you want to believe.

If you just read it as it is, without trying to figure out who the Restrainer is, it means just what I said. The Antichrist isn't here yet, because he's presently being restrained. And Christ cannot have come with his Kingdom yet, because Antichrist must appear first.

And that's because a major purpose for Christ's Coming is to destroy Antichrist. He can't do that until Antichrist actually comes!

Paul's argument for this must've come from Dan 7, the only OT treatment of Antichrist. In that passage, Antichrist appears 1st, and then the Son of Man comes with the clouds to defeat Antichrist and to set up God's Kingdom on earth.

Paul is just reiterating the same. Simple.

 

[DavidPT]

It seems you imagine that in verses 6-8 Paul changed the subject. I assure you, he did not. He is still talking about the coming and the gathering as he wrote in verse 1. Did you not notice how Paul wrote this passage with parallels?

3) verses 7-8: restrainer removed; THEN the lawless one will be revealed

2) Verse 6: And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed

1) Verse 3: ... if the [apostasia]* may not come first, and the man of sin be revealed...

I am convinced this was no coincidence. This is one reason why I am sure the restrainer is hidden in the word, apostasia. There is no other word in verse 3a that could possibly be something departed or taken out of the way.

It's real simple in my opinion. apostasia in that verse is connected with the following in Daniel 8. And why not, if one disagrees, the fact the Prince of princes in Daniel 8:25 is obviously meaning Christ? That obviously places the timing of Daniel 8:23 during when 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8 is meaning.

Daniel 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

transgressors
pasha`
paw-shah'
a primitive root (identical with 'pasa`' (6585) through the idea of expansion); to break away (from just authority), i.e. trespass, apostatize , quarrel:--offend, rebel, revolt, transgress(-ion, -or).


Clearly,---a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up---is meaning this in 2 Thessalonians 2:4---who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped ; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God

Which then is meaning this same one recorded in Daniel 11:36---And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god , and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

Which then is meaning this one in Revelation 13:6---And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God

Also, in Daniel 11:36--this---and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished---is obviously meaning this in Revelation 13:5---and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months

And in Daniel 8:25---this---he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand---is obviously referring to Revelation 19:19-20.

Maybe this includes you, maybe it doesn't, but how anyone can see any of the above in Daniel 8 and Daniel 11 involving Antiochus IV Epiphanes is laughable to say the least. As if it makes logical sense that A4E stood up against the Prince of princes, meaning Christ, before Christ was even born.

 

[iamlamad]

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Certainly the whole passage is predicated on the fact Jesus' Coming for his Church is not something that has already happened, that something must precede it.

Talking about what is presently hindering the appearance of Antichrist is where we can't agree. To me it's simple, but you seem to want to construct the sentences to form an argument for what you want to believe.

No, I disagree. I read in verses 7 & 8 that the man of sin CANNOT be revealed until the power restraining or holding back that revealing is first taken out of the way. Then, and only then, can he be revealed.

Then I read what Paul wrote before that, verse 3, and discover that in 3b, the man if sin IS revealed in Paul's discussion. Don't you find it strange that Paul got him revealed in verse 3, told what he would do once revealed in verse 4, but then wrote in verses 6-8 that he cannot be revealed unless....?
I am just trying to discover Paul's real meaning.

I think this is why Paul wrote, 'And now you know..." He had just told us, but told us in a strange way. He wanted his readers to go back and find out where something was "taken out of the way."

If you just read it as it is, without trying to figure out who the Restrainer is, it means just what I said. The Antichrist isn't here yet, because he's presently being restrained. And Christ cannot have come with his Kingdom yet, because Antichrist must appear first.

And that's because a major purpose for Christ's Coming is to destroy Antichrist. He can't do that until Antichrist actually comes!

Paul's argument for this must've come from Dan 7, the only OT treatment of Antichrist. In that passage, Antichrist appears 1st, and then the Son of Man comes with the clouds to defeat Antichrist and to set up God's Kingdom on earth.

Paul is just reiterating the same. Simple.

Yes, simple if you just read over it quickly as many people do. I have often wondered why Paul didn't just write, "no, the Day of the Lord has not come, and you are not in it." My guess is, he wanted to teach them more, but since it was a letter, he did not wish to offend any Roman reader if it fell into Roman hands. We will have to ask Paul when we see Him.

Since you are I disagree in points far more major than this, there is just not going to be much we agree on. For example, I believe the entire 70th week is ahead of us. I can't understand how some event can divide the week, and end up with half a week, when there was not a whole week to divide. If a half week was divided, that would leave only quarters. Yet, five times John mentioned half weeks.


I would disagree on one more point: I think what Paul wrote, he got from direct revelation from Jesus. Or perhaps from direct revelation and from Daniel.

 

[iamlamad]

It's real simple in my opinion. apostasia in that verse is connected with the following in Daniel 8. And why not, if one disagrees, the fact the Prince of princes in Daniel 8:25 is obviously meaning Christ? That obviously places the timing of Daniel 8:23 during when 2 Thessalonians 2:3-8 is meaning.

Daniel 8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

transgressors
pasha`
paw-shah'
a primitive root (identical with 'pasa`' (6585) through the idea of expansion); to break away (from just authority), i.e. trespass, apostatize , quarrel:--offend, rebel, revolt, transgress(-ion, -or).


Clearly,---a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up---is meaning this in 2 Thessalonians 2:4---who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped ; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God

I could not disagree more. If we keep all the verses in Daniel 8 in the context of Persia and then Greece, then in the latter days of Greece, Daniel is taking about Antiochus. I simply will not pull verses out of their context. HOW did Antiochus come against Jesus Christ? Very simple, It was the pre-incarnate Jesus that STARTED the temple sacrifices. When Antiochus prevented the people from following the law, he was in God's face.

Which then is meaning this same one recorded in Daniel 11:36---And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god , and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

Which then is meaning this one in Revelation 13:6---And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God

Also, in Daniel 11:36--this---and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished---is obviously meaning this in Revelation 13:5---and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months

And in Daniel 8:25---this---he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand---is obviously referring to Revelation 19:19-20.

I agree, your verses in Daniel 11 and in Revelation are talking about the first Beast of Rev. 13. I would add, also the Little Horn of Daniel 7 - all the same guy. But in Daniel 8, it is about Antiochus, who is a type of the Antichrist Beast.

Maybe this includes you, maybe it doesn't, but how anyone can see any of the above in Daniel 8 and Daniel 11 involving Antiochus IV Epiphanes is laughable to say the least. As if it makes logical sense that A4E stood up against the Prince of princes, meaning Christ, before Christ was even born.

Laughable?
The vision began with a ram that no one could defeat: PERSIA.
Next came a goat with a notable horm: Alexander the Great is the horn and the goat is Greece.
The goat defeated the ram, as Alexander defeated Persia.
Then the notable horn was broken: Alexander the Great died.
Four horns came up to replace the one. That would be Lysimachus, Cassander, Ptolomy 1, Seleucus.

So far, is there even ONE HINT that this is about our future? No, not one.

Out of ONE of the four, came a "Little horn" that grew exceedingly great towards the Holy Land.
His army then prevented ANY KIND of following the law - so was in God's face.
Then the angel confirmed all this:

20 The ram which you saw, having the two horns—they are the kings of Media and Persia. 21 And the male goat is the kingdom of Greece. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king. 22 As for the broken horn and the four that stood up in its place, four kingdoms shall arise out of that nation, but not with its power.

Then Daniel wrote:

“And in the latter time of their kingdom,
When the transgressors have reached their fullness,
A king shall arise,

WHO is "their?" "their kingdom?" It would be the Greek Kingdom divided four ways. This is again talking about the Little horn, Antiochus.

Where then is there a slightest hint of anything future to us?

 

[iamlamad]

I see it differently. I apologize if I'm a bit repetitive today--I'm revisiting this subject more completely. I see the Roman Empire as the "4th Kingdom" in Dan 7, which is the final one in history, and the one Antichrist assumes control over. The "death" of the Beast may have to do with the fact the Roman Empire fell in its ancient form, only to be divided into 10 nations and reunited under the Antichrist. The "Beast," in the book of Revelation, identifies the Antichrist as both an empire and an emperor. They are virtually interchangeable, and only the context determines which is being referred to.

It is not the Beast as a man that dies, it is ONE of his heads. This is speaking, not of the man, but of his kingdom. Five where come and gone by that time: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, then Greece. What country today speaks of Babylon? That would be Iraq. Did Iraq recently receive a deadly wound? Was their king put to death? Yes. This seems to fit.

 

[RandyPNW]

It is not the Beast as a man that dies, it is ONE of his heads. This is speaking, not of the man, but of his kingdom. Five where come and gone by that time: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, then Greece. What country today speaks of Babylon? That would be Iraq. Did Iraq recently receive a deadly wound? Was their king put to death? Yes. This seems to fit.

I see the "heads" as individual kings, as opposed to their kingdoms. "Beast" can refer either to the man Antichrist or to his Kingdom. Context determines.

Since based on Dan 7 Antichrist has 7 individual kings and 10 nations, ie 7 heads and 10 horns, then it is the individual king who is mortally wounded. In the case of the Antichrist, that only have referred to some king in the past whose reputation is resuscitated in Antichrist.

Since John said he "is not," ie not presently existing, then it could refer to Nero, who became the exemplary "666." Nero was the prototype of the Antichrist. And I believe he had died by the time of John's Revelation?

But I'm wide open on the subject. This has been a thorn in my understanding of Revelation, and I hope to achieve more clarity. Thanks.

 

[RandyPNW]

No, I disagree. I read in verses 7 & 8 that the man of sin CANNOT be revealed until the power restraining or holding back that revealing is first taken out of the way. Then, and only then, can he be revealed.

That is basically a truism. How can anybody disagree on this? A person cannot come through a door unless it is 1st opened. A person who is being restrained cannot appear until he is released. The Antichrist cannot appear until that which restrains him is released.

So we determine what the restraint is, and who the Restrainer is. Then based on our preliminary thoughts we draw certain conclusions. You assume the Restrainer is the Holy Spirit or the Church, and so you conclude that the Church is Raptured prematurely, in order for the Antichrist to appear.

I see it very differently, and much as the Church Fathers did. Based on Dan 7, the early stage of the Roman Empire, the 4th Kingdom, prevents the Little Horn, ie the Antichrist, from appearing. He cannot appear until the early Empire stops restraining him from appearing. The early form of the Kingdom must dissolve into 10 kingdoms in order for Antichrist to impose his power on this tradition to take control of it.

I think this is why Paul wrote, 'And now you know..." He had just told us, but told us in a strange way. He wanted his readers to go back and find out where something was "taken out of the way."

I agree. It depends on your presupposition of what it was Paul's referring to. I think it's Dan 7. You are probably looking elsewhere? But I would remind you--the only place in the OT Scriptures that detail the Antichrist in any sense is in Dan 7! Paul had to have gotten his information from there, in my opinion.

Yes, simple if you just read over it quickly as many people do. I have often wondered why Paul didn't just write, "no, the Day of the Lord has not come, and you are not in it." My guess is, he wanted to teach them more, but since it was a letter, he did not wish to offend any Roman reader if it fell into Roman hands. We will have to ask Paul when we see Him.

I didn't read this "quickly," brother! I memorized the entire letter! And that's what converted me from Pretrib to Postrib--my own reading! In my view, it is explicitly Postrib in Paul's teaching. Without explicit teaching you can form any "doctrine" you wish to form and believe in.

I find it terribly important to recognize if the Holy Spirit teaches something explicitly or not. If not, we should be very cautious, and not teach that thing as "doctrine." When the Holy Spirit wants us to embrace something as *doctrine,* He makes the point explicitly clear.

Some things are a bit hidden. Some Christian cults do not find in Jesus' words explicit references to his own Deity, and so deny that. Well, Jesus told us not to throw our pearls to the swine. They wont' believe, and if you try to feed them with something precious, they will just trample it.

But Jesus was pretty explicit, in his somewhat private way, about his Deity. Those of faith not only believe that's what he taught, but also that it was perfectly understandable to those of faith. It was those who did not have faith who refused to learn lessons from Jesus' parables.

But something like Postrib and Pretrib, I need more than parables, which is the Pretrib approach. Postrib claims to have the explicit teaching I refer to. 2 Thes 2 fits into this.

Since you are I disagree in points far more major than this, there is just not going to be much we agree on. For example, I believe the entire 70th week is ahead of us. I can't understand how some event can divide the week, and end up with half a week, when there was not a whole week to divide. If a half week was divided, that would leave only quarters. Yet, five times John mentioned half weeks.

The 70th Week is in itself a long subject. Best to discuss that in its own thread, though.

I would disagree on one more point: I think what Paul wrote, he got from direct revelation from Jesus. Or perhaps from direct revelation and from Daniel.

As I said, Pretrib bases its position on faith that is rather subjective, and tied to parables. Postrib has faith that is centered on explicit doctrine, as we read the pertinent passages. Obviously, we're going to read those passages differently.

Thanks for the discussion. It was friendly.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

How could they have known that gathering together with Christ would be when believers meet the Lord in the air?

Because he had already written about that in his first letter to them. What else would they have understood him to be talking about? If they paid attention and understood what he had written to them in the first letter, then it would have been clear as to what he was referring to in 2 Thess 2 when he referenced their gathering unto Him.

Like most first century believers, and many Christians today they would be expecting Christ to come to them on this earth to establish a physical kingdom, and that is how believers would gather together unto Him. So, Paul tells them and us when Christ comes and we gather together with Him, it will not be on earth, because this earth will be consumed by fire when Christ comes again. When Christ comes again, we will gather together with Him, not on earth, but in the air as we depart from this earth. When the Church gathers together with Christ in the air, departing from this world it will be impossible for lawless man to deny the obvious. The ungodly will be revealed and destroyed by Christ's coming. There won't be a kingdom established on this earth, because time shall be no more.

We were discussing the timing of the departure in relation to the timing of the His second coming and our being gathered to Him. Paul said that the departure has to happen first before being gathered to Him. It seems to me that you're saying that the departure had to happen before the departure since in your view the departure is us departing the earth and being gathered to him. If you think Paul was saying that we first have to depart the earth before being gathered to Him in the air, then please explain why Paul would have made such an obvious point as that? Wouldn't it go without saying that we'd have to depart the earth first before being gathered to Him in the air?

Because Scripture shows us that men have been physically departing from the Church from the beginning.

Yes, but Paul was talking about it in 1 Timothy 4:1-3 as something that would happen in the future "latter times". So, he could not have been speaking generally there about something that has happened from the beginning. Do you understand that? That wouldn't make sense. He must have been talking about a time when it would happen more frequently. That would line up with what Jesus said here:

Matthew 24:10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Do you see here where Jesus was talking about a future time when many would turn away from the faith. A time of increased wickedness. Yes, there would be some people turning away from the faith and there would be wickedness from that point on, but He was talking about a time of increased wickedness and an increase in the number of people turning away from the faith. So, why couldn't Paul have also been writing about that in 2 Thess 2?

How could falling away from the faith be what keeps them from being deceived

I don't understand this question. When did I say that falling away from the faith would keep someone from being deceived? That obviously doesn't make any sense.

Yes, I absolutely do believe that when the seventh trumpet begins to sound the time, likened to a thousand years will be finished, Satan will have his "little season."

I believe Satan's little season begins at the sounding of the fifth trumpet. Once the seventh trumpet sounds the end will come. There will be no time for a "little season" at that point. If you read Revelation 9 you can see that the bottomless pit/abyss is opened when the fifth trumpet sounds and then the locusts, which I believe figuratively represent fallen angels, are then loosed from there. I believe Abaddon/Apollyon is another name for Satan and it says he is the angel of the abyss/bottomless pit. So, that is when I believe Satan will be loosed.

That will be a time of unimaginable persecution for Christians still alive at that time. I have no idea how long Satan's "little season" will last, but I do know that it will be AFTER the thousand symbolic years have expired. And I believe it will be a time of mass martyrdom of Christians, that will last until God sends down fire from heaven to destroy them all.

I agree. And with Satan being loosed during that time, it makes sense that there would be an increase in wickedness and the number of people departing from the faith, wouldn't you agree? So, why couldn't Paul have been writing about that in 2 Thess 2?

 

[DavidPT]

Since John said he "is not," ie not presently existing, then it could refer to Nero, who became the exemplary "666." Nero was the prototype of the Antichrist. And I believe he had died by the time of John's Revelation?

Wouldn't it make better sense to interpret that to mean the beast is in the pit at the time? After all, in order to ascend from the pit eventually, this requires that the beast has to be in the pit first. Which should also mean that when the beast 'was', this indicates that the beast wasn't in the pit yet. By making Nero the beast logically means Nero will ascend out of the pit eventually. I find that totally unreasonable myself, as if Nero could somehow be relevant in the end of this age, and that when Christ returns it is a resurrected Nero that is cast into the LOF in Revelation 19:20.

We have to keep in mind that the beast that ascends out of the pit, this has to be the same beast that got put into the pit. Otherwise, how does one explain how the beast acends out of the pit it was never in? That doesn't make sense, right?