FulfilledOne Column Page
and responsive to boot
Abomination,
Rebellion, and Lawlessness
by
Edward E. Stevens
This article appeared in the 2021 Summer issue of Fulfilled! Magazine
In our previous article we saw
how both Jesus and Paul sequenced the Parousia immediately
after the tribulation, but before God’s wrath was poured
out. In this article we will examine three events which “cut
short” the tribulation just before Jesus came to rescue His
saints: (1) the Abomination of Desolation; (2) the Rebellion; and
(3) the Man of Lawlessness.
We will see not only where these
events fit into the overall sequence of endtime events, but
also how they were fulfilled in history. All three events
were directly related to each other, and together combined
to generate the abominable circumstances which ultimately
led to the desolation of Jerusalem and the temple.
The Abomination of Desolation
According to Luke 21:20, when the
saints saw armies encircling Jerusalem (like vultures
circling in the sky above a dead carcass), they would then
know that its desolation was near. Thus, the Abomination
had something to do with armies defiling Jerusalem and the
temple, and ultimately causing their desolation (cf. Matt
24:15; Mark 13:14).
Gessius Florus,
Roman governor of Judea, AD 64-66, did everything possible
to stir up a revolt in Judea, and he succeeded. In early May
of AD 66, not long after Passover (Apr 10th), he provoked
the Jews by demanding 17 talents of gold from the temple
treasury. After some impetuous youths mocked the greediness
of Florus, he retaliated by sending his soldiers into the
marketplace where they killed 3600 citizens [Wars
2.293-315 (2.14.6–2.15.2)]. The Jews were justifiably
outraged.
Florus then brought two
additional cohorts of soldiers to Jerusalem in order to
seize all of the gold in the temple. As they approached, the
soldiers killed a great many citizens outside the gates. And
when they got inside the city, they headed straight toward
the temple.
However, Eleazar b. Ananias,
captain of the temple guard, aware of their intentions,
blew the ram’s horn to rally the citizens, who then
blocked the lanes of the city and prevented the soldiers’
advance to the temple. Thus, frustrated in his attempt to
plunder the temple, Florus withdrew his soldiers and
returned to Caesarea [Wars 2.315-332 (2.15.2 –
2.15.6)]. Had he been successful, the temple would have been
defiled by unclean, uncircumcised Roman soldiers.
Nevertheless, the temple was
immediately afterwards polluted in a far more abominable
way. On this very occasion (May 12th, 66), Eleazar b.
Ananias took full control of the temple, and
unlawfully used it as his fortress during the
Jewish/Roman war [Wars 4:151 (4.3.7)].
This was the beginning of the
rebellion (Yosippon, chs. 59 and 89 fn 538), which “cut
short” the Great Tribulation for the sake of the elect.
And it set the stage for the Parousia to occur
immediately afterward, so that the elect could be
gathered out of harm’s way before the wrath was poured out
on their persecutors (Matt 24:21-29; cf. 2 Thess 1:4-10).
The 'Apostasy' Was The Rebellion
Paul told the Thessalonians that
the Day of the Lord, including the Parousia and the
Gathering, would not come “unless the apostasy
comes first, and the Man of Lawlessness is revealed”
(2 Thess 2:2-3). What was this “apostasy” that had to
occur before the Parousia?
“Apostasy” comes from the Greek
word apostasia which usually means “rebellion.” The
BDAG lexicon defines it as “defiance of established system
or authority, rebellion, abandonment, breach of
faith.” Then it claims that the usage here in 2
Thessalonians 2:3 refers to “the rebellion caused by the
Lawless One in the last days.”
Charles Wanamaker (NIGTC
commentary on 2 Thess) goes further to note that:
“the rebellion referred to
is a religious one directed against God . . . [and] the
reference to the temple in [2 Thess 2:4] suggests that
[Paul] is working with a traditional apocalyptic
understanding in which . . . the Jews would rebel against
God and the Law at the time of the end. . . . [This]
apostasy was to come about through the activity of the
[Man of Lawlessness].”
Thus, in 2 Thessalonians 2:3,
Paul is saying that some Jewish leader would lead a
rebellion against God and the Law. That explains why
Paul calls him a Man of Lawlessness—he has forsaken
the Law and leads others to do the same. And as we shall see
below, this perfectly describes the activity of Eleazar
b. Ananias.
Moreover, it needs to be noted
that Jesus used the phrase “Abomination of Desolation” to
label the event which Paul here describes as the “rebellion”
instigated by the Man of Lawlessness. Two different terms,
but both referring to the same event. We know this because
both the Abomination and the Rebellion are
found at the same place in the sequence of end-time
events—i.e., just before the Parousia began.
The Man of Lawlessness
Paul’s description in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 provides numerous clues to help identify the Man of Lawlessness (“the son of destruction”). Paul portrays him as being a very arrogant and lawless Jewish leader who initiated the rebellion, took control of the temple, was initially under the influence of some restraining force, but ultimately engaged in deception using satanic power, signs, and false wonders.
When we compare that description
to the historical account recorded by Josephus, there is
only one person who meets all of those qualifications—Eleazar
b. Ananias. Hegesippus (5:53) says that
Eleazar was the “originator” (instigator) of the
rebellion when he blew the shofar and took control
of the temple from that day onward (May 12th, 66). Thus,
“the war began with the revolt against Florus” [Sepher
Yosippon, Chs. 59; and 89 footnote 538, cf. Jos.
Antiq. 20.257 (20.11.1)].
So, it appears that the encounter
between Florus and Eleazar in early May of 66 was the time
when the Abomination was set up, the rebellion
began, and the identity of the Man of Lawlessness was
first revealed. That was when Eleazar seized control of the
temple to use as his “shop of tyranny” [Wars
4:151 (4.3.7)]. He brought his soldiers into the temple and
committed many other lawless actions which
invalidated all of its sacred ministrations.
From that time onward, the temple
was constantly desecrated, defiled, and
polluted by bloodshed and other lawless atrocities which
Eleazar allowed to occur both inside the temple, and in
Jerusalem. Josephus condemned and lamented all of those
“abominations” [Wars 2:455 (2.17.10); 4:162-163
(4.3.10); 4:201 (4.3.12); 4:323 (4.5.2); 4:388 (4.6.3);
5:14-19 (5.1.3); 5:402 (5.9.4); 6:110 (6.2.1); 6:126
(6.2.4)].
The Restrainer Was Removed
The former high priest,
Ananias b. Nedebaeus, father of Eleazar, was
probably the most powerful ruler of the Jews at that time.
He was a moderate and a pro-Roman loyalist. And he was a
restraining influence both upon his son Eleazar, and
against the Zealot cause. That is why the Zealot rebels
killed him soon after the rebellion began [Wars 2:441
(2.17.9)]. His death not only fulfilled Apostle Paul’s
prediction from eight years earlier in AD 58 (Acts 23:1-3),
but also his prophecy in AD 52 about the restrainer being
taken out of the way (2 Thess 2:7).
Paul characterized Ananias as
being a law-breaker (Acts 23:1-3), so it is no
surprise to see his son Eleazar become an even worse
law-breaker after his father’s restraining influence
was removed. Then Eleazar’s true lawless character was
further revealed. Almost immediately, Eleazar avenged
his father’s death by killing Menahem, the Zealot leader who
had murdered his father [Wars 2:442-448 (2.17.9)].
This temporarily consolidated most of the Zealot forces
underneath Eleazar’s control. And now that he was
free from his father’s restraining influence,
his lawless conduct rapidly escalated, and his
identity as the Man of Lawlessness was fully revealed.
Conclusion
We have not only historically
identified the Abomination, Rebellion, and
Man of Lawlessness, but have also seen the sequence
in which they actually occurred. Studies like this clearly
illustrate why a knowledge of first-century history is so
vitally important.
Without knowing the history, we would be left to guess and speculate like the futurists. Since futurists do not believe these events have occurred, history is not relevant to them. But it is supremely relevant and absolutely essential for preterists. We can never be certain that we are correctly identifying and sequencing these events unless we match them with historical accounts, as we have done here. I hope this helps you in your studies, as much as it helped me.
If you would like to see more of
the historical details about these things, simply send an
email request for the following PDF document: Outbreak of
Rebellion: The Real History. Here is my email address:
preterist1@preterist.org
Comments:
Your honest review will help others in their search for truth. If you must leave a negative review please be gracious.
Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every
way into him who the head, into Christ . . . .
(Ephesians 4:15)
