Introduction
Critics of Full Preterism often mischaracterize the view that Christ’s Parousia, the Day of the Lord, and the resurrection were spiritually fulfilled in AD 70 as akin to the premature eschatological errors condemned in 2 Thessalonians 2:1–2 and 2 Timothy 2:17–18. These passages, however, do not refute Full Preterism but rather align with it when understood in their first-century context. In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul addresses false teachings that the Day of the Lord had already arrived before key prophetic signs, such as the apostasy and revelation of the man of lawlessness, had occurred—events that Full Preterism locates in the lead-up to Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70. Similarly, in 2 Timothy 2:17–18, Hymenaeus and Philetus are condemned for teaching a resurrection that had “already happened” in a way that perpetuated old covenant structures, a heresy that actually mirrors the implications of futurism rather than preterism. Paul further affirms the imminent spiritual fulfillment in AD 70 by declaring: “I testify, then, before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is about to judge living and dead at his manifestation / appearing and his reign (2 Timothy 4:1 YLT).” Ironically, partial preterist Keith A. Mathison, in his critique of Full Preterism (When Shall These Things Be?), warns against applying 2 Timothy 2:17–18 to preterists, acknowledging that a spiritual resurrection could indeed have occurred in AD 70. This article bridges these passages by demonstrating their shared emphasis on an imminent, spiritual fulfillment tied to the end of the old covenant age, consistently applying Mathison’s argument from silence in 2 Thessalonians 2 and extending it to 2 Timothy 2. By examining the apocalyptic language, historical parallels, and intertextual connections (e.g., to Matthew 24, Isaiah 27, and Revelation 20), we will show how both texts point to AD 70 as the climactic realization of Christ’s coming, gathering, and resurrection—vindicating the Thessalonian believers and Timothy’s audience while judging apostate Israel.
2 Thessalonians 2:1-12
Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has already come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 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. 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. The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore, God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
While partial preterists such as Kenneth Gentry artificially separate the coming of Christ from 2 Thessalonians 1 from the coming in chapter 2, it is clear that both passages refer to the same event—Christ’s coming in judgment and vengeance upon His enemies, and in vindication, salvation, and relief for the Thessalonian believers.
In chapter 2, Paul addresses the false teaching that this coming had already occurred, a claim that had unsettled some in the Thessalonian church (2 Thess. 2:1–2). Paul countered this false teaching by explaining that certain events must take place first: namely, the apostasy (understood as the Roman/Jewish “rebellion”) and the revealing of the “man of lawlessness.”
Therefore, it is important to address this passage as well. To support the claim that this passage was fulfilled in AD 70, let us again examine the argument from one of my partial preterist opponents—Keith Mathison—who identifies three major difficulties with applying 2 Thessalonians 2 to an end-of-world-history scenario:
“As in the case of 1 Thess. 5, no commentator who approaches this text under the assumption that it refers to the events surrounding the second coming [an end of world history event] has ever been able to offer an even remotely plausible explanation for the belief of the Thessalonian Christians that the day of the Lord had already come. If we grant the assumptions of these commentators, then Paul has already told them in his first epistle that this event would involve the bodily resurrection of the dead and the “catching up” in the air of those who would still be alive to be with the Lord forever. Unless one concludes that the Thessalonian Christians were profoundly oblivious to reality, there is no explanation for why they would have believed that this had already taken place.
Futurist interpreters have also failed to offer a plausible explanation of Paul’s argumentation in 2 Thess. 2. If the “coming” of Christ, or “gathering” to Him, and the day of the Lord in this chapter refer to the Second Advent [end of world history], the Rapture, and the bodily resurrection of the dead, then it is necessary to explain Paul’s method of proving that these things had not yet occurred. Why would Paul have tried to convince a group of believers that the Rapture and the bodily resurrection of all believers had not yet occurred by arguing that the apostasy and revelation of the man of lawlessness must come first? If this chapter is referring to the Second Advent, the Rapture, and the bodily resurrection of the dead, the proof that these things had not yet happened would have been far more simple and obvious. The entire argument of 2 Thess. 2 could have been reduced to the single question, Are you still here?
The third major difficulty facing futurist interpretations of 2 Thess. 2 is the large number of references within the chapter itself which indicate a first-century fulfillment. Whoever the man of lawlessness is, Paul refers to him as being restrained “now” (2:6). In other words, the man of lawlessness was being restrained at the time when Paul wrote this letter. Again, in verse 7, Paul tells his readers that “the mystery of lawlessness is already at work.” Also in verse 7, the restrainer of the man of lawlessness “now” restrains him. Finally, the numerous parallels between this chapter and the Olivet discourse, which is clearly tied to a first-century fulfillment, indicate a first-century fulfillment of this chapter, too. Some of these parallels are:
- A coming of our Lord (2 Thess. 2:1; cf. Matt. 24:27, 30),
- A gathering together to Him (2 Thess. 2:1; cf. Matt. 24:31),
- Apostasy (2 Thess. 2:3; cf. Matt. 24:5, 10–12),
- The mystery of lawlessness (2 Thess. 2:7; Matt. 24:12),
- Satanic signs and wonders (2 Thess. 2:9–10; cf. Matt. 24:24),
- A deluding influence on unbelievers (2 Thess. 2:11; cf. Matt. 24:5, 24).[1]
Matthison ultimately concludes: “The evidence that 2 Thess. 2 points to a first-century fulfillment is overwhelming.”[2]
I agree with Mathison that the “gathering” and coming of Christ in 2 Thessalonians 2:1–2 refer to the same event described in Matthew 24:30–31. However, the problem for Mathison is that Matthew 24:3, 30–31—in connection with Matthew 13:39–43 and Daniel 12:2–7— clearly identifies this as the resurrection and gathering at the “end” of the old covenant “age” in AD 70.
Even amillennialist G.K. Beale connects 2 Thessalonians 2:1–2 with 1 Thessalonians 4:14–17, recognizing that both passages refer to the second coming and resurrection:
“That both Christ’s coming and the saints’ resurrection are in mind (and are the content of the day of the Lord in 2:2) is evident in the wording of 1:1: the coming of our Lord Jesus and our being gathered to him. These phrases allude to Christ’s coming to gather saints at the final resurrection (1 Thess. 4:14). The common wording and theme show that this section is a further unpacking of 1 Thessalonians 4:14–17 and that the false teaching is an over-realized distortion of that part of Paul’s first letter.”[3]
Beale is exactly right to connect the coming and gathering of 2 Thessalonians 2:1–2 with 1 Thessalonians 4:14–17 and Matthew 24:30–31. His use of the “analogy of faith” is commendable. However, like many amillennialists, Beale doesn’t adequately grapple with the apocalyptic imagery and time indicators in Matthew 24 and the Thessalonian letters. Mathison, for his part, rightly critiques Beale’s inability to explain why Paul would argue the Day of the Lord hadn’t already happened by pointing to prior signs—such as the apostasy and the revealing of the man of lawlessness—if the event were as unmistakable as traditionally assumed. So, once again, we are left with a classic stalemate between the partial preterist view (Mathison) and the classic amillennial view (Beale).
The only way to break this gridlock is to recognize that all of these texts describe the same spiritual coming of Christ and resurrection “gathering”—an event that Jesus and Paul expected to be imminently and spiritually fulfilled in AD 70 to close out the old covenant age.
Let’s revisit the eschatological coming of Christ and eschatological “gathering” of Isaiah 27 that both Jesus and Paul are drawing upon here in Matthew 24:30–31, 25:31ff., 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17, and 2 Thessalonians 2:1–2. We will also explore how this gathering coincides with the judgment of the Man of Lawlessness and the defeat of Satan (or Leviathan/Dragon). These parallels are especially powerful now that Mathison concedes there is no division between Matthew 24 and 25, and that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24:30–31 is the same event as Matthew 25:31[4]:
|
Isaiah 27:1–13 |
Matt. 24:30–31; 25:31–46 |
1 Thess. 4 & 2 Thess. 1–2 |
| (1) “in that day” (v. 1ff.) | (1) First Century audience – “you” (24:2ff.) | (1) First Century audience – “you” or “we” |
| (2) God would “thresh out the grain” (harvest) when He came to “gather” Israel (again harvest imagery) at the sound of a “trumpet” (v. 12–13) | (2) At the “end of the [old covenant] age,” Christ would come from heaven “with angels” to “gather” (harvest cf. Matt. 13:39–43) at sound of a “trumpet” (24:31) | (2) Christ comes from heaven, “with angels” to “gather” at the sound of a “trumpet” the Thessalonians to Himself (1 Thess. 4:16; 2 Thess. 1:7, 2:1–2) |
| (3) Leviathan / Dragon and unbelievers are judged at this time (v. 1ff.) | (3) The Devil and the angels are judged at this time (25:31–46; cf. Rms. 16:20) | (3) Unbelievers & Man of Lawlessness are judged at this time (2 Thess. 1:8–9; 2:8) |
| (4) “In that day” the “removal of sin” takes place when God comes (v. 9) | (4) When Christ comes “Salvation” & “redemption” takes place (Matt. 24:13–31; Luke 21:27–28) | (4) The Thessalonians & dead loved one’s experience God’s “presence” when they are “gathered or caught away to Him” and God is “glorified” in them and them in Him (1 Thess. 4–5; 2 Thess. 1:9–12; 2:1) |
| (5) All fulfilled when Jerusalem & altars become a “heap” & “crushed” (v. 9) | (5) All fulfilled when Jerusalem & temple has “abominations” & is “desolated” (Matt. 24 / Luke 21) | (5) All fulfilled when Man of Lawlessness commits abominations in the temple (2:1–4) |
What Made the Thessalonians Think It Was Over?
Regarding 2 Thessalonians 2:1–2 and some teaching that the Day of the Lord had already occurred—it is curious that Mathison does not apply his own reasoning when it comes to Hymenaeus and Philetus, who also taught that the resurrection had already taken place, as well as the Day of the Lord, which would bring about that event (2 Tim. 2:17–18).
In both passages Paul does not refute the claim with, “How can you believe that the Day of the Lord, our gathering to Him, and the resurrection have already occurred because you are still here, graveyards are still full, and the planet has not been destroyed?” This silence suggests that Paul’s doctrine of an imminent Day of the Lord and resurrection event was spiritual and anticipated a fulfillment in AD 70 rather than a future, end-of-history event.
To connect this silence in 2 Thessalonians 2 with the similar dynamic in 2 Timothy 2, consider the traditional Jewish expectation of resurrection as tied to the end of the age (Dan. 12:2–3, 13), which Jesus reframes as a spiritual transition from death to life (John 5:24–29). Paul’s argument in both epistles assumes a spiritual resurrection linked to the covenantal shift, not a physical one that would be self-evident. This bridges the passages: the error in Thessalonica was prematurely declaring the Day of the Lord without the signs of apostasy and lawlessness (fulfilled in AD 66–70), while Hymenaeus and Philetus erred by teaching a resurrection that preserved old covenant elements, undermining the new creation’s arrival in AD 70. Both heresies distort the timing and nature of the same eschatological cluster—Parousia, gathering, resurrection, and judgment—pointing to a unified AD 70 fulfillment.
The apostasy mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 could be understood in either a religious or political sense. The Greek word apostasia can refer to a departure from the faith or a political rebellion. A religious interpretation would suggest that the Jews were abandoning their Old Testament faith and rejecting the gospel of Christ, or that professing Christians were returning to the old covenant system—a theme addressed throughout the New Testament (e.g., Galatians, Colossians, Hebrews). A political reading would identify the Jewish revolt against Rome (AD 66–70) as the apostasy, an interpretation supported by some translations such as the Jerusalem Bible, which refers to it as a “revolt.”
The Man of Lawlessness: Possible Candidates
Several historical figures from the Jewish-Roman War (AD 66–70) have been proposed as the man of lawlessness described in 2 Thessalonians 2:3–9. The man of lawlessness was probably either a Jewish high priest or a political figure like John Levi of Gischala, both of whom were lawless and committed acts of abomination in the temple during the Great Revolt of AD 66–70.
John Levi of Gischala
Gary DeMar summarizes Bray’s position on John Levi of Gischala, a key leader in Jerusalem’s destruction:
“John Levi of Gischala, Bray writes, “was the key man in the destruction of Jerusalem, the greatest instigator of the tribulation upon the Jews in the city, and an ‘abomination’ himself as he ‘sat’ in power in the Temple itself. And he was the cause of the ceasing of the daily sacrifices three and one half years after Vespasian came against the city. So far as the people were concerned, he had taken the place of God in the Temple!”[5]
Following Josephus, Bray offers compelling historical evidence for his opinion, everything from murder to defilement of the temple. Mireille Hadas-Lebel recounts John’s lawless deeds:
“Crimes against men were accompanied by what Josephus considered crimes against God. John of Gischala was especially guilty of these latter. Early in the siege he had used timber intended for the Temple to construct war machines. Next, he had all the sacred vessels melted down, including precious vases offered by the emperor Augustus and his wife. Then he had dipped into the Temple reserves of oil and wine.”[6]
John Levi of Gischala is a likely candidate since the people living in Jerusalem followed his every move. His occupation of the temple followed the surrounding of Jerusalem by armies. Those who believe that Paul is describing an event that requires a rebuilt temple miss the simple fact that the Thessalonians would have had no such notion in mind as they read Paul’s letter.
Whether the man of lawlessness was Phannias, John of Gischala, or some other first-century personage, we know that he was alive when Paul wrote his epistle because the Thessalonians knew who and what restrained him in their day.
Gary’s position is that the “what” (v. 6) that was restraining the man of sin was the law of the Roman Empire, which shielded much of the Jewish opposition and persecution of Christianity, while the “who” was Herod Agrippa, who attempted to convince the Jews not to revolt against Rome.
Eleazar ben Ananias
Ed Stevens believes the Zealot Eleazar ben Anaias, a Zealot leader and former Sagan (captain of the temple guard), was the man of lawlessness:
“Eleazar was the son of Ananias b. Nedebaeus, the former high priest (AD 47– 58) when Second Thessalonians was written (AD 51–52), as well as six years later in AD 58 at the time of Paul’s trial in Jerusalem (Acts 23). It was Ananias who ordered that Paul be struck on the mouth. Upon being struck, Paul predicted, “God is about to strike you, you whitewashed wall” and then called him a law-breaker. As was the father (a lawbreaker), so was the son (an even worse lawbreaker). Eight years after the trial of Paul, in September of AD 66, Ananias was indeed “struck” dead by the Zealot leader Menahem, immediately after which his son Eleazar used his own temple soldiers to avenge his father by killing Menahem and his soldiers in Jerusalem, again in violation of the Law. Thus, Eleazar opposed every other Zealot leader and exalted himself above them all.
At the time of the rebellion, Eleazar was Sagan (captain of the temple guard, “governor of the temple”, Wars 2.409). That was the second highest position in the priesthood (right underneath the High Priest). The Sagan was appointed by the High Priest and approved by the Sanhedrin. At least two of the sons of Ananias (Eleazar and Ananus) had held that office, both of whom were appointed after Ananias had left the High Priesthood. This speaks volumes about how much wealth, power, and influence Ananias must have had, in order to get two of his sons appointed as Sagan after he was no longer High Priest. Josephus verifies just how extremely wealthy and powerful Ananias really was.
As Yosippon indicates (Sefer Yosippon, Chapters 72, 75), Eleazar was the one who literally “sat in the temple” controlling all the affairs of the temple, priesthood, and sacrifices, and used the Temple as his fortress during nearly the entire war, beginning in April AD 66, until just before Titus began the siege in AD 70 (about three and a half years). Eleazar took it upon himself to make changes in the Law and customs that had always been followed since the beginning of their nation. Thus, it appears that Eleazar may have been the Man of Lawlessness that Apostle Paul pointed to in his second letter to the Thessalonians (2 Thess. 2:3–9).”[7]
A major issue Ed raises regarding John Levi of Gischala as the man of lawlessness is that John survived beyond AD 70 and was not “killed” at the coming of the Lord. However, in spite of Ed’s admission, Eleazer ben Ananias also lived until AD 73—so neither John nor Eleazer was “killed” by Christ’s coming in AD 70.
Additionally, Ed claims that a physical “rapture” or “gathering” of the Church occurred in AD 66, which directly contradicts Jesus’ teaching that His return will occur “immediately after” the tribulation (Matt. 24:29), a period that spanned AD 66/67–AD 70. If Paul had been teaching that the Church would be physically taken off the planet, he could have easily refuted claims that Christ had already come with a simple question to the Thessalonians: “How can you believe that Christ has already come and gathered us together to Him? Aren’t we still here?”
While the Greek word parousia does not necessarily indicate a single day, its use here refers to Christ’s visitation “immediately after” the events of AD 66–70. The parousia and gathering of Christ thus occurs at the end of the old covenant age, signified by the Temple’s destruction in the year AD 70. Ed’s idea of a physical “rapture” in AD 66 makes little sense in this framework. This issue will be further examined in our discussion of 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17.
Satan, Judas, and the Priesthood
The phrase “son of destruction” (or “son of perdition”) appears elsewhere in Scripture in reference to Judas Iscariot. According to John 17:12, Judas was given this title after Satan entered him and led him to the priesthood to betray Jesus. This suggests that the man of lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2 may be connected to Satan’s deception, Judas’ betrayal, and the corrupt Jewish priesthood that conspired against Christ.
According to partial preterist Doug Wilson and Robert Cruickshank, 2 Thessalonians 2 aligns closely with Revelation 20, where Paul and John both describe a pattern of “restraint, release, and deception”:
“The sequence of events in 2 Thessalonians 2 runs a close parallel to Revelation 20.[3] Paul and John both speak of a restraint and a release of evil connected with “deception.” This three-fold theme of restraint, release, and deception is loud and clear in the words of both passages. In Revelation 20, the restraint, release, and deception are specifically linked to Satan’s ability to gather the nations together for “the war” (Rev. 20:8). In God’s sovereignty, Satan is not allowed to commence this war prematurely.”[8]
If this interpretation is correct, then the man of lawlessness may be a representative of Satan’s influence over first-century apostates, working through Judas and the priesthood to oppose Christ and persecute His followers.
Before leaving Wilson and Cruickshank’s connections between 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 20 (with which I agree), let’s get a visual:
|
Revelation 20 = ? |
2 Thessalonians 2 = AD 70 |
| (1) Restraint – Satan is “bound” to not deceive the nations | (1) Restraint – The restrainer is alive in Paul’s day holding back the Man of Sin |
| (2) Release – Satan is released for a “little while” [AD 67 – AD 70] to… | (2) Release – The Man of Lawlessness is revealed to… |
| (3) Deceive and gather the nations for “THE war” | (3) Deceive by the power of Satan for the Jewish “rebellion” against Rome |
| (4) John and the seven churches were currently in the millennium and it was “about to” come to an end or “shortly” be fulfilled (Rev. 1:1, 19YLT; 22:10) | (4) Paul and the Thessalonians were currently in the millennium and it would end at the coming of Christ |
| (5) Partial preterists believe the coming of Christ in flaming fire of 2 Thess. 1:7–9 and 2 Thess. 2:8 ends the “THE war” and judges Satan at the end of the millennium. Most understand the “soon” coming of Christ in Revelation to end the millennium while Partial Preterists tell us it was spiritually fulfilled in AD 70. | (5) But partial preterists such as Mathison believe the coming of Christ in flaming fire to judge in 2 Thess. 1–2 was fulfilled in AD 70. |
Partial preterists typically understand 2 Thessalonians 2 to be fulfilled in AD 70. For example, Doug Wilson’s colleagues and co-authors, Ken Gentry and Keith Mathison, both identify Nero as the man of lawlessness and interpret the coming of the Lord in this passage as a first-century event. However, since Doug connects this coming of the Lord with the end of the millennium, he places it in the future. On the other hand, Mathison—editor of When Shall These Things Be?—holds that the coming of Christ “in flaming fire” and bringing “eternal destruction” (1 Thess. 1:8–9), as well as destroying the man of lawlessness “with the breath of his mouth” (2 Thess. 2:8), were fulfilled in AD 70.
When these two partial preterist views are combined, they imply that the end of the millennium occurred at Christ’s coming in AD 70—an outcome their systems don’t fully account for.
Before leaving Revelation 20 notice the consummation to the resurrection involves souls being emptied from Hades either into God’s presence to inherit eternal life or eternal damnation. There is nothing here about a physical bodily resurrection at the end of world history.
Nero
Ken Gentry, another partial preterist, argues that the Roman Emperor Nero is the best candidate for the man of lawlessness. Nero’s reign (AD 54–68) saw intense persecution of Christians, and he declared himself divine, a key characteristic of the lawless one who exalts himself (2 Thess. 2:4).[9]
Gentry identifies Nero’s death in AD 68 as the fulfillment of 2 Thessalonians 2:8, which states that Christ would “destroy” the lawless one by the breath of His mouth”—possibly referring to God’s judgment on Nero through his forced suicide during the Roman civil wars.[10]
However, a key challenge to this view is that Nero was not directly involved in the events at the Temple in AD 70, and Paul’s description suggests the man of lawlessness would be active in the Jewish Temple itself. Christ kills him at His parousia in AD 70 and not before (AD 68).
Phannias Ben Samuel
Some scholars, present company included, suggest that Phannias Ben Samuel, the final High Priest before AD 70, best fits the man of lawlessness. Josephus describes how the Zealots appointed Phannias unlawfully to the high priesthood in AD 67, and he became a puppet of the Zealot leader Eleazar ben Ananias (Wars 4.147).
Phannias fits the description of the man of lawlessness for several reasons:
- He was unlawfully installed as High Priest, in opposition to God’s law.
- He sat in the Temple, defiling it with his corrupt leadership.
- He presided over the Zealots’ occupation of the Temple, allowing false prophets and lawlessness to flourish.
- He was presumably killed in AD 70 when the Romans destroyed the Temple, aligning with 2 Thessalonians 2:8, which states that Christ would “kill” the lawless one at His coming.
Since Matthew 26:62–65 records Jesus telling the High Priest and Jewish council that they would see Him coming on the clouds, Phannias as a contemporary and the priesthood as a collective body witnessed God’s judgment in AD 70.
The events of 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 20 align with the Jewish War (AD 66–70), indicating that the man of lawlessness, the restrainer, and the Day of the Lord were first-century events. Whether the man of lawlessness was Phannias, Eleazar, or John Levi of Gischala, all were active in the years leading up to the destruction of the Temple, which marked the end of the old covenant age.
As Paul had assured the Thessalonians, Christ’s coming in AD 70 brought judgment upon those who persecuted them, fulfilling His promise of deliverance. The gathering of the saints and the parousia of Christ signified the culmination of the old covenant and the establishment of the new. Whatever one believes was true about the man of lawlessness or the restrainer, the text makes it abundantly clear that both men were alive at the time Paul wrote because the Thessalonians knew who “he” (the restrainer) was and who was “now” (in Paul’s day) restraining “him” (the man of lawlessness).
Christ faithfully came in AD 70 at the sound of a trumpet to “gather” and give resurrection life to the Thessalonians while at the same time judging the wicked and the Man of Lawlessness, fulfilling Isaiah 27; Matthew 24:30–31; 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17; and 2 Thessalonians 2:1ff.
Since many people confuse the “666 Beast” of Revelation and the individual “Anichrist” figure with the “Man of Lawlessness” in 2 Thessalonians 2, it’s worth briefly addressing these topics. This confusion is especially common in popular-level, newspaper-driven eschatology. “Rapture ready” Zionists, for example, often appear more focused on identifying these evil figures as modern villains than on knowing Christ and understanding their identity in Him!
The “Beast” and “666” Figure
The following points briefly identify the 666 Beast figure in Revelation:
(1) 666 Cryptogram (Rev. 13): The Hebrew spelling of Nero Caesar (Nrwn Qsr נרון קסר) adds up to 666: 50 (n) + 200 (r) + 6 (w) + 50 (n) + 100 (q) + 60 (s) + 200 (r). Cryptograms were common in the first century and Nero fits all of the exegetical internal evidence and external evidence.
(2) Seven Heads/Kings = Seven Mountains/Hills (Rev. 13 & 17): Rome was famously built on seven hills. John’s vision refers to seven kings—five had fallen (Julius 49 – 44 BC, Augustus 31 BC – 14 AD, Tiberius 14 – 37 AD, Gaius 37 – 41 AD, and Claudius 41 – 54 AD), one “is” the “sixth” (Nero 54- 68 AD), and the next (Galba) would remain only briefly. After Nero’s death, Rome plunged into civil war but revived—fulfilling Revelation 13:3, 7.
(3) 10 horns (Rev. 13): These may represent the ten provinces of the Roman Empire: Italy, Achaia, Asia, Syria, Egypt, Africa, Spain, Gaul, Britain, and Germany.
(4) Forty-Two Months: Nero’s persecution of Christians and war with the Jews lasted 3½ years—November AD 64 to June AD 68. The Jewish-Roman War officially spanned AD 67 to AD 70—another 3½-year period.
(5) The Mark of the Beast (Rev. 13): Refusal to participate in emperor worship—especially declaring Nero as “son of god” or affirming “we have no king but Caesar”—could result in exclusion from commerce or even death.
(6) The Great City/Babylon = Harlot (Rev. 11; 17–19): Jerusalem, which rejected her Messiah/Groom, is called the “Great City” and “Harlot” “where their Lord was crucified” (Rev. 11:8). She rides the Beast (Rome) and is judged for shedding the blood of prophets, Christ, and the apostles. Jerusalem was both stoned (by Roman siege stones) and burned (cf. Matt. 22:7).
(7) “THE War” (Rev. 16, 19, 20): The Battle of Armageddon or Gog and Magog refers to the Roman siege of Jerusalem in AD 67–70. The Empire’s legions surrounded the city just as Jesus foretold. Christians fled to Pella as instructed (Luke 21:20–32; Rev. 12), fulfilling Daniel 12:4–7—the end of the Old Covenant age.
(8) Time Frame: Revelation emphasizes imminence with terms like “shortly,” “soon,” “at hand,” and “no more delay.” The NT also uniformly teaches that Christ’s coming and related events would occur in the first-century generation (cf. Matt. 10:17–23; 16:27–28; 24:34; 26:64; Acts 24:15; Rom. 13:11–12; Jas. 5:7–9; Heb. 10:37).
Many confuse the Man of Lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2 with a singular “Anti-Christ” figure. However, John makes clear in his epistles that there were many “antichrists” in the first century (1 John 2:18)—specifically Judaizers who opposed the gospel. The Antichrist is not a future political figure, but a spiritual and theological opposition that was already present in John’s day.
This confusion between the man of lawlessness and antichrist figures ties directly to the error of Hymenaeus and Philetus in 2 Timothy 2:17–18, as both involve misapplying first-century fulfillments to perpetuate old covenant expectations. Just as the man of lawlessness represents apostate opposition leading to AD 70 judgment, the Judaizing heretics in Timothy’s context distorted resurrection timing to cling to Mosaic structures—errors that futurism inadvertently echoes by delaying fulfillment beyond the first century.
2 Timothy 2:17–18
And their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some (2 Tim. 2:17–18).
I once received an email and phone call from an elder in a church who was secretly placed under church discipline and then excommunicated for studying the preterist view of Bible prophecy. He and his family were told that their salvation was in question unless they repented of studying (let alone holding to) this position. The source material that was used against them was When Shall These Things Be?, and the Bible text that was used to anathematize them was 2 Timothy 2:17–18. Apparently the eldership of the church did not see the irony. The editor of When Shall These Things Be?concedes that 2 Timothy 2:18 “cannot” be used even to “criticize” preterists, much less anathematize them, because according to Mathison, it may very well be that “the resurrection” of 2 Timothy 2:18 truly did take place in AD 70:
“. . . [2 Timothy 2:1–18] cannot be used to criticize hyper-preterism until . . . [it can be] demonstrated from other texts that nothing of the sort occurred in A.D. 70.”[11]
This is quite an admission from a man who says that hyper-preterism is “a much different religion” than Christianity (WSTTB?, 213). What Bible verses can Mathison use, other than 2 Timothy 2:17–18, to brand preterism as a different religion? Answer: There are no other verses. Without 2 Timothy 2:17–18, Mathison doesn’t have a biblical leg to stand on in his condemnation of preterists. All he has are the baseless words of those, like himself, who have set themselves up to condemn us based solely on the assumption that our rejection of futurism is a damnable error.
Notice the phrase in Mathison’s quote above that in order for one to use 2 Timothy 2:17-18 against a full preterist, they must be able to “…demonstrate from other texts that nothing sort [of a spiritual resurrection] occurred in A.D. 70.” Mathison says this because he knows that his co-author Kenneth Gentry and others such as James Jordan not only believe there was a spiritual Parousia that took place in AD 70, but also a spiritual resurrection.[12]
We agree with Mathison that 2 Timothy 2:17–18 cannot be used to criticize us. But we must go further than this. Far from being an anti-preterist passage, 2 Timothy 2:17–18 is actually a condemnation of the implications of futurism. Allow me to explain. First of all, Hymenaeus and Philetus were Judaizers. They were of a class of deceivers who taught Jewish “myths” and “genealogies” (1 Tim. 1:4; Titus 1:4), and were self-appointed “teachers of the Law” (1 Tim. 1:7). They taught believers to abstain from foods (1 Tim. 4:3), no doubt using the Levitical dietary laws as a basis of their teaching.
It is because Hymenaeus and Philetus were Judaizers that Paul compared them to “Jannes and Jambres” (2 Tim. 3:8). According to ancient historians, Jannes and Jambres were Egyptian magicians who challenged Moses’ authority in Egypt. Like Jannes and Jambres, Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching the strange doctrines of “Egypt” (Rev. 11:8), and were challenging Paul’s gospel-authority, attempting to deceive Christians into believing that God’s new wine (the new covenant land of promise) could be contained within the old, “Egyptian” wineskins of the old covenant world.
Likewise in 2 Timothy 2:19, Paul connects Hymenaeus and Philetus to the rebellion of Korah in Numbers 16:5, 26.[13]Korah had led hundreds of the sons of Israel to challenge Moses’ authority. As God had destroyed Korah and his followers in the wilderness, so God was “about to judge” (2 Timothy 4:1) and destroy the Judaizers Hymenaeus and Philetus and others like them (cf. Heb. 3:16–19).
According to the teaching of Hymenaeus and Philetus, because Jerusalem and the temple still stood (in about AD 67) after the resurrection had allegedly already taken place, it irresistibly followed that “the sons according to the flesh” were now the heirs of the eternal kingdom and that Paul’s Jew-Gentile gospel of grace was a lie. The blasphemous error of Hymenaeus and Philetus was that the world of the Mosaic covenant would remain forever established after the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets had taken place and the new heavens and new earth (“the resurrection”) had arrived.
This “Hymenaean” heresy is the diametric opposite of preterism. According to preterism, the old covenant came to an eternal and irrevocable termination in “the resurrection,” when all things were fulfilled in AD 70. There is absolutely no theological connection between preterism and Hymenaeus’ blasphemous lie of an everlasting “ministration of death.”
However, there is a clear connection between the heresy of Hymenaeus and the implications of futurism: If “the Law and the Prophets” are not fulfilled today, and “heaven and earth” have not passed away, and the jots and tittles of the Law have not passed away, and all things are not yet fulfilled, as futurism says, then logically and scripturally, the Law of Moses remains unfulfilled and “imposed” to this day (Matt. 5:17–19; Heb. 8:13; 9:10). This implication of futurism is exactly what the Judaizers, Hymenaeus and Philetus, taught when they said the resurrection was already past before AD 70.
As we have seen on virtually every page of WSTTB, Mathison and his co-authors are in conflict over a multitude of eschatological passages. It comes as no surprise that they are in conflict even in regard to how or even if the Bible anathematizes preterists. And it is more than ironic that the one passage in all of Scripture that can conceivably be perceived as decisively anathematizing preterists is in reality applicable to the implications of futurism. Selah.
2 Timothy 4:1
I testify, then, before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is about to judge living and dead at his manifestation / appearing and his reign (2 Timothy 4:1 YLT).
Before leaving 2 Timothy 2:17-18 we should point out that Paul affirmed the teaching of full preterism when he taught Christ’s appearing and the judgment of the living and the dead (the resurrection event) was “about to” be fulfilled in the coming events of AD 70.
Conclusion
In uniting the exegeses of 2 Thessalonians 2:1–2 and 2 Timothy 2:17–18, we see a cohesive apostolic warning against eschatological distortions that prematurely or incorrectly declare the fulfillment of Christ’s Parousia, the Day of the Lord, and the resurrection—events spiritually realized in AD 70 at the close of the old covenant age. Paul’s silence in both passages on obvious physical proofs (e.g., “Aren’t we still here and bodies still decaying in their tombs?”) underscores the spiritual nature of these fulfillments, drawing from Isaiah 27, Matthew 24–25, and Revelation 20 to depict a gathering and judgment tied to Jerusalem’s fall. Far from equating Full Preterism with heresy, these texts vindicate it: the Thessalonian error was claiming completion before the apostasy and man of lawlessness (fulfilled in figures like Phannias amid the AD 66–70 revolt), while Hymenaeus and Philetus perpetuated old covenant myths post-resurrection, an implication that haunts futurism’s delayed eschatology. Before leaving 2 Timothy 2:17-18 we should point out that Paul affirmed the teaching of full preterism when he taught Christ’s appearing and the judgment of the living and the dead (the resurrection event) was “about to” be fulfilled in the coming events of AD 70: “I testify, then, before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is about to judge living and dead at his manifestation / appearing and his reign (2 Timothy 4:1 YLT).” Mathison’s partial preterism, while insightful, falters in not extending AD 70 fulfillment to the resurrection, creating internal inconsistencies. Ultimately, Full Preterism resolves these tensions, affirming Christ’s faithful AD 70 coming as the triumphant end of the age, delivering believers into eternal covenant life and judging apostasy—offering hope rooted in historical and spiritual reality, not endless futurist speculation.
Song on this:
[1] Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, 229-230.
[2] Ibid.
[3] G.K. Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians, 200.
[4] Keith A. Mathison, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1995), 138–44, where he interprets Matthew 25:31–46 as the second coming and judgment of Satan; cf. Keith A. Mathison, From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2009), 380, where he argues Matthew 25:31–46 refers to Christ’s ascension (and possibly AD 70), not the second coming, and 365–66, n. 92, claiming Jesus said little about the second coming, with most teaching found post-ascension (e.g., 1 Thess. 4:16–17).
[5] Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Powder Springs, GA: 2024, unreleased electronic version), 304.
[6] Mireille Hadas-Lebel, Flavius Josephus: Eyewitness to Rome’s First-Century Conquest of Judaea (New York: Macmillan, 1993), p. 145 (or relevant page discussing John of Gischala’s actions during the siege).
[7] Ed Stevens, “Eleazar Blew the Horn (AD 66) War Chronology – Part 1,” Then and Now Podcast, March 30, 2014.
[8] Robert Cruickshank, “Unraveling the Mystery of the Lawless One – Part One,” Burros of Berea, accessed Feb 10, 2025, https://burrosofberea.com/unraveling-the-mystery-of-the-lawless-one-part-one/.
[9] Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome, trans. Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb, 15.44, accessed February 5, 2025,
[10] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1998), 267–72.
[11] Keith A. Mathison, WHEN SHALL THESE THINGS BE? A REFORMED RESPONSE TO HYPER-PRETERISM, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), 194.
[12] Kenneth L. Gentry, HE SHALL HAVE DOMINION A POSTMILLENNIAL ESCHATOLOGY, (Draper, VA: ApologeticsGroup Media, 2009), 538-539. James B. Jordan, THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, (Powder Springs, GA: 2007), 618-628.
[13] William Hendriksen; Simon J. Kistemaker: New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 268.