It’s reasonable to understand the opening of the first seal as bringing about a state of affairs involving a great political victory of some sort by a certain world leader. And given the mention of a “bow” but no arrows, it’s also reasonable to believe that the initial “conquest” of this world leader will be diplomatic in nature, rather than involving the use of military force (although it’s likely that the additional “conquering” referred to will involve the use of military force). But can the rise to power of the man of lawlessness through non-violent, diplomatic means be understood as an expression of God’s indignation? Yes.
Click the following link for part one of my next study: The Timing of the Snatching Away in Relation to the 70th Week