2nd Thessalonians 2 again

[eschaton]

I noticed this in the dual fulfillment thread and thought it might make a good discussion.

The man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2 has these requirements.

1. He puts himself above God and sits iin the temple to show that he
is God. 2 The 2:4.

2. He will be revealed and destroyed by the brightness of Jesus
Christ. (vs 6 & 8)

3. He was being restrained as Paul spoke. (vs 7)

4. He will do counterfeit miracles, signs, and wonders. (vs 9)

5. He will in some ways be like Judas. Son of perdition only occurs
twice in the KJV, one for Judas and once for this man.

"His brightness," is more likely "His truth," or the "light" of the
Gospel. That is, the Man of Sin is destroyed theolgically
by the truth of Jesus Christ.

Sheepdog said that since he was being restrained at the time Paul spoke He must of been a person existing at that time. I don't think that is the case at all. Compare the mystery of iniquity to similar verses such as 1 Jn 2:18 4:3. It clearly indicates the apostates within the church. Was Nero an apostate within the church? Was the first century the last century with apostates? If not, then I would say that the mystery of iniquity is till at work. If the mystery of iniquity is still at work then is that one who bodily typifies the Antichrist still restrained? I would say yes. The person of the Antichrist was restrained. That doesn't necessarily mean that a living person was in handcuffs at the time. It means the office was being kept from fulfillment. Why?

Why this seems to confound so many through the ages is the mystery to me. When Pauls say "and now you know," I interpret it to mean and now you know. You know because he just said so. If I'm carrying and umbrella and you ask me why, I'll say because it's raining outside. And now you know why I'm carrying an umbrella. I don't think Paul was carrying an umbrella, but I do think he just stated the obvious, and reminds them that he had told them the same thing before (v5). The events he has just described have to be fulfilled before that wicked one is revealed by his destruction (v8), and he clearly says this is going to happen in the future. Prophecy has to be fulfilled and it can only be Christ that holds back until His Word is fulfilled (1 Cor 15:24,25 Eph 1:22 Heb 1:13 10:12,13 ). It is His Word that holds back until the time (2Pet3:9,1Ti 2:4).

If this man of sin was Nero then why isn't there a consensus of ECF who identify him as such. Augustine mentions the idea in the City of God book XX chapter 19 and refers to those who hold to it as audacious.
Alan


7864

[Sheepdog]

i really, really shouldn't ... post. don't have time.... can't... resist... :wink:

I noticed this in the dual fulfillment thread and thought it might make a good discussion.

The man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2 has these requirements.

1. He puts himself above God and sits iin the temple to show that he
is God. 2 The 2:4.

i noticed this earlier as i was reading through the text again. doesn't seem to fit the Nero hypothesis, does it? :ponder:

2. He will be revealed and destroyed by the brightness of Jesus
Christ. (vs 6 & 8)

my translation says we will be destroyed by the breath of the Lord (presumably though, that is Jesus since that is typical of how Paul uses the word).

3. He was being restrained as Paul spoke. (vs 7)

4. He will do counterfeit miracles, signs, and wonders. (vs 9)

hrm... the translation i'm reading associates the miracles, signs, and wonders with his arrival, without making him actively responsible for them. could be a tralsation thing? :huh:

5. He will in some ways be like Judas. Son of perdition only occurs
twice in the KJV, one for Judas and once for this man.

interesting, i didn't notice that. still, i'm uneasy about making the correlation.

"His brightness," is more likely "His truth," or the "light" of the
Gospel. That is, the Man of Sin is destroyed theolgically
by the truth of Jesus Christ.

Sheepdog said that since he was being restrained at the time Paul spoke He must of been a person existing at that time.

to be honest, i'm not sure i'd go so far as to say it must (unless i did, i can't remember now :doh:). but that does seem to be the most sensible reading, and someone would have to give something very compelling to convince me to read this in a different way.

I don't think that is the case at all. Compare the mystery of iniquity to similar verses such as 1 Jn 2:18 4:3. It clearly indicates the apostates within the church. Was Nero an apostate within the church?

i don't see the connection, to be honest. John warns of antichrists and a "spirit of the antichrist," while Paul warns of a "man of lawlessness." i don't think they have the same person/people/whatever in mind.

Was the first century the last century with apostates? If not, then I would say that the mystery of iniquity is till at work.

maybe, maybe not. it could just be that Paul has in mind one individual case out of a whole class of similar cases. even if we set aside the Nero interpretation, this is quite possible.

If the mystery of iniquity is still at work then is that one who bodily typifies the Antichrist still restrained? I would say yes. The person of the Antichrist was restrained. That doesn't necessarily mean that a living person was in handcuffs at the time. It means the office was being kept from fulfillment. Why?

i see what you are trying to say, but i don't think i'd agree. Paul's language doesn't change from the rest of the book, and it seems he is trying to make a very straightforward point. this isn't anything like Revelation, and in fact IMO it is more lucent than the Olivet Discourse. No, i don't think Paul would have us take such an interpretation.

...

If this man of sin was Nero then why isn't there a consensus of ECF who identify him as such. Augustine mentions the idea in the City of God book XX chapter 19 and refers to those who hold to it as audacious.
Alan

i don't know why. though, one could question whether the ECFs ever had a consensus on anything eschatological. I've been told they varied a lot, but on the other hand i've heard the opposite. i don't know and i'd rather suspend judgement until i can study them more.

though, that kind of reasoning can be turned on it's head. someone may ask why the consensus of Jews of that day were against Jesus Christ. of course we know why, but then could the ECFs have also been so mistaken but on a topic of negligable salvific importance? i don't mean to diminish the ECFs, as if there was a major stumbling block to the Preterist interpretation, it would be them... but at the same time i'd be weary. after all, do you disagree baptismal regeneration, which apparently was popular among them?

i'm out of time, so that's all i can comment on for now.

[eschaton]

i really, really shouldn't ... post. don't have time.... can't... resist... :wink:



i noticed this earlier as i was reading through the text again. doesn't seem to fit the Nero hypothesis, does it? :ponder:



my translation says we will be destroyed by the breath of the Lord (presumably though, that is Jesus since that is typical of how Paul uses the word).



hrm... the translation i'm reading associates the miracles, signs, and wonders with his arrival, without making him actively responsible for them. could be a tralsation thing? :huh:



interesting, i didn't notice that. still, i'm uneasy about making the correlation.



to be honest, i'm not sure i'd go so far as to say it must (unless i did, i can't remember now :doh:). but that does seem to be the most sensible reading, and someone would have to give something very compelling to convince me to read this in a different way.



i don't see the connection, to be honest. John warns of antichrists and a "spirit of the antichrist," while Paul warns of a "man of lawlessness." i don't think they have the same person/people/whatever in mind.



maybe, maybe not. it could just be that Paul has in mind one individual case out of a whole class of similar cases. even if we set aside the Nero interpretation, this is quite possible.



i see what you are trying to say, but i don't think i'd agree. Paul's language doesn't change from the rest of the book, and it seems he is trying to make a very straightforward point. this isn't anything like Revelation, and in fact IMO it is more lucent than the Olivet Discourse. No, i don't think Paul would have us take such an interpretation.



i don't know why. though, one could question whether the ECFs ever had a consensus on anything eschatological. I've been told they varied a lot, but on the other hand i've heard the opposite. i don't know and i'd rather suspend judgement until i can study them more.

though, that kind of reasoning can be turned on it's head. someone may ask why the consensus of Jews of that day were against Jesus Christ. of course we know why, but then could the ECFs have also been so mistaken but on a topic of negligable salvific importance? i don't mean to diminish the ECFs, as if there was a major stumbling block to the Preterist interpretation, it would be them... but at the same time i'd be weary. after all, do you disagree baptismal regeneration, which apparently was popular among them?

i'm out of time, so that's all i can comment on for now.

Thanks for your comments Sheepdog. I'm short on time too so I'll just make a few comments.

It may be that I have looked at the ECF more than you have, and the most pro Nero father is Clement of Alexandria. He seems to know some history that none of the other ECF's can confirm, although I don't think he ever alludes directly to 2 Thess. His successor and pupil Origen does refer directly to 2nd Thess. and ties it to Daniel, the gospel and Revelation if I remember correctly. Clement tied Nero to Daniel and the Olivet discourse I believe. I'll check for references tomorrow if I have time. But several of the fathers tied 2nd Thess with Daniel, Revelation, and the Olivet discourse. The tendecy of the ECF was to tie scriptures together rather than to separate them into different parts as the preterist view today. Read Origen Philocalia or Augustine De Doctrina Christiana for some really good examples.

Later

[wfaber]

Nero was never in Jerusalem, and never sat in the temple.

The most likely individual I would see to fulfill that passage is a man named Menachem. He took part in the overthrow of the fortress at Masada, and was involved with the beginning of the Jewish rebellion in AD 66. When civil war broke out within the city, he returned to Masada with his band of curthroats, broke into the weapons storehouses and carried all the weapons back to Jerusalem. He entered the city, proclaiming himself King of the Jews, murdered the high priest Ananias (same as Acts 23:2, who confronted Paul the Apostle), and became an oppressive tyrant over Jerusalem.

After the death of Ananias, he became pompous, entered the temple dressed in royal robes and accompanied by his soldiers. But another zealot named Eleazar led a group of zealots who resented Menachem's tyranny, and fought Menachem and his followers. Menachem fled, but was captured, tortured and eventually killed. See Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii.17.8-9.

Whether or not he went as far as to proclaim himself to be God, Josephus doesn't say. But 2 Thessalonians 2:3 places the man of lawlessness at the beginning of the rebellion.

[eschaton]

Nero was never in Jerusalem, and never sat in the temple.

The most likely individual I would see to fulfill that passage is a man named Menachem. He took part in the overthrow of the fortress at Masada, and was involved with the beginning of the Jewish rebellion in AD 66. When civil war broke out within the city, he returned to Masada with his band of curthroats, broke into the weapons storehouses and carried all the weapons back to Jerusalem. He entered the city, proclaiming himself King of the Jews, murdered the high priest Ananias (same as Acts 23:2, who confronted Paul the Apostle), and became an oppressive tyrant over Jerusalem.

After the death of Ananias, he became pompous, entered the temple dressed in royal robes and accompanied by his soldiers. But another zealot named Eleazar led a group of zealots who resented Menachem's tyranny, and fought Menachem and his followers. Menachem fled, but was captured, tortured and eventually killed. See Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii.17.8-9.

Whether or not he went as far as to proclaim himself to be God, Josephus doesn't say. But 2 Thessalonians 2:3 places the man of lawlessness at the beginning of the rebellion.


Menachem is an interesting choice. He appears to have actually entered the temple at some point.

As you say though, we don't know if he claimed to be God or put himself above God and everything else.

Josephus also failed to mention wether Menachem was destroyed by the brightness of Jesus Christ.

I didn't see anything about him being restrained at the time Paul spoke.

I also missed any mention of miracles or signs he performed.

He seems treacherous enough, but I don't know if I would put him on a level with Judas Iscariot. I also don't see any evidence he was an apostate Christian.

A problem I have with Menachem or John of Gischala is that I would like to see some evidence that they are actually the one Paul spoke of. If some of the church fathers identified them as such it would be nice. At least we almost have that with Nero.

I see a tendecy in preterism to pick out one part of a prophecy and try to identify it with a historical person or event without regard for other scriptures or the context the prophecy is given in. Am I wrong about that?

It reminds be of the tabloids I see on grocery stands in December or January with dozens of prophecies for the coming year. Those that don't come true are simply forgotten. If one should come close to fulfillment some soothsayer will be happy to take credit for it. I guess I shouldn't limit that to preterism. Premillennialist are probably the champions of that game.

[GhostontheNet]

I think the objection that Nero never stood in the Temple nor proclaimed himself to be YHWH there doesn't work. For, as Gentry notes, [Cite = Kenneth Gentry, Perilous Times: A Study in Eschatological Evilp. 107]When [Greek chars] (hoste, "so that") is followed by an infinitive ([Greek chars], kathisai, "to sit"), it indicates a purpose intended - not necessarily a purpose accomplished[/QUOTE] He goes into further documentation of the point gramatically from proper sources in a footnote. But, it may be asked, can I demonstrate that he had such an intent? I believe I can, in a passage in Suetonius that sent shivers up my spine at the mere thought of it; Lives of the Caesars[/I] Nero (Book 6) 40]Some astrologers forcast that, if forced to leave Rome, he would find another throne in the East; one or two even particularized that of Jerusalem Now, let take a closer look, we're talking about Nero here, whom would mix with Jewish monotheism, culture, and the Law of YHWH in a way comparable to oil and water. My research which I've been posting at http://www.geocities.com/thelastdiscipleghost/imperialcultus.html only tends to confirm this. Nor did he have any particular respect for any religions (or as the classical sources call them, cults); [Cite = Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars Nero 56]He despised all religious cults except that of the Syrian Goddess, and showed, one day, that he had changed his mind even about her, by urinating on the divine image[/QUOTE] Clearly, it seems, the only gods Nero worshipped were himself and his belly.

[commonman]

I noticed this in the dual fulfillment thread and thought it might make a good discussion.

The man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2 has these requirements.

1. He puts himself above God and sits iin the temple to show that he
is God. 2 The 2:4.


I think it is important to define "temple" the same way Paul defines it in other letters.

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

According to this apostolic definition of temple, each of us is the temple of God. The man of Perdition sets himself up within us, not in some bricks and mortar building in the Middle East.

[wfaber]

According to this apostolic definition of temple, each of us is the temple of God. The man of Perdition sets himself up within us, not in some bricks and mortar building in the Middle East.

I think the context is sufficient to take "temple" literally in this case.

[GhostontheNet]

I think the context is sufficient to take "temple" literally in this case. Yes, doubly so when doubtless fresh in Paul and his readers minds would be abominable Caligula's attempt to set up his idolotrous statue in the Temple at Jerusalem making it a temple of the Imperial Cultus, even if he would have to destroy the Jewish race in the process.

[commonman]

I think the context is sufficient to take "temple" literally in this case.
Yes, doubly so when doubtless fresh in Paul and his readers minds would be abominable Caligula's attempt to set up his idolotrous statue in the Temple at Jerusalem making it a temple of the Imperial Cultus, even if he would have to destroy the Jewish race in the process.

Fresh? The Caligula incident occurred nearly 15 years prior to this letter! And it was rebuffed.

[GhostontheNet]

Fresh? The Caligula incident occurred nearly 15 years prior to this letter! And it was rebuffed. So I know. And what, when you have such a parallel of activities and intent between history and the language of the passage? Is 15 years sufficient time to forget about a near total catastrophy with the possibility for setting a sinister precendence? Have we Americans forgotten about the Cuban missle crisis simply because it never ended in the actual exchange of nuclear weapons?

[eschaton]

Often we turn to history when trying to interpret difficult passages like the second chapter of Second Thessalonians. I think that we should also consider that the apostle's messages were written to Christians who saved the letters, copied them and passed them on to other churches who did likewise. There was an oral tradition passed down by the apostles to those in the early church who also wrote about these things. I think we can consider the writings of those early Christians when we study these things.

They were just people like we are today. They varied in their opinions and interpretations just like we do. We understand that they weren't infallible and made mistakes, but then so do we. There were heretics, but we also have heretics today. One advantage they did have is that they were closer to the oral tradion than we are because they lived closer to the time the biblical apostles taught. So I think it's fair to study what early Christians wrote about these things.

Augustine wrote about 350 years after Paul:

I see that I must omit many of the statements of the gospels and epistles about this last judgment, that this volume may not become unduly long; but I can on no account omit what the Apostle Paul says, in writing to the Thessalonians, "We beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," etc.
No one can doubt that he wrote this of Antichrist and of the day of judgment, which he here calls the day of the Lord, nor that he declared that this day should not come unless he first came who is called the apostate -apostate, to wit, from the Lord God. And if this may justly be said of all the ungodly, how much more of him? But it is uncertain in what temple he shall sit, whether in that ruin of the temple which was built by Solomon, or in the Church; for the apostle would not call the temple of any idol or demon the temple of God. And on this account some think that in this passage Antichrist means not the prince himself alone, but his whole body, that is, the mass of men who adhere to him, along with him their prince; and they also think that we should render the Greek more exactly were we to read, not "in the temple of God," but "for" or "as the temple of God," as if he himself were the temple of God, the Church. The City of God, Book XX, Chapter 19

Origen wrote about 180 years after Paul:

It is thus that the apostle expresses himself: "We beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, ..., ...but had pleasure in unrighteousness."236 To explain each particular here referred to does not belong to our present purpose. The prophecy also regarding Antichrist is stated in the book of Daniel, and is fitted to make an intelligent and candid reader admire the words as truly divine and prophetic; for in them are mentioned the things relating to the coming kingdom, beginning with the times of Daniel, and continuing to the destruction of the world. And any one who chooses may read it. Observe, however, whether the prophecy regarding Antichrist be not as follows: "And at the latter time of their kingdom, when their sins are coming to the full, there shall arise a king, bold in countenance, and understanding riddles. And his power shall be great, and he shall destroy wonderfully, and prosper, and practise; and shall destroy mighty men, and the holy people. And the yoke of his chain shall prosper: there is craft in his hand, and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by craft shall destroy many; and he shall stand up for the destruction of many, and shall crush them as eggs in his hand."237 What is stated by Paul in the words quoted from him, where he says, "so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God,"238 is in Daniel referred to in the following fashion: "And on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations, and at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation."239 So many, out of a greater number of passages, have I thought it right to adduce, that the hearer may understand in some slight degree the meaning of holy Scripture, when it gives us information concerning the devil and Antichrist; and being satisfied with what we have quoted for this purpose, let us look at another of the charges of Celsus, and reply to it as we best may. Origen Against Celsus. Book VI. Chapter XLVI.

Irenaeus wrote about 130 years after Paul wrote.

...Then, further on, in the interpretation of the vision, there was said to him: "The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall excel all other kingdoms, and devour the whole earth, and tread it down, and cut it in pieces. And its ten horns are ten kings which shall arise; and after them shall arise another, who shall surpass in evil deeds all that were before him, and shall overthrow three kings; and he shall speak words against the most high God, and wear out the saints of the most high God, and shall purpose to change times and laws; and [everything] shall be given into his hand until a time of times and a half time,"218 that is, for three years and six months, during which time, when he comes, he shall reign over the earth. Of whom also the Apostle Paul again, speaking in the second [Epistle] to the Thessalonians, and at the same time proclaiming the cause of his advent, thus says: "And then shall the wicked one be revealed, ... that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but gave consent to iniquity,"219
4. The Lord also spoke as follows to those who did not believe in Him: "I have come in my Father's name, and ye have not received Me: when another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive,"220 calling Antichrist "the other," because he is alienated from the Lord. This is also the unjust judge, whom the Lord mentioned as one "who feared not God, neither regarded man,"221 to whom the widow fled in her forgetfulness of God,-that is, the earthly Jerusalem,-to be avenged of her adversary. Which also he shall do in the time of his kingdom: he shall remove his kingdom into that [city], and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ. To this purpose Daniel says again: "And he shall desolate the holy place; and sin has been given for a sacrifice,222 and righteousness been cast away in the earth, and he has been active (fecit), and gone on prosperously."223 Irenaeus Against Heresies Book V. Chapter XXV.-The Fraud, Pride, and Tyrannical Kingdom of Antichrist, as Described by Daniel and Paul. 3b and 4.

The Epistle of Barnabus almost made it into the New Testament. The early church believed it was written by the Barnabus of the New Testament. Scholars today agree that it is a first or second century work.

... We take earnest34 heed in these last days; for the whole [past] time of your faith will profit you nothing, unless now in this wicked time we also withstand coming sources of danger, as becometh the sons of God. That the Black One35 may find no means of entrance, let us flee from every vanity, let us utterly hate the works of the way of wickedness. Do not, by retiring apart, live a solitary life, as if you were already [fully] justified; but coming together in one place, make common inquiry concerning what tends to your general welfare. For the Scripture saith, "Woe to them who are wise to themselves, and prudent in their own sight!"36 Let us be spiritually-minded: let us be a perfect temple to God....
Chapter IV.-Antichrist is at Hand: Let Us Therefore Avoid Jewish Errors.

...And it so happened as the Lord had spoken. Let us inquire, then, if there still is a temple of God. There is-where He himself declared He would make and finish it. For it is written, "And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in glory in the name of the Lord."235 I find, therefore, that a temple does exist. Learn, then, how it shall be built in the name of the Lord. Before we believed in God, the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak, as being indeed like a temple made with hands. For it was full of idolatry, and was a habitation of demons, through our doing such things as were opposed to [the will of] God. But it shall be built, observe ye, in the name of the Lord, in order that the temple of the Lord may be built in glory. How? Learn [as follows]. Having received the forgiveness of sins, and placed our trust in the name of the Lord, we have become new creatures, formed again from the beginning. Wherefore in our habitation God truly dwells in us. How? His word of faith; His calling236 of promise; the wisdom of the statutes; the commands of the doctrine; He himself prophesying in us; He himself dwelling in us; opening to us who were enslaved by death the doors of the temple, that is, the mouth; and by giving us repentance introduced us into the incorruptible temple.237 He then, who wishes to be saved, looks not to man,238 but to Him who dwelleth in him, and speaketh in him, amazed at never having either heard him utter such words with his mouth, nor himself having ever desired to hear them.239 This is the spiritual temple built for the Lord.
The Epistle of Barnabas Chapter XVI.-The Spiritual Temple of God.

[GhostontheNet]

Often we turn to history when trying to interpret difficult passages like the second chapter of Second Thessalonians. I think that we should also consider that the apostle's messages were written to Christians who saved the letters, copied them and passed them on to other churches who did likewise. There was an oral tradition passed down by the apostles to those in the early church who also wrote about these things. I think we can consider the writings of those early Christians when we study these things.

They were just people like we are today. They varied in their opinions and interpretations just like we do. We understand that they weren't infallible and made mistakes, but then so do we. There were heretics, but we also have heretics today. One advantage they did have is that they were closer to the oral tradion than we are because they lived closer to the time the biblical apostles taught. So I think it's fair to study what early Christians wrote about these things.

Augustine wrote about 350 years after Paul:

I see that I must omit many of the statements of the gospels and epistles about this last judgment, that this volume may not become unduly long; but I can on no account omit what the Apostle Paul says, in writing to the Thessalonians, "We beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," etc.
No one can doubt that he wrote this of Antichrist and of the day of judgment, which he here calls the day of the Lord, nor that he declared that this day should not come unless he first came who is called the apostate -apostate, to wit, from the Lord God. And if this may justly be said of all the ungodly, how much more of him? But it is uncertain in what temple he shall sit, whether in that ruin of the temple which was built by Solomon, or in the Church; for the apostle would not call the temple of any idol or demon the temple of God. And on this account some think that in this passage Antichrist means not the prince himself alone, but his whole body, that is, the mass of men who adhere to him, along with him their prince; and they also think that we should render the Greek more exactly were we to read, not "in the temple of God," but "for" or "as the temple of God," as if he himself were the temple of God, the Church. The City of God, Book XX, Chapter 19

Origen wrote about 180 years after Paul:

It is thus that the apostle expresses himself: "We beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, ..., ...but had pleasure in unrighteousness."236 To explain each particular here referred to does not belong to our present purpose. The prophecy also regarding Antichrist is stated in the book of Daniel, and is fitted to make an intelligent and candid reader admire the words as truly divine and prophetic; for in them are mentioned the things relating to the coming kingdom, beginning with the times of Daniel, and continuing to the destruction of the world. And any one who chooses may read it. Observe, however, whether the prophecy regarding Antichrist be not as follows: "And at the latter time of their kingdom, when their sins are coming to the full, there shall arise a king, bold in countenance, and understanding riddles. And his power shall be great, and he shall destroy wonderfully, and prosper, and practise; and shall destroy mighty men, and the holy people. And the yoke of his chain shall prosper: there is craft in his hand, and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by craft shall destroy many; and he shall stand up for the destruction of many, and shall crush them as eggs in his hand."237 What is stated by Paul in the words quoted from him, where he says, "so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God,"238 is in Daniel referred to in the following fashion: "And on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations, and at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation."239 So many, out of a greater number of passages, have I thought it right to adduce, that the hearer may understand in some slight degree the meaning of holy Scripture, when it gives us information concerning the devil and Antichrist; and being satisfied with what we have quoted for this purpose, let us look at another of the charges of Celsus, and reply to it as we best may. Origen Against Celsus. Book VI. Chapter XLVI.

Irenaeus wrote about 130 years after Paul wrote.

...Then, further on, in the interpretation of the vision, there was said to him: "The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall excel all other kingdoms, and devour the whole earth, and tread it down, and cut it in pieces. And its ten horns are ten kings which shall arise; and after them shall arise another, who shall surpass in evil deeds all that were before him, and shall overthrow three kings; and he shall speak words against the most high God, and wear out the saints of the most high God, and shall purpose to change times and laws; and [everything] shall be given into his hand until a time of times and a half time,"218 that is, for three years and six months, during which time, when he comes, he shall reign over the earth. Of whom also the Apostle Paul again, speaking in the second [Epistle] to the Thessalonians, and at the same time proclaiming the cause of his advent, thus says: "And then shall the wicked one be revealed, ... that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but gave consent to iniquity,"219
4. The Lord also spoke as follows to those who did not believe in Him: "I have come in my Father's name, and ye have not received Me: when another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive,"220 calling Antichrist "the other," because he is alienated from the Lord. This is also the unjust judge, whom the Lord mentioned as one "who feared not God, neither regarded man,"221 to whom the widow fled in her forgetfulness of God,-that is, the earthly Jerusalem,-to be avenged of her adversary. Which also he shall do in the time of his kingdom: he shall remove his kingdom into that [city], and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ. To this purpose Daniel says again: "And he shall desolate the holy place; and sin has been given for a sacrifice,222 and righteousness been cast away in the earth, and he has been active (fecit), and gone on prosperously."223 Irenaeus Against Heresies Book V. Chapter XXV.-The Fraud, Pride, and Tyrannical Kingdom of Antichrist, as Described by Daniel and Paul. 3b and 4.

The Epistle of Barnabus almost made it into the New Testament. The early church believed it was written by the Barnabus of the New Testament. Scholars today agree that it is a first or second century work.

... We take earnest34 heed in these last days; for the whole [past] time of your faith will profit you nothing, unless now in this wicked time we also withstand coming sources of danger, as becometh the sons of God. That the Black One35 may find no means of entrance, let us flee from every vanity, let us utterly hate the works of the way of wickedness. Do not, by retiring apart, live a solitary life, as if you were already [fully] justified; but coming together in one place, make common inquiry concerning what tends to your general welfare. For the Scripture saith, "Woe to them who are wise to themselves, and prudent in their own sight!"36 Let us be spiritually-minded: let us be a perfect temple to God....
Chapter IV.-Antichrist is at Hand: Let Us Therefore Avoid Jewish Errors.

...And it so happened as the Lord had spoken. Let us inquire, then, if there still is a temple of God. There is-where He himself declared He would make and finish it. For it is written, "And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in glory in the name of the Lord."235 I find, therefore, that a temple does exist. Learn, then, how it shall be built in the name of the Lord. Before we believed in God, the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak, as being indeed like a temple made with hands. For it was full of idolatry, and was a habitation of demons, through our doing such things as were opposed to [the will of] God. But it shall be built, observe ye, in the name of the Lord, in order that the temple of the Lord may be built in glory. How? Learn [as follows]. Having received the forgiveness of sins, and placed our trust in the name of the Lord, we have become new creatures, formed again from the beginning. Wherefore in our habitation God truly dwells in us. How? His word of faith; His calling236 of promise; the wisdom of the statutes; the commands of the doctrine; He himself prophesying in us; He himself dwelling in us; opening to us who were enslaved by death the doors of the temple, that is, the mouth; and by giving us repentance introduced us into the incorruptible temple.237 He then, who wishes to be saved, looks not to man,238 but to Him who dwelleth in him, and speaketh in him, amazed at never having either heard him utter such words with his mouth, nor himself having ever desired to hear them.239 This is the spiritual temple built for the Lord.
The Epistle of Barnabas Chapter XVI.-The Spiritual Temple of God. The big pushback to these cites is that almost all of them or even all of them (depending on the date of the epistle of Barnabas) date after not only the first Jewish revolt which saw the demolition if the Temple in Jerusalem, but also the aftermath of the Bar Kochba revolt when the Jews were dismissed from Judea and hence the rebuilding of the Temple became highly unlikely. If they were to believe the end times were near as many of your cites let on, they would all unilaterally have to take on a different interpretation from that of it being the physical Temple.

[eschaton]

The big pushback to these cites is that almost all of them or even all of them (depending on the date of the epistle of Barnabas) date after not only the first Jewish revolt which saw the demolition if the Temple in Jerusalem, but also the aftermath of the Bar Kochba revolt when the Jews were dismissed from Judea and hence the rebuilding of the Temple became highly unlikely. If they were to believe the end times were near as many of your cites let on, they would all unilaterally have to take on a different interpretation from that of it being the physical Temple.


That's a good point. However, the idea of the temple being the church is well grounded in the New Testament.

Eph2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
1Co 3:9,16-17 6:19 2Co 6:16 Eph 4:13-16 Heb 3:6 1Pe 2:4,5 Rev 3:12

So consistency in interpretation can account for their views as much as the fact that the literal temple didn't exist. The fact that the temple doesn't exist doesn't seem to bother premillennialsts now a days, so the early church could just as easily have predicted a rebuilding of the literal temple. Was it any more unlikely then that it is now?

Heb9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; He 9:23,24 11:10 Ac 7:48 17:24,25 2Co 5:1 Joh 14:2,3 9

[eschaton]

Hippolytus [a.d. 170-236.] student or Iraeneus, didn't have any trouble predicting that Antichrist would raise up a temple of stone.

Treatise on Christ and Antichrist
6b Antichrist is also a lion; Christ is a king,25 so Antichrist is also a king. The Saviour was manifested as a lamb;26 so he too, in like manner, will appear as a lamb, though within he is a wolf. The Saviour came into the World in the circumcision, and he will come in the same manner. The Lord sent apostles among all the nations, and he in like manner will send false apostles. The Saviour gathered together the sheep that were scattered abroad,27 and he in like manner will bring together a people that is scattered abroad. The Lord gave a seal to those who believed on Him, and he will give one like manner. The Saviour appeared in the form of man, and he too will come in the form of a man. The Saviour raised up and showed His holy flesh like a temple,28 and he will raise a temple of stone in Jerusalem. And his seductive arts we shall exhibit in what follows. But for the present let us turn to the question in hand.

[GhostontheNet]

Hippolytus [a.d. 170-236.] student or Iraeneus, didn't have any trouble predicting that Antichrist would raise up a temple of stone.

Treatise on Christ and Antichrist
6b Antichrist is also a lion; Christ is a king,25 so Antichrist is also a king. The Saviour was manifested as a lamb;26 so he too, in like manner, will appear as a lamb, though within he is a wolf. The Saviour came into the World in the circumcision, and he will come in the same manner. The Lord sent apostles among all the nations, and he in like manner will send false apostles. The Saviour gathered together the sheep that were scattered abroad,27 and he in like manner will bring together a people that is scattered abroad. The Lord gave a seal to those who believed on Him, and he will give one like manner. The Saviour appeared in the form of man, and he too will come in the form of a man. The Saviour raised up and showed His holy flesh like a temple,28 and he will raise a temple of stone in Jerusalem. And his seductive arts we shall exhibit in what follows. But for the present let us turn to the question in hand. Congratulations, you have discovered a theological spectrum of belief on an issue, though as of yet not countering my point. It is not implausable to believe that some would hold that events had demonstrated that the physical Temple of Jerusalem could not have been intended, while others held that there would be some astonishing supernatural event of this sort. Overall however, none of them explicitly cite any sort of oral tradition, and their interpretations are skewed by events of the day, much as some modern futurist interpretations of Revelation are skewed towards looking for modern technology and modern events into the text.

That's a good point. However, the idea of the temple being the church is well grounded in the New Testament.

Eph2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
1Co 3:9,16-17 6:19 2Co 6:16 Eph 4:13-16 Heb 3:6 1Pe 2:4,5 Rev 3:12

So consistency in interpretation can account for their views as much as the fact that the literal temple didn't exist. The fact that the temple doesn't exist doesn't seem to bother premillennialsts now a days, so the early church could just as easily have predicted a rebuilding of the literal temple. Was it any more unlikely then that it is now?

Heb9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; He 9:23,24 11:10 Ac 7:48 17:24,25 2Co 5:1 Joh 14:2,3 9 I agree that there is Biblical data on the New community of believers and their bodies indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and know there is evidence given by N.T. Wright that from the beginning Christianity (and for that matter, John the Baptist's movement) was a counter-temple movement in a similar way to that of the Essenes. However, this didn't stop Yeshua Christ from still having a high view of the Temple of Jerusalem, calling it among other things "my Father's house", nor yet did it stop Luke from stating in his Gospel according to the custom of the priesthood, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense. In light of the Caligula connection, and the general tone of the passage, I don't think it improbable that Paul is using the then normal referent of the Temple of Jerusalem.

[eschaton]

Congratulations, you have discovered a theological spectrum of belief on an issue, though as of yet not countering my point. It is not implausable to believe that some would hold that events had demonstrated that the physical Temple of Jerusalem could not have been intended, while others held that there would be some astonishing supernatural event of this sort. Overall however, none of them explicitly cite any sort of oral tradition, and their interpretations are skewed by events of the day, much as some modern futurist interpretations of Revelation are skewed towards looking for modern technology and modern events into the text.

I agree that there is Biblical data on the New community of believers and their bodies indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and know there is evidence given by N.T. Wright that from the beginning Christianity (and for that matter, John the Baptist's movement) was a counter-temple movement in a similar way to that of the Essenes. However, this didn't stop Yeshua Christ from still having a high view of the Temple of Jerusalem, calling it among other things "my Father's house", nor yet did it stop Luke from stating in his Gospel according to the custom of the priesthood, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense. In light of the Caligula connection, and the general tone of the passage, I don't think it improbable that Paul is using the then normal referent of the Temple of Jerusalem.

As far as oral tradition is concerned, Augustine does state that he discusses opinions that he has either heard or read. All of the other writers refer to other scriptures in addition to 2nd Thessalonians. Particularly Daniel, Matthew, Revelation and other epistles. On the other hand, I don't see any of the fathers discussed referring to Caligula or any other event of the day except perhaps the destruction of 70 AD. Augustine does say he has heard that some believed the man of sin was Nero. That is not his opinion though. If you see where some of these church fathers referred to Caligula or events of their day in close proximity to the passages we have been looking at please point that out.

[NathanDavid]

Thank you for an excellent post. If it will help, I suggest you research the founding father of the ICRC as the false prophet. Also read Revelation 17:8 to understand the connection (or shadow-puppetry) between the ancient Roman Empire and the new world government (or "beast that was, and is not, and yet is...). I haven't tried this, because I already have the documentation that I need to understand the prophecy surrounding Jean Henri Dunante, but since his memoirs are on display in the Geneva Library, it is possible that his anti-Christian quote may be available online somewhere. I got it from a book by Carol Rothkopf.

Dunant's quote is:
"Let us destroy the two infamies. The two great enemies of humanity are the church and the state. They are two arbitrary and complimentary driving forces. One-brutal and machievellian, a hypocritical despotism. The-other callous and dishonest, tyrannical and fanatical. You know that I hate state churches, the "Reformed" as well as the Orthadox,. But I have no more love for the Baptists, the Methodists, the Weslyans, the Salutists, the Derbists, and the Congregationalists and all the other "ists" in the world. I am I, and that is enough. But to my last breath I shall strive to demoralize all your state trash. I shall all too soon have reached my end, but Christianity will have to pay for all the shames it has heaped up through the centuries. It is cowardly, mean and hateful to persecute conscience, as happens today in Russua, Spain and Switzerland..."

Again, this quote was found in "Jean Henri Dunant Father of the Red Cross," by Carol Rothkopf. It was taken from Dunant's personal memoirs. I found this book in the youth section of the Birmingham Public Library in Birmingham, Alabama. The book also lists the seven principles of the ICRC (five of which they hold up in the American Red Cross). The one principle (or king) that "has not yet come," as in Revelation 17, is the ICRC's principle of neutrality. It is the one sword smitten head of the seven headed beast that marks the international agencies' works as dead works, because they refuse to uphold Christ. There is alot you can learn online about this stuff... Dunant was a Swiss banker and a backslid Seventh Day Adventist.