Let's talk about "bad breath" [Archive]

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 23rd 2006, 02:59 PM

This thread is a “spin-off” of another thread located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=73513&page=1&pp=16).

In this thread the question was asked by a member who shall remain nameless (hint: this member is the one who started the thread), regarding how Nero fit the description of the Man of Lawlessness, specifically in regards to 2 Thes. 2:8 which states that he (the Man of Lawlessness) will be destroyed by Jesus Breath.

I was all eager, willing and able to discuss this on that thread. However, having dealt with this unnamed member (hint: his initials are eschaton) for several pages, and having him evade, dodge, and otherwise ignore my substantive points, I wanted some assurance from him that if I offered a substantive response to his question that he would not continue to evade, dodge, and otherwise ignore this as well; that he would actually address my points this time. Well no name refused. It was his thread, so I could not make him follow a perfectly reasonable request.

Well, this is my thread. And I am making the very reasonable (and since this is my thread, enforceable) request that only matters dealing with 2 Thes. 2:8 be discussed. In other words, please keep this on topic.

Now for those of you who have not been following the other thread, and have no desire to read through 12 plus pages of evasion and posturing, I will give a little back ground.

It is my position that the “Man of Lawlessness” (MoL) in 2 Thes. 2 is (or was) the Roman Emporor Nero. I will give a very brief background on that, but do not want to debate that in this thread except for whether or not Nero fits verse 8.

Let us look at the relevant text:

3Let 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, 4who 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. 5Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8And 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. 9The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Let us start with verse 7 because that gives us a big clue. Two words jump out. Already and now. The plain reading of this text demands that whoever this man of lawless is, and whoever the restrainer is they must have been alive and present in the first century. So that puts an extreme limit on who that could be. There are some who say it can not be a first century person (**cough** eschaton **cough**) because no first century person meets all the other criteria. The problem is that such people “conveniently ignore” the time texts in verses 6-7. The only viable options are that this was fulfilled in the first century or verses 6-7 are wrong. Being that I hold to inerrant scripture, the second option is not viable to me.

So we have a first century individual. So we MUST look to see what first century individual(s) fit the bill.

Let us start with the date the text was written (for a reference to when “now” was). Most conservative scholars agree that the text was written during the reign of Claudius. The name Claudius means “restrainer” so Claudius is the most obvious choice for the restrainer.

The next obvious question is who was Claudius restraining. If we answer that, we will know who the man of lawlessness is. Well, when Claudius died, this left his throne open to Nero. With Claudius Nero was not emperor, with Claudius “removed” Nero became Emperor. So Nero is the most obvious choice for “the man of lawlessness”.

For a more detailed article please check this article (http://www.caledonianfire.org/caledonianfire/docs/IIthes.htm)by Mark Alvis (where I also got a lot of the information on v. 8).

Again, this is just for background. I do not want to debate the above, in this thread, at least not until there has been ample discussion on the specifics of verse 8. Not on to the meat of this thread, 2 Thessalonians 2:8 as it applies (or does not apply) to Nero:

Let us (as always) start with the relevant text:

And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.

The question is, “How was Nero killed with the breath of Jesus”?

To answer that question, we need to asked two other questions:

1 What does Paul mean by “Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth”?

2 How did Nero die?

For the first question we will look to scripture, and for the second question we will look to history? If scripture describes someone’s death bye devine breath, and this matches up with what history tells us of Nero’s death, then I would say we have a match. That sounds like a tall order. But I think I am up to the task.

First I will look at scripture to see what could be meant by “kill with the breath of his mouth” means.

For space sake, I will assume that all agree that there is scriptural support for the divinity of Christ.

Next I will look for other instances of people being killed with breath. Is there such an instance in scripture? (Whould I be asking if there was not?) The passage is in 2 Samuel 22. The passage is long, so I will only reproduce the most relevant sections here for space sake, but I strongly encourage the reader to look up the hole verse for context:

1And David spoke to the LORD the words of this song on the day when the LORD delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul. 2He said,

"The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer,
3my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge,
my shield, and the horn of my salvation,
my stronghold and my refuge,
my savior; you save me from violence.
4I call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised,
and I am saved from my enemies.
…
8"Then the earth reeled and rocked;
the foundations of the heavens trembled
and quaked, because he was angry.
9Smoke went up from his nostrils,
and devouring fire from his mouth;
glowing coals flamed forth from him.
…
16Then the channels of the sea were seen;
the foundations of the world were laid bare,
at the rebuke of the LORD,
at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.

17"He sent from on high, he took me;
he drew me out of many waters.
18He rescued me from my strong enemy,
from those who hated me,
for they were too mighty for me.
19They confronted me in the day of my calamity,
but the LORD was my support.
…

28You save a humble people,
but your eyes are on the haughty to bring them down.

Now, scripture tells us that this was a prayer of thanksgiving given by David when he was delivered from his enemies, and Saul is mentioned specifically by name (v. 1). Paul starts off by giving credit where credit is due for all things, God (vv. 2-5). So no matter the means God used, it was ultimately God Who delivered the victory.

In this passage, David tells “how” God did this vv. 8-16. One of the things David mentions is the “devoring flame” from God’s mouth (v. 9) and a “blast of breath from His nostrils” (v. 16). Sound familiar? This is the same way that Paul says that Jesus will destroy the MoL.

Now this is a song by David praising God for an already past victory. So we need to look at the historical record to see what happened. Of course we have the historical record of scripture to tell us how David’s enemies were destroyed, and specifically how Saul was killed. There is no record of God physically coming down and breathing on anyone causing them to die, so we can rule out the “wooden literal” interpretation right away.

And since Saul was mentioned by name, and since we have a record of his death, let us look and see how Saul actually died.

4Then Saul said to his armor-bearer, "Draw your sword and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised come and mistreat me." But his armor-bearer would not, for he feared greatly. Therefore Saul took his own sword and fell upon it.

Saul did NOT die as a result of some visible manifestation of God’s breath (but I have no doubt, God was in control of this and all events). Saul fell on his own sword. He committed suicide.

That leads us to the next question. How did Nero die? He stabbed himself in the neck. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero#Suicide)

Coincidence? I think not. I think Paul was fully aware of the passage in 2 Samuel where David declared that God destroyed Saul with His breath. I think Paul was aware of the method of Saul’s death. I think he was fully aware that Jesus was God. I think he was fully aware that Nero would die by suicide. What better way to describe the historical events that were to shortly take place?

I welcome all discussion (even from what’s his name) on this as long as the comments are on topic and address the points I raised.

Thanks,

:sig:

eschaton

March 23rd 2006, 03:48 PM

Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat

March 23rd 2006, 04:19 PM

Far, it is also interesting to note that the breath of Jesus conferred the Holy Spirit on the Disciples, which is who I believe the restrainer to be.

Also of note, it is said in the verse that the MoL would be destroyed AT Jesus' coming (vs8), which IIRC, you put at 70 AD. Nero died in 68 AD, so that eliminates him completely.

Also conspicuously lacking is where the MoL "takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God" which Nero did not do.

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 23rd 2006, 04:20 PM

Hi Faramir,

I checked several places on the web for the meaning of the name Claudius. They all indicated crippled or lame.

The boy's and girl's name Claude is pronounced klawd. It is of Latin origin, and its meaning is "lame." Roman clan name. Claudius was the Roman emperor who succeeded Caligula. Saint Claudius (third century) was a Roman tribune who converted to Christianity. Popular in France (where it is sometimes used as a girl's name) due to the fame of seventh-century Saint Claude of Besançon. Claud is the Anglicized form. Painter Claude Monet; composer Claude Debussy; Congressman Claude Pepper; actor Claude Rains.

So I looked in a Latin dictionary and I found this.

http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=claud&ending=ius

claud ius

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

claudeo -ere and claudo -ere [to limp , halt, be lame].

claudicatio -onis f. [a limping].

claudico -are [to limp , be lame]. Transf., [to incline, be deflected; to halt, waver].

Claudius (Clodius) -a -um [the name of two Roman gentes]; esp. [of the emperor Claudius (10 B.C.-A.D. 54)]. Adj. Claudianus -a -um , Claudialis -e.

claudo (1) (cludo) claudere clausi clausum [to close , shut up, make inaccessible]; of military positions, [to blockade, invest]; of prisoners, etc., [to shut in, confine]. Transf., [to conclude]; 'agmen', [to bring up the rear]. Hence partic. clausus -a -um, of character, [close, reserved]; n. as subst., [an enclosed place].

claudo (2) = claudeo; q.v.

claudus -a -um [limping , lame]. Transf., [crippled, defective]; poet., 'carmina alterno versu', [elegiac verse].

The claudo might kinda sorta fit, but the Greek word is this:

2722. katecho, kat-ekh'-o; from G2596 and G2192; to hold down (fast), in various applications (lit. or fig.):--have, hold (fast), keep (in memory), let, X make toward, possess, retain, seize on, stay, take, withhold.

It really seems a stretch at best, but I don't see anywhere else in the Bible where caesar is spoke of in such a way.

Certainly you can make whatever scripture links you want, but my study Bible gives the traditional ones"

Isa 11:4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.

Rev19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

I don't see where either of these indicate Nero stabbing himself in the neck, and I don't know of anybody in the early church who did either. According to Augustine those who believed Nero in connection with 2nd Thess 2 believed he would come back to life as a future antichrist.

In case you did not notice. I said I provided the information on Claudius and Nero for "background" information. I specifically asked that discussion on this thread be limited to v. 8.

You had your chance to discuss this in the other thread, but would not agree to my simple and fair conditions.

This is my thread. My rules. Please limit your discussion to v. 8 and whether or not Nero fits the being killed by the breath of Christ.

This is exactly why I did not want to dialog with you in your thread. You keep changing the subject. But I will make a deal with you. If you will address the points I made regarding Nero fitting verse 8. I will answer your question about Claudius.

Other wise. stay off my thread.

You get one free pass. Your next post that does not address the topic will be reported.

eschaton

March 23rd 2006, 04:26 PM

In case you did not notice. I said I provided the information on Claudius and Nero for "background" information. I specifically asked that discussion on this thread be limited to v. 8.

You had your chance to discuss this in the other thread, but would not agree to my simple and fair conditions.

This is my thread. My rules. Please limit your discussion to v. 8 and whether or not Nero fits the being killed by the breath of Christ.

This is exactly why I did not want to dialog with you in your thread. You keep changing the subject. But I will make a deal with you. If you will address the points I made regarding Nero fitting verse 8. I will answer your question about Claudius.

Other wise. stay off my thread.

You get one free pass. Your next post that does not address the topic will be reported.

Sorry, but I thought you meant this verse 8.

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

I thought you gave some links of your own? Okay, I'll stay out of it from here on out. Enjoy.

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 23rd 2006, 04:35 PM

Far, it is also interesting to note that the breath of Jesus conferred the Holy Spirit on the Disciples, which is who I believe the restrainer to be.
The Claudius connection is not really necessary for Nero to be the MoL. I believe he was, but it is not necessary, there is plenty of other reasons (if you check the link I provided I think that the authour considered Michael to be the restrainer). Plus I don't really want to discuss the restrainer in this thread, I just put that in for background. Maybe we can pick that up in another thread in the future. I rather keep this thread on a narrow topic.

But your reference to the breath of Jesus as confiring the Holy Spirit is interesting. Can you give me a verse and say why (or if) you conect that to 2 Thes. 2:8?

Also of note, it is said in the verse that the MoL would be destroyed AT Jesus' coming (vs8), which IIRC, you put at 70 AD. Nero died in 68 AD, so that eliminates him completely.

You recall incorrectly. AD 70 (not 70 AD :poke) was the "culmination" of Christ coming in judgment. It was not a one time event. The judgment took place over a period of time known as the Jewish Wars, which began shortly before Nero died. (If you would have read the link you would know that :poke:)

Also conspicuously lacking is where the MoL "takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God" which Nero did not do.
:whack:

1. Do you really think I have not considered that?
2. Did you not see where I wanted to limit this thread to v. 8

:whack:

Thank you for you input. But I really want to focus on v. 8 in this thread. Does Nero meet the sepcific qualification, for verse 8 and/or is there any major flaw in my argument in the OP of this thread (not the background info, but the following argument).

I know you will respect this. Thanks.

Maybe we can discuss the rest of this passage in another thread.

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 23rd 2006, 04:50 PM

Sorry, but I thought you meant this verse 8.

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

I thought you gave some links of your own? Okay, I'll stay out of it from here on out. Enjoy.

I did mean that verse 8. You were asking about the restrainer which is v. 6-7.

I really want you to discuss v. 8. Please don't go away (unless you can't address the points I raised).

As you can see. I am quite capable of civil dialog. I did so with Bill the Cat. (the dispensational futurist that he is even). I also told him the same thing I told you. I do NOT want to discuss the nature of the restrainer in this thread.

Do you think you can stay focused on v. 8? I know Bill the Cat can. Maybe you can learn something from him. I have serious disagreements with him on eschatology. But I have great respect for his skill as a debater.

Many opponents have stated that I do not answer them because I am somehow "afraid" of him. Bill the Cat has never said that. But he is one of the few opponents I am afraid of (but only a little, don't let that get to your head Bill).

I know that he is quite capable of addressing my arguments, and finding flaws in them (not percieved flaws that he asserts, but real "Dang, I never thought about it that way" flaws.).

In other words, he challenges me.

You on the other hand merely entertain me with your blustering and posturing. I enjoy both, but I preferr to be challenged. So, are you going to try to challenge me, or are you going to continue to be evasive and blustering?

Edit to add: I do want to address a few things you said. I missed this in your first post and it was on topic, so I want to address it:

I don't see where either of these indicate Nero stabbing himself in the neck, and I don't know of anybody in the early church who did either. According to Augustine those who believed Nero in connection with 2nd Thess 2 believed he would come back to life as a future antichrist.

If you would have read my post I said we were to match up history and scripture. Scripture tells us that David described the slaying of his enemy, Saul, as an act of God's breath (among other things). Scripture AND History tell us that Saul died by suicide. History tells us that Nero also died by suicide.

These are all facts. Do you deny any of these facts? (hint: this is a yes or no question)

Also I want to address this satement:

I thought you gave some links of your own?

Yep I sure did. I never said links in and of themselves were against the rules. They are not. But links should be used to support an argument that or give additional background to an argument that you post. When there is no argument posted, and only links. That is when it becomes a violation of TWeb. I hope I cleared that up.

Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat

March 23rd 2006, 05:00 PM

The Claudius connection is not really necessary for Nero to be the MoL. I believe he was, but it is not necessary, there is plenty of other reasons (if you check the link I provided I think that the authour considered Michael to be the restrainer). Plus I don't really want to discuss the restrainer in this thread, I just put that in for background. Maybe we can pick that up in another thread in the future. I rather keep this thread on a narrow topic.

Understood.

But your reference to the breath of Jesus as confiring the Holy Spirit is interesting. Can you give me a verse and say why (or if) you conect that to 2 Thes. 2:8?

The Breath of Jesus is onlt mentioned one other time in the entire NT...

John 20
22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

In relation to vs.8 of 2 Thess 2, I believe what will ultimately destroy the MoL is the Holy Spirit at the return of Jesus for His people

You recall incorrectly. AD 70 (not 70 AD :poke) was the "culmination" of Christ coming in judgment. It was not a one time event. The judgment took place over a period of time known as the Jewish Wars, which began shortly before Nero died. (If you would have read the link you would know that :poke:)

The interesting thing is that the Jews were successful for a time before Vespian came in and spanked them good. Hardly judgement if you ask me

:whack:

1. Do you really think I have not considered that?

Well, you are still a Preterist, so... :teeth:

2. Did you not see where I wanted to limit this thread to v. 8

Yes, but that verse directly spells out what would happen to the MoL identified in vs 8. It can not be ignored, as it spells out a specific action that the man you are trying to identify in vs 8 would do. IMO, it is more important to identify the MoL from vs 3 than vs 8... but I digress. My apologies

:whack:

Thank you for you input. But I really want to focus on v. 8 in this thread. Does Nero meet the sepcific qualification, for verse 8

No. The appearance of Jesus' coming does not mesh with Nero's death. Nero comitted suicide because his peers were going to kill him in his unpopular political and military weakness, (http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch20.htm) not by the existence of the Jewish Wars. Nothing in Nero's death accounts can parallel to the MoL in vs.8 other than they both die.

and/or is there any major flaw in my argument in the OP of this thread (not the background info, but the following argument).

I know you will respect this. Thanks.

Maybe we can discuss the rest of this passage in another thread.

:cool: Sounds good to me.

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 23rd 2006, 05:16 PM

Understood.

Thanks.

The Breath of Jesus is onlt mentioned one other time in the entire NT...

John 20
22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

In relation to vs.8 of 2 Thess 2, I believe what will ultimately destroy the MoL is the Holy Spirit at the return of Jesus for His people

Very interesting. And assuming the rest of your eschatology is correct (which it is not) I would say that would be a valid consideration.

And I am asking for the same sort of consideration here. Assuming that Nero does meet all the other qualifies of MoL, does he also fit the dying by Jesus breath.

The interesting thing is that the Jews were successful for a time before Vespian came in and spanked them good. Hardly judgement if you ask me.

Well, I would hardly call them successful. But they certainly thought they were. And ther were not "spanked" yet, this is true. Plus, the apparent "success" was predicted in Luke "When you see the city surrounded by armies, flee to the hills" (paraphrase). The armies had to come and leave so the belivers could get out (which they did). And very shortly thereafter Nero died. So it is the beginning of the coming judgment that culminated with the destruction of the temple.

Well, you are still a Preterist, so... :teeth:

Well you are still a futurist, but I still give you credit where credit is due. :nana:

Yes, but that verse directly spells out what would happen to the MoL identified in vs 8. It can not be ignored, as it spells out a specific action that the man you are trying to identify in vs 8 would do. IMO, it is more important to identify the MoL from vs 3 than vs 8... but I digress. My apologies

Actually that verse is much easier to address than v. 8. Plus I have reasons to focus on v. 8 (mostly to try to get eschaton to focus. I think if he could do that he would be a much better debater).

No. The appearance of Jesus' coming does not mesh with Nero's death. Nero comitted suicide because his peers were going to kill him in his unpopular political and military weakness, (http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch20.htm)

Not very dissimilar to the circumstances surounding Saul's death, which was also atributed to the "breath" of God.

not by the existence of the Jewish Wars.

Come now. Do you think God did not have (or at least might have) a hand in all that as retribution against Nero for his persecution of the Church?

David said that God killed his enemy (Saul being the only one named) with the breath of His nostril. We know Saul died by suicide. If the OT can use this laguage to describe suicide, why not the NT?

Nothing in Nero's death accounts can parallel to the MoL in vs.8 other than they both die.

Well if "death by breath" is equated to suicide (and I think it reasonable to think that Paul could have made that connection considering the scripture I provided) then it is just a little more than they both died.

:cool: Sounds good to me.

:thumb:

eschaton

March 23rd 2006, 05:17 PM

What did I say that didn't involve verse 8?

You said.

The next obvious question is who was Claudius restraining.
.

Verse 8 says

8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed,

Doesn't that mean after the restrainer, that you said is Caudius?

I did mean that verse 8. You were asking about the restrainer which is v. 6-7.
argument posted, and only links. That is when it becomes a violation of TWeb. I hope I cleared that up.

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 23rd 2006, 05:47 PM

What did I say that didn't involve verse 8?

I checked several places on the web for the meaning of the name Claudius. They all indicated crippled or lame.

The boy's and girl's name Claude is pronounced klawd. It is of Latin origin, and its meaning is "lame." Roman clan name. Claudius was the Roman emperor who succeeded Caligula. Saint Claudius (third century) was a Roman tribune who converted to Christianity. Popular in France (where it is sometimes used as a girl's name) due to the fame of seventh-century Saint Claude of Besançon. Claud is the Anglicized form. Painter Claude Monet; composer Claude Debussy; Congressman Claude Pepper; actor Claude Rains.

So I looked in a Latin dictionary and I found this.

http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=claud&ending=ius

claud ius

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

claudeo -ere and claudo -ere [to limp , halt, be lame].

claudicatio -onis f. [a limping].

claudico -are [to limp , be lame]. Transf., [to incline, be deflected; to halt, waver].

Claudius (Clodius) -a -um [the name of two Roman gentes]; esp. [of the emperor Claudius (10 B.C.-A.D. 54)]. Adj. Claudianus -a -um , Claudialis -e.

claudo (1) (cludo) claudere clausi clausum [to close , shut up, make inaccessible]; of military positions, [to blockade, invest]; of prisoners, etc., [to shut in, confine]. Transf., [to conclude]; 'agmen', [to bring up the rear]. Hence partic. clausus -a -um, of character, [close, reserved]; n. as subst., [an enclosed place].

claudo (2) = claudeo; q.v.

claudus -a -um [limping , lame]. Transf., [crippled, defective]; poet., 'carmina alterno versu', [elegiac verse].

The claudo might kinda sorta fit, but the Greek word is this:

2722. katecho, kat-ekh'-o; from G2596 and G2192; to hold down (fast), in various applications (lit. or fig.):--have, hold (fast), keep (in memory), let, X make toward, possess, retain, seize on, stay, take, withhold.

It really seems a stretch at best, but I don't see anywhere else in the Bible where caesar is spoke of in such a way.

All of that is about Claudius, who I identify as the restrainer. The restrainer is mentioned in v. 6-7 but not 8.

Do you understand now?

eschaton

March 23rd 2006, 05:52 PM

eschaton

March 23rd 2006, 05:57 PM

Well, this is my thread. And I am making the very reasonable (and since this is my thread, enforceable) request that only matters dealing with 2 Thes. 2:8 be discussed. In other words, please keep this on topic.

If Claudis doesn't matter in verse 8 then why did you bring it up? It doesn't seem fair that you won't let me mention it when you're the one that brought it up. If that's the rules then I won't bother the thread anymore.

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 23rd 2006, 06:00 PM

Sorry, I edited my previous message. Verse 8 continues "And then," doesn't that involve the restrainer from the previous verse? You were the one who brought up Claudius. Doesn't he have to be included in a discussion of verse 8? You did it anyway.

No the "and then" talks about what happens after the restrainer is removed. And yes I talked about the restrainer, but I clearly stated it was for background information ONLY and I did NOT want to talk about that in this thread.

It is my position that the “Man of Lawlessness” (MoL) in 2 Thes. 2 is (or was) the Roman Emporor Nero. I will give a very brief background on that, but do not want to debate that in this thread except for whether or not Nero fits verse 8.

and again

Again, this is just for background. I do not want to debate the above, in this thread, at least not until there has been ample discussion on the specifics of verse 8. Not on to the meat of this thread, 2 Thessalonians 2:8 as it applies (or does not apply) to Nero:

So are we clear now. I did address one of the comments you made. I would like for you to address that response I made to you. It is on topic. I will post it again for your convenience.

I don't see where either of these indicate Nero stabbing himself in the neck, and I don't know of anybody in the early church who did either. According to Augustine those who believed Nero in connection with 2nd Thess 2 believed he would come back to life as a future antichrist. If you would have read my post I said we were to match up history and scripture. Scripture tells us that David described the slaying of his enemy, Saul, as an act of God's breath (among other things). Scripture AND History tell us that Saul died by suicide. History tells us that Nero also died by suicide.

These are all facts. Do you deny any of these facts? If so, which fact(s) do you deny?

Can you answer these questions (I hope you don't mind I did change the questions a little from when I first posted, but I think the new way is a little clearer.

eschaton

March 23rd 2006, 06:04 PM

If Claudis doesn't matter in verse 8 then why did you bring it up? It doesn't seem fair that you won't let me mention it when you're the one that brought it up. If that's the rules then I won't bother the thread anymore.

Doesn't seem fair to me. Actually, it seems totally ridiculous. Why don't you just say let's take this verse totally out of context? I guess I understand why we don't see eye to eye on these things. I believe at looking at these things in full context. It's your thread.

eschaton

March 23rd 2006, 06:16 PM

It's true that I like to keep my thread on topic, but I don't try to isolate one verse from all the surrounding verses, and from anything that might affect that particular verse. Actually, when I try to keep my thread on topic it's usually to prevent people from taking a verse and isolating it. Or maybe they want one little piece of the puzzle and claim it fits when it doesn't come close, because they've ignored the bigger picture.

eschaton

March 23rd 2006, 06:20 PM

You're the one that brought up Claudius, not me.

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 23rd 2006, 07:37 PM

Doesn't seem fair to me. Actually, it seems totally ridiculous. Why don't you just say let's take this verse totally out of context? I guess I understand why we don't see eye to eye on these things. I believe at looking at these things in full context. It's your thread.

Do you know what seems unfair and rediculous to me.

The fact that in the other thread you moaned and whined because I would not answer a question about v. 8. You cried how "unfair" it was.

I said I would answer if you would agree to address my points. You were clearly wise enough (a true "sophmore" :wink: ) to not agree to that, as you can clearly not answer the very simple questions I have asked you (twice now) about v. 8.

What is not fair. Is that I research and study and come up with an answer to v. 8 the very verse you picked out hoping for some discussion and you continue to ingore every single point I make. '

You complain and whined when I didn't answer your question about v. 8. Now you complain and whine about why I won't answer your question about Claudius.

It should be apparant to all who have read both of these threads waht is going on here.

Every single time I ask a question, you evade, ignore, and otherwise weasle out of answering the question, insisting I answer yet another of your questions before you answer my questions.

And you have the unmitigated gall to say this is not fair. It is not fair that I answer the very question you asked, but you absolutely refuse to answer my question.

Where does it end eschaton?

How many times do I have to answer your questions, before you will even attempt to answer one of mine?

I've run across this "style" a dozen times before (mostly from futurist).

The preterist spends hours develping thier arguments, only to have theire opponent say, "But what about X...."

Well that my friend is not fair.

I will be happy to answer your questions, when you begin to answer mine. I have already answered your question about v. 8. That is MORE THAN FAIR as far as I can see. Now it is your turn.

If I am going to take the time to develop a well reasonsed response to your question, I expect you to at least give me the courtesy of answering my questions to you, or at the very least leave me alone.

So I am going to ask you a couple of questions. FOR THE THIRD TIME. I was FAIR enough to you and answered your question on v. 8. Can you please be fair to me and show me the same courtesy.

Here they are:

I don't see where either of these indicate Nero stabbing himself in the neck, and I don't know of anybody in the early church who did either. According to Augustine those who believed Nero in connection with 2nd Thess 2 believed he would come back to life as a future antichrist. If you would have read my post I said we were to match up history and scripture. Scripture tells us that David described the slaying of his enemy, Saul, as an act of God's breath (among other things). Scripture AND History tell us that Saul died by suicide. History tells us that Nero also died by suicide.

These are all facts. Do you deny any of these facts? If so, which fact(s) do you deny?

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 23rd 2006, 07:40 PM

You're the one that brought up Claudius, not me.

Your the one with reading comprehension problems not me.

I am amazed that you can comprehend that I mentioned Claudius, but seem to be oblivious to the (not one, but) two times in that same post, that I said I did not want to discuss it further in this thread, it was only background.

What is even more amazing is that I pointed this out to you before, AND you still do not get it.

Talking with you is like talking to a brick wall. :argh:

Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat

March 24th 2006, 11:23 AM

Very interesting. And assuming the rest of your eschatology is correct (which it is not) I would say that would be a valid consideration.

And I am asking for the same sort of consideration here. Assuming that Nero does meet all the other qualifies of MoL, does he also fit the dying by Jesus breath.

Considering that the only other NT reference to Jesus' breath doing something was Him giving the Spirit, which is eternal life, I would have to say no, honestly.

Well, I would hardly call them successful. But they certainly thought they were. And ther were not "spanked" yet, this is true. Plus, the apparent "success" was predicted in Luke "When you see the city surrounded by armies, flee to the hills" (paraphrase). The armies had to come and leave so the belivers could get out (which they did). And very shortly thereafter Nero died. So it is the beginning of the coming judgment that culminated with the destruction of the temple.

I gotta say that I know it works for you in your paradigm, but from mine, too many things don't add up, including the uses of the coming of the Lord Jesus in 1 Thess, which Paul refers to in vs 8 and more properly, which Paul explained that he talked to them about before (vs 5). All of these things are interwoven so tight, we must look at each phrase and see what Paul is referring to.

Well you are still a futurist, but I still give you credit where credit is due. :nana:

:highfive: As do I to you hopefully.

Actually that verse is much easier to address than v. 8. Plus I have reasons to focus on v. 8 (mostly to try to get eschaton to focus. I think if he could do that he would be a much better debater).

Vs. 8 alludes to so much outside itself that staying on it solely is nearly impossible... But staying on the SUBJECT that verse 8 talks about is my goal...

Not very dissimilar to the circumstances surounding Saul's death, which was also atributed to the "breath" of God.

This may sound lame, but I notice that the breath of God that destroyed Saul came from God's nostrils, while Jesus' breath is coming from His mouth... There is some significance there, I just have to look into it more.

*edit to add* after further review, I don't think His nostrils destroy at all, but simply move things out of the way...

Come now. Do you think God did not have (or at least might have) a hand in all that as retribution against Nero for his persecution of the Church?

God is in control of everything, so sure, its possible. But I just look at the way all the other Caesars died and can't help but put Nero's death in the same category as most of the others, not a special case.

David said that God killed his enemy (Saul being the only one named) with the breath of His nostril.

Again, I'm looking into the importance of it being His nostril, as certain anthropomorphic parts have certain meanings behind them (for instance His right hand)

We know Saul died by suicide. If the OT can use this laguage to describe suicide, why not the NT?

I think you are taking it too literally and ignoring the other part of the verse about David

1 And David spoke the words of this song to the LORD in the day that the LORD delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul

For this to work, then all David's enemies would have to have committed suicide. Note also that this was spoken well after Saul's death and after David defeated the Phillistines and made peace with the Gibeonites

Well if "death by breath" is equated to suicide (and I think it reasonable to think that Paul could have made that connection considering the scripture I provided) then it is just a little more than they both died.

If we look at the instances of God's nostrils and what they did in the OT, it seems to me that it references sweeping away what blocks the people of God from His promise of peace and rest, like what He did to the Red Sea... so I don't think that it necessarily means death, unless you look at His enemies being defeated or forgiven implies a type of "suicide"

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 24th 2006, 02:25 PM

Considering that the only other NT reference to Jesus' breath doing something was Him giving the Spirit, which is eternal life, I would have to say no, honestly.

Seeing as how the NT was not fully written nor canonized at the time, I think you are makeing a serious error by not considering the OT examples (but then you are a futurist). :wink:

I gotta say that I know it works for you in your paradigm, but from mine, too many things don't add up, including the uses of the coming of the Lord Jesus in 1 Thess, which Paul refers to in vs 8 and more properly, which Paul explained that he talked to them about before (vs 5). All of these things are interwoven so tight, we must look at each phrase and see what Paul is referring to.

Oh, I agree. I am just trying to focus on one aspect as a time. As some people (certainly not you), have a tendancy to ask "What about A" and when I (or others not just me) answer A, instead of addressing my (and others) points about A they ask "Yeah, but what about B" then "C" "D", etc. ad infinitum.

I know that you will respond to my points, and come back with points of your own . As I said in my OP, I am willing to open the thread up to other aspects of 2 Thes. 2, but want to wait until some of my questions about v. 8 have been answered.

Are you game? Do you dispute any of the "Facts" I presented to eschaton? If so which ones?

:highfive: As do I to you hopefully.

:yes:

Vs. 8 alludes to so much outside itself that staying on it solely is nearly impossible... But staying on the SUBJECT that verse 8 talks about is my goal...

What I am looking for is for some refutation and/or acknowledgment that the 2 Sam/2 Thes. connection works within my paradigm. Which you have provided below, I see. :woohoo:

This may sound lame, but I notice that the breath of God that destroyed Saul came from God's nostrils, while Jesus' breath is coming from His mouth... There is some significance there, I just have to look into it more.

Let me know what you find. My guess (and this is just a hunch) is that it is more about differnt Hebrew/Greek phrasology than a significant difference in meaning. But I could be WAY off on that.

*edit to add* after further review, I don't think His nostrils destroy at all, but simply move things out of the way...

Sounds like semantics to me. After all, how were David's enemies "moved out of the way", but by death?

God is in control of everything, so sure, its possible. But I just look at the way all the other Caesars died and can't help but put Nero's death in the same category as most of the others, not a special case.

But that is assuming Nero is not significanly different (i.e. the man of lawlessness).

Plus, the context of 2 Thes. is a letter written to a church that was very confused about the (then) future coming of Christ (much like most evangelical churches today :poke: ), the "significance" of Nero's death is that it was a signal that the "coming" had begun. There does not need to be any connection between the wars and Nero's death other than chronological for it to fit this verse in my paradigm.

(I didn't say this earlier because I did not want to get away from verse 8, but as you said it is difficult, but what I am going to say has a direct bearing on the "significance" or "lack thereof" of Nero's death in relaion to the Jewish Wars).

Again, I'm looking into the importance of it being His nostril, as certain anthropomorphic parts have certain meanings behind them (for instance His right hand)

I am looking very forward to your response.

I think you are taking it too literally and ignoring the other part of the verse about David

1 And David spoke the words of this song to the LORD in the day that the LORD delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul

For this to work, then all David's enemies would have to have committed suicide. Note also that this was spoken well after Saul's death and after David defeated the Phillistines and made peace with the Gibeonites

No. You are reading more into what I am saying than what I am saying.

I do not think that when David wrote that passage, he was meaning that "God's breath" was ONLY used to kill Saul. However, I think the connection with Saul was there.

I think Paul would have been very aware of this connection, and used it to tell his audience (without tipping off the Roman authorities) what was about to come up.

If we look at the instances of God's nostrils and what they did in the OT, it seems to me that it references sweeping away what blocks the people of God from His promise of peace and rest, like what He did to the Red Sea... so I don't think that it necessarily means death, unless you look at His enemies being defeated or forgiven implies a type of "suicide"

I think Paul capitolized on a connection. Note, I am not trying to say that this is conclusive proof that Nero is the MoL, but that he fits the criteria of v. 8.

Once again thank you so much for actually responding to the points I have made. You are the bomb!

Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat

March 24th 2006, 04:59 PM

Seeing as how the NT was not fully written nor canonized at the time,

Um...well, yeah...there is that... :blush2:

I think you are makeing a serious error by not considering the OT examples (but then you are a futurist). :wink:

Agreed that the OT examples are worth considering. Agian, I'll let you know what I find out about the "nostrils" thing...

Oh, I agree. I am just trying to focus on one aspect as a time. As some people (certainly not you), have a tendancy to ask "What about A" and when I (or others not just me) answer A, instead of addressing my (and others) points about A they ask "Yeah, but what about B" then "C" "D", etc. ad infinitum.

Well, you know me... I love beating that dead horse!! :rasberry:

I know that you will respond to my points, and come back with points of your own . As I said in my OP, I am willing to open the thread up to other aspects of 2 Thes. 2, but want to wait until some of my questions about v. 8 have been answered.

well, you did start with the most vague, now didn't you? :poke:

Are you game? Do you dispute any of the "Facts" I presented to eschaton? If so which ones?

Yeah. I interpret it much differently than you based on my view of the restrainer, Jesus' breath in John 20, and the nature and timing of the "coming". But from your paradigm, I admit it is consistent.

What I am looking for is for some refutation and/or acknowledgment that the 2 Sam/2 Thes. connection works within my paradigm. Which you have provided below, I see. :woohoo:

One thing I never accused preterism of is inconsistent application of verses. You guys certainly have your ducks in a row AFAICS. But I still see a huge problem in the system as a whole, but that's for another thread and another day.

Let me know what you find. My guess (and this is just a hunch) is that it is more about differnt Hebrew/Greek phrasology than a significant difference in meaning. But I could be WAY off on that.

:aye:

Sounds like semantics to me. After all, how were David's enemies "moved out of the way", but by death?

He made peace with the Gibbeonites in 2 Sam Ch 21. No death of his enemies involved.

But that is assuming Nero is not significanly different (i.e. the man of lawlessness).

Oh, I have no doubt that Nero acted like the MoL in many ways, but too many gaps exist in the prophecies and history for my taste.

Plus, the context of 2 Thes. is a letter written to a church that was very confused about the (then) future coming of Christ (much like most evangelical churches today :poke: ),

:glare:

the "significance" of Nero's death is that it was a signal that the "coming" had begun. There does not need to be any connection between the wars and Nero's death other than chronological for it to fit this verse in my paradigm.

I understand that too, I'm just saying that I don't see how Nero's death was any more noteworthy than any of the other Caesars...

No. You are reading more into what I am saying than what I am saying.

I'm a futurist, I read and interpret based on what is there... :teeth:

I do not think that when David wrote that passage, he was meaning that "God's breath" was ONLY used to kill Saul. However, I think the connection with Saul was there.

I think it was more of a connection between David's destiny as King and God removing the obstacles before him, again, like God did for Moses at the Red Sea. The MoL will be removed so that we can rule with Jesus during the Millennium. That may work for your paradigm too...:nsm:

I think Paul would have been very aware of this connection, and used it to tell his audience (without tipping off the Roman authorities) what was about to come up.

I agree with the first part. The second part, not so much. I think that Paul was reiterating what would happen that he explained in his first letter, when Jesus came "with His saints"

I think Paul capitolized on a connection. Note, I am not trying to say that this is conclusive proof that Nero is the MoL, but that he fits the criteria of v. 8.

And I agree with you that the paradigm that we are looking at this verse with will determine whether or not Nero fits this verse sprcifically. You built a good case, to be sure, but from my paradigm, the object and timing is wrong.

Once again thank you so much for actually responding to the points I have made. You are the bomb!

You too. I love discussing these things with you. :highfive:

eschaton

March 24th 2006, 05:04 PM

What is not fair. Is that I research and study and come up with an answer to v. 8 the very verse you picked out hoping for some discussion and you continue to ingore every single point I make. '

Sorry. Didn't realize you made any points. If you didn't want to discuss the restrainer you shouldn't have brought it up.

eschaton

March 24th 2006, 05:08 PM

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 24th 2006, 07:58 PM

And as far as reading problems go, Bill mentioned the restrainer too. That's nothing against Bill, but you just don't expect somebody to bring up a subject, and then tell you it can't be discussed after they've just discussed it.

Bill agreed not to bring up again. You can't seem to let it go.

Let it go!!!!!

Once again:

If you would have read my post I said we were to match up history and scripture. Scripture tells us that David described the slaying of his enemy, Saul, as an act of God's breath (among other things). Scripture AND History tell us that Saul died by suicide. History tells us that Nero also died by suicide.

These are all facts. Do you deny any of these facts? If so, which fact(s) do you deny?

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 24th 2006, 08:06 PM

Sorry. Didn't realize you made any points. If you didn't want to discuss the restrainer you shouldn't have brought it up.

Man, my irony meter is going off the charts.

It was you, in another thread, that first wanted me to talk about the Breath of Christ destroying the man of lawlessness. And now you do not want to discuss it.

PLUS, I explained, IN MY OPENING POST, why I brought up the restrainer.

I brought it up as background for those who may not have read the other thread, i.e. NOT YOU!!!!!!

I said this not once, but twice, I have since re-explained it to you, not once but twice (now three, maybe even four times).

If this is an example of how well you read, then I really don't want your input, it would be jibberish.

I much prefer dialoging with Bill the Cat. If you continue to post in this thread, I will just repost the same questions I have asked you before (3-4 times now) until you answer them.

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 24th 2006, 08:28 PM

Um...well, yeah...there is that... :blush2:

Agreed that the OT examples are worth considering. Agian, I'll let you know what I find out about the "nostrils" thing...

Well, you know me... I love beating that dead horse!! :rasberry:

:beathorse:

well, you did start with the most vague, now didn't you? :poke:

Well blame eschaton for that. In the other thread. I addressed one of the points. I kept pressing him to address what I brought up. He kept pressing me to answer yet another point, even though he had not addressed the points I raised earlier. (can you say deja vue).

Of course it was his thread, so I could not make him stay on topic. Plus he kept saying I was unable to answer. You know me. I could not let that go, but I was not going to answer an not be able to keep him on point. So I started this thread.

As you can see. Some things never change. :sigh:

Yeah. I interpret it much differently than you based on my view of the restrainer, Jesus' breath in John 20, and the nature and timing of the "coming". But from your paradigm, I admit it is consistent.

Well, we can move on then. We can talk about the resrainer NOW, that we have thoroughly reviewed the points I mentioned on v. 8.

Now, I must warn you. Claudius as the restrainer is NOT necessary for Nero, so I reserve the right change my mind on him without changing it on Nero.

One thing I never accused preterism of is inconsistent application of verses. You guys certainly have your ducks in a row AFAICS. But I still see a huge problem in the system as a whole, but that's for another thread and another day.

Bring on (some day).

:aye:

He made peace with the Gibbeonites in 2 Sam Ch 21. No death of his enemies involved.
:huh: I'm not sure how that is connected to this topic. (But I only glanced at the text, I may have missed the obvious). Please show an aging preterist what you are talking about. :oldfart:

Oh, I have no doubt that Nero acted like the MoL in many ways, but too many gaps exist in the prophecies and history for my taste.

Well, to few gaps exist for me to doubt. :nana:

I understand that too, I'm just saying that I don't see how Nero's death was any more noteworthy than any of the other Caesars...

For the sake of this passage, it was just a time indicator. (I think there is more to it in Revelation but that is for another day).

I'm a futurist, I read and interpret based on what is there... :teeth:

So you give no credence to authorial intent? I expect that from most futuirst, but not you!!! :bugeyes: :wink:

I think it was more of a connection between David's destiny as King and God removing the obstacles before him, again, like God did for Moses at the Red Sea. The MoL will be removed so that we can rule with Jesus during the Millennium. That may work for your paradigm too...:nsm:

It would work, but it is not needed.

I agree with the first part. The second part, not so much. I think that Paul was reiterating what would happen that he explained in his first letter, when Jesus came "with His saints"[/quote[

Well, I must confess that that is the area of this text that gives me the most trouble. I may one day scrap my entire understanding of the man of lawlessness, if it means I can get better understanding of Jesus coming with His saints. But for now Nero as the man of Lawlessness works better for me than anything I can make out of the first part of this passage.

[quote]And I agree with you that the paradigm that we are looking at this verse with will determine whether or not Nero fits this verse sprcifically. You built a good case, to be sure, but from my paradigm, the object and timing is wrong.

Well, it is really a no brainer, but some people think that admitting that is some sign of weakness. IMNSHO, it is a sign of an inteligint and compitent opponent. I hope I make similar consessions when I debate.

You too. I love discussing these things with you. :highfive:

Keep up the good work. Let iron sharpen iron.

Ted

March 25th 2006, 01:28 PM

Far,

I know I am risking a violation of the OP, but I think Eschaton has a point when he says:
Why don't you just say let's take this verse totally out of context?
You present a curious parallel between Saul and Nero. (BTW, you forgot to mention Psalm 18.) But that, by itself, is not probative. By itself, it’s about as good as noting that NRWN QSR when transliterated yields a Hebrew gematria value of 666. The gematria is coincidence, as the many “matches” for 666 on the internet show. The rest of the specifications also have to be met to raise these elements above the level of coincidence. Bill the Cat has a valid point in noting that Jesus conferring the Holy Spirit by breathing is a closer contextual possibility. By forcing the discussion to verse 8 alone, you exclude the rest of the contextual elements that help us in defining the MoL.

The specifics allowing identification of the MoL begin in 2:3 with “son of destruction.” This phrase quotes John 17:12 (Greek), referring to Judas, under the influence of Satan. The construction is parallel to “Son of God,” referring to Jesus’ essential divine identity. Thus, the term could easily point directly to Satan or someone under his control.

The next key would be in verse 4, where the MoL “takes his seat in the Temple of God, displaying himself as being God.” Throughout the NT after the gospels, the “Temple of God” refers to the church. Paul uses this exact language in 1 Cor 3:16-17 and 2 Cor 6:16. These passages should be the closest context used to identify the MoL.

Put bluntly, Nero didn’t have anything notable to do with the church other than blaming Christians for the fire that burned Rome. He certainly had no presence within the church claiming to be God. Instead, we should look at Paul’s language again, noting that Satan wished for worship (Isa 14, Ezek 28), the natural result of “taking his seat in the Temple of God, displaying himself as being God.”

Now it is fairly obvious that Satan would not be in the church in person. Rather, just as God acts through agents, Satan acts through agents. So the proper answer is to look for God’s agent in the church. And that isn’t Nero.

For this to work, then all David's enemies would have to have committed suicide.
A telling point.

I think it was more of a connection between David's destiny as King and God removing the obstacles before him, again, like God did for Moses at the Red Sea. The MoL will be removed so that we can rule with Jesus during the Millennium. That may work for your paradigm too...
Again, well noted. While we differ on the nature of the millennium, the point is accurate. 1 Thes 4 continues into 1 Thes 5, where Paul clarifies that his discussion of the parousia is also a discussion of the Day of the Lord where all the Lord’s enemies are killed. That certainly didn’t happen when Nero died.

Ted

John Reece

March 25th 2006, 02:44 PM

The next key would be in verse 4, where the MoL “takes his seat in the Temple of God, displaying himself as being God.” Throughout the NT after the gospels, the “Temple of God” refers to the church. Paul uses this exact language in 1 Cor 3:16-17 and 2 Cor 6:16. These passages should be the closest context used to identify the MoL.

The contexts are different, and the genre of the contexts is different: the context of a cryptic, enigmatic, apocalyptic saying on the one hand, and the context of teaching about Christ and Christians on the other.

All that the different contexts have is common is the bare term, ‘temple of God’. That’s not sufficient for establishing equivalence of meaning for the term in both kinds of context.

BDAG defines the occurrence of the term in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 as being ‘of the temple at Jerusalem’, and the occurrences of the term in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 and 2 Corinthians 6:16 as ‘of a Christian congregation’.

The clause ‘takes his seat in the Temple of God, displaying himself as being God’ does not fit as well the context of a Christian congregation as it does the context of the temple at Jerusalem, in a cryptic, enigmatic, apocalyptic saying written before the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem.

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 25th 2006, 04:15 PM

Far,

I know I am risking a violation of the OP, but I think Eschaton has a point when he says:

You present a curious parallel between Saul and Nero. (BTW, you forgot to mention Psalm 18.) But that, by itself, is not probative. By itself, it’s about as good as noting that NRWN QSR when transliterated yields a Hebrew gematria value of 666. The gematria is coincidence, as the many “matches” for 666 on the internet show. The rest of the specifications also have to be met to raise these elements above the level of coincidence. Bill the Cat has a valid point in noting that Jesus conferring the Holy Spirit by breathing is a closer contextual possibility. By forcing the discussion to verse 8 alone, you exclude the rest of the contextual elements that help us in defining the MoL.

Oh, I don't disagree. Which is why my OP allowed for a broadened discussion after a good initial discussion of v. 8.

This was an exercise in futility. I was trying to get eschaton to at least acknowledge that I did have some points regarding v. 8, and maybe address the points. Alas, every one else has done this quite well, but not him.

The specifics allowing identification of the MoL begin in 2:3 with “son of destruction.” This phrase quotes John 17:12 (Greek), referring to Judas, under the influence of Satan. The construction is parallel to “Son of God,” referring to Jesus’ essential divine identity. Thus, the term could easily point directly to Satan or someone under his control.

Could. But one other occurance hardly makes it "probative".

The next key would be in verse 4, where the MoL “takes his seat in the Temple of God, displaying himself as being God.” Throughout the NT after the gospels, the “Temple of God” refers to the church. Paul uses this exact language in 1 Cor 3:16-17 and 2 Cor 6:16. These passages should be the closest context used to identify the MoL.

Put bluntly, Nero didn’t have anything notable to do with the church other than blaming Christians for the fire that burned Rome. He certainly had no presence within the church claiming to be God. Instead, we should look at Paul’s language again, noting that Satan wished for worship (Isa 14, Ezek 28), the natural result of “taking his seat in the Temple of God, displaying himself as being God.”

Certainly you are aware that Nero was the Roman Emporor at a time when nearly all (maybe even all) Christians were under his authority. I am also sure you are aware of the use of the word "seat" with power. And finaly, are you aware that Nero demanded worship?

Now it is fairly obvious that Satan would not be in the church in person. Rather, just as God acts through agents, Satan acts through agents. So the proper answer is to look for God’s agent in the church. And that isn’t Nero.

I half agree. I agree that Nero was never "in the chruch" the way you use that term. Let me get back to you with a more detailed response to this when I have more time to elaborate.

A telling point.

Which I addressed.

The restrictions I placed on the OP have failed to acheive the ends I intended. So I will open up the thread. (With the caveat that I will not be putting escaton on ignore)

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 25th 2006, 04:18 PM

The contexts are different, and the genre of the contexts is different: the context of a cryptic, enigmatic, apocalyptic saying on the one hand, and the context of teaching about Christ and Christians on the other.

All that the different contexts have is common is the bare term, ‘temple of God’. That’s not sufficient for establishing equivalence of meaning for the term in both kinds of context.

BDAG defines the occurrence of the term in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 as being ‘of the temple at Jerusalem’, and the occurrences of the term in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 and 2 Corinthians 6:16 as ‘of a Christian congregation’.

The clause ‘takes his seat in the Temple of God, displaying himself as being God’ does not fit as well the context of a Christian congregation as it does the context of the temple at Jerusalem, in a cryptic, enigmatic, apocalyptic saying written before the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem.

:hi: John. Interesting take. Do you have a candidate for the MoL who fits this criteria?

John Reece

March 25th 2006, 07:05 PM

:hi: John. Interesting take. Do you have a candidate for the MoL who fits this criteria?

:no:

I agree with this comment by Charles A. Wanamaker (NIGTC):
In order to maintain the continuing validity of the passage, some deny the obvious reference to the historical temple at Jerusalem, as does Marshall (191f.; he mentions others who do so for less plausible reasons than his own). A more straightforward way of treating the problem is to admit that the passage meant something very different to Paul and his original readers than it can mean for us today. Once this is acknowledged, Marshall’s conclusion (192) that the imagery of vv. 3f. expresses “the reality and menace of the power of evil which attempts to deny the reality of the power of God” offers us a meaningful interpretation of the passage, since it is as true today as it was in Paul’s day.

Ted

March 26th 2006, 12:01 PM

BDAG defines the occurrence of the term in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 as being ‘of the temple at Jerusalem’, and the occurrences of the term in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 and 2 Corinthians 6:16 as ‘of a Christian congregation’.
WRT 2 Thes 2:4, BDAG uses as its authority an article by Wrede. Thus, this is a conclusion, not necessarily the apostolic intent. I’m quite sure you have run across articles you disagree with by respected scholars. So, while BDAG is a respected authority, to accord it the final word here is potentially questionable. My point was that Paul’s use of the term is consistent, thus Paul should be accorded primacy in exegetical practice here.

The contexts are different, and the genre of the contexts is different: the context of a cryptic, enigmatic, apocalyptic saying on the one hand, and the context of teaching about Christ and Christians on the other.
At the same time, Paul’s letter is to a group that has heard him use the term “temple of God” with regard to the church. In the epistle, he uses it as an understood term. In 2:5 he explicitly says that he has already told them about this! Thus, at least the identification of the “temple of God” is completely clear to them. To suggest that it is different from Paul’s use of the term to the Corinthians (probably within a couple of years) without any evidence whatever strikes me as a rash assumption. Further, since all the letters circulated widely within the church, a difference in meaning would certainly be the topic of discussion. Unfortunately, while this passage does get lots of modern discussion, I don’t have any resource to identify any ancient discussion. Perhaps you can enlighten us.

The clause ‘takes his seat in the Temple of God, displaying himself as being God’ does not fit as well the context of a Christian congregation as it does the context of the temple at Jerusalem, in a cryptic, enigmatic, apocalyptic saying written before the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem.
Granted, the Temple was still standing, but it was no longer the Temple of God, since Jesus had died, and the veil had been divinely torn (Matt 27:51). Hebrews makes it explicitly clear that the true temple, as a place of divine worship, was in heaven, not on earth. All the sacrifices were over, replaced with the “once for all” sacrifice of Jesus.

Thus, I see exactly the opposite conclusion from you. The modifier “of God” is the clincher. The moment Jesus died, the final sacrifice was over, and God no longer had any use for the building in Jerusalem. Certainly Paul used it for a Nazirite vow, but that was his own initiative, ill-advised, and prophesied to be doomed.

Certainly you are aware that Nero was the Roman Emporor at a time when nearly all (maybe even all) Christians were under his authority. I am also sure you are aware of the use of the word "seat" with power. And finaly, are you aware that Nero demanded worship?
Yes, “seat” implies power. But the issue is location. Nero was never in the church to take a seat of power in the church. He imposed external civil authority. This is radically different from an internal ecclesiastical authority substituting himself for God’s authority. Such an authority would have to be accepted by the church which would then be led to apostasy. That wasn’t the case in Nero’s day (or Caligula’s or…).

Your Wanamaker quote is good. But he needs to go farther (as above).

Ted

John Reece

March 26th 2006, 04:09 PM

Quote: Originally posted by John Reece
Certainly you are aware that Nero was the Roman Emporor at a time when nearly all (maybe even all) Christians were under his authority. I am also sure you are aware of the use of the word "seat" with power. And finaly, are you aware that Nero demanded worship?

Ted,

Please do not attribute to me what I did not write.

WRT 2 Thes 2:4, BDAG uses as its authority an article by Wrede. Thus, this is a conclusion, not necessarily the apostolic intent. I’m quite sure you have run across articles you disagree with by respected scholars. So, while BDAG is a respected authority, to accord it the final word here is potentially questionable. My point was that Paul’s use of the term is consistent, thus Paul should be accorded primacy in exegetical practice here.

You are presupposing what is in question: How do you know Paul’s use of the term is ‘consistent’ without assuming equivalence of meaning in the differing contexts of differing genre?

At the same time, Paul’s letter is to a group that has heard him use the term “temple of God” with regard to the church. In the epistle, he uses it as an understood term. In 2:5 he explicitly says that he has already told them about this! Thus, at least the identification of the “temple of God” is completely clear to them. To suggest that it is different from Paul’s use of the term to the Corinthians (probably within a couple of years) without any evidence whatever strikes me as a rash assumption. Further, since all the letters circulated widely within the church, a difference in meaning would certainly be the topic of discussion. Unfortunately, while this passage does get lots of modern discussion, I don’t have any resource to identify any ancient discussion. Perhaps you can enlighten us.

Again, your argument is presuppositional rather than exegetical:
You assume that the Christians at Thessalonica — who were evangelized by Paul before Paul arrived at Corinth — had heard Paul use a term the first record of which is in letters written to a different church in a different location years later.
You assume that the term ‘temple of God’ was in essence a technical term with a singular sense by the time Paul wrote his first extant letter to a church.
You assume that the sense of the term as used in the context of the Thessalonian letter is the same as the sense of the term as used in the context of the Corinthian letters.
You ignore the differences in subject matter and genre between the cryptic, enigmatic, apocalyptic passage in the letter to the Thessalonians, and the teachings about Christ and Christians in the letters to the Corinthians.

Granted, the Temple was still standing, but it was no longer the Temple of God, since Jesus had died, and the veil had been divinely torn (Matt 27:51). Hebrews makes it explicitly clear that the true temple, as a place of divine worship, was in heaven, not on earth. All the sacrifices were over, replaced with the “once for all” sacrifice of Jesus.

Thus, I see exactly the opposite conclusion from you. The modifier “of God” is the clincher. The moment Jesus died, the final sacrifice was over, and God no longer had any use for the building in Jerusalem. Certainly Paul used it for a Nazirite vow, but that was his own initiative, ill-advised, and prophesied to be doomed.

I’ll let this comment by F. F. Bruce suffice as a response to those assertions (brackets added):
But which sanctuary is actually meant here? The later idea that it is in the Christian church, “God’s dwelling place in the Spirit” (Eph 2:22), that Antichrist is to manifest himself and establish his power base, is inapplicable at this early stage, when there was no united church organization which could provide such a power base. A local church, such as the church in Thessalonica, scarcely comes into consideration in this regard. One might think of the Jerusalem church, which (by some of its members at least) was viewed as the new and living sanctuary of God, with James the Just and his successors as the new high priesthood; but there is no evidence that a manifestation of Antichrist was expected within it and no hint that it is referred to in the present context.

The material temple at Jerusalem has much to be said in its favor. Not all early Christians took the negative attitude toward it that Stephen did (Acts 6:13, 14; 7:44-50) — not even Paul, if the evidence of Acts is accepted — and Jesus’ words in the Olivet discourse about “the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not” (Mark 13:14, esthkota opou ou dei) are reproduced by Matthew in the form “. . . standing in the holy place” (Matt 24:15). It may be best to conclude that the Jerusalem sanctuary is meant here by Paul and his companions, but meant in a metaphorical sense. Had they said, “so that he takes his seat on the throne of God,” few would have thought it necessary to think of a literal throne; it would simply have been regarded as a graphic way of saying that he plans to usurp the authority of God. This is what is meant by the language actually used here, although the sacral associations of naoV [naos] imply that he demands not only the obedience but also the worship due to God alone.

— 1 & 2 Thessalonians (WBC), pages 168-169.

John

Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat

March 27th 2006, 11:22 AM

Well, we can move on then. We can talk about the resrainer NOW, that we have thoroughly reviewed the points I mentioned on v. 8.

Now, I must warn you. Claudius as the restrainer is NOT necessary for Nero, so I reserve the right change my mind on him without changing it on Nero.

Understood. I think that the restrainer is a key issue in this paragraph. I believe there is a reason for the restrainer, explained in Rev 3:10 as what keeps us from the hour of trial. He is restraining lawlessness and will step aside when the embodiment of lawlessness comes. But you already knew that, right? :smile:

:huh: I'm not sure how that is connected to this topic. (But I only glanced at the text, I may have missed the obvious). Please show an aging preterist what you are talking about. :oldfart:

You said that God's breath was equated with suicide, or death, which the 2 Sam 31 episode argues against. It is immediately before the verse you quoted and directly related to David being delivered from his enemies by the breath of God's nostrils.

So you give no credence to authorial intent? I expect that from most futuirst, but not you!!! :bugeyes: :wink:

When the author is a silly preterist, I have a hard time taking the intent for anything more than playful banter :poke: :teeth:

It would work, but it is not needed.

Just offering you a bone. It may strengthen your position if you take a hard look at it again.

Well, I must confess that that is the area of this text that gives me the most trouble. I may one day scrap my entire understanding of the man of lawlessness, if it means I can get better understanding of Jesus coming with His saints.

:pray2: Maybe it will lead you back to my side of the fence?? :brow:

But for now Nero as the man of Lawlessness works better for me than anything I can make out of the first part of this passage.

I think the clear hint of what the MoL would do in vs 3 would rule Nero out completely. I would think Trajan would fit the bill better than Nero in that instance... :nsm:

Well, it is really a no brainer, but some people think that admitting that is some sign of weakness. IMNSHO, it is a sign of an inteligint and compitent opponent. I hope I make similar consessions when I debate.

:yes: :thumb:

Keep up the good work. Let iron sharpen iron.

:knight:

Ted

March 27th 2006, 02:56 PM

John,

The error of attribution was unintentional. In Alt-Tabbing on my laptop, I missed that Faramir made the comment I cited from you. Mea culpa.

You did say this:
Again, your argument is presuppositional rather than exegetical:
You assume that the Christians at Thessalonica — who were evangelized by Paul before Paul arrived at Corinth — had heard Paul use a term the first record of which is in letters written to a different church in a different location years later.

You assume that the term ‘temple of God’ was in essence a technical term with a singular sense by the time Paul wrote his first extant letter to a church.

You assume that the sense of the term as used in the context of the Thessalonian letter is the same as the sense of the term as used in the context of the Corinthian letters.

Unfortunately, your argument is equally presuppositional.

You assume that Paul used “temple of God” in a physical sense (building in Jerusalem) in Thessalonica around AD 50, then changed to a spiritual sense (the church) by AD 54 when the letters to Corinth began.

You assume that the term “temple of God” did not have a consistent meaning in Paul’s speech and writing.

You assume that the sense of the term used in the context of the Thessalonian letter is not the same as the sense of the term as used in the context of the Corinthian letters.

It’s time to examine the assumptions. A priori, either set of assumptions stands on equal footing. Your quotation from Bruce is telling.
<snip> at this early stage, when there was no united church organization which could provide such a power base. <snip>

<snip> It may be best to conclude that the Jerusalem sanctuary is meant here by Paul and his companions, but meant in a metaphorical sense. Had they said, “so that he takes his seat on the throne of God,” few would have thought it necessary to think of a literal throne; it would simply have been regarded as a graphic way of saying that he plans to usurp the authority of God. <snip>

Put simply, Even though Bruce leans toward the physical sanctuary as the subject, he applies it in a metaphorical sense, which is essentially no different from what I hold. That is, the MoL will usurp the authority of God in the church. The fact that the church had not centralized in Paul’s day fits well with the fact that the MoL is future to them. The question now arises: “What scriptural authority do we have for either position?

- Does Paul ever, in an uncontested passage, refer to the Temple in Jerusalem as the “Temple of God” (or any of its synonyms – “Temple of the Holy Spirit,” etc.)? Unequivocally, No. In fact, the only use of the term in the gospels in Matt 26:61, where Jesus declares himself to be the Temple of God. This, of course, fits with Paul’s “body of Christ” corporate identity metaphor in Eph 4:12. No other NT writer uses the term.

- Does Paul treat the temple in Jerusalem as the place of God? Open question. Acts 21 tells the story of Paul taking the Nazirite vow that led to his arrest. But a careful view of that story says that Paul went along with a suggestion from James that a Nazirite vow might placate the Jews. He was to go along with four recent converts who were “under a vow.” This suggests that the vow preceded conversion, but was to be honored because of its solemnity.

Thus, to suggest that Paul regarded the temple as God’s Temple then is questionable. Of course, this is long after the letter was written, so the contrary argument is equally problematic. (Paul’s visit was to be present for Pentecost, contrary to the Holy Spirit’s guidance. The vow came up after his arrival.)

- Does Paul’s gospel change at any time? I don’t think there is any evidence for this idea. His gospel was presented to the elders of the church (Gal 2), and found correct. This gospel includes the idea that the church is the Temple of God (typological correspondence is clear in 2 Cor 6), there appears to be good reason to suggest that Paul used the term to refer to the church from the earliest days.

- Does the analogy of scripture allow an earthly application of the “Temple of God” after the cross? No. Given that the only uses of the term apply to Jesus and his metaphorical body or the “Temple of God which is in heaven” (Rev), there is no scriptural support at all for that position.

(An argument could be made that "in heaven" contrasts with the physical temple in Jerusalem, but that would ignore the fact that the church is regarded as dwelling in heaven in Rev, while the wicked are earth-dwellers. In that context, a physical Temple of God on earth would be a non-sequitur.)

Conclusion: There is no scriptural basis for taking the “Temple of God” in 2 Thes as referring to the physical temple in Jerusalem. Thus, while my “assumptions” may seem incorrect to you, I believe they are based on exegesis. On the other hand, I find no scriptural basis for your position, and must therefore suggest that it is in fact purely assumptional.

Ted

Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat

March 27th 2006, 03:52 PM

John,

The error of attribution was unintentional. In Alt-Tabbing on my laptop, I missed that Faramir made the comment I cited from you. Mea culpa.

You did say this:

Unfortunately, your argument is equally presuppositional.

You assume that Paul used “temple of God” in a physical sense (building in Jerusalem) in Thessalonica around AD 50, then changed to a spiritual sense (the church) by AD 54 when the letters to Corinth began.

You assume that the term “temple of God” did not have a consistent meaning in Paul’s speech and writing.

You assume that the sense of the term used in the context of the Thessalonian letter is not the same as the sense of the term as used in the context of the Corinthian letters.

It’s time to examine the assumptions. A priori, either set of assumptions stands on equal footing. Your quotation from Bruce is telling.

Put simply, Even though Bruce leans toward the physical sanctuary as the subject, he applies it in a metaphorical sense, which is essentially no different from what I hold. That is, the MoL will usurp the authority of God in the church. The fact that the church had not centralized in Paul’s day fits well with the fact that the MoL is future to them. The question now arises: “What scriptural authority do we have for either position?

- Does Paul ever, in an uncontested passage, refer to the Temple in Jerusalem as the “Temple of God” (or any of its synonyms – “Temple of the Holy Spirit,” etc.)? Unequivocally, No. In fact, the only use of the term in the gospels in Matt 26:61, where Jesus declares himself to be the Temple of God. This, of course, fits with Paul’s “body of Christ” corporate identity metaphor in Eph 4:12. No other NT writer uses the term.

- Does Paul treat the temple in Jerusalem as the place of God? Open question. Acts 21 tells the story of Paul taking the Nazirite vow that led to his arrest. But a careful view of that story says that Paul went along with a suggestion from James that a Nazirite vow might placate the Jews. He was to go along with four recent converts who were “under a vow.” This suggests that the vow preceded conversion, but was to be honored because of its solemnity.

Thus, to suggest that Paul regarded the temple as God’s Temple then is questionable. Of course, this is long after the letter was written, so the contrary argument is equally problematic. (Paul’s visit was to be present for Pentecost, contrary to the Holy Spirit’s guidance. The vow came up after his arrival.)

- Does Paul’s gospel change at any time? I don’t think there is any evidence for this idea. His gospel was presented to the elders of the church (Gal 2), and found correct. This gospel includes the idea that the church is the Temple of God (typological correspondence is clear in 2 Cor 6), there appears to be good reason to suggest that Paul used the term to refer to the church from the earliest days.

- Does the analogy of scripture allow an earthly application of the “Temple of God” after the cross? No. Given that the only uses of the term apply to Jesus and his metaphorical body or the “Temple of God which is in heaven” (Rev), there is no scriptural support at all for that position.

(An argument could be made that "in heaven" contrasts with the physical temple in Jerusalem, but that would ignore the fact that the church is regarded as dwelling in heaven in Rev, while the wicked are earth-dwellers. In that context, a physical Temple of God on earth would be a non-sequitur.)

Conclusion: There is no scriptural basis for taking the “Temple of God” in 2 Thes as referring to the physical temple in Jerusalem. Thus, while my “assumptions” may seem incorrect to you, I believe they are based on exegesis. On the other hand, I find no scriptural basis for your position, and must therefore suggest that it is in fact purely assumptional.

Ted
John Chrysostom says in His 3rd homily on Second Thessalonians:

Here he discourses concerning the Antichrist, and reveals great mysteries. What is "the falling away?" He calls him Apostasy, as being about to destroy many, and make them fall away. So that if it were possible, He says, the very Elect should be offended. (From Matt. xxiv. 24) And he calls him "the man of sin." For he shall do numberless mischiefs, and shall cause others to do them. But he calls him "the son of perdition," because he is also to be destroyed. But who is he? Is it then Satan? By no means; but some man, that admits his fully working in him. For he is a man. "And exalteth himself against all that is called God or is worshiped." For he will not introduce idolatry, but will be a kind of opponent to God; he will abolish all the gods, and will order men to worship him instead of God, and he will be seated in the temple of God, not that in Jerusalem only, but also in every Church. "Setting himself forth," he says; he does not say, saying it, but endeavoring to show it. For he will perform great works, and will show wonderful signs.

So according to St John Chrysostom, you are both partially right

John Reece

March 27th 2006, 05:42 PM

Unfortunately, your argument is equally presuppositional.

You assume that Paul used “temple of God” in a physical sense (building in Jerusalem) in Thessalonica around AD 50, then changed to a spiritual sense (the church) by AD 54 when the letters to Corinth began.

You assume that the term “temple of God” did not have a consistent meaning in Paul’s speech and writing.

You assume that the sense of the term used in the context of the Thessalonian letter is not the same as the sense of the term as used in the context of the Corinthian letters.

Ted,

You are playing a game with my evaluation of words you actually wrote: words that were not accompanied or supported by any exegetical reasoning in the context of your assertions.

I challenge you to provide verbatim quotes of my words to justify the charges you have made in the quote above.

For the second time, you have avoided any mention of the heart of the exegetical basis for my critique, which was in the post to which you are responding, but which you ignored (again):
You ignore the differences in subject matter and genre between the cryptic, enigmatic, apocalyptic passage in the letter to the Thessalonians, and the teachings about Christ and Christians in the letters to the Corinthians.

It was too easy for you to simply throw my words back at me, even though I was responding to your statements in context; but you were not addressing what I presented as an exegetical basis for seeing a difference in the usage of the term ‘temple of God’ in differing contexts of differing genre.

Regarding the comment by Bruce, he clearly presented the idea of metaphor as a metaphor related to the physical temple at Jerusalem, rather that a metaphor related to a Christian congregation.

What I have presented is in perfect accord with the best exegetical lexicon (BDAG) and two of the best two exegetical commentaries on the Greek text (Wanamaker and Bruce).

Your charge that I have indulged in exegetically unsupported assumptions is unwarranted, to say the least.

John

John Reece

March 27th 2006, 05:56 PM

:hi: John. Interesting take. Do you have a candidate for the MoL who fits this criteria?

Perhaps I should add an addendum to my original response to your question, provided by the same author I quoted before (brackets added):
The identity of the one who prevails was perhaps clear to the original readers, but we can only guess who it was. Since apocalyptic writings from the early Enoch literature and the Book of Daniel to the book of Revelation often attempted to understand the political situations in their own world from the perspective of the divine world (on this theme see J. J. Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination), it is a reasonable possibility that Paul had in mind the political-religious conditions of his own day. The most likely possibility would seem to be the existing Roman emperor for three reasons: (1) The expression o katecwn [‘he who is doing the restraining’ / ‘holding (him) back’ —Zerwick] could be used of a ruler. (2) hdh [‘now’, ‘already’] emphasizes that “the one who prevails” was doing so at the time Paul wrote. (3) The earlier image of the person of rebellion was probably based on such historical figures as the Roman general Pompey and Gaius Caesar (see on v. 4). That Paul was critical of the political rulers of his day is clear from 1 Cor. 2:8, where they are condemned for having crucified the Lord of glory. (cf. 1 Cor. 2:6).

The idea that the katecwn would need to be removed before the person of rebellion would be revealed may have derived from several factors. In the first place the ruling emperor Claudius had not shown himself to be as egregious a ruler as his predecessor Gaius, even though the Christian community was convinced that rebellion against God was taking place, if not openly, at least in secret. The removal of the ruling figure may have been based on the fact that the praetorian guard had removed Gaius, and Paul expected that a similar removal of the present ruler would lead to the revealing of the final rebellious ruler whom Christ would destroy. Given 1 Cor. 2:8, Paul could easily have connected the Roman civil rulers with the working of Satan, as v. 9 suggests.

But my personal answer remains that I do not have any theory regarding the identity of the one who was restraining, or the identity of the man of lawlessness/rebellion.

It does seem clear to me that the time frame of whatever Paul was describing and predicting was contemporaneous to Paul and the Christians at Thessalonica.

By the way, ‘Claudius’ does not mean ‘restrainer’. The name ‘Claudius’ is related to the Latin word ‘claudus’, meaning ‘limping, lame; defective, wavering, uncertain’ — adjectives which were remarkably applicable to Claudius, described here (http://www.roman-emperors.org/claudius.htm) as being ‘unfortunate enough to have been born with defects. He limped, he drooled, he stuttered and was constantly ill’.

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 27th 2006, 08:13 PM

Perhaps I should add an addendum to my original response to your question, provided by the same author I quoted before (brackets added):The identity of the one who prevails was perhaps clear to the original readers, but we can only guess who it was. Since apocalyptic writings from the early Enoch literature and the Book of Daniel to the book of Revelation often attempted to understand the political situations in their own world from the perspective of the divine world (on this theme see J. J. Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination), it is a reasonable possibility that Paul had in mind the political-religious conditions of his own day. The most likely possibility would seem to be the existing Roman emperor for three reasons: (1) The expression o katecwn [‘he who is doing the restraining’ / ‘holding (him) back’ —Zerwick] could be used of a ruler. (2) hdh [‘now’, ‘already’] emphasizes that “the one who prevails” was doing so at the time Paul wrote. (3) The earlier image of the person of rebellion was probably based on such historical figures as the Roman general Pompey and Gaius Caesar (see on v. 4). That Paul was critical of the political rulers of his day is clear from 1 Cor. 2:8, where they are condemned for having crucified the Lord of glory. (cf. 1 Cor. 2:6).

The idea that the katecwn would need to be removed before the person of rebellion would be revealed may have derived from several factors. In the first place the ruling emperor Claudius had not shown himself to be as egregious a ruler as his predecessor Gaius, even though the Christian community was convinced that rebellion against God was taking place, if not openly, at least in secret. The removal of the ruling figure may have been based on the fact that the praetorian guard had removed Gaius, and Paul expected that a similar removal of the present ruler would lead to the revealing of the final rebellious ruler whom Christ would destroy. Given 1 Cor. 2:8, Paul could easily have connected the Roman civil rulers with the working of Satan, as v. 9 suggests.
But my personal answer remains that I do not have any theory regarding the identity of the one who was restraining, or the identity of the man of lawlessness/rebellion.

It does seem clear to me that the time frame of whatever Paul was describing and predicting was contemporaneous to Paul and the Christians at Thessalonica.

By the way, ‘Claudius’ does not mean ‘restrainer’. The name ‘Claudius’ is related to the Latin word ‘claudus’, meaning ‘limping, lame; defective, wavering, uncertain’ — adjectives which were remarkably applicable to Claudius, described here (http://www.roman-emperors.org/claudius.htm) as being ‘unfortunate enough to have been born with defects. He limped, he drooled, he stuttered and was constantly ill’.

John: Thanks for the input. I will have to look into where I read that Claudius meant restrainer, and get back to you with either a retraction or more specific arguments. Though my atribution of Nero as the MoL was made prior to reading about Claudius as the restrainer, so he is not key to that interpretation, just an easy introduction. But one I do not want to use if not accurate.

Bill and Ted: (excelent adventure in this thread dudes): RL has gotten busy, I do intend to address each of the points you raised eventually, hopefully in the next day or two.

dizzle

March 27th 2006, 08:20 PM

Kenneth Gentry is the one who makes the argument that Claudius means restrainer.

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 27th 2006, 09:26 PM

Kenneth Gentry is the one who makes the argument that Claudius means restrainer.

Thanks Dee Dee, that helped:

Here is a section of what Gentry says here (http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt550.htm):

While Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians 2 he was under the reign of Claudius Caesar, who had just banished Jews for persecuting Christians (Suetonius, Claudius 24:5; cp. Acts 18:2). It may be that he employs a word play on Claudius' name. The Latin word for "restraint" is claudere, which is similar to "Claudius."[26] (http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt550.htm#_ftn26) It is interesting that Paul shifts between the neuter and masculine forms of the "the restrainer" (2 Thess. 2:6, 7). This may indicate he includes both the imperial law and the present emperor in his designation "restrainer." While Claudius lived, Nero, the Man of Lawlessnes, was without power to commit public lawlessness. Christianity was free from the imperial sword until the Neronic persecution began in November, A.D 64.

So I stand corrected. Claudius does NOT mean restrainer, but it is possible that Paul was using a play on words. Hardly conclusive in my book, but if Nero is the MoL, the Claudius is certainly a strong candidate for the restrainer. However, I will cease using this as an argument for Nero as the MoL, but there are other arguments, I just don't have time to properly elucidate them now.

Also, a note of explanation to John, Ted, and Bill: You may notice that with different people I debate in a different manner. When interacting with you guys, I am much more careful with what I post.

With other posters, I tend to be little sloppy. This is a bad habit of mine. With certain types of posters, I tend to focus on what I consider to be poor debate technique. And when I am writing to such a poster, I tend to throw out points without always being thorough (sometimes this is intentional, in that I am trying to make it easy for the opponent to find something to make a substantive rebuttal to, sometimes it is just plain sloppiness).

In other words, sometimes I debate not to prove a theological point, but to expose dubious debate tactics. When I am in that “mode” my substantive arguments tend to be less well thought out. I really need to learn how to expose bad argumentation without letting my own substantive quality suffer (and/or a way to have 36 hours in a day so I can have the time to both, as I can write a 2 page “huff and fluff” rebuttal in about 1/3 of the time it takes me to craft a quality substantive rebuttal of the same length. I just don’t have the patience (as do Ted and John) to respond to some of these posturing post with actual well articulated well thought out post.

Please don't think that I am always this sloppy and/or inconsistent. I tend to write to an intended audience and when persona enter the debate I find myself drastically changing my style.

dizzle

March 27th 2006, 09:34 PM

I am glad you found that. And I find it still persuasive and will still use that as an argument pro-Nero MoL.

John Reece

March 28th 2006, 04:20 AM

Ted,

I deeply regret my challenge of your interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2, which has a long and strong history that is quite defensible.

My indiscretion in gainsaying your interpretation is not defensible.

I offer you my sincere and unreserved apologies for my effrontery in taking you to task for not seeing things my way, which for all I know may be quite wrong.

Blessings,

John

Ted

March 28th 2006, 10:50 PM

John,

Now that we have each declared the other to have posted unfounded assumptions, I will attempt to confront your position without be confrontational to you personally. I respect you too much to risk our collegial interchanges.

I deeply regret my challenge of your interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2, which has a long and strong history that is quite defensible.

My indiscretion in gainsaying your interpretation is not defensible.

I offer you my sincere and unreserved apologies for my effrontery in taking you to task for not seeing things my way, which for all I know may be quite wrong.
You are forgiven, although the apology was truly unnecessary. I merely took you as being enthusiastic in defense of your position. I hope I do not misrepresent you as I proceed.

**

You posted three bulleted points that you declared “assumptions.” While you did not directly declare the exact opposite position, it seemed natural to expect that that was in fact your position. After all, why would you raise such arguments if you weren’t opposed to mine? Now that you know why I spoke the way I did, let me back up to square one and try to start over.

You ignore the differences in subject matter and genre between the cryptic, enigmatic, apocalyptic passage in the letter to the Thessalonians, and the teachings about Christ and Christians in the letters to the Corinthians.
You said this, then re-stated it as an emphatic declaration of your position. That is, 2 Thes is “cryptic and enigmatic.” You have emphasized that this is adequate reason to argue in favor of a definition of “Temple of God” that is different from its other uses in scripture. I heartily disagree.

First: 2 Thes 2:5 explicitly declares that the church in Thessalonica did know exactly what Paul was talking about. He is merely reiterating. Therefore, at least to them, it was neither cryptic nor enigmatic.

Next: 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
In these verses, “taking his seat in the temple of God” is defined for us as two things. (1) Exaltation above God in order to be worshiped, and (2) displaying himself as being God. Now, if we stopped there, Nero (per Faramir) could fit. After all, he did demand worship as God. On this we all agree. Who’s going to argue with simple history? But there is another fit – Satan. His specific claims were to be like God, deserving of worship (Isa 14, Ezek 28).

So far we have a functional definition only. It neglects location. In my prior post, I said that all uses of “the temple of God” or a synonym refer to the church in one way or another. I must revise that comment. The text does not internally define “the temple of God.” Therefore we must seek a scriptural definition of the term.

Matt 26:61 – One of Jesus’ accusers speaks of Herod’s temple as the “temple of God,” misunderstanding Jesus comment, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.”
1 Cor 3:16-17 – Paul declares the church to be “the Temple of God.” He (v. 17) declares a divine curse on any who would destroy the church. (Note similarity to 2 Thes 2:8)
2 Cor 6:19 – “Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit.” Contextually this refers to the physical bodies of individuals in the church. (Some translations note the definite article missing in the NAS.)
2 Cor 6:16 – “We are the temple of the living God; just as God said, ‘I will dwell in them and walk among them; And it will be their God, and they shall be My people.’” This is unmistakably a reference to the church.
Eph 2:19-21 – “You are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord;”
2 Thes 2:4 – the contested passage
1 Peter 2:1-10 – Peter develops the idea that the believers are being “built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood.” This can be nothing other than the temple of God. He doesn’t use the term, but there is no other possible conclusion but he is referring to the church.

These are all the NT citations that I can find that use “temple of God” or an equivalent. The first is a quotation from one of Jesus’ accusers, and is therefore an historical record of an uninspired statement. It does, however, show that the term “temple of God” did have a common use as a designation for Herod’s temple.

When we consider inspired statements about the physical temple (excluding 2 Thes 2:4, since it is contested), there is not one example of this use. In every case (at least 90 examples), the physical temple is referred to as “the temple.” There are no exceptions.

When we look at “temple of God,” in the Pauline corpus there are three indisputable uses to refer to it as the church, and a fourth that extends to the church (2 Cor 6:19). Peter also uses the same meaning. There are no uses that are clearly made to the physical temple.

Let’s sum this up. Every apostolic writer, in every case where he has a choice of language, uses “the temple” to refer to the physical temple. In every clear case where “temple of God” or an equivalent is used, the reference is to the church or the members of the church. There are no exceptions. So far, I think that we should be in agreement.

The physical temple thesis requires us to believe:
(1) “Temple of God” in 2 Thes 2:4 has a meaning different from every other use in scripture.
(2) Paul used the physical building as his meaning in AD 52 (the approximate date of 2 Thes per International Inductive Study Bible), but within a very short time (AD 52-56 per IISB), perhaps just a few months, he changed it to “the church.”
(3) All four Gospel authors inexplicably avoided using “temple of God” in their writings when it was a common term in the period they were recording, even though such a use would have lent support to a “proper” understanding of the term as the physical temple in Paul’s earlier, generally known work.
(4) Luke, Paul’s sidekick, also inexplicably avoided use of the term in Acts when he had multiple opportunities to support the physical temple thesis if it were correct.
(5) Matthew (12:4), Mark (2:26), Luke (6:4) all refer to the ancient tabernacle as the “house of God,” but inexplicably will not refer to the physical temple as the “temple of God,” again inexplicably avoiding language to support the physical temple hypothesis.
(6) Jesus (Luke 2:49, John 2:16, 14:2) calls the temple “my father’s house,” but again, inexplicably, there is no use of “temple of God,” a reasonable synonym that would support the physical temple thesis, in either gospel.

Let us now assume that the saying in 2 Thes 2:4 is in fact cryptic and obscure. It is a fundamental premise of hermeneutics that clear passages must be used to illuminate the less clear. We now have a surfeit of evidence that “temple of God” refers to the church. On the other hand, the only possible support for the idea that it refers to the physical building comes from the uninspired charge of an opponent of Jesus at His trial. Since that is an historical record of an utterance rather than an inspired use of language, it is of minimal probative value. Thus, there remains essentially no evidence for any meaning for “the temple of God” other than the church.

This means that Paul’s saying is not in fact cryptic and obscure. When we combine it with verse 2, where the widespread apostasy is linked with the MoL, the picture is quite clear. Apostasy is sin, which is lawlessness (anomia, 1 Jn 3:4). Thus, the MoL is the chief apostate. His very identity is sin (1 Jn 3:8). Thus, the MoL is Satan, acting in the church. Because of the way this is presented, Paul is describing the ultimate manifestation of this partnership between man and Satan. It is unrecognized by most because it is a brilliant counterfeit. But true followers of God will recognize it by its heresy.

You may wonder why I have emphasized the temple/church argument. You pushed the physical temple through quotes from Wanamaker and Bruce. So, while I have not quoted a specific statement of yours, I believe that I am properly addressing your position on the cryptic nature of the statement. And no, I am NOT ignoring the fact that there are end-time elements. Rather, I am explaining them. The language of Paul’s statement has to be understood within the language of the NT if possible. And that language provides us with a very clear explanation of Paul’s intent.

It does seem clear to me that the time frame of whatever Paul was describing and predicting was contemporaneous to Paul and the Christians at Thessalonica.
I find this to be a stretch. Prophets commonly did not understand the timing of certain things they were shown, particularly when no timing elements were provided by God. Daniel would be a particularly good example of this. Other than the 70 weeks, which has a good basis in Lev 25, everything in his revelations would have been without a personally meaningful time frame.But even the 70 weeks had to wait for a specific decree, which Daniel never got to see. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (ch 2) and the four beasts (ch 7) would have left him totally without a meaningful time reference.

Paul’s language, while it does not exclude a near-term fulfillment, does not require it. Rather, it is simply future, without any time markers. All that is said is that it will be “in his time he may be revealed” (2:6). That is functionally the same as “the end time will come at the appointed time” (Dan 11:35, semiquote). And that time is a long time after the sixth century BC.

Ted