Some Christians think there will be a third temple. The temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem. The Millennial Temple. They base that on Ezk 40-48.
That's possible, but inconclusive. Let's take a comparison:
9 Then he dreamed another dream and told it to his brothers and said, “Behold, I have dreamed another dream. Behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me” (Gen 37:9).10 The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth, and its height was great. 11 The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth. 12 Its leaves were beautiful and its fruit abundant, and in it was food for all. The beasts of the field found shade under it, and the birds of the heavens lived in its branches, and all flesh was fed from it.13 “I saw in the visions of my head as I lay in bed, and behold, a watcher, a holy one, came down from heaven. 14 He proclaimed aloud and said thus: ‘Chop down the tree and lop off its branches, strip off its leaves and scatter its fruit. Let the beasts flee from under it and the birds from its branches. 15 But leave the stump of its roots in the earth, bound with a band of iron and bronze, amid the tender grass of the field. Let him be wet with the dew of heaven. Let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth. 16 Let his mind be changed from a man's, and let a beast's mind be given to him; and let seven periods of time pass over him (Dan 4:1-16).
These are prophetic dreams. Inspired dreams and visions are forms of pictorial revelation. It's just that dreams happen when the individual is a sleep rather than awake. And there's an intermediate category: night visions.
These two prophetic dreams are allegorical. They envision a future event, but the way it happens is different from the dream. The fulfillment is analogical. Likewise, there's no presumption that Ezk 40-48 is a preview of a physical temple. It might just as well be an allegorical vision.
In the NT, Christians are miniature temples (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19). And Jesus is the new temple. The true temple (Jn 2:19-21). Put another way, the temple was a placeholder for the Incarnate Son. The temple was a temporary token of God's presence on earth. Rebuilding the temple is theologically retrograde.
How you interpret 2 Thessalonians 2:4 which says that the Antichrist will sit in the temple of God. What temple of God is this?
ReplyDeleteAnd the temple of God which John saw in a vision which at that time had already been destroyed Revelation 11:1-2. What temple of God is this?
"Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." 2 Thessalonians 2:4
"Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, “Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months." Revelation 11:1-2
I think Paul is probably using a theological metaphor.
DeleteAs for Rev 11:1-2, that's a vision, and visions can be allegorical. Indeed, I'd say the visions in Revelation are typically allegorical. So there's no presumption that that refers to a physical temple in the actual world. Rather, it refers to something analogous.
I think the original recipients of Paul's letter understood this literally. We need concrete things. Even the visions with allegorical elements have to give concrete clues about what they mean to those who read. If everything is allegorical and metaphorical in visions, they do not serve anything, we do not know the concrete meaning. they become indecipherable.
DeleteKen Gentry wrote an interesting article on that, that it indicates the attempt of one of the Caesars' a little before the time that 2 Thess. was written - was "attempting" to do that - set his image up in the temple, but he backed off - Caligula tried it a few years before 2 Thess. was written, and, then, Gentry is saying that what is holding the man of lawlessness back is a word play on Claudius (the emperor at the time of 2 Thess. - 51-52 AD), who is the emperor before Nero, and he (and other partial Preterists) argue that the man of lawlessness is Neron Caesar (which is also how the Hebrew of the name "Neron Qasar" comes out into six hundred and sixty six ( 666). (Rev. 13)
Deleteנרון קסר
"Nero Caesar" in the Hebrew alphabet is נרון קסר NRON QSR, which when used as numbers represent 50 200 6 50 100 60 200, which add to 666.
My problem with that, though all of that seems really credible (about verses 3-4), is that "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering to Him" in verse 1 - IMO, is following chapter 1 - which seems to be not about 70 AD, but about the literal bodily second coming of Christ still future to us.
Actually, I think it's often the case that we don't know what prophecies correspond to ahead of time. It's only with the benefit of hindsight at we can see how it comes together.
DeleteMoreover, the original recipients aren't the frame of reference for long-distance prophecy, since those oracles won't be fulfilled in their own time.
The frame of reference is what Paul wanted to say. And what Paul wanted to say is directly related to his recipients.
DeleteWhen Paul wrote the letter he did not know when his words would be fulfilled. Paul wanted to be understood by his recipients. So he should write in a way that his recipients understood. As he did not make further clarification, it does not seem to me that his recipients saw here some theological metaphor.
Therefore, I conclude that Paul did not want to write here any theological metaphor.
Is it possible that he wanted to? Yes it is, but it does not seem plausible to me, also by internal evidences of the text itself.
If Paul's original audience would have understood it wouldn't you think it was to happen in their life time?
DeleteNo, I'm not seeing the relationship. Paul did not say when it would happen. In fact, the reason he wrote this was a warning against the idea of Christ's return to be imminent.
DeleteHe warns that before the return of Christ these things must happen, are signs that Christ's return is imminent. So without this happens - the apostasy and the manifestation of the Antichrist -, no one should expect the return of Christ.
i) To begin with, Paul uses temple metaphors for the church on several occasions. So this wouldn't be exceptional.
Deleteii) In addition, it makes sense that apostasy begins in the church.
iii) Who's the recipient of a long-range prophecy? That's ambiguous. There's the original recipients of the letter. But if this is a long-range prophecy, then it's not something that's about them. It won't happen in their lifetime. How would they even be in a position to understand it all? The context of fulfillment is a necessary ingredient when we interpret prophecy.
iv) If you insist on what would make sense to the original audience, a better candidate was the pagan temple in Thessalonica. That's Green's interpretation in his commentary. That would be more obvious and pertinent to 1C Thessalonian Christians than a third temple/millennial temple.
v) Back to Rev 11:1-2. In v4 it says the two witnesses are olive trees and menorahs. But unless you think God turned them into trees or lampstands, why take the temple any more literally?
Likewise, Revelation already uses temple metaphors when it says Christians will be pillars in the temple/sanctuary. Unless you think Christians will literally be calcified, Why take Rev 11:1-2 any more literally? Will Christians be turned into furniture?
Why do you think that by a word being used metaphorically in a particular instance it is always used metaphorically. Bread and wine is used metaphorically as the body and blood of Christ, are there no places where bread and wine literally means bread and wine?
DeleteHow will the man of sin sit in the spiritual temple of God who is the Church? Will the gates of hell prevail against the Church?
Often the metaphors themselves are explicitly explained in context, when this does not happen, it is probably not a metaphor. You know that the two witnesses are olive trees and menorahs, but you dont know what the temple means. Because there is no metaphor, the temple is the temple of God in Jerusalem.
A pagan temple better candidate to be the "temple of God" than the temple of Jerusalem. This sounds very strange!
And this is not a prophecy. It is a revelation from Paul.
i) You're attacking a position I didn't take. I said there's no *presumption* that Paul is using temple language literally in this passage given that he generally uses temple language figuratively.
Deleteii) A number of noted commentators (e.g. Gupta, Weima, Shogren, Marshall, Fee, Bruce) think Paul is trading on *figurative* connotations of when the Solomonic temple and Second Temple were desecrated to make a general point.
iii) You have to read Green's argument. I didn't say I endorse it. I'm responding to you on your own grounds. That identification would resonant with the original audience.
iv) There are many examples of apostate denominations. Indeed, you'd expect Satan to infiltrate the church. That's his primary target. Again, I'm not necessarily endorsing Beale's interpretation, but it's reasonable.
"You know that the two witnesses are olive trees and menorahs, but you dont know what the temple means. Because there is no metaphor, the temple is the temple of God in Jerusalem."
i) Are you talking about Revelation? If so, you need to be consistent. The pillars, menorahs, and olive trees can't be figurative while the sanctuary is literal.
ii) Or are you shifting to Thessalonians? If so, does that mean you concede that the temple in Rev 11:1ff. is symbolic?
"And this is not a prophecy. It is a revelation from Paul."
i) What's that supposed to mean? Prophecy is revelatory.
ii) If it's not prophetic, then presumably it's not about a future (third/millennial) temple.
"How will the man of sin sit in the spiritual temple of God who is the Church? Will the gates of hell prevail against the Church?"
DeleteAs an aside, John 13:2, 27 notes Satan influenced then "entered" Judas. This was at the last supper. In the midst of Jesus and the apostles. If Satan can infiltrate their fellowship, why couldn't Satan infiltrate certain churches?
Who said that Satan can not infiltrate certain churches?
DeleteThis presupposes the idea that the man of sin is Satan. Where does this idea come from?
If the "temple of God" means the Church, the most logical thing is to be the all universal Church. Why infer that the "temple of God" means a part of the Church or some denominations? Paul speaks of "temple of God" not one part of "temple of God".
And if the man of sin sitting in the temple of God is the apostasy in the church how distinguish this event from a normal apostasy? This would be nothing extraordinary.
A revelation is addressed directly to a person or group of people. Its purpose is to transmit information, so it uses the clearest possible language. The recipient is fully aware of the meaning of the revelation. A revelation whose meaning is unknown makes no sense. And there may be revelations of past present and future things.
DeleteA prophecy is not addressed directly to someone in particular, has a greater intensity of figurative language and it may be necessary to wait for its fulfillment to fully understand it.
In that sense this passage of the Thessalonians is clearly a revelation to the Christians of Thessalonica and by extension to all of us.
There are commentators to suit all tastes.
Deletehttps://goo.gl/74QjCx
i) The Antichrist is an agent of the devil, acting on the devil's behalf, as a powerful surrogate.
Deleteii) I didn't say it means denominations. I used denominations to illustrate a principle.
It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. No, the entire church won't apostatize. But if, say, there was worldwide persecution, there'd be vast defection.
iii) Unless you're a preterist, the passage in Thessalonians isn't clearly a revelation rather than a prophecy, as you define it. It would only be directed addressed to the original recipients if it's about something that will happen to them–which now lies in the past, from the standpoint of a modern reader. Otherwise, it's for the benefit of posterity–like a time capsule.
iv) You can know what every word in a prophecy means, but be unclear about what it describes ahead of time. The point is that it's recognizable after the fact. Moreover, that it's sufficiently comprehensible to warn Christians or encourage Christians. In the end, our side wins.
“This presupposes the idea that the man of sin is Satan. Where does this idea come from?”
DeleteHow does Satan influencing Judas to betray Jesus imply “the man of sin is Satan” (my emphasis)? Like literally Satan? The devil in the flesh? I don’t see how you can say so based on the vv I cited above from the Gospel of John.
I could see Satanic influence. Why isn’t Satanic influence consistent with Judas willingly choosing to betray Jesus? Or the man of sin, presumably antichrist, willingly choosing to sin?
Also, even if you take the stronger position that Satan possessed Judas or the antichrist (which may be a debatable position in and of itself), why isn’t that still consistent with Judas or the antichrist willingly choosing to sin?
By your own analogy. If you are comparing the infiltration of Satan in Judas with the infiltration of the man of sin into the church that implies by the analogy that Satan is the man of sin.
DeleteIt was Satan who influenced Judas not one his agent.
Notice I do not dispute that Satan can infiltrate certain churches, but the claim that this is what Paul means when he says "the man of sin sitting in the temple of God".
If so, then the man of sin is always seated in the temple of God. There is nothing new.
Conhecereis a Verdade
Delete"By your own analogy. If you are comparing the infiltration of Satan in Judas with the infiltration of the man of sin into the church that implies by the analogy that Satan is the man of sin."
Au contraire, mon frère! :)
1. In fact, if (as you say) it's an "analogy", then it's not identity!
I never identified Judas with Satan. I never identified the man of sin with Satan.
Rather, that's you who did so. You're the one who said it "presupposes the idea that the man of sin is Satan" (emphasis mine). In short, you're the one assuming what I said was identity (the man of sin = Satan), yet you now say what I've said is analogy.
2. All I did was to cite John 13:2, 27, then say Satan influenced then "entered" Judas (whatever "entered" means, which is why I used scare quotes). That doesn't "presuppose" that "the man of sin is Satan" (your words).
Rather, what I said at most "presupposes" influence and whatever we mean by "entered". However, influence does not mean that the man of sin is Satan!
Your words:
DeleteAs an aside, John 13:2, 27 notes Satan influenced then "entered" Judas. This was at the last supper. In the midst of Jesus and the apostles. If Satan can infiltrate their fellowship, why couldn't Satan infiltrate certain churches [the temple of God]?
Do not these words imply that Satan is the man of sin? You even mention Satan explicitly.
But ok we stayed here, when the temple starts to be rebuilt I'll be back :)
Conhecereis a Verdade
Delete"Do not these words imply that Satan is the man of sin? You even mention Satan explicitly."
1. Sorry, I still don't see how! :)
2. In fact, my original response ("As an aside...") wasn't even responding to you, per se, but rather an attempt to reinforce what Steve pointed out about the possibility of Satan infiltrating the church.
3. Also, I never identified "churches" with "the temple of God" either.
The rebuilding of the temple does not negate the fact that the earthly temple is always a figure of heavenly things.
ReplyDeleteThe rebuilding of another temple or millennial temple, with animal sacrifices that have the power of atonement (Ezekiel chapters 43 and 45 the word atonement is repeated several times) - that seems to be a big contradiction to the book of Hebrews and in fact, the whole NT. (Christ is the final once for all time atoning sacrifice).
ReplyDeletealso, the Gospel of John seems to pick up a lot of themes from Ezekiel 40-48 that say the incarnation of Christ is the fulfillment of the "glory of God returned to the temple" (Ezekiel 43:2-5; John 1:14) and the temple itself (John 2:19-22) with the rivers of living water flowing for the healing of the nations. (living water of the Holy Spirit - John 4:14, 7:37-39, book of Revelation).
When the letter to the Hebrews was written and much of the NT, the temple of Jerusalem was still standing and the sacrificial system of the Old Testament functioning in full. There is no contradiction.
DeleteIf Hebrews was written around 68 or 69 AD (most probably, because of the present verb tenses speaking about the priests offering sacrifices), than after 70 AD, after it was destroyed; then it certainly does seem like a contradiction for us to be thinking there will be a future temple with atonement power sacrifices.
DeleteThere is nothing within the text of Ezekiel 40-48 that mentions a thousand year reign on earth, nor within the text of Rev. 20:1-6 that tells us to put Ezekiel 40-48 within Rev. 20:1-6.
Also, classic texts on which pre-millennials rely upon about the character of that period (Isaiah 65:25) are in the contexts of "the new heavens and new earth" passages. (Isaiah 65:17 to 66:22)
Just to clarify, Hebrews actually never implies the temple is still standing. He's situated in the Pentateuch and speaks of it vividly in the present aspect, but it is clear that he is referring to the tabernacle, not temple.
DeleteWhat is "the temple of God in heaven" in Revelation 11:19? and yet in 21:22 says there is no temple in heaven - ?
ReplyDeleteAD 70 folks. 666 has come and gone. They abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet has expired.
ReplyDeleteSeems like it to me, that seems like what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 23:36 all the way until 24:34
Delete24:36 - "that day" = second coming
until end of 25
except it seems to me that Jesus mixes 70 AD and coming judgement on the temple in with the second coming, because the disciples mix things together in their question in Matthew 24:3.
so verses 29-31 have relevance to both 70 AD and a future second coming.
I think there could be a transition verse at 24:36.
ReplyDeleteI think we should keep in mind, our Lord often ignored the question posed to him and instead responded with what was more needful to say. We would get in trouble if we drew inferences based upon his silence.
I have offered these examples in another context but they might find application here too.
Jesus’ modus operandi for dealing with the point that he wanted to deal with, even at the expense of ignoring what was being asked of him and even sometimes at the expense of having that which was false assumed true by his hearers:
John 3:1-3: When Nicodemus stated his inference to Jesus that he was a teacher sent from God, Jesus neither affirmed nor denied the assumption. Rather, he turned the tables by telling Nicodemus he must be born again. Depending upon one’s pre-commitment it might be inferred that Jesus was or was not who Nicodemus thought, a teacher sent from God. Yet we cannot deduce anything in that regard from the text.
Mark 10:17-18: When a rich young ruler called Jesus good, he neither affirmed nor denied that he possessed that quality of person but instead said nobody is good but God. Depending upon one’s pre-commitment it might be inferred that Jesus was not good and, therefore, not God; yet the text neither affirms nor denies either conclusion.
Acts 1:6, 7: When the apostles asked Jesus whether he was at that time going to restore the kingdom to Israel, he neither affirmed nor denied such an intention but instead said that it was not for them to know the times or epochs that the Father has fixed by his own authority. Dispensationalists, given their pre-commitment to a restored national Israel, infer from the answer a confirmation of their theology, that the kingdom will be restored. Notwithstanding, no logical conclusion can be deduced from the text with respect to the restoration Israel’s kingdom.
John 21:20-22: When Peter asked Jesus whether John would be alive at the time of Jesus’ return Jesus told him that if he wanted John to remain until such time it was no business of Peter’s. Jesus then put to Peter his task, which was to follow Jesus. Jesus’ answer did not logically imply that John would remain or not, let alone whether Jesus would even return one day! The answer even caused a rumor among the brethren that John would not die (John 21:23). John in this very epistle (same verse: 23) remarked on the unjustified inference that caused the rumor: “Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, ‘If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?’”
666 is for all ages if we understand it correctly
ReplyDeleteAnd how do you understand it?
DeleteThe marking of a name denotes possession of the person. Hence, Christ's people are marked by Him as well. The head and hand likely refer to profession of faith and deeds, since the book is concerned about right worship through both. So Nero/the Beast represents the wicked world and the number are those who compromise with the wicked world by participating in their false religions and antinomian practices. It literally refers to Domitian in my opinion, as Nero/the Beast come again, but has a larger application to the overall message of the book: Those who follow Christ will receive His reward, and those who follow the wicked world will receive the Beast's reward. So the world and compromised Christians already have the mark of the beast engraved in their heads and hands.
ReplyDelete