3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God (2 Thes 2:3-4).
I'm going to discuss a neglected interpretation of this passage, but I will summarize some alternative interpretations before getting to that particular interpretation:
1) According to the preterist interpretation, this refers to events concerning the Second Temple in Jerusalem. But there are problems with a that identification:
i) According to our sources, nothing happened between the time of writing and the fall of Jerusalem that matches Paul's description in 2 Thes 2.
It's possible that our sources are deficient, but if so, that's an admission that there's no supporting evidence for this interpretation.
ii) If this was fulfilled c. 70 AD, then there's a sense in which it's much too soon to be a useful precursor to the Parousia. After all, it's now 2000 years down the pike. If the interval between the prelude to the Parousia and the Parousia is that distant, it loses significance.
iii) If this was fulfilled c. 70 AD in a symbolic sense, then it's hard to see what grave error Paul is correcting. If the return of Christ is symbolic, what difference does it make to say he came back in the 40s or the 70s of the 1C? In any event, it's business as usual. All the same moral and natural evils continue as before.
3) Commentator Gene Green thinks it denotes the imperial shrine in Thessalonika, dedicated to Julius and Augustus Caesar. But there are problems with that identification:
i) Would Paul refer to a pagan shrine as the "sanctuary of God"?
ii) From Paul's perspective, why would it be wrong for the Antichrist to oppose the imperial cult?
iii) Green says "the apostle describes a cult center where people go to offer worship" (312), but I don't see where Paul in fact says that. Green's statement is far more specific.
iv) What historic event does Green think fulfilled this identification? It can't be the imperial cult, itself, for that wasn't opposed to other heathen devotions.
v) Surely it's awfully provincial to say that Jesus could not return unless and until something happened at the imperial shrine in Thessalonika.
4) Premils think it refers to the rebuilt millennial temple. But given that the Second Temple in Jerusalem was still intact and functioning at the time of writing, it's hard to see how such a labyrinthine allusion would be intelligible to the original audience.
5) Commentator Greg Beale believes the "temple" is a synonym for the church. I think that interpretation has much to commend it, although it needs to be fleshed out.
6) But let's consider a final identification:
It has also been thought by some patristic and modern commentators that Paul is referring to the heavenly temple, where God sits (Ps 10:4: "The Lord is in his holy temple; the Lord, his throne is in heaven": cf. Isa 66:1; Mic 1:2; Hab 2:20; 1 En 14:17-22; 2 Bar 4:2-6). A. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (Yale 2000), 420.
This doesn't mean the Antichrist literally usurps the throne in the heavenly temple. Rather, Paul would be trading on ancient "war in heaven" motif. The Antichrist is an agent of Satan–the archetypal irreligious rebel. The "god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4). So this would be a colorful way of depicting the Antichrist's insolent impiety.
It has the advantage of allowing for a future fulfillment, as well as bringing the signs of the Parousia into closer conjunction with the Parousia itself.
I have a few comments
ReplyDelete1. In response to any partial preterists (not all agree) who think that the reference to the parousia in v. 8 finds its fulfillment around A.D. 70 have a difficult contextual issue facing them. The beginning of the pericope is found in v. 1 where Paul connects this parousia with the resurrection described in his first epistle (1 Thess 4:13–18): “Now regarding the arrival [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to be with him [referring back to his first epistle], we ask you, brothers and sisters” (2 Thess 2:1).
Thus, partial preterists cannot at the same time affirm the parousia in v. 8 referring to A.D. 70, while disconnecting it from the subject matter that Paul explicitly says he is going to talk about (i.e. the gathering/resurrection that will happen at the beginning of the parousia).
Only a hyper preterist can be consistent if they affirm both happening in A.D. 70.
2. Accordingly, there is no record that Titus was destroyed by Jesus' parousia in A.D. 70 (see v. 8).
3. What is going on in Green's interpertation is that he sees the evidence that Paul's language indicates a literal, not figurative, temple. And since this event obviously did not happen in or before A.D. 70 and since he cannot allow a futurist interpretation. he looks for a different temple to fill the bill.
4. This is mistaken --> "4) Premils think it refers to the rebuilt millennial temple. But given that the Second Temple in Jerusalem was still intact and functioning at the time of writing, it's hard to see how such a labyrinthine allusion would be intelligible to the original audience."
No we don't. At least I do not know of any. First, Paul uses the Greek term _naos_ which can refer to a tent-like structure that can be erected within a matter of days or weeks. It can also refer to the inner sanctuary. Premills, at least prewrathers, do not think some colossal Solomaic temple needs to be built before the Antichrist's revelation and his desecration of it. This temple-sanctuary is distinct from a millennial-type temple.
5. Greg Beale's interpretation that the "temple" is a synonym for the church has serious problems. He and other interpreters are forced to go outside of the context to unrelated contexts and import this spiritual meaning back into the Thesssalonian context. Furthermore, these interpreters commit two common lexical fallacies when they claim that this is a synonym for the church. In fact, on my show next week (The Biblical Prophecy Program) I will be talking about this very topic and those linguistic fallacies showing that Paul intends a literal temple. Incidentally, on my show today on this week's program, I talked about five reasons why the Antichrist will be a literal person, not a figurative impersonal entity.
http://www.alankurschner.com/2015/01/28/5-reasons-the-bible-teaches-a-literal-personal-antichrist-not-figurative-impersonal-ep-22/
"No we don't. At least I do not know of any…Premills, at least prewrathers, do not think some colossal Solomaic temple needs to be built before the Antichrist's revelation and his desecration of it. This temple-sanctuary is distinct from a millennial-type temple."
Deletei) According to Vine, in his classical Dispensational commentary on 1-2 Thessalonians, the "temple" in 2 Thes 2:4 has reference to a "still future rebuilding of Solomon's temple [in] Jerusalem" (184).
ii) One problem is that, to my knowledge, there's a dearth of scholarly, up-to-date, progressive Dispensational commentaries on eschatological books of the Bible. For some reason, DTS hasn't been producing the next generation of dispensational commentaries.
So for 1-2 Thessalonians, we are stuck with old classical Dispensational commentaries by Thomas and Vine. In that respect it's hard to say what represents the state-of-the art Dispensational interpretation of 2 Thes 2.
"First, Paul uses the Greek term _naos_ which can refer to a tent-like structure that can be erected within a matter of days or weeks. It can also refer to the inner sanctuary."
i) Or it could function as a synecdoche for the entire temple.
ii) What kind of structure do you envision for the Antichrist's desecration the "temple"? Do you think endtime Jews will erect a makeshift tent on the Temple Mount (or somewhere else in Jerusalem) which the Antichrist will defile? Is so, why would a temporarily little tent be deemed important enough for his action to have any great significance?
"He and other interpreters are forced to go outside of the context to unrelated contexts and import this spiritual meaning back into the Thesssalonian context. Furthermore, these interpreters commit two common lexical fallacies when they claim that this is a synonym for the church."
i) Beale begins with an analysis of apostosia (2:3), which, as you know, can either denote religious defection or political insurrection.
ii) He thinks the "apostasy" has allusive precedent in Dan 8:11 & 11:30-45. Therefore, he believes it centers on a religious defection, triggered by the Antichrist persecuting the covenant community.
I don't see that Dan 11 is an unrelated context.
iii) He also think it's the same "apostasy" predicted by Christ in the Olivet Discourse (Mt 24:10-12). Again, I don't see how that's an unrelated context.
iv) Regarding comparative usage, it's good to start with a writer's own usage. But a limitation on that procedure is that we're confined to his linguistic usage, which may be sparse. Since Paul uses naos infrequently, that's what we're stuck with. We can either work with what we've got, or disregard his usage entirely. Is the latter preferable?
v) Beale's comparison goes beyond common usage to include common imagery. He construes the "temple" in 2 Thes 2:4 in light of "temple imagery" (for the church) in 1 Thes 4:3-8, as well as temple imagery (for the church) in Eph 2:19-21.
So the data which underlies his interpretation fairly broad-based.