The fallacy of believing Jesus was talking about the temple of stones on the Mount of Olives

[covenantee]

Devils advocate - he is very consistent with his distinction between the different temples. But, he is also very consistent with qualifying explanations when he is talking about them. Unfortunately, 2 Thessalonians 2:4 doesn’t contain a qualifying explanation of the “temple of God”. In fact, 2 Thessalonians doesn’t mention that the man of sin deceives the true church or believers at all.

Given that Paul uses "naos" consistently everywhere else, why wouldn't he use it consistently in 2 Thessalonians?

And claiming to be God within the Temple of God i.e the Church, is the epitome of deception.

What would you call this?

1. “All the names which in the Scripture are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, De Conciliorum Auctoriatate (On the Authority of the Councils) Bk 2, chap. 17
2. “The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God. He is the divine monarch and supreme emperor, and king of kings. Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as King of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions.” Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, vol.6, art. “Papa II”
3. “We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical letter dated June 20, 1894, The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, p. 304.

 

[claninja]

Right. I pointed this out in my post. But, as I said, the physical temple was no longer the temple of God at that point, so it's safe to say that he was not referring to the physical temple.


Hmmm. Why would he call the physical temple "the temple of God" at that point when, in his other letters, he went out of his way to show that we, the church, are the temple of God? I don't think that makes any sense. As for Matthew calling earthly Jerusalem the holy city after Christ's resurrection, keep in mind that Jesus rendered the temple to be spiritually desolate with His death and resurrection, not necessarily the entire city. His presence in the city until His ascension could still qualify it to be called the holy city up to that point.


He mentioned false Christs, not Antichrists. False Christs are those who claim to be Christ, but are not. Antichrists are those who deny that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah. As for hi not mentioning the revealing of the man of sin/lawlessness, I don't find that to be significant. Why would we expect Him to have mentioned that?


No, but that brings up a point. While Paul did not explain whether he was talking about a physical or spiritual temple in his letter to them, he likely would have talked about it with them while he was with them in person. So, the reason he didn't explain which temple he was talking about is that he would have assumed they would know from what he had taught them in person. Regardless of that, I don't believe for a second that Paul would have referred to the physical temple as "the temple of God" at that point.


Based on some of the things he wrote, such as 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, Paul clearly did believe in a literal and physical coming of Christ.


I don't see any problem with that at all.


So? Do you expect that the Olivet Discourse should contain every possible detail related to the second coming of Christ? I don't think that's reasonable.


Paul wrote a lot of things that Jesus didn't talk about specifically. Jesus never talked about homosexuality, for example. But, Paul did in Romans 1:26-27. That doesn't mean he was "going beyond the teachings of Christ, with special revelation", as if Jesus was somehow not aware that homosexuality is a sin.


For one thing, I don't believe it's talking about an individual man of sin literally sitting in a spiritual temple (whatever that would even mean). So, I'm not sure why you would ask me that question in that way. I don't think there's any reason to think that every detail regarding the second coming should have been included in the Olivet Discourse. Why would Paul even bother writing about the second coming of Christ if he had nothing to add to what Jesus had already taught about it?


Maybe not within 2 Thessalonians itself, but I believe there's plenty of evidence when you look at scripture as a whole.

I’m mean, I agree. If Paul wanted to really nail down he was talking about the complex, why didn’t he just use “hieron” instead of “naos”? “Sits himself in the temple complex” would definitely clarify beyond down a shadow of doubt.

But here are the issues I have with 2 Thessalonians 2.

1.) Paul doesn’t clarify “temple of God” as the church WITHIN 2 Thessalonians 2. and I need to hammer down internal issues before I can apply outside scripture.

2.) paul potentially alludes to Daniel 11 in 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Daniel 11 also contains desolation of physical temple. If Paul is spiritualizing Daniel 11, he makes no clarification that he does so, or explanation as to this allusion.

3.) There is apostasy mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2, but from what? It is not clearly explained. Paul doesn’t say the man of sin deceives the true church, in fact Paul says the man of sin deceives those already perishing, who do not accept truth. So does the spiritual temple of God consist of those who reject truth and are perishing?

As to the olivet discourse. The disciples ask about the sign of the coming of Christ. Jesus lists many events, including a mass falling away, false prophets, false messiahs (correction from antichrists). But if there are 2 main signs according to Paul - mass falling away and a man of sin sitting in the temple of God, it’s quite bizarre that Jesus didn’t mention this man of sin. that’s the flaw with the spiritual temple motif in 2 Thessalonians 2.

If Paul is clarifying one of the false messiah’s in the OD, I find it strange Jesus didn’t emphasize that more.

 

[David in NJ]

But he did say in 2 Thessalonians 2:5 "Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?", so it's quite possible that he didn't feel any need to give a qualifying explanation of the temple of God in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 since he had likely already done that when he was with them in person. It's quite reasonable to assume that he expected them to remember what he had already told them, so no explanation was necessary. Beyond that, I believe it just isn't reasonable at all to think that Paul would have referred to the physical temple as "the temple of God" at that point when he put so much emphasis on the spiritual temple of God in his other letters.

Based on his other writings, what would you reasonably expect Paul to be talking about if he referred to "the temple of God" without explanation of which temple he was talking about? You'd think he was referring to the spiritual temple of God since that's what he referred to every other time he referenced the temple of God, right? Of course, I'm talking about when the word temple was translated from the Greek word "naos", as covenantee showed.

Bingo

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I’m mean, I agree. If Paul wanted to really nail down he was talking about the complex, why didn’t he just use “hieron” instead of “naos”?

Right. I have no doubt that he would have done that if he was talking about the physical temple. Just as he always did otherwise.

“Sits himself in the temple complex” would definitely clarify beyond down a shadow of doubt.

Yep.

But here are the issues I have with 2 Thessalonians 2.

1.) Paul doesn’t clarify “temple of God” as the church WITHIN 2 Thessalonians 2. and I need to hammer down internal issues before I can apply outside scripture.

But, he did use the word "naos" instead of "hieron" there, so anyone familiar with how he otherwise used the word would be able to discern what he was talking about.

2.) paul potentially alludes to Daniel 11 in 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Daniel 11 also contains desolation of physical temple. If Paul is spiritualizing Daniel 11, he makes no clarification that he does so, or explanation as to this allusion.

Again, using the word "naos" instead of "hieron" makes it highly unlikely that he is referring to the same thing as Daniel 11.

3.) There is apostasy mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2, but from what? It is not clearly explained. Paul doesn’t say the man of sin deceives the true church, in fact Paul says the man of sin deceives those already perishing, who do not accept truth.

We can look at other scripture to help determine what the apostasy is from.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,

Obviously, some were already departing from the faith when Paul wrote this, so he wasn't talking about apostasy occurring in general, but is implying there would be a time of increased apostasy in the future in terms of people departing from the faith. So, the departing from the faith happens first and then later people's consciences are figuratively "seared with a hot iron" by deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.

In the case of what Paul wrote about in 2 Thessalonians 2, God sends those who have apostasized (departed from the faith) strong delusion to them by allowing the man of sin to deceive them "according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders" which leads to their condemnation. God gives them over to their wickedness, in other words. Similar to what Paul wrote about in Romans 1:18-32, except that passage isn't in relation to people living in the time just before Jesus returns. So, this deception that is "according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders" occurs after the apostasy (departing from the faith) occurs.

So does the spiritual temple of God consist of those who reject truth and are perishing?

No, of course not. That's never the case in scripture. The only people who can fall away and depart from the faith are those who have faith in the first place. I don't think it's talking about the man of sin being part of the temple of God, but rather being among the temple of God while preaching doctrines of demons instead of the gospel, thereby making himself God in a sense while not acknowleding the one true God.

As to the olivet discourse. The disciples ask about the sign of the coming of Christ. Jesus lists many events, including a mass falling away, false prophets, false messiahs (correction from antichrists). But if there are 2 main signs according to Paul - mass falling away and a man of sin sitting in the temple of God, it’s quite bizarre that Jesus didn’t mention this man of sin. that’s the flaw with the spiritual temple motif in 2 Thessalonians 2.

There's no flaw. For some reason you have decided that the Olivet Discourse and Paul's writings should contain all of the same details relating to the second coming of Christ. You consider it to be a flaw if they don't. I don't understand that way of thinking. Do you think Jesus, who is God, wasn't aware that He would later inspire Paul and other NT authors to give further details in relation to His second coming? I'm sure that He understood that He didn't have to give every detail about His second coming in His discourse because he knew additional details would be provided by NT authors like Paul, Peter and John at a later time.

If Paul is clarifying one of the false messiah’s in the OD, I find it strange Jesus didn’t emphasize that more.

You continue to speak as if the man of sin is an individual. I don't see it that way, as I've explained. So, I see no problem with Jesus not referencing any individual called "the man of sin" in the OD.

 

[claninja]

Given that Paul uses "naos" consistently everywhere else, why wouldn't he use it consistently in 2 Thessalonians?

And claiming to be God within the Temple of God i.e the Church, is the epitome of deception.

What would you call this?

1. “All the names which in the Scripture are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, De Conciliorum Auctoriatate (On the Authority of the Councils) Bk 2, chap. 17
2. “The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God. He is the divine monarch and supreme emperor, and king of kings. Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as King of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions.” Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, vol.6, art. “Papa II”
3. “We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical letter dated June 20, 1894, The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, p. 304.

Agreed, he definitely does. My rule of thumb is that I typically I need to understand its use within the context first before I applying outside uses. I don’t want over harmonize things that shouldn’t be harmonized, as I’ve definitely, myself, over harmonized In the past and don’t want to make that same mistake if I can help it. (Not saying it can’t be spiritual, just that it needs to make sense within the context of Paul is talking about).

As to the pope, I’ve always been a little confused on that one. Paul said the man of sin was already at work, but his “revealing” was being restrained. I’m interested to learn how this applies to the pope?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Agreed, he definitely does. My rule of thumb is that I typically I need to understand its use within the context first before I applying outside uses. I don’t want over harmonize things that shouldn’t be harmonized, as I’ve definitely myself over harmonized In the past and don’t want to make that same mistake if I can help it. (Not saying it can’t be spiritual, just that it needs to make sense within the context of Paul is talking about).

As to the pope, I’ve always been a little confused on that one. Paul said the man of sin was already at work, but his “revealing” was being restrained. I’m interested to learn how this applies to the pope?

It's not the revealing of the man of sin that was being restrained. It's lawlessness. Paul said the mystery of lawlessness was already at work, but it was being restrained. So, it was already at work, but not without being restrained to some extent. So, he implied that it would later no longer be restrained and would be at work with no restraints. He didn't say that the man of sin/lawlessness was already at work, as you are claiming. Saying that the man of sin/lawlessness was already at work contradicts what Paul said here...

2 Thessalonians 2:6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Paul talked about the coming of the lawless one (man of sin) as occurring some time in the future from his time. So, it can't be the case that the man of sin/lawlessness was already at work in his time. Paul indicated that lawlessness would no longer be restrained at some point in the future when He who restrains no longer restrained lawlessness. It is at that point when the man of sin/lawlessness would come and be revealed and be at work "according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish". With lawlessness being restrained, that means "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception" is restrained, but when it is no longer restrained then "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception" is unleashed, so to speak. "This is why I relate 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 to Satan's little season when Satan will be loosed and no longer restrained/bound.

 

[CTK]

I agree that there are no absolutely clear contextual indicators, specifically within 2 Thessalonians, telling us that the temple is either physical or spiritual, like there is in Matthew 24. Additionally, I can’t find any Greek lexicons that strictly define it as either spiritual or physical. They all seem to keep it ambiguous.

That being said, Im going to play devils advocate - As to Paul’s others uses of the phrase “temple of God” in regards to the church, he consistently qualifies it with an explanation. In 2 Thessalonians, he does not qualify it. Additionally, while the body of Christ is a temple of God in certain contexts, that logic doesn’t require Paul couldn’t possibly be using its original lexical term in the letter to Thessalonians, especially since he doesn’t qualify it with an explanation (Similar to how Matthew referred to city of Jerusalem as Holy, even after the resurrection).

In the OD, Jesus mentions Antichrists and false prophets deceiving, and many falling away, but unfortunately makes no mention of the “revealing of the man of lawlessness”. And unfortunately, I was not one of the Thessalonians that Paul told this to prior to his letter (2 Thessalonians 2:5).

From a preterist framework, it makes more sense Paul is talking about the physical temple building. But that comes with its own problems, ie did Paul believe in a literal and physical coming? (Not looking to argue that point here, just point out preterist framework flaws that require negotiation with the text)

From a more futuristic framework (not hyperfuturist framework which can argue this Paul’s temple of God is the future 3rd temple of the OD) , it makes more sense Paul is talking about a spiritual temple. But this also lends to its own problems. The olivet discourse makes no mention of a specific individual or entity sitting in a spiritual temple prior to the coming of Christ. So is Paul going beyond the teachings of Christ, with special revelation? From a logical standpoint if the clear indication that Christ hadn’t returned yet was a man of sin must first be sitting in spiritual temple, you would think that would have been a very important piece to the olivet discourse?

All in all, my position is that there is just not enough evidence, within 2 Thessalonians, to determine if Paul was talking about a physical or spiritual temple, therefore, our framework may often fill in the gaps, whether right or wrong.

I think your caution is indeed fair. 2 Thessalonians 2 does not explicitly define the “temple of God” as either physical or spiritual, so we should not overstate the argument from that phrase alone. But when we bring Daniel into the discussion, the spiritual-temple reading becomes much stronger for me.

In Daniel, the little horn is not presented merely as a political ruler or military conqueror. He is a religious-political power that rises from within the fourth kingdom and eventually directs his activity against God’s authority, God’s truth, God’s people, and God’s law. Daniel 7 says he speaks great words against the Most High, persecutes the saints, and thinks to change times and law. Daniel 8 says he magnifies himself even to the Prince of the host, casts truth to the ground, and prospers in doing so. That language does not sound like a man merely occupying a physical building. It describes a power assuming religious authority that belongs to God alone.

That is why Paul’s language in 2 Thessalonians 2 sounds so closely connected. The man of lawlessness “opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God or that is worshiped,” and then “sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” This is not simply about location; it is about usurped authority. He places himself where only God belongs.

In that sense, the “temple of God” may best be understood as the visible sphere of God’s worshiping people—the church, or the professed household of God. The man of lawlessness does not attack from the outside only. Like the little horn, he rises within the religious sphere, claims divine authority, and eventually presents himself as God’s representative on earth.

This also fits the historical development seen in the transition from pagan Rome to papal Rome. The fourth kingdom does not disappear in Daniel’s later visions; its power changes form. The little horn rises from within that Roman world and becomes a religious authority sitting atop the remains of the fourth beast. It speaks in God’s name, claims authority over doctrine and worship, and places itself in a mediating role that belongs only to Christ.

So I agree that “temple of God” by itself may be needing further support by connecting verses within Daniel or NT books. But when Paul’s wording is read alongside Daniel’s little horn, the pattern becomes much clearer. Both describe a power that rises within the sphere of God’s people, exalts itself in religious authority, and takes a position that belongs to God alone. Although Paul may not be expecting the Temple, the City and His people to go through the 70 AD destruction, I feel comfortable making the statement that he recognized the Temple, the ceremonial practices and the sacrifices have been done away with by the Messiah. The substance has given way to the shadows.

That is why I lean strongly toward a spiritual-temple interpretation. Not because the word “temple” cannot ever refer to a physical building, but because the prophetic pattern points to a religious power seated within God’s visible church, claiming divine authority from within.

 

[CTK]

It's not the revealing of the man of sin that was being restrained. It's lawlessness. Paul said the mystery of lawlessness was already at work, but it was being restrained. So, it was already at work, but not without being restrained to some extent. So, he implied that it would later no longer be restrained and would be at work with no restraints. He didn't say that the man of sin/lawlessness was already at work, as you are claiming. Saying that the man of sin/lawlessness was already at work contradicts what Paul said here...

2 Thessalonians 2:6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Paul talked about the coming of the lawless one (man of sin) as occurring some time in the future from his time. So, it can't be the case that the man of sin/lawlessness was already at work in his time. Paul indicated that lawlessness would no longer be restrained at some point in the future when He who restrains no longer restrained lawlessness. It is at that point when the man of sin/lawlessness would come and be revealed and be at work "according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish". With lawlessness being restrained, that means "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception" is restrained, but when it is no longer restrained then "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception" is unleashed, so to speak. "This is why I relate 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 to Satan's little season when Satan will be loosed and no longer restrained/bound.

I agree with the distinction you are making. Paul does distinguish between the “mystery of lawlessness” already being at work and the later revealing of the “lawless one.” So I would not say the man of lawlessness was already fully revealed in Paul’s day. But I do think Paul’s wording allows for a developing process, that I believe is clearly revealed in Daniel. The mystery of lawlessness was already operating in seed form, but it was restrained from coming into full expression (pagan Rome). Later, when the restraint was removed, that lawlessness would take a visible and identifiable form.

This fits the little horn pattern in Daniel very well. The little horn does not appear fully formed all at once. The power develops over time. The spirit of lawlessness is already present, but the visible system is revealed later, once the conditions allow it to rise. So the issue is not whether the lawless one was fully revealed in Paul’s day. I agree he was not. The issue is whether Paul is describing a sudden end-time individual only, or a lawless principle that was already at work and later became embodied in a religious-political power.

In Daniel’s framework, the little horn does not fully come into view during the apostolic period itself. After the cross, Jesus establishes His earthly church, but over time that church goes through major changes. It suffers under pagan Rome for centuries, then, beginning with Constantine in the early fourth century, Christianity is brought into the Roman imperial structure. As the church becomes increasingly Gentile and institutional, it begins to take on Roman patterns of hierarchy, authority, and administration. Over time, powerful bishops emerge over major Christian centers, with the bishop of Rome eventually becoming the dominant figure. After the fall of pagan Rome in 476 AD, this Roman bishopric rises into a position of religious and political authority, effectively sitting atop the legacy of the fourth beast kingdom.

That is why Paul’s language about the lawless one “sitting in the temple of God” fits so closely with Daniel’s little horn. The issue is not a man sitting inside a physical temple building. It is a religious power taking its seat within the visible sphere of God’s people, claiming authority that belongs to God alone. In that sense, “temple of God” points to God’s church, not merely to a physical structure.

So I agree with the distinction between the mystery and the man. I just don’t think that requires a short end-time-only fulfillment. It can also describe a long-developing lawless system that was already present in seed form and later revealed historically. Daniel offers a wealth of descriptive information, characteristics, and actions of his little horn. They can be found in chapters 7, 8, and 11. This would also include the timing of his arrival -not an end time individual, but one who would continue until the end of time when he will be destroyed without human hands.

Further, please note that this little horn does not come into existence UNTIL the cross and the His establishing of His church. This is because there is no church in existence where he will come out of, and eventually rise through the first 4 centuries until pagan Rome is destroyed (7:11) and he soon comes to full power, not only over the Christian church but civil matters as well.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I agree with the distinction you are making. Paul does distinguish between the “mystery of lawlessness” already being at work and the later revealing of the “lawless one.” So I would not say the man of lawlessness was already fully revealed in Paul’s day. But I do think Paul’s wording allows for a developing process, that I believe is clearly revealed in Daniel. The mystery of lawlessness was already operating in seed form, but it was restrained from coming into full expression (pagan Rome). Later, when the restraint was removed, that lawlessness would take a visible and identifiable form.

This fits the little horn pattern in Daniel very well. The little horn does not appear fully formed all at once. The power develops over time. The spirit of lawlessness is already present, but the visible system is revealed later, once the conditions allow it to rise. So the issue is not whether the lawless one was fully revealed in Paul’s day. I agree he was not. The issue is whether Paul is describing a sudden end-time individual only, or a lawless principle that was already at work and later became embodied in a religious-political power.

In Daniel’s framework, the little horn does not fully come into view during the apostolic period itself. After the cross, Jesus establishes His earthly church, but over time that church goes through major changes. It suffers under pagan Rome for centuries, then, beginning with Constantine in the early fourth century, Christianity is brought into the Roman imperial structure. As the church becomes increasingly Gentile and institutional, it begins to take on Roman patterns of hierarchy, authority, and administration. Over time, powerful bishops emerge over major Christian centers, with the bishop of Rome eventually becoming the dominant figure. After the fall of pagan Rome in 476 AD, this Roman bishopric rises into a position of religious and political authority, effectively sitting atop the legacy of the fourth beast kingdom.

That is why Paul’s language about the lawless one “sitting in the temple of God” fits so closely with Daniel’s little horn. The issue is not a man sitting inside a physical temple building. It is a religious power taking its seat within the visible sphere of God’s people, claiming authority that belongs to God alone. In that sense, “temple of God” points to God’s church, not merely to a physical structure.

So I agree with the distinction between the mystery and the man. I just don’t think that requires a short end-time-only fulfillment. It can also describe a long-developing lawless system that was already present in seed form and later revealed historically. Daniel offers a wealth of descriptive information, characteristics, and actions of his little horn. They can be found in chapters 7, 8, and 11. This would also include the timing of his arrival -not an end time individual, but one who would continue until the end of time when he will be destroyed without human hands.

Further, please note that this little horn does not come into existence UNTIL the cross and the His establishing of His church. This is because there is no church in existence where he will come out of, and eventually rise through the first 4 centuries until pagan Rome is destroyed (7:11) and he soon comes to full power, not only over the Christian church but civil matters as well.

I appreciate your thoughts, but I simply disagree. I believe the NT shines light on the OT prophecies, but you're trying to use OT prophecies to shine light on NT prophecies instead. I just don't agree with that approach. I don't believe there is anything in Revelation 20 that is not also written about elsewhere in the NT. That would include Satan's binding and loosing. I see 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 as describing Satan's little season. Paul does speak of a future time when "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception" would occur (2 Thess 2:9-10) and it was not yet occurring in his time. To me, that describes a time when Satan's full power is loosed after previously being restrained.

 

[CTK]

I appreciate your thoughts, but I simply disagree. I believe the NT shines light on the OT prophecies, but you're trying to use OT prophecies to shine light on NT prophecies instead. I just don't agree with that approach. I don't believe there is anything in Revelation 20 that is not also written about elsewhere in the NT. That would include Satan's binding and loosing. I see 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 as describing Satan's little season. Paul does speak of a future time when "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception" would occur (2 Thess 2:9-10) and it was not yet occurring in his time. To me, that describes a time when Satan's full power is loosed after previously being restrained.

That is fine, you certainly do not have to agree. But I am not using NT to shine light on OT. Rather, I have a very comfortable and have a complete understanding of Daniel where there are no missing interpretations, no contradictions among the 12 chapters and where every chapter presents a consistent series of interpretations. No gaps, no boogeyman (anti-Christ figure), no literal interaction with satan, no 7 year tribulation, and on and on .

Thus, it is enjoyable to be able to find the verses in the Gospels and Paul’ writings and certainly in Revelation that connect and support the Daniel interpretations.

God had given Daniel the 12 chapters for His people and His city and where almost all of Daniel speaks to the time from Babylon to the end of the 70 weeks of years prophecy. It is meant to reveal God’s plan of restoration and salvation as they return back to Jerusalem.

But because they rejected and crucified Him, His plan included the prophecies that would also come after He established His church. That is captured in detail in chapter 11.

The Jews had everything they needed in the Tanakh and Daniel to recognize their coming Messiah… but they missed their moment. But it is in the NT where God has His Apostles and Paul write down those things that will reveal those things in the Tanaka and Daniel they failed to understand.

 

[claninja]

Right. I have no doubt that he would have done that if he was talking about the physical temple. Just as he always did otherwise.


Yep.


But, he did use the word "naos" instead of "hieron" there, so anyone familiar with how he otherwise used the word would be able to discern what he was talking about.


Again, using the word "naos" instead of "hieron" makes it highly unlikely that he is referring to the same thing as Daniel 11.


We can look at other scripture to help determine what the apostasy is from.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,

Obviously, some were already departing from the faith when Paul wrote this, so he wasn't talking about apostasy occurring in general, but is implying there would be a time of increased apostasy in the future in terms of people departing from the faith. So, the departing from the faith happens first and then later people's consciences are figuratively "seared with a hot iron" by deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.

In the case of what Paul wrote about in 2 Thessalonians 2, God sends those who have apostasized (departed from the faith) strong delusion to them by allowing the man of sin to deceive them "according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders" which leads to their condemnation. God gives them over to their wickedness, in other words. Similar to what Paul wrote about in Romans 1:18-32, except that passage isn't in relation to people living in the time just before Jesus returns. So, this deception that is "according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders" occurs after the apostasy (departing from the faith) occurs.


No, of course not. That's never the case in scripture. The only people who can fall away and depart from the faith are those who have faith in the first place. I don't think it's talking about the man of sin being part of the temple of God, but rather being among the temple of God while preaching doctrines of demons instead of the gospel, thereby making himself God in a sense while not acknowleding the one true God.


There's no flaw. For some reason you have decided that the Olivet Discourse and Paul's writings should contain all of the same details relating to the second coming of Christ. You consider it to be a flaw if they don't. I don't understand that way of thinking. Do you think Jesus, who is God, wasn't aware that He would later inspire Paul and other NT authors to give further details in relation to His second coming? I'm sure that He understood that He didn't have to give every detail about Hi second coming in His discourse because he knew additional details would be provided by NT authors like Paul, Peter and John at a later time.


You continue to speak as if the man of sin is an individual. I don't see it that way, as I've explained. So, I see no problem with Jesus not referencing any individual called "the man of sin" in the OD.

To clarify “hieron” would help, but If Paul wanted to say the man of sin sits in the physical temple’s sanctuary, he wouldn’t use “hieron”, he would use “naos”. Hieron is the complex, naos is the sanctuary. So If I was a first century century Jew or gentile, prior to the temples destruction, and someone wrote a letter about the temple of God being inappropriately used, I would think the physical temple sanctuary, unless there was a qualifying explanation stating otherwise. Again, a temple sanctuary existed at that time. Christian Jews still worshipped there and were zealous for the law of Moses. I would expect qualifying language, as he does consistently in his other letters.

As to the apostasy. Before we risk over harmonizing, We should look internally first. Does Paul say what the apostasy is? He does mention that those being deceived are the perishing ones “who had not received the truth”. How can one depart from the faith, if they never received the truth of it in the first place? So I don’t necessarily agree in harmonizing these passages.

As the OD, it’s incredibly glaring. The disciples asked about the signs of the end of the age and coming of Christ. Christ even states they would know the end was near when they saw the events of the Olivet discourse, that events he had just listed. A “man of sin” sitting in the spiritual temple of God is not one of those signs. Interpreting 2 Thessalonians 2 that way adds a new sign that Jesus didn’t list. I think it’s more likely that Paul was referring to the AOD or the false messiahs/prophets, not a new sign not mentioned by Jesus. I would argue Paul is very likely operating within the same Danielic “abomination of desolation” tradition Jesus uses, rather than introducing a separate unrelated eschatological sign.

But again, Paul provides no explanation on this very confusing eschatological passage, thus this is just my opinion based on context and grammar and audience relevance.

 

[claninja]

It's not the revealing of the man of sin that was being restrained. It's lawlessness. Paul said the mystery of lawlessness was already at work, but it was being restrained. So, it was already at work, but not without being restrained to some extent. So, he implied that it would later no longer be restrained and would be at work with no restraints. He didn't say that the man of sin/lawlessness was already at work, as you are claiming. Saying that the man of sin/lawlessness was already at work contradicts what Paul said here...

2 Thessalonians 2:6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Paul talked about the coming of the lawless one (man of sin) as occurring some time in the future from his time. So, it can't be the case that the man of sin/lawlessness was already at work in his time. Paul indicated that lawlessness would no longer be restrained at some point in the future when He who restrains no longer restrained lawlessness. It is at that point when the man of sin/lawlessness would come and be revealed and be at work "according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish". With lawlessness being restrained, that means "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception" is restrained, but when it is no longer restrained then "the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception" is unleashed, so to speak. "This is why I relate 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 to Satan's little season when Satan will be loosed and no longer restrained/bound.

From a grammatical standpoint, lawlessness is already working in mystery. and there is no mention of lawlessness getting worse when the restrainer is removed. The only thing mentioned when the restrainer is removed is that the lawless one is revealed.

 

[covenantee]

Agreed, he definitely does. My rule of thumb is that I typically I need to understand its use within the context first before I applying outside uses. I don’t want over harmonize things that shouldn’t be harmonized, as I’ve definitely, myself, over harmonized In the past and don’t want to make that same mistake if I can help it. (Not saying it can’t be spiritual, just that it needs to make sense within the context of Paul is talking about).

As to the pope, I’ve always been a little confused on that one. Paul said the man of sin was already at work, but his “revealing” was being restrained. I’m interested to learn how this applies to the pope?

The ECFs and apologists reveal the identity of the restrainer. So does history.

Tertullian (2nd-3rd Century)
ON THE RESURRECTION, CHAP. XXIV
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way." What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)?
APOLOGY, CHAP. XXXII.
There is also another and a greater necessity for our offering prayer in behalf of the emperors, nay, for the complete stability of the empire, and for Roman interests in general. For we know that a mighty shock im (43) pending over the whole earth--in fact, the very end of all things threatening dreadful woes---is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman empire.

John Chrysostom (c. 347-407)
Homilies on Second Thessalonians
HOMILY IV. 2 THESSALONIANS ii. 6--9.
"Only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way," that is, when the Roman empire is taken out of the way...

Augustine of Hippo (345 - 430)
City of God, Book XX, Chapter 19
For what does he [Paul] mean by "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way: and then shall the wicked be revealed?" [2 Thess 2] I frankly confess I do not know what he means. ... However, it is not absurd to believe that these words of the apostle, "Only he who now holdeth, let him hold until he be taken out of the way," refer to the Roman empire, as if it were said, "Only he who now reigneth, let him reign until he be taken out of the way." "And then shall the wicked be revealed:" no one doubts that this means Antichrist.

While not commenting directly upon the 2 Thessalonians 2 passage, Cyril of Jerusalem affirmed the historical consensus that antichrist would not appear until the Roman empire had disappeared:

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386)
Catechetical Lectures
LECTURE XV.
ON THE CLAUSE, AND SHALL COME IN GLORY TO JUDGE THE QUICK AND THE DEAD; OF WHOSE KINGDOM THERE SHALL BE NO END, DANIEL vii. 9--14.
12. But this aforesaid Antichrist is to come when the times of the Roman empire shall have been fulfilled...

The early church believed that the pagan imperial Roman empire, under which the church was then living, was the restrainer (i.e. the "letter" or "withholder") which would eventually be "taken out of the way", and which, until then, was forestalling the emergence of the antichrist apostate papal Roman empire, which Paul describes as "that man of sin", "the son of perdition", and "that Wicked".

In the related verses in 2 Thess. 2 Paul does not reveal the identity of the restrainer. If Paul had believed that the Holy Spirit was the restrainer, there would have been no reason for Paul not to explicitly identify Him. But Paul did have a reason. John Chrysostom reveals it:

"Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold him...But because he said this of the Roman empire, he naturally glanced at it, and speaks covertly and darkly. For he did not wish to bring upon himself superfluous enmities, and useless dangers. For if he had said that after a little while the Roman empire would be dissolved, they would immediately have even overwhelmed him, as a pestilent person, and all the faithful, as living and warring to this end."

Paul did not wish to jeopardize the Church by attracting the attention of the Roman authorities.

And the Thessalonians did know whereof Paul was speaking. 2 Thessalonians 2:5,6.

History subsequently confirmed the validity of Paul's inspired prescience.

And the Reformers recognized and understood both Paul and history.

 

[covenantee]

From a grammatical standpoint, lawlessness is already working in mystery. and there is no mention of lawlessness getting worse when the restrainer is removed. The only thing mentioned when the restrainer is removed is that the lawless one is revealed.

The apostate "mystery of iniquity" was already working when Paul wrote (2 Thessalonians 2:7). Within less than 20 years of the dissolution of the restrainer, imperial Rome, the apostate papal Roman empire had emerged and begun overthrowing kingdoms, beginning with three (Daniel 7:24), the Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths.

 

[claninja]

I think your caution is indeed fair. 2 Thessalonians 2 does not explicitly define the “temple of God” as either physical or spiritual, so we should not overstate the argument from that phrase alone. But when we bring Daniel into the discussion, the spiritual-temple reading becomes much stronger for me.

In Daniel, the little horn is not presented merely as a political ruler or military conqueror. He is a religious-political power that rises from within the fourth kingdom and eventually directs his activity against God’s authority, God’s truth, God’s people, and God’s law. Daniel 7 says he speaks great words against the Most High, persecutes the saints, and thinks to change times and law. Daniel 8 says he magnifies himself even to the Prince of the host, casts truth to the ground, and prospers in doing so. That language does not sound like a man merely occupying a physical building. It describes a power assuming religious authority that belongs to God alone.

That is why Paul’s language in 2 Thessalonians 2 sounds so closely connected. The man of lawlessness “opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God or that is worshiped,” and then “sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” This is not simply about location; it is about usurped authority. He places himself where only God belongs.

In that sense, the “temple of God” may best be understood as the visible sphere of God’s worshiping people—the church, or the professed household of God. The man of lawlessness does not attack from the outside only. Like the little horn, he rises within the religious sphere, claims divine authority, and eventually presents himself as God’s representative on earth.

This also fits the historical development seen in the transition from pagan Rome to papal Rome. The fourth kingdom does not disappear in Daniel’s later visions; its power changes form. The little horn rises from within that Roman world and becomes a religious authority sitting atop the remains of the fourth beast. It speaks in God’s name, claims authority over doctrine and worship, and places itself in a mediating role that belongs only to Christ.

So I agree that “temple of God” by itself may be needing further support by connecting verses within Daniel or NT books. But when Paul’s wording is read alongside Daniel’s little horn, the pattern becomes much clearer. Both describe a power that rises within the sphere of God’s people, exalts itself in religious authority, and takes a position that belongs to God alone. Although Paul may not be expecting the Temple, the City and His people to go through the 70 AD destruction, I feel comfortable making the statement that he recognized the Temple, the ceremonial practices and the sacrifices have been done away with by the Messiah. The substance has given way to the shadows.

That is why I lean strongly toward a spiritual-temple interpretation. Not because the word “temple” cannot ever refer to a physical building, but because the prophetic pattern points to a religious power seated within God’s visible church, claiming divine authority from within.

The book of Daniel contains multiple references to a desolation of the physical temple building: Daniel 8, Daniel 9, Daniel 11, Daniel 12. In Matthew 24, Jesus alludes to the Daniel’s desolation of the temple with regards to the destruction of the physical temple. So I think I would respectfully disagree with your take on Daniel and that the desolations of the temple by this figure are not related to the physical temple.

What Paul could be doing is spiritualizing the physical prophecies about Antiochus in Daniel, and instead applying type (Antiochus and the physical temple) to an anti type (man of sin and the church). The problem is that Paul doesn’t qualify that he spiritualizing in this manner. Additionally, the olivet discourse makes no mention of a man of sin - being restrained, then being revealed, and sitting in a spiritual temple of God - as being one of the signs prior to Christs coming. This is why I’m hesitant to argue that Paul is spiritualizing “temple of God” within the context of 2 Thessalonians and the OD.

 

[covenantee]

The problem is that Paul doesn’t qualify that he spiritualizing in this manner.

So his consistent use of "naos" is insufficient qualification?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That is fine, you certainly do not have to agree. But I am not using NT to shine light on OT.

I said that you are using the OT to shine light on the NT, so I assume you mean you're not using the OT to shine light on the NT.

Rather, I have a very comfortable and have a complete understanding of Daniel where there are no missing interpretations, no contradictions among the 12 chapters and where every chapter presents a consistent series of interpretations. No gaps, no boogeyman (anti-Christ figure), no literal interaction with satan, no 7 year tribulation, and on and on .

Thus, it is enjoyable to be able to find the verses in the Gospels and Paul’ writings and certainly in Revelation that connect and support the Daniel interpretations.

God had given Daniel the 12 chapters for His people and His city and where almost all of Daniel speaks to the time from Babylon to the end of the 70 weeks of years prophecy. It is meant to reveal God’s plan of restoration and salvation as they return back to Jerusalem.

But because they rejected and crucified Him, His plan included the prophecies that would also come after He established His church. That is captured in detail in chapter 11.

The Jews had everything they needed in the Tanakh and Daniel to recognize their coming Messiah… but they missed their moment. But it is in the NT where God has His Apostles and Paul write down those things that will reveal those things in the Tanaka and Daniel they failed to understand.

This sure seems like you are using OT scripture from Daniel to shine light on the NT scriptures. But, whatever. We just don't take the same approach to understanding these things, obviously.

 

[claninja]

So his consistent use of "naos" is insufficient qualification?

I would say it’s his consistency in providing a qualifying explanation with naos, whereas a qualifying explanation is notably absent in 2 Thessalonians 2. This in combination with the absence “the man of sin” sitting in a “spiritual temple” in the OD discourse as one of the signs leading up to the coming of the son of man, makes hesitant.

 

[covenantee]

I would say it’s his consistency in providing a qualifying explanation with naos, whereas a qualifying explanation is notably absent in 2 Thessalonians 2. This in combination with the absence “the man of sin” sitting in a “spiritual temple” in the OD discourse as one of the signs leading up to the coming of the son of man, makes hesitant.

2 Thessalonians 2 is not related to the OD.

The "man of sin", i.e. apostate papacy, did not begin to appear until after the restrainer, i.e. imperial Roman empire, was "taken out of the way", circa 476 AD/CE.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

To clarify “hieron” would help, but If Paul wanted to say the man of sin sits in the physical temple’s sanctuary, he wouldn’t use “hieron”, he would use “naos”. Hieron is the complex, naos is the sanctuary. So If I was a first century century Jew or gentile, prior to the temples destruction, and someone wrote a letter about the temple of God being inappropriately used, I would think the physical temple sanctuary, unless there was a qualifying explanation stating otherwise. Again, a temple sanctuary existed at that time. Christian Jews still worshipped there and were zealous for the law of Moses. I would expect qualifying language, as he does consistently in his other letters.

I simply do not believe for a second that Paul would refer to the temple that Jesus declared to be spiritually desolate as "the temple of God". And, the fact that every other time he used the word "naos", it referred to a spiritual temple (a person's body or the corporate body/church). So, it's hard for me to believe that isn't enough to convince you, but....whatever.

As to the apostasy. Before we risk over harmonizing, We should look internally first. Does Paul say what the apostasy is?

Not specifically, no.

He does mention that those being deceived are the perishing ones “who had not received the truth”. How can one depart from the faith, if they never received the truth of it in the first place? So I don’t necessarily agree in harmonizing these passages.

That's fair. If he's saying they never received the love of the truth at any point, then they are not the ones who he earlier talked about in relation to falling away from the faith.

As the OD, it’s incredibly glaring. The disciples asked about the signs of the end of the age and coming of Christ. Christ even states they would know the end was near when they saw the events of the Olivet discourse, that events he had just listed. A “man of sin” sitting in the spiritual temple of God is not one of those signs.

So what? Why do you expect that Jesus would have covered every possible detail regarding His second coming? That would have made it so that Paul would have had no reason to say anything about the second coming except just to say "Read the Olivet Discourse if you want to know about that. I have nothing to add that Jesus didn't already talk about.".

Interpreting 2 Thessalonians 2 that way adds a new sign that Jesus didn’t list.

So what? I don't understand why this is a problem for you. I don't understand your way of thinking at all.

I think it’s more likely that Paul was referring to the AOD or the false messiahs/prophets, not a new sign not mentioned by Jesus.

So, you have decided that Paul, even after Jesus declared the physical temple to be spiritually desolate and even after the veil of the physical temple was torn in two, was talking about the physical temple?

I would argue Paul is very likely operating within the same Danielic “abomination of desolation” tradition Jesus uses, rather than introducing a separate unrelated eschatological sign.

But again, Paul provides no explanation on this very confusing eschatological passage, thus this is just my opinion based on context and grammar and audience relevance.

So, taking into account the spiritual status of the physical temple at that point is not something you take into consideration? And the fact that what Paul was talking in 2 Thess 2 related to the time before the second coming of Christ when we will be gathered to Him is not something you take into consideration?