Interesting, so then according to this interpretation, are we currently in the time, times, and half a time?
The fallacy of believing Jesus was talking about the temple of stones on the Mount of Olives
- Thread starter Zao is life
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Interesting, so then according to this interpretation, are we currently in the time, times, and half a time?
I haven’t tried to research this but here’s what someone else said about the man of sin sitting in the temple …
This was fulfilled by the Zealot leader Menahem in Jerusalem in AD 66. He "exalted himself" over every other Zealot contender for Daniel's prophesied Messiah role. Every one of these competing Zealot leaders was essentially calling themselves "God" by trying to claim the title "King of the Jews".
In AD 66, Menahem murdered the moderate high priest Ananias who had been restraining him from rising to power in Jerusalem until then. Menahem then presented himself in the temple along with his armored troops, having dressed himself in King Herod's royal garments stolen from Masada. This was a clear declaration of Menahem's intention to exalt himself as "King of the Jews" by presenting himself as such in Jerusalem's temple. A few short weeks later, Menahem in turn was murdered by Ananias' son Eleazar in vengeance for his father's murder.
I’ve always wondered this. Why does Paul explain it hasn’t happened yet by providing 2 other ambiguous events that must first occur, instead of the most obvious explanation, if in fact it’s to be understood in the way @Spiritual Israelite understands it.
If anytime I say the OD was fulfilled in 70ad, why is the response always “no it didn’t because Jesus didn’t literally descend, the dead didn’t physically come out of their tombs, and literal heaven and earth didn’t pass away?”, instead of quoting 2 Thessalonians 2?
Well, I guess it depends on how these things are interpreted. I can’t find any other reference to something unclean even being in the temple (naos) with the naos still being holy. I’m thinking of Nadab and Abihu when they offered strange fire, that happened for a brief moment only before they were consumed. God and uncleanliness didn’t cohabitate in the naos.
Do you think the temple (naos) remains clean when the man of sin sits in it? Or does “temple” refer to something that was once clean but no longer is clean?
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Those 2 things Paul that talked about were things that would happen before the second coming of Christ actually happened and not things that happen on the day He returns. But, as you said, they are ambiguous events, so why would I try to prove that Jesus didn't come in 70 AD by referring to those things? Imagine me trying to tell you that the mass apostasy didn't happen yet at that time. How do I prove such a thing that can only be spiritually discerned? There's no specific event that occurs which you can point to and say "Oh, look, the mass apostasy that Paul wrote about has started happening, so Jesus could come at any time at this point". So, I refer to tangible things that can't be missed as proof that Jesus didn't come in 70 AD instead. This shouldn't be hard to understand.
It refers to a Church in which is found both true faith and apostasy. Thankfully, God has always preserved the former despite the latter. Isaiah 59:19. Thus God in His time raised up His standard through the Reformers, to liberate His true faithful Church from spiritual darkness and oppression.
Do you know of any passages that say the naos has both truth and apostasy in it? I know the outer court of the temple can have both but I don’t think there are any references to the naos (holy of holies) itself containing both, except maybe 2 Thessalonians but that reference is debatable as to whether both truth and apostasy coexist in the naos.
Thank you very much for the comment... I certainly hope you will not consider my interpretation too extreme. I can assure you that there will not be enough space to provide you with the supporting information for this interpretation that is found within the earlier chapters of Daniel (as well as it fits like a glove with the prophecies in the later chapters of Daniel and in Revelation), but I will share it anyway. This is a cut / paste from the chapter 7 narrative in the Daniel commentary.
PLEASE ASK ANY QUESTIONS OR OFFER COMMENTS SHOULD YOU NEED CLARIFICATION.
Part 1 of 3
Daniel 7:25
25And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Verse 25a: –He shall speak pompous things against the Most High
The rise of the little horn is not merely political. It is spiritual, theological, and ultimately personal—aimed not simply at nations, but at God Himself. Daniel’s vision presses the reader to face a disturbing question: how can a power claim to represent heaven while using its voice to speak against the Most High? The answer is not found in a single moment, but in a gradual formation of a voice—first quiet, then confident, then commanding.
After the cross, the early church flourishes. It is carried by the apostles’ teaching, strengthened by the Spirit, and anchored in the testimony of Jesus. These first believers—largely Jewish—carry the Gospel outward into the Gentile world. But as the Gentiles become the majority, a shift begins. Over the next three centuries, Christianity becomes increasingly Roman in structure and instinct. The church that once gathered in humility begins to mirror the administrative shape of the empire around it. This is the same time-window in which what was once “hidden in the feet” begins to appear openly in history—God’s truth moving outward, visible, active, and contested.
Then the empire itself weakens. As the Roman world fractures, the bishop of Rome rises as a stabilizing figure—first in influence, then in authority. And when pagan Rome finally collapses, the bishop of Rome no longer shares power; he inherits the vacuum. What emerges is no longer simply a shepherd among elders. It is a throne. A court. An office that speaks with a new kind of confidence—one that does not merely preach, but pronounces; that does not merely teach, but decrees.
At first, this voice is clothed in reverence. It sounds pious. It speaks the language of devotion. But over time its words grow bold—then boastful—then blasphemous. This is where Daniel’s phrase becomes painfully fitting: “He shall speak pompous things against the Most High” (v.25). The “pomp” is not empty rhetoric; it is the arrogance of claimed authority—claims that touch what belongs to God alone.
It speaks pompous words when it rearranges the very law of God, removing the second commandment, dividing the tenth, and relocating the Sabbath to Sunday—treating divine instruction as something an earthly office may edit. It speaks pompous words when it redefines the channel of salvation, implying that grace flows not from Christ alone, but through sacraments administered by the institution. It speaks pompous words when it elevates a priesthood as mediators, inserting human hands into a role Scripture assigns uniquely to Christ. It speaks pompous words when it creates doctrines foreign to Scripture—purgatory, indulgences, and a “treasury of merit”—constructing an economy of spiritual transaction where the Gospel proclaims a finished sacrifice. And it speaks pompous words when it demands universal submission to its decrees, claiming infallibility for the papal office as though an earthly voice could carry the weight of God’s own authority. In other words, the same authority that first moved outward as witness and moral power is now gathered back inward—captured, reorganized, and made to serve a throne. These are not harmless traditions. These are audacious claims—claims that reach upward toward the prerogatives of the Most High.
The language surrounding the papal office sharpens the point. The pope is called the “Vicar of Christ”—not merely a servant, but one who stands in Christ’s place. He claims infallibility when speaking ex cathedra, as if his pronouncements cannot err. He is addressed as “Holy Father,” a title Jesus reserved for the Father (John 17:11). And in the most startling assertions, he is spoken of as “God on earth,” “another Christ,” and “the supreme lawgiver.” Whatever nuance defenders attempt to assign to such phrases, Daniel’s category still applies: they are pompous words—words that swell beyond human limits and drift into the territory of divine honor.
This is not a horn rising with a sword. Its power is carried in doctrine, decree, and deception. It does not need to conquer cities to dominate consciences. It does not need to wage war at first; it only needs to speak—and to be believed. And behind the speaking is a drive older than Rome itself: pride, ambition, and the thirst for worship. This is not merely political appetite; it is spiritual rebellion. The echoes reach back to Isaiah’s description of Lucifer’s ambition—to exalt a throne “above the stars of God” (Isaiah 14:13). The little horn’s speech carries the same posture: to stand where only God should stand, to receive what only God should receive, to mediate what only God can mediate. And just as the serpent twisted God’s words in Eden, this power twists God’s commandments and redirects worship—until faith becomes ritual, reverence becomes fear, truth becomes managed, and salvation becomes administered. Yet Daniel does not leave the reader with the horn’s voice as the final word. The little horn may rise and speak loudly. It may dominate for a season and sway multitudes. But it cannot undo what God has spoken. Its dominion is permitted, but not permanent. Its rise is foretold—and so is its fall.
Here are some interesting comments from within the church:
The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth. (Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous).
When he ascended into heaven, Jesus Christ left his priests after him to hold on earth his place of mediator between God and men, particularly on the altar. The priest holds the place of the Savior himself when, by saying Ego te absolvo, he absolves from sin. (St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva, p. 34).
St. Jerome quotes from Symmachus, To none can this apply so well or as fully as to the popes of Rome. They have assumed infallibility, which belongs only to God. They profess to forgive sins, which belong only to God. They profess to open and shut heaven, which belongs only to God. They profess to be higher than all the kings of the earth, which belong only to God. And they go beyond God in pretending to loose whole nations from their oath of allegiance to their kings when such kings do not please them! And they go against God when they give indulgences for sin. This is the worst of all blasphemies!
For over a thousand years, it spoke from cathedrals, councils, and pulpits. It claimed authority not only over kings, but over Scripture itself. And those who resisted were labeled heretics—hunted down, condemned, and silenced. In this way, the little horn fulfilled the prophecy with chilling clarity. It rose from within God’s people, grew in power, and ultimately spoke against the very God it claimed to serve. But Heaven was listening. And though the horn speaks, the Most High does not answer with thunder. Instead, He waits. He watches. And then… He sits. A court is convened. The books are opened. Daniel sees the end of the horn—not with fire and sword, but with judgment. Not with argument, but with truth. For in the end, God does not need to outshout the horn. His Word is already spoken. His law is already written. And His Son has already won. The little horn may speak pompously—but its words will pass. The Most High has the final Word. And that Word will stand forever.
Part 2 of 3
This verse is not about the persecution of people—it is about the systematic war against the very voice of God etched into stone. When Daniel says that the little horn would “persecute the saints of the Most High,” it is a prophetic revelation of how God’s Ten Commandments—the very expression of His will and authority—would be targeted, trampled, and twisted.
In this vision, God’s Commandments are not passive relics of the past. They are alive. They are His representatives on Earth—living statutes, eternal truths, entrusted to humanity but owned by God. Like messengers sent forth into the world, they declare who He is: holy, righteous, and sovereign. To persecute them is to wage war on God's very nature. After the resurrection of Christ, the commandments—once hidden within Israel—were released into the Gentile world as the Gospel spread. In this moment, they transformed from being national guardians to becoming universal witnesses, carried by the pottery clay (Jewish believers in Jesus) into the Roman Empire. These laws were not erased at the cross; they were glorified, fulfilled in Christ, and written on hearts through the Spirit.
But the little horn reshaped them, and rebranded them—using the name of Christ to give its edits divine legitimacy. What Daniel foresaw was not just political conquest, but a deeper, spiritual assault: the subjugation of God’s law to a man-made religious empire. This persecution begins slowly: first, by redefining worship, then by erasing the second commandment entirely, and ultimately by reordering the rest. God’s original law—meant to reflect His image—is rewritten to reflect the authority of the little horn. In this sense, the Commandments themselves are worn out, oppressed, and nearly silenced. And yet, they endure.
God’s law cannot be destroyed, for it proceeds from His very being. Even as the little horn enforces false versions, the true Commandments remain intact—preserved in heaven, whispered in the hearts of the faithful, and ready to rise again as the final witnesses in the last days. So when Daniel speaks of the saints being persecuted, it is not just a scene of earthly violence—it is the story of divine truth under siege. The Law of the Most High is not a list of rules—it is a living covenant, and this horn dares to bend it, obscure it, and sit in judgment over it. But this, too, will pass. For the One who spoke the Law will rise in judgment, and His Commandments—those saints of the Most High—will no longer be trampled. They will be exalted, vindicated, and once more shine forth as the standard of His eternal Kingdom.
As Jesus lifted His eyes toward heaven in John 17, He prayed to His Father with full awareness of what was to come. The weight of judgment and the impending sentence against Him was heavy, yet His focus remained on those He had come to save. In this prayer, recorded in 26 verses, Jesus speaks from the depths of His love and devotion, addressing three groups: Himself, His disciples, and all who would believe in Him.
Verses 1–5, Jesus is praying for Himself.
Verses 6–19, He is praying for His disciples.
Verses 20–26, He is praying for all believers.
There is little debate about these verses. It is clear that Jesus is praying with love and concern, even as He faces the agony of the cross. However, all believe many assume that verses 6–19 are exclusively about His disciples. Yet, looking closer, there is reason to consider a broader meaning. While verses 6–13 clearly refer to His disciples, verses 14–19 may have a deeper significance. Jesus declares, “I have given them Thy Word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (John 17:14). He asks the Father not to take them out of the world but to keep them from evil. He speaks of sanctification through the truth and declares, “Thy Word is truth” (John 17:17). But who exactly is He speaking about?
These verses do not seem to be a prayer for His disciples alone. Rather, they appear to be about something of heavenly origin—His Ten Words, the commandments of God. Jesus is asking the Father to keep His Word in the world and protect it from the forces of evil. The disciples, as well as Paul and the early church followers, were undoubtedly faithful, but they were born into this world. Jesus' request suggests something eternal, something divine that was not of this world. His Ten Words, the commandments, are One part of His this two divine gifts. Along with Jesus Himself, they are the two great gifts given to mankind that were not of this world. After His resurrection, Jesus would send the Holy Spirit to ensure that these commandments were not just preserved in written form but placed within the hearts of those who would believe. God’s Ten Words will return to Him before the final judgment, just as John describes in Revelation 13:7, where the saints of the Most High are engaged in a great struggle. These saints are not people—they are God's Ten Words, set apart from the people of the nations. The distinction is clear: those who belong to God are those who keep His commandments, and they reflect the image of Jesus, who has been given the everlasting kingdom..
Reflective narrative:
God’s Covenant Through Toes, Horns, and Kings and saints of the most high
Throughout Daniel 7, God repeatedly emphasizes His Word—not only through the visions themselves but by deliberately introducing specific, rare phrases to convey truth about His covenant. One of those phrases is "saints of the Most High"—a term that appears only four times in the entire Bible, and all of them are in Daniel 7 (vv. 18, 21, 25, 27). While the term “saints” often refers to holy people in other contexts, here the construction is unique and points beyond human beings.
The saints of the Most High in Daniel 7 represent God’s Ten Words—His Ten Commandments—given to Moses as His eternal covenant standard for all humanity. This interpretation is rooted in several scriptural principles:
The Word of God is called “holy” and “eternal.”
In Psalm 19:7–9, God’s law is described as perfect, pure, true, and enduring forever. The Law itself is “holy” (Romans 7:12), and what is holy belongs to the Most High.
God’s Word is personified as His witness on the earth.
Just as Jesus is called the Word made flesh (John 1:14), God’s commandments are portrayed as living witnesses to His covenant (Deuteronomy 31:26).
Daniel’s vision mirrors this by depicting the commandments as if they were a people, receiving the kingdom, being persecuted, and ultimately restored to God’s side.
The prophetic link between Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 confirms the transition.
In Daniel 2, the ten toes— enclosed within iron (Gentile authority) and clay (God’s covenant people)—symbolize the union of pagan Rome’s political strength with the presence of God’s people in its final days before the cross. When the Stone (Christ) strikes the feet, the iron and clay are broken apart, ending that union. The covenant Word (symbolized in the clay) is no longer contained within the Jewish nation under pagan Rome but is now sent out with the apostles to the Gentiles.
The shift from toes to horns reflects the Word’s new mission.
After the cross and the scattering of God’s covenant people among the nations, the ten commandments (now symbolized as ten horns) go out into the world carried by the disciples and early believers—preaching both the Testimony of Jesus and the Word of God.
The rise of Papal Rome alters the role of the horns.
In 476 AD, when pagan Rome fell and the Gentile Christian church rose to power, these ten horns became embedded in a new structure—no longer as the living covenant proclaimed by the apostles, but as instruments of control atop the fourth beast, Papal Rome. In this role, they were presented as ten kings to be obeyed in allegiance to the church system, rather than as God’s law meant to transform lives.
The little horn’s attack is directly against the commandments.
Daniel 7:25 states that the little horn “will think to change times and law.” Historically, Papal Rome did precisely this—altering God’s calendar and uprooting the first three commandments that define exclusive worship of the Creator. This reveals why the saints of the Most High in this prophecy cannot simply be people—they are the very covenant law under attack.
With this foundation, the four appearances of the phrase “saints of the Most High” in Daniel 7 take on a deeper meaning:
Daniel 7:18 – “The saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom” — God’s Ten Commandments, vindicated and restored, reign forever with Him.
Daniel 7:21 – The little horn “makes war with the saints” — history shows the systematic war against God’s law through persecution and doctrinal corruption.
Daniel 7:25 – The little horn “wears out the saints” — sustained attack on God’s covenant, attempting to replace it with human tradition.
Daniel 7:27 – “The kingdom… shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High” — the restored people of God, now in perfect harmony with His law, inherit the kingdom.
Of course both exist since not everyone in the naos falls away. At some point the naos needs spiritually cleansed, thus that is explained in Daniel 8, for one. Except a lot of interpreters take those things in the literal sense and apply it to A4E. As if the naos meant in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 doesn't need to be cleansed at some point. If it never gets cleansed at some point, what then happens to the naos eventually? Is the naos fully destroyed or something? Keeping in mind that the naos meant here is meaning the 3rd temple, a temple made without hands. Plus, in the event anyone argues that naos is a literal brick and mortar temple in 2 Thess 2:4, good luck them proving that from the surrounding verses in that same chapter. Unless they can prove it via context pertaining to the surrounding verses, it is not sound hermeneutics to insist a literal temple is meant then have not one single verse in the entire chapter that supports this conclusion,
Last edited:
Part 3 of 3
In the end, Daniel 7 affirms what Scripture declares from beginning to end: God’s covenant commandments are unchangeable, eternal, and will return to Him intact (Isaiah 55:11). Though the little horn distorts and persecutes, though kingdoms rise and fall, His Word endures. And when Christ returns, the saints of the Most High—His covenant law—will be inseparably united with His people for all eternity.
In the end, this chapter reaffirms what has always been true: God's commandments stand forever. Though the little horn may distort and persecute, though kingdoms may rise and fall, God's Word remains. Those who keep His commandments and trust in Him will ultimately inherit His kingdom. This is the hope and the promise of Daniel 7 and John 17. Jesus prayed not only for His followers but also for His Word, that it would endure, be taught, and remain uncorrupted. And in the final judgment, His Word will be with Him once again, unchanged and eternal, just as it was in the beginning.
Verse 25dc: –Then the saints shall be given into his hands until a time and times and half a time
This chapter presents a thought-provoking interpretation—one that shifts the focus from the traditional view of the “saints” as persecuted individuals to seeing the saints of the Most High as God’s Ten Commandments. If we accept this perspective, then the time element mentioned in Daniel 7:25— “a time, times, and half a time”—should also be understood within that same framework. Many scholars have long applied the year-for-a-day principle found in prophetic passages such as Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:4–6, interpreting this phrase as representing a period of 1,260 years. But if the “saints” in Daniel 7 symbolize God’s commandments, then this prophecy is not merely about human suffering or persecution—it’s about the treatment of God’s Word itself.
Daniel 7 repeatedly emphasizes the Ten Commandments, portraying them as the saints of the Most High who will be placed into the hands of the little horn for a limited time. The Ten Commandments will not remain in the hands of the little horn for the entire span of a time, times, and half a time. Rather, they will be under his control until that prophetic period is completed. This is because God gave His commandments to Moses nearly 1,500 years before Christ—meaning they existed long before the rise of the little horn, and they will endure until the end. The corruption and distortion of God's law have an expiration date—before the return of the Messiah, these commandments will be restored to their rightful place in His eternal kingdom.
This reading aligns with the prayer of Jesus in John 17:14–19, where He asks the Father not to take His Word out of the world, but to protect it and preserve it. The Word—rooted in the Ten Commandments—would remain, even as it was misrepresented and manipulated under the influence of the little horn. In this light, the prophecy of a time, times, and half a time takes on new significance. It is no longer just a cryptic timeline about worldly rule. It becomes a divine countdown—marking the duration during which God's law would be distorted, even as it continues to testify of the truth. This is not merely a political prophecy, but a spiritual one. It speaks of a great struggle over how God is to be worshiped, how His authority is to be respected, and how His commandments—though challenged—will never be erased.
Time, times, and a ½ time calculation
The calculation of a time, times, and half a time takes on profound meaning when viewed through the lens of God's unfolding plan. Approximately 3,500 years ago, God gave His Ten Commandments to Moses at Mount Sinai. These were not simply rules; they were His Word—sacred, eternal, and not of this world—just as Jesus affirmed in His prayer in John 17:14–16: “They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.”
From the moment they were given, God’s commandments were entrusted to humanity for a defined season: a time (1,000 years), times (2,000 years), and half a time (500 years), totaling 3,500 years.This period marks the full span in which His Word would remain under the stewardship of mankind before being returned to its rightful place in His heavenly kingdom—just prior to the second coming of the Messiah.
However, the commandments were not in the hands of the little horn for this entire period. Rather, Daniel 7:25 tells us they would be given into his hand until the time, times, and half a time were completed. That is, during the course of this 3,500-year period, the little horn—symbolizing Papal Rome—would gain control of God’s law, not by divine appointment, but through gradual distortion, appropriation, and manipulation. This is exactly what we see unfold in history. After Christ’s resurrection, His followers spread the Word to the Gentile world. But in time, the Roman Church rose to power, replacing the simplicity of God’s law with man-made traditions. The little horn altered the commandments, claimed authority over divine truth, and redefined the faith to suit its own structure of power. And yet, God’s Word is not defeated. Though distorted, it is never destroyed. Though twisted, it remains unbroken. Isaiah 55:11 affirms this truth:
“So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please.”
The Ten Commandments—what Daniel calls the saints of the Most High—have survived every attack. They have fulfilled their role as toes, horns, kings and now as His saints of the Most High. And they will be vindicated. We are now nearing the end of this divine timeline. The 3,500-year stewardship is approaching its conclusion. Soon, the heavenly court will be seated (Daniel 7:26), and the verdict rendered. The commandments will be restored to their rightful glory—not merely as laws etched in stone, but as living witnesses to God's unchanging truth. The question for our time is simple: Will we honor what God gave at Sinai, preserved through Christ, and soon to be exalted in heaven? The judgment is not just about nations or kings—but about the heart of humanity and its response to God’s eternal Word.
Reflective narrative:
"Until the Appointed Time: God’s Law Under Siege, Yet Secure"
"Until the Appointed Time: God’s Law Under Siege, Yet Secure"
In Daniel 7:25, we read that the little horn will “think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time” (many translations). But in the Aramaic text, the phrase ‘ad iddan is better rendered “until a time, times, and half a time.” This small shift changes the sense entirely. “For” can sound as if the little horn is given permanent authority to override God’s law during that period. But “until” places a boundary on his reach—it is temporary, under God’s control, and will end at a set point.
The word ‘ad (עַד in Hebrew; עד in Aramaic) consistently carries the sense of “up to,” “as far as,” or “until” in Scripture (see Daniel 1:21; Daniel 7:22; Genesis 49:10). In Daniel 7:22, for example, judgment is rendered “until the Ancient of Days came,” clearly marking the limit of a hostile power’s activity. When we apply this to Daniel 7:25, the meaning becomes clear:
God’s Ten Commandments—the “saints of the Most High”—will indeed be trampled, distorted, and persecuted under the little horn’s rule.
But this will only continue until the divinely appointed end of the 3,500 years since Moses received them from God.
After that time, the dominion of the little horn is removed (v. 26), and God’s law is restored to its rightful place among His people (v. 27).
This “until” matches God’s pattern throughout Scripture—evil is allowed to run its course within fixed boundaries, never beyond them (Job 1:12; Revelation 20:3). It reassures us that, although the Ten Commandments may seem to be under siege, their preservation is certain. The saints of the Most High—God’s unchanging Word—will return to Him intact, just as He promised (Isaiah 55:11).
no, the issue is this:
1.) if the coming is a literal bodily descension, and the resurrection is literally reanimated dead bodies flying up into the air, and the earth getting a literal new make over, after fire and fury then..
2.) why would the Thessalonians be worrying about it happening already if they understood as the events in point 1 ? and…
3.) why would Paul not state the obvious (events in point 1) as to how he knew it hadn’t happened yet?
I would agree that There is not enough surrounding context, in 2 Thessalonians 2, to determine if Paul is talking about a physical temple. BUT I would also add there is not enough context, in 2 Thessalonians 2, to determine if Paul is NOT talking about the physical temple.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
They wouldn't be worrying about it happening already if they remembered what Paul taught them about it. And it isn't as if Paul claimed that they all forgot what he told them about it. Paul was speaking hypothetically and telling them that if anyone told them something different about the day of the Lord than what Paul had taught, such as the day of the Lord already having come, then they should not believe it.
I would assume because there were things that were supposed to happen even before the day of the Lord comes, so it seems that he was saying that the day of the Lord couldn't have come yet when the things that are supposed to happen even before the day of the Lord haven't happened yet. I think you're making this more complicated than it is.
I can ask you a similar question about the preterist view of this. What do you think are the things that happen on the actual day of the Lord itself if it refers to what happened in 70 AD? If the day of the Lord was referring to what happened in 70 AD then I suppose you would say the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple buildings by the Roman armies happened on that day, right? Why would Paul not have told them something like: "The temple is still here and the city hasn't been destroyed, so don't believe anyone trying to say that the day of the Lord has already come since the temple and city will be destroyed on the day of the Lord and that obviously hasn't happened yet.". But, instead of referring to things that happen on the day of the Lord as having not happened yet as evidence that the day of the Lord has not yet come, he referred to things that occur before the day of the Lord as evidence that it hadn't happened yet. If that's a problem for my view, then that would be a problem for the preterist view, also. But, it's not a problem at all.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Why do you say this? I truly don't get it. Do you think it's safe to assume that Christ's coming and our being gathered to Him is a reference to the same event as 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17? I do. If you agree, then why would there not be enough context in 2 Thessalonians 2, with the understanding of what event Paul was referring to starting with the first verse, to determine if Paul was NOT talking about the physical temple? I don't believe it's reasonable to conclude that Christ's coming when we are gathered to Him in the air has occurred yet. So, with that still being a future event, we can know that the temple of God that Paul referred to is a temple that will exist in the future when Jesus returns. We both know that the temple of God that will exist when Jesus returns can't be a physical temple because God no longer dwells in temples made with hands (Acts 7:48, Acts 17:24) and we (the church) are the temple of God now.
So, to me, it comes down to how you understand 2 Thessalonians 2:1 in order to determine the context of the timing of what is written in 2 Thessalonians 2. It's hard for me to imagine anyone denying that the coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him that Paul referenced in that verse is not the same event that Paul wrote about to the same people in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17. I would not take that claim seriously. So, I believe the onus is on you, if you want to show that 2 Thessalonians 2 could relate to what happened in 70 AD, to prove that Christ's second coming when the gathering of the resurrected dead in Christ together with those who are alive and remain to meet Jesus in the air could have occurred in the past.
Here’s the thing, if a Preterist says the physical temple that was destroyed in 70AD was the temple in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, people will argue that the physical temple was no longer holy or naos(holy of holies) after the vail was torn, God left that temple.
If that’s the case then it also has to be argued that God remains in the temple while at the same time the man of sin sits in it, else you have the same thing as the Preterist, God leaves the temple then the man of sin sits in it and the whole time it’s referred the temple or naos regardless of who’s sitting in it or what’s happening in it.
A falling away---apostasy---must happen first, and the man of sin, the antichrist, will be revealed. This immediately tells us who Paul is talking about people who turn away from the truth they once knew.
They have 'all deceivableness of unrighteousness'---open to lies and deception. They 'received not the love of the truth'---they rejected truth voluntarily. Notice--- these aren’t people who never knew the truth. They are those who once knew it and turned from it.
God sends them strong delusion--- He doesn’t need to make someone already lost believe a lie---they’re already rejecting truth to begin with. The delusion is God allowing their rejection to run its course, strengthening their deception.
Their belief in lies is the direct result of their own rejection. It demonstrates the consequences of not loving the truth and stands in stark contrast to those who are saved, who embrace and love it.
Bottom line---this isn’t about all the lost in general. It’s about apostates---the ones described in verse 3 who fall away. Any other interpretation---saying God sends strong delusion to everyone who never believed---doesn’t make sense. He isn’t making the already lost loster--He’s confirming the choices of those who rejected Him after having known the truth first.
2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
This makes zero sense, if for example, this is including atheists, or say unbelieving Jews. Why would God need to send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie? Why would it take strong delusion in order for them to believe a lie when they already believe a lie to begin with? After all, they are atheists, are they not? They are unbelieving Jews, are they not. Neither of those examples = this---that they believe the truth. Right?
Therefore, in context, not out of context, the ones meant in verse 10 and 11 are clearly meaning the ones meant in verse 3 that fall away. None of this has anything to do with a literal brick and mortar temple in any way shape or form. Therefore, not meaning the 2nd temple before it was destroyed nor meaning a rebuilt one in the future. Yet verse 4 is clearly involving a temple. What other options are there if the temple can't mean a literal brick and mortar temple, nor a temple not made with hands(according to some interpreters)?
I, therefore, disagree that there is not enough context to determine which temple is meant. Obviously, the context that is present, none of it supports a literal brick and mortar temple. What should that be telling us? Assuming we set aside any doctrinal bias' and simply be objective about it? echo @claninja
Last edited:
For what it is worth:
In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul carefully distinguishes between the mystery of lawlessness, the man of lawlessness, and the satanic manner in which this lawless power operates.
First, Paul says, “the mystery of lawlessness is already at work” (2 Thessalonians 2:7). This means lawlessness was already active in Paul’s day, but not yet fully revealed. It was present in seed form — hidden, developing, and restrained. This lawlessness was not merely ordinary sin in the world. It was a religious rebellion against God’s truth, already moving within the professed sphere of faith, but not yet matured into its final visible form.
The term “lawlessness” itself requires something to be violated. There can be no lawlessness unless there is a law, command, truth, or divine order being rejected. In Paul’s context, this lawlessness is not simply rebellion against civil law, but rebellion against the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the truth delivered through the apostles. This means that even in Paul’s day, there were already people teaching, receiving, or following a distorted form of the Gospel. They may have appeared to belong within the growing Christian movement, but their teaching and spirit were not in harmony with the true Gospel of Jesus.
As the Christian church grew over the next few centuries, this mystery of lawlessness would also grow within it. What began in seed form during the apostolic age would slowly develop through compromise, false teaching, and the increasing adoption of Roman and pagan patterns. By the time of Constantine, the church had moved from persecution to imperial acceptance, but with that acceptance came serious danger. Pagan practices, images, altered worship patterns, and Roman structures of hierarchy began to find a place within the visible church. The lawlessness that Paul said was already working did not disappear; it matured.
Second, Paul speaks of the man of lawlessness who would later be revealed. This shows that the hidden mystery would eventually take shape in an identifiable power. The man of lawlessness is the visible embodiment of the mystery that had already begun. He exalts himself, sits in the temple of God, and claims authority that belongs only to God. In this sense, the man of lawlessness corresponds closely with Daniel’s little horn — a religious-political power arising from the Roman world, corrupting truth, opposing God’s authority, and placing itself within the visible church.
This is why the papacy fits Paul’s description so strongly. After the demise of pagan Rome in 476 AD, the strongest bishop within the Christian church — the bishop of Rome — would rise into the vacuum left by the fallen Western Empire. In Daniel’s language, the little horn rises from within the fourth beast kingdom. In Paul’s language, the man of lawlessness takes his seat in the temple of God. These are not two unrelated ideas. They describe the same kind of power: a religious authority arising from within the Roman world, claiming a place within God’s church, and assuming authority that belongs only to Christ. The hidden lawlessness had now become exceedingly great in visible form.
Finally, Paul says the coming of this lawless one is “according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception” (2 Thessalonians 2:9–10). This does not mean Satan himself is the man of lawlessness. Satan is the power behind the deception, but he is not the visible earthly office or system Paul is identifying. The lawless one follows Satan’s pattern by using counterfeit spiritual authority, religious deception, false signs, and a rejection of the love of the truth.
So the sequence is important: the mystery of lawlessness is the hidden principle already working; the man of lawlessness is the later revealed system; and the working of Satan describes the deceptive power behind that system. Satan is the source and energizing force, but the lawless one revealed in history is the papal system that rose within the church, claimed divine authority, and cast truth to the ground.
Similar threads
