Paul's Man of Sin Doesn't Enter the Jewish Temple

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,162
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,808.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Many of the Christians interested in eschatology who post on Christian Forums believe that Paul prophesied that a Man of Sin will desecrate the Temple in Jerusalem. They believe that the Man of Sin, or Man of Lawlessness, will enter the Jewish Temple and proclaim himself to be God. For this prediction to be fulfilled, the Jewish Temple must be rebuilt, so it would seem.

Paul wrote about the Man of Lawlessness, or Man of Sin, in 2 Thessalonians 2: 1-12, and most pointedly in verses 3-4.

3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
2 Thessalonians 2: 3-4 NIV
2 Thessalonians 2:3 a: Some manuscripts sin [or man of sin]

Paul doesn't say that the Man of Sin will enter the Jewish Temple, or the Temple in Jerusalem. He says that the Man of Sin will set himself up "in God's temple." The NIV, RSV and KJV all agree that the phrase is either "God's temple" or "the temple of God." The question is, is "God's temple" the same as the Jewish temple? A strong case can be made that it is not.

Scholars believe that 1 Thessalonians was most likely written in 51 AD and that 2 Thessalonians was written only a few months later. What this means is that that Temple in Jerusalem was still standing and open for business when both letters were written. At first glance, that might seem to support the notion that Paul was talking about the Temple in Jerusalem. We know that the Roman army tore down the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, only 19 years later. Consider the impact of these letters and later events on the Thessalonians if we assume that the Thessalonians thought that Paul meant the Temple in Jerusalem. First, Paul tells them that at some time in the future, before the Second Coming, a Man of Sin will enter the Jewish Temple and commit sacrilege. Then, before this prophecy is fulfilled, a Roman army tears the Temple down. There is no realistic prospect of it being rebuilt. The Romans will not allow a Jewish Temple to be rebuilt. If the Jews had somehow managed to rebuild the Temple, the Romans would simply tear it down again. The most likely result is that the Thessalonians would lose faith in Paul and in the religion that he taught.

Suppose that Paul did know and understand the future in considerable detail. Suppose that he meant to refer to the Jewish Temple, and he knew that it would be destroyed and not rebuilt for hundreds of years. If these things had to happen before his prophecy was fulfilled, surely he would have said so. Paul would not have imperiled the faith of the Thessalonians by failing to mention that point.

There is another possibility. Paul never meant for "God's Temple" to mean the Temple in Jerusalem. The passage doesn't mention Jerusalem, Israel, Palestine, or Jewish priests. Paul may not have intended "God's Temple" to refer to a physical building at all.

In the second Chapter of Ephesians, Paul refers to a "holy temple" with Jesus Christ as the Cornerstone. This is not the Temple in Jerusalem. It is not the Jewish Temple. The spiritual temple with Jesus as the Cornerstone is the Temple that Paul was talking about in 2 Thessalonians Chapter 2.

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
Ephesians 2: 19-22 NIV

What this means is that the Man of Sin is not someone who desecrates the Temple in Jerusalem, should one be standing at the time. The Man of Sin is someone who enters the Christian church, is accepted as a Christian, and then claims a position before God that no mortal can possess. The Man of Sin is not a military leader who takes the temple mount by force and has his own way. Instead, the Man of Sin is a false religious leader.

The Thessalonians were mostly Greeks who did not first think of the Jewish Temple when Paul used the word "temple." They knew Paul in person and understood him better than we do. The Thessalonians knew of Paul's spiritual Holy Temple and did not think their faith was in peril when the Jewish Temple was torn down.

Another reason to think that Paul did not think that the Temple in Jerusalem was the Temple of God comes from these verses in Luke.

44 It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two
Luke 23:44-45 NIV

The curtain of the temple refers to the curtain around the Holy of Holies. I don't believe that God is finished with the Jewish people. It does look like the ripping of the sacred curtain of the Holy of Holies is a sign that God is finished with the Jerusalem Temple at that point. This is another reason to believe that Paul was thinking of God's spiritual temple in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.
 

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,162
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,808.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
There is no way that Paul could have been unaware that the days of the Temple in Jerusalem were numbered. If he did not know this from his own visions, Jesus had clearly prophesied on this subject.

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.
Matthew 24: 1-2 NIV

While the Gospels had not been written when Paul wrote Second Thessalonians, the body of teaching that the Gospels embody was certainly known to Paul. He had talked with the Apostles and other disciples of Jesus on many occasions.
 
Upvote 0

Greengardener

for love is of God
Supporter
May 24, 2019
633
597
MidAtlantic
✟175,913.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You raise a good point, Dale, and you offer good discussion about it. I would suggest that it may be that the lawless one is already at work in the congregations. The mainline church is quite at odds with the plan as Jesus promoted it, the new testament one, and their lawless acts are the primary evidence.
 
Upvote 0

iamlamad

Lamad
Jun 8, 2013
9,616
744
77
Home in Tulsa
✟94,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Many of the Christians interested in eschatology who post on Christian Forums believe that Paul prophesied that a Man of Sin will desecrate the Temple in Jerusalem. They believe that the Man of Sin, or Man of Lawlessness, will enter the Jewish Temple and proclaim himself to be God. For this prediction to be fulfilled, the Jewish Temple must be rebuilt, so it would seem.

Paul wrote about the Man of Lawlessness, or Man of Sin, in 2 Thessalonians 2: 1-12, and most pointedly in verses 3-4.

3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
2 Thessalonians 2: 3-4 NIV
2 Thessalonians 2:3 a: Some manuscripts sin [or man of sin]

Paul doesn't say that the Man of Sin will enter the Jewish Temple, or the Temple in Jerusalem. He says that the Man of Sin will set himself up "in God's temple." The NIV, RSV and KJV all agree that the phrase is either "God's temple" or "the temple of God." The question is, is "God's temple" the same as the Jewish temple? A strong case can be made that it is not.

Scholars believe that 1 Thessalonians was most likely written in 51 AD and that 2 Thessalonians was written only a few months later. What this means is that that Temple in Jerusalem was still standing and open for business when both letters were written. At first glance, that might seem to support the notion that Paul was talking about the Temple in Jerusalem. We know that the Roman army tore down the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, only 19 years later. Consider the impact of these letters and later events on the Thessalonians if we assume that the Thessalonians thought that Paul meant the Temple in Jerusalem. First, Paul tells them that at some time in the future, before the Second Coming, a Man of Sin will enter the Jewish Temple and commit sacrilege. Then, before this prophecy is fulfilled, a Roman army tears the Temple down. There is no realistic prospect of it being rebuilt. The Romans will not allow a Jewish Temple to be rebuilt. If the Jews had somehow managed to rebuild the Temple, the Romans would simply tear it down again. The most likely result is that the Thessalonians would lose faith in Paul and in the religion that he taught.

Suppose that Paul did know and understand the future in considerable detail. Suppose that he meant to refer to the Jewish Temple, and he knew that it would be destroyed and not rebuilt for hundreds of years. If these things had to happen before his prophecy was fulfilled, surely he would have said so. Paul would not have imperiled the faith of the Thessalonians by failing to mention that point.

There is another possibility. Paul never meant for "God's Temple" to mean the Temple in Jerusalem. The passage doesn't mention Jerusalem, Israel, Palestine, or Jewish priests. Paul may not have intended "God's Temple" to refer to a physical building at all.

In the second Chapter of Ephesians, Paul refers to a "holy temple" with Jesus Christ as the Cornerstone. This is not the Temple in Jerusalem. It is not the Jewish Temple. The spiritual temple with Jesus as the Cornerstone is the Temple that Paul was talking about in 2 Thessalonians Chapter 2.

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
Ephesians 2: 19-22 NIV

What this means is that the Man of Sin is not someone who desecrates the Temple in Jerusalem, should one be standing at the time. The Man of Sin is someone who enters the Christian church, is accepted as a Christian, and then claims a position before God that no mortal can possess. The Man of Sin is not a military leader who takes the temple mount by force and has his own way. Instead, the Man of Sin is a false religious leader.

The Thessalonians were mostly Greeks who did not first think of the Jewish Temple when Paul used the word "temple." They knew Paul in person and understood him better than we do. The Thessalonians knew of Paul's spiritual Holy Temple and did not think their faith was in peril when the Jewish Temple was torn down.

Another reason to think that Paul did not think that the Temple in Jerusalem was the Temple of God comes from these verses in Luke.

44 It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two
Luke 23:44-45 NIV

The curtain of the temple refers to the curtain around the Holy of Holies. I don't believe that God is finished with the Jewish people. It does look like the ripping of the sacred curtain of the Holy of Holies is a sign that God is finished with the Jerusalem Temple at that point. This is another reason to believe that Paul was thinking of God's spiritual temple in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.
When we tall the other scriptures that pertain to this, your argument falls short.

John was told to MEASURE the temple. It was around 95 AD when John was told this in the vision. So it was not the old temple of his day he was told to measure, it was a future temple. He was given a reed like a rod - the NORMAL "tape measure" of the day. He was also to measure (count) the worshipers INSIDE that temple.

This speaks of a real, "brick and mortar" temple, not the spirit of a man.

Next, God gave us an example. Antiochus entered and desecrated the Jewish temple, and according to the commentators, became a TYPE of the Beast.

Therefore I don't really think your argument holds water.
 
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,578
7,775
63
Martinez
✟894,261.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Many of the Christians interested in eschatology who post on Christian Forums believe that Paul prophesied that a Man of Sin will desecrate the Temple in Jerusalem. They believe that the Man of Sin, or Man of Lawlessness, will enter the Jewish Temple and proclaim himself to be God. For this prediction to be fulfilled, the Jewish Temple must be rebuilt, so it would seem.

Paul wrote about the Man of Lawlessness, or Man of Sin, in 2 Thessalonians 2: 1-12, and most pointedly in verses 3-4.

3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
2 Thessalonians 2: 3-4 NIV
2 Thessalonians 2:3 a: Some manuscripts sin [or man of sin]

Paul doesn't say that the Man of Sin will enter the Jewish Temple, or the Temple in Jerusalem. He says that the Man of Sin will set himself up "in God's temple." The NIV, RSV and KJV all agree that the phrase is either "God's temple" or "the temple of God." The question is, is "God's temple" the same as the Jewish temple? A strong case can be made that it is not.

Scholars believe that 1 Thessalonians was most likely written in 51 AD and that 2 Thessalonians was written only a few months later. What this means is that that Temple in Jerusalem was still standing and open for business when both letters were written. At first glance, that might seem to support the notion that Paul was talking about the Temple in Jerusalem. We know that the Roman army tore down the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, only 19 years later. Consider the impact of these letters and later events on the Thessalonians if we assume that the Thessalonians thought that Paul meant the Temple in Jerusalem. First, Paul tells them that at some time in the future, before the Second Coming, a Man of Sin will enter the Jewish Temple and commit sacrilege. Then, before this prophecy is fulfilled, a Roman army tears the Temple down. There is no realistic prospect of it being rebuilt. The Romans will not allow a Jewish Temple to be rebuilt. If the Jews had somehow managed to rebuild the Temple, the Romans would simply tear it down again. The most likely result is that the Thessalonians would lose faith in Paul and in the religion that he taught.

Suppose that Paul did know and understand the future in considerable detail. Suppose that he meant to refer to the Jewish Temple, and he knew that it would be destroyed and not rebuilt for hundreds of years. If these things had to happen before his prophecy was fulfilled, surely he would have said so. Paul would not have imperiled the faith of the Thessalonians by failing to mention that point.

There is another possibility. Paul never meant for "God's Temple" to mean the Temple in Jerusalem. The passage doesn't mention Jerusalem, Israel, Palestine, or Jewish priests. Paul may not have intended "God's Temple" to refer to a physical building at all.

In the second Chapter of Ephesians, Paul refers to a "holy temple" with Jesus Christ as the Cornerstone. This is not the Temple in Jerusalem. It is not the Jewish Temple. The spiritual temple with Jesus as the Cornerstone is the Temple that Paul was talking about in 2 Thessalonians Chapter 2.

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
Ephesians 2: 19-22 NIV

What this means is that the Man of Sin is not someone who desecrates the Temple in Jerusalem, should one be standing at the time. The Man of Sin is someone who enters the Christian church, is accepted as a Christian, and then claims a position before God that no mortal can possess. The Man of Sin is not a military leader who takes the temple mount by force and has his own way. Instead, the Man of Sin is a false religious leader.

The Thessalonians were mostly Greeks who did not first think of the Jewish Temple when Paul used the word "temple." They knew Paul in person and understood him better than we do. The Thessalonians knew of Paul's spiritual Holy Temple and did not think their faith was in peril when the Jewish Temple was torn down.

Another reason to think that Paul did not think that the Temple in Jerusalem was the Temple of God comes from these verses in Luke.

44 It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two
Luke 23:44-45 NIV

The curtain of the temple refers to the curtain around the Holy of Holies. I don't believe that God is finished with the Jewish people. It does look like the ripping of the sacred curtain of the Holy of Holies is a sign that God is finished with the Jerusalem Temple at that point. This is another reason to believe that Paul was thinking of God's spiritual temple in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.
One thing of note. In 1 Thessalonians 2, Paul is addressing Judea and its sin.

13 For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe. 14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, 16 forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.

Of interest is this passage: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.

From my humble understanding of what Paul was referring to, was not only the Jews who rejected Christ but also the Priesthood who persecuted Christians. Among these were the "lawless one's" , unbelieving Jews and the high priest Annas II could possibly be the "son of perdition" as he continued Jewish Christian persecution including the execution of James the Just, Jesus Brother and leader of Christians in Jerusalem.
 
Upvote 0

Handmaid for Jesus

You can't steal my joy
Supporter
Dec 19, 2010
25,582
32,974
enroute
✟1,395,814.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Next, God gave us an example. Antiochus entered and desecrated the Jewish temple, and according to the commentators, became a TYPE of the Beast.
Yep!:oldthumbsup: He also told us
Ecc. 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,162
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,808.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
When we tall the other scriptures that pertain to this, your argument falls short.

John was told to MEASURE the temple. It was around 95 AD when John was told this in the vision. So it was not the old temple of his day he was told to measure, it was a future temple. He was given a reed like a rod - the NORMAL "tape measure" of the day. He was also to measure (count) the worshipers INSIDE that temple.

This speaks of a real, "brick and mortar" temple, not the spirit of a man.

Next, God gave us an example. Antiochus entered and desecrated the Jewish temple, and according to the commentators, became a TYPE of the Beast.

Therefore I don't really think your argument holds water.


You say that the Temple must be literal because John measured it. This isn't true at all. Revelation is full of symbolism.

For instance:

When he opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.
Revelation 9:1 NIV

What does "half an hour" mean? This is a measurement of time, and it certainly isn't literal.

Likewise, in Ezekiel, an angel measures a Temple. Yet the Temple described in Ezekiel has not been built and probably never will be. It seems to be entirely symbolic.

15 When he had finished measuring what was inside the temple area, he led me out by the east gate and measured the area all around: 16 He measured the east side with the measuring rod; it was five hundred cubits. 17 He measured the north side; it was five hundred cubits by the measuring rod. 18 He measured the south side; it was five hundred cubits by the measuring rod. 19 Then he turned to the west side and measured; it was five hundred cubits by the measuring rod. 20 So he measured the area on all four sides. It had a wall around it, five hundred cubits long and five hundred cubits wide, to separate the holy from the common.
Ezekiel 42: 15-20 NIV
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,162
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,808.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
One thing of note. In 1 Thessalonians 2, Paul is addressing Judea and its sin.

13 For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe. 14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, 16 forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.

Of interest is this passage: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.

From my humble understanding of what Paul was referring to, was not only the Jews who rejected Christ but also the Priesthood who persecuted Christians. Among these were the "lawless one's" , unbelieving Jews and the high priest Annas II could possibly be the "son of perdition" as he continued Jewish Christian persecution including the execution of James the Just, Jesus Brother and leader of Christians in Jerusalem.





I'm not sure that the meaning of Paul's warning about the Man of Sin can be fully exhausted by events of the First Century. Nevertheless, we should be aware of possible First Century explanations.

Since you suggest that Annas II might be the "son of perdition," I'll quote a source with a completely different view.

In a commentary by Adam Maarschalk, he suggests that the Zealot leader Eleazar ben Simon is the most likely candidate for Paul's Man of Lawlessness.

"I personally lean toward Eleazar ben Simon being the man of lawlessness because [1] he made the temple his central command post for the entire first half of the Jewish-Roman War (3.5 years) [2] he oversaw so many lawless acts in the temple for an extended period of time, and [3] he was killed at the time of the temple’s destruction."

Maarschalk sees the Jewish priests as The Restrainer.

"I would also like to suggest that the restrainer was, collectively, the Jewish high priests who led the peace movement in Jerusalem."

Specifically, Ananus ben Ananus is mentioned among the Jewish priests.

<< Josephus said that Ananus “preferred peace above all things,” was “a shrewd man in speaking and persuading the people,” >>

Maarschalk argues that the Zealots made extensive use of false prophets to spread deceptions that they thought helpful to the Zealot cause.



Link
II Thessalonians 2 and the Man of Lawlessness
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What this means is that the Man of Sin is not someone who desecrates the Temple in Jerusalem, should one be standing at the time. The Man of Sin is someone who enters the Christian church, is accepted as a Christian, and then claims a position before God that no mortal can possess. The Man of Sin is not a military leader who takes the temple mount by force and has his own way. Instead, the Man of Sin is a false religious leader.

The Thessalonians were mostly Greeks who did not first think of the Jewish Temple when Paul used the word "temple." They knew Paul in person and understood him better than we do. The Thessalonians knew of Paul's spiritual Holy Temple and did not think their faith was in peril when the Jewish Temple was torn down.

Yes, that is scripturally accurate. All of Paul's references to a temple in his epistles were to the spiritual temple of the believer in Christ, who are collectively the Church. The man of sin was a spiritual counterfeit arrogating spiritual authority in the Church.

The Reformers of the Protestant Reformation unanimously recognized the man of sin as the apostate papacy of the era. Their fearless and unwavering proclamation of that recognition, often to the death, was a doctrinal pillar of the Reformation, without which it would not have succeeded.

I don't believe that God is finished with the Jewish people.

How does God recognize a Jewish person, i.e. what distinguishing and identifying criteria does He use; and how is He not finished with them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rnmomof7
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,162
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,808.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes, that is scripturally accurate. All of Paul's references to a temple in his epistles were to the spiritual temple of the believer in Christ, who are collectively the Church. The man of sin was a spiritual counterfeit arrogating spiritual authority in the Church.

The Reformers of the Protestant Reformation unanimously recognized the man of sin as the apostate papacy of the era. Their fearless and unwavering proclamation of that recognition, often to the death, was a doctrinal pillar of the Reformation, without which it would not have succeeded.



How does God recognize a Jewish person, i.e. what distinguishing and identifying criteria does He use; and how is He not finished with them?





jgr: "Yes, that is scripturally accurate. All of Paul's references to a temple in his epistles were to the spiritual temple of the believer in Christ, who are collectively the Church. The man of sin was a spiritual counterfeit arrogating spiritual authority in the Church."

Thanks for this insight.

jgr: "How does God recognize a Jewish person, i.e. what distinguishing and identifying criteria does He use; and how is He not finished with them?"

I don't know how God defines "Jewish." I'm sure He knows the correct answer to that question.

I believe that God promised the Jews that they would return to the Holy Land, as a people and as a nation-state. They have done so, against all odds. I believe as well that God will not allow Israel to be militarily destroyed. Again, despite against all odds, Israel has always prevailed when its existence was at stake.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,689
3,404
Non-dispensationalist
✟356,795.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
You say that the Temple must be literal because John measured it. This isn't true at all. Revelation is full of symbolism.
Hi Dale, when Jesus returns, he will stand on the Mt. of Olives, and it will split in half. Jesus left this world from the Mt. Olives in Acts 1.

The mount of Olives is directly across the Kidron valley looking down (a couple of hundred feet higher) to the temple mount. Yes, there will be a temple intended for the worship of God built, which the abomination of desolation will be placed. And at the end of the 7 years, Satan exposed visibly to the world there on the temple mount.

mount-of-olives-map.jpg
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Scholars believe that 1 Thessalonians was most likely written in 51 AD and that 2 Thessalonians was written only a few months later. What this means is that that Temple in Jerusalem was still standing and open for business when both letters were written. At first glance, that might seem to support the notion that Paul was talking about the Temple in Jerusalem. We know that the Roman army tore down the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, only 19 years later. Consider the impact of these letters and later events on the Thessalonians if we assume that the Thessalonians thought that Paul meant the Temple in Jerusalem.
Great post and info.
The word Paul uses is "Sanctuary" not "Temple", which was inside the Temple complex and contained the Holy Place and Most Holy Place.
[The word Temple is also not used in Revelation]...........

YLT
2Th 2:3
let not any one deceive you in any manner, because -- if the falling away may not come first, and the man of sin be revealed -- the son of the destruction,
2Th 2:4
who is opposing and is raising himself up above all called God or worshiped, so that he in the Sanctuary of God as God hath sat down, shewing himself off that he is God -- the day doth not come.
Josephus records Titus himself entering the Sanctuary of the Temple where also the Jewish Menorah is shown to be taken.

What about Revelation 11:1-2 SANCTUARY, COURT AND HOLY CITY


Revelation 11:
1 And was given to me a reed like-as rod saying "rouse! and measure! the Sanctuary<3485> of God and the Altar[Golden Altar] and those worshiping in it
2 and the Court/fold<833>[Priests/Lavar/Altar of Sacrifice] outside of the Sanctuary, be casting-out!<1544> out-side<1854> and no it thou should be measuring, that it was given to the Gentiles/Nations.
And the holy City they shall be treading<3961>forty two months.
===========================
Some Preterist commentaries:

2 Thessalonians 2:1-12: A Preterist Commentary-The Man of Lawlessness Revealed! - Revelation Revolution

A Preterist Commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12: Summary and Highlights

Josephus says that Titus entered the Holy of Holies with his generals in A.D. 70. 1 Shortly thereafter, Titus was worshipped in the Temple in A.D. 70 as was customary of someone declared imperator in fulfillment of 2 Thessalonians 2:4: “He sets Himself up in God’s Temple proclaiming Himself to be God.” Josephus writes, “And now the Romans . . . brought their ensigns to the temple and set them over against its eastern gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them, and there did they make Titus imperator.”2 A metallic image of Vespasian and Titus was also worshipped at that time. The image of Vespasian and Titus was found on the ensign called the numina legionum which was a large coin-shaped bust or image of the emperor and his favorites (i.e. Titus) held aloft on a pole.


Vespasian miraculously healed a blind man and a lame man or a man with a withered hand around the time of Titus’ return to Jerusalem to besiege the city and immediately prior to his triumphal entry into Rome as its new emperor literally fulfilling 2 Thessalonians 2:9: “The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders . . .” Three different Roman historians recorded this miracle wherein Vespasian spit on eyes of the blind man and stepped on the hand of the cripple, healing both men: “With a smiling expression and surrounded by an expectant crowd of bystanders, he [Vespasian] did what was asked. Instantly the cripple recovered the use of his hand and the light of day dawned again upon his blind companion.”3
There were also many miracles recorded around the time Titus returned with the Roman army to besiege Jerusalem as well as afterwards when he returned to Rome to celebrate the triumph with his father.

============================
Visual Timeline of the Roman-Jewish War ARTchive

1860_litho1.jpg

General Titus Entering the Holy of Holies


destruction_complete.jpg

==================
What About Paul's Man of Sin? by John Noe @ PreteristArchive.com

Josephus records that the Roman General Titus had no intention of destroying the Temple. The Romans wanted to preserve it as a trophy and monument of their conquest. Even Josephus personally pleaded with John of Gischala to surrender. But such a "madness" swept through him and his Jewish followers that they taunted the powers of Rome and refused to listen. This man, John, through the power of Satan and the delusion sent by God upon the Jewish people, forced the Roman armies to act. Instead of accepting Jesus as Messiah, King, and Deliverer, the unbelieving Jews placed their hopes in this false messiah a man of deceit and wickedness.

They looked to the "man of sin" to lead them to victory and independence. The priesthood, which stood in their way, had been removed. And by August or September of A.D. 70, Paul's entire "man of sin" prophecy of 2nd Thessalonians 2:1-12 was fulfilled. The city and the Temple were burned and destroyed. The covenant nation of Israel and biblical Judaism were forever destroyed.

Only within this first century context does the Apostle Paul's "man of sin prophecy make sense and have its greatest significance. No justification exists for separating Paul's words from either the Temple standing at the time of his writing or the end of the Jewish age. John of Gischala, the son of Levi, was a contemporary of Paul. He was Paul's "man of sin."

The eyewitness account of Josephus, a Jewish-Roman historian
, truthfully and impartially documents his treachery and his critical role in Jerusalem's demise. No one else in history-Gains Caesar, Nero, Titus, or Domitian comes as close to fulfilling this prophecy as this most influential and deceiving Zealot leader John of Gischala took over the forces of iniquity He stood in the Temple itself and exalted himself above all that is called God. He put himself above both God and Caesar. He regarded neither the laws of God nor those of man. He therefore "set himself up" in the Temple, taking the place of God.

Judas betrayed Jesus. John of Gischala betrayed the Jews, fulfilling Paul's "man of sin" prophecy to a tee.

In dramatic paralleled fashion, Scripture gives this "man of sin" John of Gischala, the son of Levi- the name of" the one doomed to destruction" or "the son of perdition," the same name given to another infamous betrayer, Judas Iscariot (compare Jn. 17:12 with 2Th. 2:3 KJV).
Both appeared in the same "last days" time frame of the Old Covenant age. Judas betrayed Jesus. John of Gischala betrayed the Jews, fulfilling Paul's "man of sin" prophecy to a tee.

He was that 1st-century man who had to be revealed before the day of Christ in A.D. 70, and who was destroyed when it came. No future "man of sin" need come and fulfill this prophecy; it has already been fulfilled.
==============================
The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD

Finding it impossible to restrain the impetuosity and cruelty of his soldiers, the Commander in chief proceeded, with some of his superior officers, to take a survey of those parts of the edifice which were still uninjured by the conflagration. It had not, at this time, reached the inner Temple, which Titus entered, and viewed with silent admiration. Struck with the magnificence of its architecture, and the beauty of its decorations, which even surpassed the report of fame concerning them ; and perceiving that the sanctuary had not yet caught fire, he redoubled his efforts to stop the progress of the flames. He condescended even to entreat his soldiers to exert all their strength and activity for this purpose, and appointed a centurion of the guards to punish them if they again disregarded him : but all was in vain. The delirious rage of the soldiery knew no bounds. Eager for plunder and for slaughter, they alike contemned the solicitations and menaces of their General. Even while he was thus intent upon the preservation of the sanctuary, one of the soldiers was actually employed in setting fire to the door- posts, which caused the conflagration to become general. Titus and his officers were now compelled to retire, and none remained to check the fury of the soldiers or the flames.

The Temple now presented little more than a heap of ruins ; and the Roman army as in triumph on the event, came and reared their ensigns against a fragment of the eastern gate, and, with sacrifices of thanksgiving, proclaimed the imperial majesty of Titus, with every possible demonstration of joy.



Pompey-enters-Holy-of-Holies.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don't know how God defines "Jewish." I'm sure He knows the correct answer to that question.

I believe that God promised the Jews that they would return to the Holy Land, as a people and as a nation-state. They have done so, against all odds. I believe as well that God will not allow Israel to be militarily destroyed. Again, despite against all odds, Israel has always prevailed when its existence was at stake.

Do you think God distinguishes between Jews who have accepted His Son, and those who have not? Or does he consider there to be no difference between the two, because both are Jews?
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,162
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,808.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Do you think God distinguishes between Jews who have accepted His Son, and those who have not? Or does he consider there to be no difference between the two, because both are Jews?


I don't believe that Jews can be saved without accepting Jesus. I have heard ministers (Dispensationalists?) waffle on this point. I am inclined to believe that at some point, the Jews remaining on this earth will realize that Jesus really is the Jewish Messiah.
 
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,162
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,808.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Hi Dale, when Jesus returns, he will stand on the Mt. of Olives, and it will split in half. Jesus left this world from the Mt. Olives in Acts 1.

The mount of Olives is directly across the Kidron valley looking down (a couple of hundred feet higher) to the temple mount. Yes, there will be a temple intended for the worship of God built, which the abomination of desolation will be placed. And at the end of the 7 years, Satan exposed visibly to the world there on the temple mount.





Doug,

You make five assertions in five sentences. One of these is in the Bible and another is geography. The other three are unsupported.

Doug: "Hi Dale, when Jesus returns, he will stand on the Mt. of Olives, and it will split in half."

I'm not sure exactly where this comes from.

Doug: "Yes, there will be a temple intended for the worship of God built, which the abomination of desolation will be placed."

I don't see any support for this.

Doug: " And at the end of the 7 years, Satan exposed visibly to the world there on the temple mount."

Seven years after what? I'm not sure where the scripture says that Satan will be visibly exposed.

Here's a question for you. If it is certain that a new Jewish Temple will be built, who is going to build it? In some of the scenarios I've heard, it sounds like the Temple doesn't get built until the Antichrist takes over Israel. Does this mean that the Antichrist builds the Temple? The Temple that you say is "intended for the worship of God"? I find it incredible that the Antichrist would build a Temple just so he could have something to desecrate.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,689
3,404
Non-dispensationalist
✟356,795.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Doug: "Hi Dale, when Jesus returns, he will stand on the Mt. of Olives, and it will split in half."

I'm not sure exactly where this comes from.
From Zechariah 14:3-5.

4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.


Doug: "Yes, there will be a temple intended for the worship of God built, which the abomination of desolation will be placed."

I don't see any support for this.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )

Then when a person goes to Daniel 12:11-12, there is additional information of the daily sacrifice stopped, and the AoD setup.

Doug: " And at the end of the 7 years, Satan exposed visibly to the world there on the temple mount."

Seven years after what? I'm not sure where the scripture says that Satan will be visibly exposed.
7 years after the confirming of the covenant.

The 7 years are the last week of Daniel 9's 70 weeks. Those 7 years are in Revelation 12:6-17.

In another thread, I posted the 7 years can be ascertain by working backwards from Satan's wrath for the time, times, times half time. Please see my post #24 in this link, Are Revelation 12:6 & Revelation 12:14 the same events or different events?

Also, the 7 years can be ascertained from Ezekiel 39. The destruction of Gog's army and feast in Ezekiel 39:4; then 7 years following in the aftermath in Ezekiel 39:9; then the Armageddon feast of Revelation 19:17-18 in Ezekiel 39:17-20.

That Satan will be visibly exposed at the end of the 7 years can be ascertained from Ezekiel 28:17-19,

"I shall lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee", "I will bring they to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee".

Please see my post #29 Are Revelation 12:6 & Revelation 12:14 the same events or different events?

After being visibly exposed....Satan will be bound and cast into the bottomless pit for a thousand years, Revelation 20:1-3. To be a terror no more (Ezekiel 28:19).

Dale, I am going to open a new thread on the the third woe, from which the 7 years can be ascertained, and by doing so disproves the thinking by some that Jesus is the prince who shall come in Daniel 9:26, and that the 7 years in Daniel 9:27 are Jesus confirming the covenant.

From my post #16 Are Revelation 12:6 & Revelation 12:14 the same events or different events?

"If a person were to present a course on eschatology, I can think of no better place to start than that of the third woe. Because it anchors everything into place - the 7 years, the 1260 days, that the prince who shall come in Daniel 9:26 is not Jesus, that the confirming of the covenant for 7 years is not talking about the New Covenant.

Here's a question for you. If it is certain that a new Jewish Temple will be built, who is going to build it? In some of the scenarios I've heard, it sounds like the Temple doesn't get built until the Antichrist takes over Israel. Does this mean that the Antichrist builds the Temple? The Temple that you say is "intended for the worship of God"? I find it incredible that the Antichrist would build a Temple just so he could have something to desecrate.
The short answer is I don't know. It may be built before the 7 years begin. Or during the first 7 months of the 7years, in a downsized temporary form to expedite the restart of the animal sacrifices and temple ordinances.

The Antichrist, in any case, whether he is directly involved or not, does not build it alone. It will be an effort by the Jewish people.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don't believe that Jews can be saved without accepting Jesus.

Undeniably true.

I am inclined to believe that at some point, the Jews remaining on this earth will realize that Jesus really is the Jewish Messiah.

So when you refer to "the Jews", how are you defining them?

1. People with Jewish DNA
2. People of Jewish culture
3. People of Jewish religion
4. Some other criteria
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dale

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Apr 14, 2003
7,162
1,223
71
Sebring, FL
✟657,808.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Undeniably true.



So when you refer to "the Jews", how are you defining them?

1. People with Jewish DNA
2. People of Jewish culture
3. People of Jewish religion
4. Some other criteria

A mixture of Jewish religion and Jewish culture.

The first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben Gurion, once said: "A Jew is a person who says he is one."
The Rabbis have a more complicated rule, of course.

Why is how being a Jew is defined a problem?
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
........So when you refer to "the Jews", how are you defining them?
1. People with Jewish DNA
2. People of Jewish culture
3. People of Jewish religion
4. Some other criteria
How about how Yahuweh Sovereign Creator Says ?

"He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, but inwardly". (as Yahuweh sees the truth, the heart, the reality, and declares it plainly).
 
  • Like
Reactions: jgr
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
A mixture of Jewish religion and Jewish culture.

The first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben Gurion, once said: "A Jew is a person who says he is one."
The Rabbis have a more complicated rule, of course.

Why is how being a Jew is defined a problem?

Would that mean that anyone who joins a Jewish synagogue and begins eating kosher is considered chosen by God?
 
Upvote 0