# Man of Sin, Sitting in the Temple of God



## sastark

I just posted this on my blog at http://www.xanga.com/sastark

Let me know what you think!

----------------------------

"Temple" in 2 Thess 2:4

by Seth Stark


There are four Greek words translated in the AV NT as "temple": naos (Strong's #3485), hieron (#2411), oikos (#3624), and eidoleion (#1493). Naos is used either in reference to the sanctuary of the temple in Jerusalem (that is the Holy place and the Holy of Holies), a heathen temple or metaphorically for the Church. Naos is the Greek word used in 2 Thess. 2:4. So, what does "naos" mean in 2 Thess. 2:4? What was the "temple of God" referred to by Paul? Was it the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem temple which the High Priest would enter once a year? Or is Paul referring to the Church?

To answer this question, we must go beyond Paul's warning of the man of sin, and examine other uses of the word "naos" in the NT. As already stated, this word is used to refer to three things: the Holy place and Holy of Holies, a heathen temple, or the Church. Since Paul clearly says the man of sin sits in the "temple of God" we can dismiss the one time in the NT when naos is translated as a heathen temple. Therefore we are left with two possible interpretations of the word- either the sanctuary of the physical temple in Jerusalem or the body of Christ, the Church.

Let us first examine passages where "naos" is used and the definition if obvious. Matthew 23:16-17; 21 is the first occurrence of naos in the NT:

"'Woe to you, blind guides, who say, "Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it." Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold?'"..."'He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells in it.'"

Here, Jesus condemns the Pharisees for swearing by the gold of the temple, and because we know that "naos" refers to the holy place and holy of holies, we can know that the Pharisees swore by the gold of the sanctuary, which only the Priests could enter. What arrogance and blasphemy!

Only a few verses later, in Matt 23:35, "naos" occurs again:

"'That on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.'"

Here, Christ makes reference to the historical event of the slaying of the prophet Zechariah, author of the book of Zechariah. Obviously, Jesus is speaking of the physical temple in Jerusalem.

Other occurrences of naos which obviously refer to the physical temple in Jerusalem are: 

Matt. 27:5- When Judas Iscariot throws down the silver which he received as payment for betraying Jesus in the temple.

Matt 27:51- When the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom.

Mark 15:38- Again, referring to the veil of the temple being torn.

Luke 1:9, 21-22- These verses tell us about Zacharias, father of John the Baptist, offering incense in the temple and the vision which he had seen.

Luke 23:45- Again, referring to the veil of the temple being torn.

The next occurrence of naos, where the meaning is obvious, is in 1 Corinthians 3. Here, Paul writing to the church in Corinth says in verses 16-17:

"Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are. "

In Ephesians chapter 2, we again find a passage where naos is used, and the definition is clear.

"Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit."

These are the passages where the use of the word naos is clearest. Can these shed light on 2 Thess 2:4? I believe they can. 

There were many significant events which occurred while Christ was on the cross; however, one of these events relates directly to our study, and that is the tearing of the veil in the temple. What was the significance of the veil being torn? It shows that we now no longer need an intercessor between God and men as was the case in the Old Covenant. We now have direct access to the throne of God through Jesus Christ, our one mediator and advocate. When that veil was torn, the temple worship in Jerusalem ceased to be the acceptable manner in which the people of God were to worship the Lord. The blood of goats and bulls would no longer suffice, for the One perfect sacrifice had been made. The temple in Jerusalem was no longer the temple of God, for the people of God would no longer worship God in that temple. Instead, God created for Himself a new temple, but not a temple built with hands (Acts 7:48 and 17:24), but rather a spiritual temple, also called the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27), commonly called the "œchurch". Now, it ought to be clear, since the Temple in Jerusalem was no longer the "œtemple of God" that Paul is referring to the church in 2 Thess. 2:4.

In conclusion, we can know that the man of sin would sit in the temple of God- the church, claiming to be God. And who better fits this description that the bishop of Rome? Did he not sit in the church, the temple of God, showing himself to be God by taking to himself titles such as "œMost Holy Father", "œThe Head of the Church", and "œThe Vicar of Christ on Earth"?

Therefore, to say that "œNo 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." is to ignore the weight of Scripture which, when examined, makes it very clear that Paul is speaking of the Church- the only temple of God at the time of Paul´s writing.

*All quotations are from the New King James Version of the Bible

[Edited on 4-25-2005 by sastark]


----------



## sastark

oh, and that was my 500th post. Woohoo for me!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Well done, Seth! 

And congrats on your 500th!


----------



## sastark

Thanks, Andrew!


----------



## cornelius vantil

ahh i must beg to differ...while it is true that "naos can be refered to as "The church" i believe the context of the passage would suggest a 1st century fullfillment for at the vwey least this reason

- the man of sin was being restrained in the 1st century

"6And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time."

according to Paul this prophecy was to be understood in a 1st centuryt context not a mideveal one. how would 1st century believers know that the bishop of rome was being restrain, when the papacy was still a few hundred years away? this prophecy understood in light of other escatalogical passages (ie olivet discourse) is best understood as events fullfilled around the fall of jerusalem in 70 ad


----------



## sastark

Herminio- This is exactly where the discussion over on my blog has gone, and it has boiled down to this issue: When did the temple in Jerusalem cease to be the "temple of God"? I maintain that this occured when Christ was offered as the final sacrifice and brought sacrifice and offering to an end. After that point, how could the temple in Jerusalem any longer be referred to as the "temple of God"?

Also, of interesting note: Every other time Paul uses the phrase "temple of God" he is clearly referring to the church, and not to the temple in Jerusalem. I think that is significant, since Paul is the one who wrote this passage.


----------



## fredtgreco

It is also significant that Christ refers to the temple (naos) as His body in the gospel of John.


----------



## sastark

Yes, very true, Fred. I have not brought that up yet on my blog, but it is a very interesting use of the word "naos".


----------



## fredtgreco

Seth,

Note also that Jesus is the one who sends the Spirit, and He is the one who brings the water of life (John 4). Compare this and the imagery in John 2 with Ezekiel 47, where the water of life flows out of the temple of God, bringing life to all places it touches.

The temple was the place that the Shekinah glory touched down - so this is true even more in Christ.

The temple, the place where God dwells with His people, is fulfilled in Christ.

And the argument that makes all this hinge on the "nun" of 2 Thess. 2:6 is at best, supremely weak. I believe I interacted with it in some other thread on the board. Suffice it to say that "nun" has a range of meanings.


----------



## cornelius vantil

but you have addressed how would a 1st century christian understand this passage. You are right to say that everytime Paul used the word (naos) he refers to the church but your argument that Jerusalem could not be called "temple of God" does not add up. in Rev. 11:1 John is told to measure the temple in Jerusalem and the angel refered to it as the "Temple of God". once again my point is that we must understand this passage in light all other end times passages, which suggest a first century fullfilment.


----------



## andreas

Quote:
***In conclusion, we can know that the man of sin would sit in the temple of God- the church, claiming to be God. And who better fits this description that the bishop of Rome? Did he not sit in the church, the temple of God, showing himself to be God by taking to himself titles such as "œMost Holy Father", "œThe Head of the Church", and "œThe Vicar of Christ on Earth"?***


I agree that the temple of God refers to the church,the external corporate church who is the external representation of the kingdom of God,in the New Testament,much the same way National Israel was the external representation of the kingdom of God in the Old Testament.What i do not agree with, is the label of the man of sin, attached to the Pope.We are told in the bible, that sin is the transgression of God's law,so the man of sin, is ANY MAN that trasgresses the law of God,not just Pope,Hitler Musolini.........,just any sinner can be the man of sin.We are simply told "the man of sin",nothing more nothing less.

andreas.


----------



## sastark

Herminio- Although how a 1st century Christian would understand this passage is important, we are not to interpret Scripture based on a percieved view of the early church, but rather on the rest of Scripture. Therefore, when we come across a passage that is unclear to us, we must compare it to other passages which are more clear.

And that is why i ask: when the did the temple in Jerusalem cease to be the "temple of God"? From Scripture, I believe it is clear that it ceased to be the temple of God when Christ was offered as the final and ultimate sacrifice on the cross. I think this is also clear from Scripture, because every time after that event when the phrase "temple of God" is used, it is in reference to the Church, and not the physical temple in Jerusalem.


----------



## sastark

Andreas, we are also told that he exalts himself above God and shows himself to be God. While I suppose we could say that this is what every sinner does when he sins, I think it is also important to note that Paul is referring to an actual event that will take place in history; both the revealing of the man of sin, and the destruction of the man of sin. There is also the "falling away" which would occur before the man of sin would be revealed, so I think we can apply this passage to a historical personage, namely, the bishop of Rome, the pope.


----------



## cornelius vantil

well seth you did not address the passage in rev.11:1 is the temple of God there the church? i do not think that is exigetically possible, but would love to hear your thoughts


----------



## fredtgreco

If exegetically impossible, then the standard Puritan interpretation is. Here is Poole:



> This temple was a type of the church under the New Testament, 1Co 3:17 2Co 6:16 , and is so to be interpreted generally in this book: for the material temple at Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans more than twenty years before this prophecy, never to be built more; not one stone was left upon another; so that John here was bid to measure the church


----------



## sastark

to Fred. John measures the Church, not a physical temple in Jerusalem.


----------



## doulosChristou

Very good work, Seth.


----------



## sastark

Thank you, doulos.


----------



## cornelius vantil

ok brothers lets let scripture interpret scripture Rev.11:1-2 says,
"I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told. 'Go and measure the temple of God and the alter, and count the worshipers there. But exclude the outer court;do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample the Holy City for 42 months"

Luk. 21:20-24 says,
"When you see Jerusalem being surounde by armies, you will know that its desloation is near...........Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fullfilled."

If someone wats to argue that Luke is talking about the church i would love to hear that  putting that aside if someone would like to argue that these are two different events i am willing to hear that out. it seems to me that they are speaking of the same event (ie the fall of Jerusalem) which was Paul was aluding to in 2 thes.


----------



## fredtgreco

So when Ezekiel is measuring the temple in Ezekiel 37, he is measuring Jerusalem?


----------



## cornelius vantil

no but i would not euqate ezek. 37 with luk.21 or rev.11


----------



## fredtgreco

Of course. But that, frankly, is beside the point. It is a preterist presupposition, not an exegetical consideration.


----------



## turmeric

I'm still struggling with the temple described in the last part of Ezekiel - it DOES sound like he's talking about restored sacrifices and a prince coming there with his sacrifice at different times, i.e. a very human and not divine prince, complete with offspring to give land to, etc. Never really seen this dealt with by Reformed folks except very generally.


----------



## Peter

Thanks Seth.

Rev 11:1 is the church. I'm not committed to any particular interpretation of Luke, however, it seems to me Luke was a literal prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and the apostle John was using the events of 70 AD (which would have been fresh in the minds of the recipients of the Apocalypse) to symbolize the future Romish apostasy. 

BTW, there's a Historicism Yahoo Group online: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Historicism/?yguid=153329912


----------



## cornelius vantil

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Of course. But that, frankly, is beside the point. It is a preterist presupposition, not an exegetical consideration.



one can turn it on the flip side and say that the unterpretation being presented in this thread is based off of an historicist presupposition. now even thou i am vantillian i am not here to argue presuppositions  all i have asked is to be shown that if my exegesis has been faulty where? when asked to show a passage where the temple of God refers to Jeruslaem in the nt i went to rev.11:1 when the response was that this also was the church i went to the olivet discourse to show that Jesu talked about the same event and applied it to Jerusalem. if someone thinks that i am just pulling verse out of thin air w/o considering the context then show me. i do not believe i am


----------



## andreas

"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 
Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto." Luke 21:20

Jerusalem, and Judea, are synonymous with the church. 

"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 
To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect," Hebrews12:22-23

Jerusalem is the Church, Luke is refering to the church,not to the literal city of Jerusalem in the Middle East. 

andreas.


----------



## cornelius vantil

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
> Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto." Luke 21:20
> 
> Jerusalem, and Judea, are synonymous with the church.
> 
> "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
> To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect," Hebrews12:22-23
> 
> Jerusalem is the Church, Luke is refering to the church,not to the literal city of Jerusalem in the Middle East.
> 
> andreas.



andreas- consider the context in Luke..this passage comes as an answer to the question,

5Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6"As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down." 
7"Teacher," they asked, "*when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they about to take place?*" -luk 21:5-7

The question is when will Jerusalem be destroyed, *not* when will the church suffer! Luk. 21:20 is part of the answer. also Jesus gave clear indications that he was speak about a 1st century event when he said,

32"I tell you the truth, *this generation* will certainly not pass away until *all these things* have happened. 33Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." Luk. 21:32-33

Jesus appeals to his own trustworthiness when he declares that these events are to happen within the lifetime of his disciples.


----------



## andreas

"This generation" ,is the generation of evil,NOT ONLY IN THOSE DAYS ,but through out time.

"And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. 
Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. 
O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 
A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things." Mathew 12:32-35

Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 
Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:" Matthew 23:32-34
andreas.


----------



## cornelius vantil

andreas- the verses you quoted Jesus is talking about the Jews of the first century not to the entile interadvental peroid.
take matt 23 in it context

29"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous . 30And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 31So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers! 33"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.- Matt. 23:29-36 

who is Jesus addressing here? who are the "generation that experience this judgment? according to the context they are
1. teachers of the law/pharisees
2. they built the tombs of the prophets
3. descendants of those who murdered the prophets

the entire context is Jesus condemning 1st Isreal and the judgment that is coming on them. i do not believe it is exegetically correct to say that Jesus is talking about the interadvental age here. this is the biggest problem with the historicist position, it ingnores the original audience and how they would have understood the passage.

[Edited on 4-28-2005 by cornelius vantil]


----------



## Roldan

Herminio, Your doing a great jod at defending the preterist position and exegetically showing that we must look at scripture from a historical context.

Jerusalem is the Church? hmmm thats weird to me, I always thought that ISRAEL was the church, but a city symbolizing the church?


----------



## andreas

When Jesus says, "this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled," He is talking to all of the Church throughout time,not just the apostles 2000 years ago.The bible is written for our benefit .

'All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine,for reproof,for correction,for instruction in righteousness".2 Timothy,3:16.

When He says "this generation" ,He means this evil generation,not only then, but for all time.Do you think we do not have an evil generation now?Should we call our evil generation by another name?Evil is evil,no mater what time frame you look at.

andreas.


----------



## cornelius vantil

andreas- look at how Jesus useres those terms he is applying it to a spefic context. and further more since i believe that eschatalogicl kingdom of God has broken into history and is progressing and while we are in the already/not period of history i would have a hard time describing this as solely evil. so in a sence yes and in a sence no. but i would never use the words in passages quote it to describe this present time we are in..he was speaking to particular people about events they would see in their life time. i am waiting for exegetical rebuttal.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Maybe I'm in the minority on this board, being partial-preterist, but is it not a hasty generalization fallacy to equate _every single instance_ of the word "temple" with referring to only one definition or idea, rather than using context to determine the most plausible meaning? It seems to me that in the contexts of the "man of sin" verses, the obvious interpretation would be the _actual_ Temple, and a spiritualized interpretation would make little sense.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> When Jesus says, "this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled," He is talking to all of the Church throughout time,not just the apostles 2000 years ago.The bible is written for our benefit .
> 
> 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine,for reproof,for correction,for instruction in righteousness".2 Timothy,3:16.
> 
> When He says "this generation" ,He means this evil generation,not only then, but for all time.Do you think we do not have an evil generation now?Should we call our evil generation by another name?Evil is evil,no mater what time frame you look at.
> 
> andreas.



Just because Scripture can be useful and applicable at all times does not mean we can re-interpret or force interpretations on verses that are completely foreign to their historical context.


----------



## sastark

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Maybe I'm in the minority on this board, being partial-preterist, but is it not a hasty generalization fallacy to equate _every single instance_ of the word "temple" with referring to only one definition or idea, rather than using context to determine the most plausible meaning? It seems to me that in the contexts of the "man of sin" verses, the obvious interpretation would be the _actual_ Temple, and a spiritualized interpretation would make little sense.



Gabriel- Why do you think Paul would call a physical building in Jerusalem, the temple "of God", since God no longer dwelt in it?


----------



## cornelius vantil

all i can say gabriel is


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> Gabriel- Why do you think Paul would call a physical building in Jerusalem, the temple "of God", since God no longer dwelt in it?



Because it was the temple of God. I don't think Paul is trying to make a theological statement about the location of God's Holy Spirit at that point in time, I think he is, like Christ, warning the Christians against the great destruction of Jerusalem that is to come so that they may endure and save themselves. I don't know, this is just the simplest and most logical interpretation from where I'm sitting. Not to mention the fact that, if otherwise, Christ is a false prophet and liar, but that's another topic...


----------



## sastark

Gab- I'm not talking about any other prophetic passage besides 2 Thess 2. In this particular instance, why do we assume that Paul is referring to the temple building in Jerusalem? I mean, we can even seperate the discussion of that question from any eschatological meaning.

Regardless of any eschatological meaning, why would Paul refer to a building as the temple of God after Christ had been crucified? 

What is the meaning of the veil being torn, if this physical building was still the temple of God?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Matthew Henry:



> 2. The characters here given, v. 4. (1.) That he opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or is worshipped; and thus have the bishops of Rome not only opposed God's authority, and that of the civil magistrates, who are called gods, but have exalted themselves above God and earthly governors, in demanding greater regard to their commands than to the commands of God or the magistrate. (2.) As God, he sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. As God was in the temple of old, and worshipped there, and is in and with his church now, so the antichrist here mentioned is some usurper of God's authority in the Christian church, who claims divine honours; and to whom can this better apply than to the bishops of Rome, to whom the most blasphemous titles have been given, as Dominus Deus noster papa--Our Lord God the pope; Deus alter in terrÃ¢--Another God on earth; Idem est dominium Dei et papÃ¦--The dominion of God and the pope is the same?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

John Calvin:



> In the temple of God. By this one term there is a sufficient refutation of the error, nay more, the stupidity of those who reckon the Pope to be Vicar of Christ, on the ground that he has his seat in the Church, in whatever manner he may conduct himself; for Paul places Antichrist nowhere else than in the very sanctuary of God. For this is not a foreign, but a domestic enemy, who opposes Christ under the very name of Christ. But it is asked, how the Church is represented as the den of so many superstitions, while it was destined to be the pillar of the truth? (1 Timothy 3:15.) I answer, that it is thus represented, not on the ground of its retaining all the qualities of the Church, but because it has something of it remaining. I accordingly acknowledge, that that is the temple of God in which the Pope bears rule, but at the same time profaned by innumerable sacrileges.


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Matthew Henry:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The characters here given, v. 4. (1.) That he opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or is worshipped; and thus have the bishops of Rome not only opposed God's authority, and that of the civil magistrates, who are called gods, but have exalted themselves above God and earthly governors, in demanding greater regard to their commands than to the commands of God or the magistrate. (2.) As God, he sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. As God was in the temple of old, and worshipped there, and is in and with his church now, so the antichrist here mentioned is some usurper of God's authority in the Christian church, who claims divine honours; and to whom can this better apply than to the bishops of Rome, to whom the most blasphemous titles have been given, as Dominus Deus noster papa--Our Lord God the pope; Deus alter in terrÃ¢--Another God on earth; Idem est dominium Dei et papÃ¦--The dominion of God and the pope is the same?
Click to expand...


You are *KIDDING* me! The pope has claimed those titles?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I think if I was living in that day and time, I would interpret it the same. However, I don't live in that day and time.


----------



## sastark

Gab- that is why we must not interpret Scripture based on perceived mindsets of indivuduals who lived thousands of years ago, but rather we must interpret Scripture with Scripture. Which leads me back to my question of, why would Paul call a physical building the "temple of God" if he taught at other times that the church is the temple of God?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Because he wasn't referring to it in that context.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Matthew Henry:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The characters here given, v. 4. (1.) That he opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or is worshipped; and thus have the bishops of Rome not only opposed God's authority, and that of the civil magistrates, who are called gods, but have exalted themselves above God and earthly governors, in demanding greater regard to their commands than to the commands of God or the magistrate. (2.) As God, he sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. As God was in the temple of old, and worshipped there, and is in and with his church now, so the antichrist here mentioned is some usurper of God's authority in the Christian church, who claims divine honours; and to whom can this better apply than to the bishops of Rome, to whom the most blasphemous titles have been given, as Dominus Deus noster papa--Our Lord God the pope; Deus alter in terrÃ¢--Another God on earth; Idem est dominium Dei et papÃ¦--The dominion of God and the pope is the same?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are *KIDDING* me! The pope has claimed those titles?
Click to expand...


Yepper, here is some supporting documentary evidence:



> Note...Since this point	has recently been questioned, we add some corrobative evidence. The first paragraph is taken from Woods, Our Priceless Heritage, 35 f. "œHas not the Church of Rome been guilty of this great sin in paying to the Pope the reverence due to God along? It has been guilty of this great sin. In a gloss of the Roman Canon Law the words "˜our Lord God the Pope´ appear. It declares that "œto believe that our Lord God the Pope has not power to decree as he has decreed is heretical." Extravagantes of Pope John XXII, Cum Inter, Tit. XIV, cap. IV, Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium, Paris, 1685"¦Writers on the Canon Law have said: "˜The Pope and God are the same; so he has all power in heaven and earth.´ (Barclay, Cap. XXVII, p.218.) Pope Nicholas I (died 867) declared, "œthe appellation of God was confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who being God, cannot be judged by man." (Labb. Dist. 96, Can. 7.) The Doge of Venice declared that he would honor Clement VII "˜as a deity on earth´. (Pastor, History of the Popes, Vol. IX, p.246.) The Pope on August	22, 1929, referring to the political troubles in Malta, which had been caused by the unjustifiable demands of the Roman Church authorities there, declared to Maltese citizens that "˜to be with the Bishops and the Pope meant to be with Jesus Christ, of whom they must think when they looked at a Bishop, and that whosoever is not under the protection of the Pope shall be overcome!´ Pope Leo XIII blasphemously said: "œI occupy the place of Almighty God on earth!" (See also Dwight, Theology Explained and Defended, IV, 10.) Calov also has a paragraph which is short and to the point (Biblia illustrata, N.T., Tom. 11:908): Quod in temple Dei vel Eccledi homo ille peccati facturus erat secundum Apostolum. Qui in jure Canonico Dominus Deus noster vocatur, canon, Satis, dist. 96 gloss. ad extr. cum inter. In concilio Lateranensi sess. IX in Papa implendum dicitur illud: Adorebunt eum omnes reges terrae, gentes servient ei. Seas I dictum est Pontifici: Tibi data est omnis potestas in caelo et in terra. Quod etiam exstat in Ceremonii libr I, tit. VII, sect. 7. In eodem concilio sees. VI Leo X dictus est Leo de trobo Juda, et radix David. Bellarminus praefatic in III. Controv. Gener. Pontifici applicat illud Esa. XXVIII, Ecce ego ponam. in fundamentis Sion lapidem. angularem. etc. Franciscus Panigorola dixit 1, II. Part I. Papam esse unum illum Dominum, de quo Paulus loquitur Eph. 4. In Canonistarum libris passim legitur, quod Papa habeat coeleste arbitrium, quod habeat idem Deo consistorium, idem cum Christo tribunal, quod potestas ejus se extendat ad coelestia, terrestria, et infernalia, quod Papae commissae Sit tota spiritualis machina, quod Papa sit omnia ... The passages referred to by Calov as occurring in the decrees of the councils, appear in Mansi Amplissima Collectio (32: col. 803. 892. 924); Fifth Lateran Council, 1512?1517: Sed ne fleveris, filia Siont qui,a eace venit Leo de tribu Juda Radix David: Ecce suscitavit tibi Deus salvatorem, qui salvabit te manibus vastantium, et populum Dei de manu persequentium liberabit. Te, Leo, beatissime, salvatorem venturum speravimus ... In te uno, vero atque legitimo Christi et Dei vicario, propheticum illud debuerit rursus impleri: Adorebunt eum. omnes reges terrae, omnes gentes servient ei ... Quapropter Bernardus ad Eugenium tamquam ad summum hierarchicum in caelo ecclesiae virum, in quo erat onnis potestas supra omnes potestates tam caeli quam terrae, recte scripserat: Tibi data est omnis potestas; in qut totum dicit, nihil excludit. (This section is taken from an oration of Archbishop Stephen of Torcelli in honor of Leo X.) Practically every volume of Mans offers additional evidence of the fact that divine honors were offered to the Pope and received by him. The closest parallel to this situation is found in Acts 12:21?23.
> 
> Source: http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/K/KretzmannShibboleth/KretzmannShibboleth.rtf



[Edited on 4-29-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## sastark

Can you offer any proof for that?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

You say potato, I say potato. That's about all the proof I think we can find to assert either way. I simply don't see it your way. *shrug* This is why there are so many eschatological camps, in my opinion.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> You say potato, I say potato. That's about all the proof I think we can find to assert either way. I simply don't see it your way. *shrug* This is why there are so many eschatological camps, in my opinion.



I agree to a large extent. That is why I am not dogmatic about eschatological matters _within the framework of the Reformed Confessions_. The reason that I got involved in this in the first place is because I have often seen preterists be severely dogmatic about preterism (not that I ascribe this to Hermenio).

I find that ironic, since preterism (which I think has some excellent points) is completely dependent on the *highly disputed* point of the date of Revelation.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I see the Pope of Rome as an antiChrist, but not *the* one referred to in the book of Revelation. There's a difference between a proper exegetical interpretation of Scripture, in its original historical and biblical context, and the extent of that particular text's application.

John was writing to Christians who were being burned alive to light dinner parties for Emperor Nero, a man who forced all Roman citizens to worship his image and call him Lord.

Revelation, if not applicable to the churches it was actually written to (those in Asia Minor who were *heavily* persecuted in the first century as a result of Emperor worship), is a seemingly irrelevant portion of Scripture.

The Bible can be relevant and helpful to us believers for all times *without* directly speaking about situations we are facing, because we can always relate in some ways to the situations the Bible was originally speaking about.

That said, eschatology is not a point of division, in my opinion. Unless you're premil


----------



## andreas

Herminio,
There are only two generations that span the time dimension,the generation of evil and the generation of God. 

"And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet". Luke 11:2

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:" 1 Peter 2:9
In Luke 11:2 ,am i not correct in saying that the aposles were standing there with Christ as he said those words?If so ,were they part of "THIS EVIL GENERATION"?God forbid. Jesus never said, "you baddies are an evil generation with the exception of the goodies". No ,He did not specify,He called it "this evil generation",which existed at His time, before and after His time.
andreas.


----------



## cornelius vantil

andreas- context context context brother, who is the "this generation"? it was jews to whom Jesus was speaking to. forgive me if i sound argumenitive (i admit i have much sanctification left) but we can all proof text till we are blue in the face, that is why we sit back and ask how would the original audience understood these passsages. contextually when Jesus speaks about "this generation" or "this evil generation" he is refering to the first century isreal. it was they who would recieve the greater judgment (and they did in 70ad) b/c the rejercted the greater Jonah and Solomon (cf. matt. 12:38-42) the did not recognize the day of God's visitation so their beloved city was destroyed with her children (cf. Luk.19:41-44) they were to weep for thier children due to the judgment that was coming (Luk 23:26-31) i can go on and on...to say that these passages refer to the interadvental age is to rip it out of its context in order to make it fit into a system. i am strong supporter of the already/not yet structure of biblical eschatology but i will not force every passage into a framework when the passage does not call for it. we all need to be careful about how we are letting our systems dictate our exegesis


----------



## andreas

"That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;" 
From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.Luke 11:50-51


You keep telling us that "this generation" applies to the scribes of that time,although that is your own interpretation,as the scriptures say nothing of the sort.

*If that is the case ,then why should the people standing there would be responsible for the deaths of all the prophets that existed years before Christ?*
I am not, and you are not, responsible for other people's sins."Every man shall be put to death for his own sin". Deuteronomy 24:16

andreas.


----------



## cornelius vantil

you miss the point by rejecting Jesus the true prophet that all the ot prophets pointed to they in fact reject the message of them all. remember Jesus told them that by rejecting him they rejected moses and the prophets.


----------



## andreas

You insist that ,"This generation" means those living there at the time  .If that is the case, then none of the Apostles,or any of the chosen generation standing there , could be saved, because Christ said that generation couldn't.
andreas.


----------



## cornelius vantil

no, in the olivet discourse Jesus said he will preserve his elect


----------



## andreas

So "this generation" by your own admission, is not the chosen generation ,but the generation of evil.

andreas.


----------



## cornelius vantil

no "This generation" are the jews living in the first century. Jesus in the olivet discourse said that he would preserve the elect living dur that time by shortening the days.


----------



## andreas

This generation  shall not pass,till all these things ARE FULFILLED.Matthew 24:34

What are these things?


" And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
All these are the beginning of sorrows.
Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

Mathew 24:4-14

Are you honestly telling us that all these things were fulfilled in 70 A.D?

May be according to you but not Matthew 24.

andreas.


----------



## cornelius vantil

yes all those things occured by 70 if you would like we can go point by point

1. persecution: read acts and the epistles
2. wars and rumor of wars: roman civil war and the war of the jews occured at this time
3. the great famine in jerusalem
4. earthquackes recorded in gospel and acts
5. gospel preached to the whole world see Col.1:5-6, 23; Rom. 1:8

hope this helps


----------



## andreas

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors."

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Matthew 24:29-34


HAS THE SUN BEEN DARKENED?HAS THE MOON STOPPED GIVING HER LIGHT?HAVE THE STARS FALLEN FROM HEAVEN?HAS ANYONE SEEN THE SON OF MAN COMING IN THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN WITH GREAT POWER AND GLORY?HAVE THE ELECT BEEN GATHERED BY THE ANGELS FROM THE FOUR WINDS?

May be Josephus has seen all these things, and passed the information to the Preterists.The bible tells us that these things will happen at the end ,not in 70 A.D.

andreas.


----------



## Preach

Andreas,
Hey brother. I don't want you to feel like we're all ganging up on you. I have been observing the thread for some time. About six months ago, I began a serious study of eschatology, to include the millennial positions and also the book of the "Revelation of Jesus Christ".

I think I know somewhat how you feel regarding your questions about Matthew 24. I am a partial preterist. But I can honestly say that I was absolutely clueless (not on the millennial differences) regarding the book of the "Revelation of Jesus Christ". I used to ask the same questions.

I would highly encourage you to get the 22 audio tape series by Ken Gentry on the book of Revelation. But at least go to American Vision and get the Gary Demar 4 audio cassettes volume entitled: "Smoking out the Dispensationalists". Trust me, there is a lot of great info packed in those 8 hours.

For example, read Matthew 21-23 to get the context. Jesus is building up to Matthew 24. He cleanses the Temple because He saw no fruit. He curses the fig tree because He can find no fruit. He gives the parable of the landowner. He says that the kingdom will be taken from the nation of Israel and given to a new nation. 

He gives the parable of the marriage feast which ends with the city set on fire (it happened in AD70). He speaks of the 7 woes. He is consistently speaking to them (the second person plural). For example "This generation" in Matt. 23:36, Matt. 11:16, Matt 12:41. In Matt. 23:37-39 the "house" that is referred to is the Temple that was then standing. This background flows nicely into Matt. 24.

Up until now Jesus has not referenced the second coming. The point of reference for the disciples was the Old Testament. And the type of comings of God in the Old Testament were judement comings (ex. Isa. 19:1; 26:21; Micah 1:3). Read Rev. 2:3, 16. These are judgment comings of Christ. Did you know that there are at least five, if not six different types of "comings of Christ" spoken about in the Bible?

Perhaps we could interact point by point regarding Matt. 24. For example, you raised the issue of v. 29 regarding the sun, moon and stars. If I'm not mistaken, that is an allusion to an Old Testament passage. Do you know what passage or verse is being quoted? 

What if you were to find out that this is typical language that is used by prophets in the Old Testament? Imagine that prophets had a tool bag. Each time they wanted to say something, they would reach into the tool bag and employ the exact tool for the job.

Our Lord reaches into His tool bag (reaches back into the Old Testament) and uses precise Old Testament language.

Have you ever heard of "deescalation language"? It's when the prophets describe the doom and judgment (the fall of a nation). This is not to be taken literally. Why? Because it was used by the prophets in the Old Testament. These things happened then (when governments and nations were judged or overthrown). 

Think about the symbols on the flags of different nations. A sun or a moon is on many nations' flags. And stars represent ascendancy. For example, we often say "her star is rising", if a person is on the ascendancy. We call them "movie stars". Think about Joseph's dream. What symbol represented his father Jacob? I think it was a sun. What about his mother? I think it was the moon. What symbol represented his brothers? I think it was stars. There is specific Old Testament referneces (I have to find the passages) that Christ is alluding to. He uses the exact symbols.

So, we have to interpret Scripture with Scripture. If the Lord Jesus wants to reach back into the Old Testament prophets and use deescalation language to describe a soon coming event, we dare not take it to mean something else.

I hope this gives some light upon some of the background context to Matt. 24 and espec. v. 29.

Perhaps we could take the entire chapter verse by verse.

Brother, for whatever its worth. I know that my understanding on the covenantal aspect of the Scriptures truly broadened when I saw the book of the "Revelation of Jesus Christ" open up before my eyes. It is to be seen in a covenantal framework. Christ did "come" in ADA 70 to bring covenantal judgment against His adulterous wife Israel. The Old Covenant system had to be dealt with (animal sacrifices, priests still sacrificing and standing, the Temple etc). 

I look forward to interacting. Thanks brother.

"In Christ",
Bobby


----------



## cornelius vantil

Bobby all i can is  could not have said it better myself
andreas, look at micah 1:3-4, "Look! the LORD is coming from his dwelling place; he comes down and treads the high places of the earth. the moutains melt beneath him and the valleys split apart"
micah describing the judge that will befall Samaria and Jerusalem for thier sin (see 1:1) did the Lord physically come down to judge them?


----------



## andreas

Matthew 24 is not a prophecy cocerning the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD,but a prophecy concerning the end of the world when Christ returns.
andreas.


----------



## cornelius vantil

andreas- if you believe that exegetically prove that from the text. i believe that i have given a good case fpr a 70ad fullfillment from the text and also the theme of judgment found in the synoptics.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> HAS THE SUN BEEN DARKENED?HAS THE MOON STOPPED GIVING HER LIGHT?HAVE THE STARS FALLEN FROM HEAVEN?HAS ANYONE SEEN THE SON OF MAN COMING IN THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN WITH GREAT POWER AND GLORY?HAVE THE ELECT BEEN GATHERED BY THE ANGELS FROM THE FOUR WINDS?


Andreas,
I agree with you that this hasn't literally (physically) happened yet. A lot of people I know hold your position on this particular part of Matthew 24. They look at the scriptures dispensationally, which I'm fairly certain you don't.

If I'm not mistaken, many of them don't necessarily take the stars as being literal stars, but rather increased meteor activity or something. To me, this doesn't seem to be consistent. Stars to me means stars. If literal stars start falling from heaven, the effects on earth would be catastrophic, especially the closer they get to the earth. What are your thoughts about the stars falling from heaven? Do you correlate the stars falling with what's described in 2 Peter?

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.


----------



## cornelius vantil

why does it have to happen literally (physically) that is *not* how this imagery was used in the o.t.


----------



## turmeric

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> Do you correlate the stars falling with what's described in 2 Peter?
> 
> 2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.



I do.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by cornelius vantil_
> why does it have to happen literally (physically) that is *not* how this imagery was used in the o.t.


I don't think it has to happen literally (physically). I'm just trying to understand Andreas' position.

I've mentioned it before (maybe on this board) that I believe much of Matthew 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD. I can't answer all the objections, but that's the direction I'm leaning. 

I've heard some say that when Jesus was talking with his disciples about the beautiful stones of the temple being thrown down, that he was speaking of something much more spiritually significant than the destruction of the literal temple. It seems, in my mind anyway, to downplay the significance of the destruction of the temple, especially as we transition from the OT to the NT, from the sacrificial system to Jesus' fulfillment of the sacrificial system. In some ways, the temple destruction seems like a pivotal point in history.


----------



## cornelius vantil

you are right. the destruction of the temple is a key event redemptive-history right along with pentacost. it marked then end of Jewish dispensation. it was the vindication of gospel message rejected by isreal. unfortunatly the eschatalogical implications of this event has been missed by many


----------



## sastark

"it marked then end of Jewish dispensation"

Herminio- could you please clarify what you mean by that?


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> Do you correlate the stars falling with what's described in 2 Peter?
> 
> 2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do.
Click to expand...

Stars falling towards the earth would certainly cause the elements to melt with fervent heat.

Have you given much thought to what's been said about Jesus using the terms sun, moon, and stars to refer to something that's not literal, from an OT passage? If so, which passage do you (or anybody) think would have the most relevance to what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 24? The Genesis 37 passage kind of seems to fit. I wonder if the language used in Rev 12 and Matthew 24 refer to the same OT passage (assuming they do)

Here are the verses I found when I did a search in the OT and the NT:

(Gen 37:9 KJV) And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.

(Deu 4:19 KJV) And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.

(Psa 148:3 KJV) Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.

(Ecc 12:2 KJV) While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain:

(Isa 13:10 KJV) For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

(Jer 31:35 KJV) Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:

(Eze 32:7 KJV) And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.

(Joe 2:10 KJV) The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining:

(Joe 3:15 KJV) The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining.

(Mat 24:29 KJV) Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

(Luk 21:25 KJV) And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

(1Co 15:41 KJV) There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

(Rev 8:12 KJV) And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.

(Rev 12:1 KJV) And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:


----------



## cornelius vantil

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> "it marked then end of Jewish dispensation"
> 
> Herminio- could you please clarify what you mean by that?



the "jewish dispensation" is the adminstration of the old covenant with types and shadow (cerimonial rituals)


----------



## sastark

Herminio- I'm not trying to jump to conclusions or falsely accuse you, so please realize that I am only trying to clarify what you are saying...

Are you saying that the old covenant was still in place until the desctruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD?


----------



## cornelius vantil

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> Herminio- I'm not trying to jump to conclusions or falsely accuse you, so please realize that I am only trying to clarify what you are saying...
> 
> Are you saying that the old covenant was still in place until the desctruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD?



sastark, the writer of hebrews says the following, 

"13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."
heb. 8:13

notice that he said that old covenant "will soon disappear". from the writer's perspective he is looking forward to final removing of the old covenant order. this was done in 70ad when the last remnants of that order...the temple with its priesthood and offerings were done away with.


----------



## sastark

Here's what Calvin said about that verse:



> 13. _In that he saith, A new, etc._ From the fact of one covenant being established, he infers the subversion of the other; and by calling it the old covenant, he assumes that it was to be abrogated; for what is old tends to a decay. Besides, as the new is substituted, it *must be that the former has come to an end*; for the second, as it has been said, is of another character. *But if the whole dispensation of Moses, as far as it was opposed to the dispensation of Christ, has passed away, then the ceremonies also must have ceased.*



So, then, in order for the New Covenant to be "new" the old covenant had to be "old". 

I suppose what I'm trying to get at is: Do you believe that sacrifices in the Temple in Jerusalem were an acceptable way to worship God, even after the death and resurrection of Christ?

Again, not trying to jump to conclusions, only trying to clarify.


----------



## cornelius vantil

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> Here's what Calvin said about that verse:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 13. _In that he saith, A new, etc._ From the fact of one covenant being established, he infers the subversion of the other; and by calling it the old covenant, he assumes that it was to be abrogated; for what is old tends to a decay. Besides, as the new is substituted, it *must be that the former has come to an end*; for the second, as it has been said, is of another character. *But if the whole dispensation of Moses, as far as it was opposed to the dispensation of Christ, has passed away, then the ceremonies also must have ceased.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, then, in order for the New Covenant to be "new" the old covenant had to be "old".
> 
> I suppose what I'm trying to get at is: Do you believe that sacrifices in the Temple in Jerusalem were an acceptable way to worship God, even after the death and resurrection of Christ?
> 
> Again, not trying to jump to conclusions, only trying to clarify.
Click to expand...


no no no!!!!! what i am saying is that coming of Christ made those sacrifices "obsolete" (ie they are no longer good or acceptable) but the old covenant did not finally disappear till 70ad. useing the writer of hebrews language. hope that clarifies that


----------



## sastark

So, then, what was going on in the temple between Christ's death and resurrection and 70 AD? If it wasn't acceptable worship of God (which we both agree it was not), then what was it?


----------



## cornelius vantil

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> So, then, what was going on in the temple between Christ's death and resurrection and 70 AD? If it wasn't acceptable worship of God (which we both agree it was not), then what was it?



well i would say that the time inbetween was a "transition" when the realities of the new covenant were being realized in the covenant community. you see in acts in a few areas..the events surounding conversion of cornelius, jerusalem council, ect. i hope that helps, i am not 100% sure how best to describe that period so i apologize for any vaguness


----------



## sastark

Well, what I'm getting at is this: If it wasn't acceptable worship to God, then, Biblically, it could only be one other thing: acursed idolatry. Those priests who were offering sacrifices were not worshipping God, but were instead blaspheming Christ.

So, how is it that Paul would call the place were this blasphemous mockery of the sacrifice of Christ of the cross was occurring, the "temple of God"?


----------



## cornelius vantil

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> Well, what I'm getting at is this: If it wasn't acceptable worship to God, then, Biblically, it could only be one other thing: acursed idolatry. Those priests who were offering sacrifices were not worshipping God, but were instead blaspheming Christ.
> 
> So, how is it that Paul would call the place were this blasphemous mockery of the sacrifice of Christ of the cross was occurring, the "temple of God"?



he was using a term that was understood by the first century reader as refering to the temple. john does the same thing in rev.11 while i agree that those where *not* at all offering sacrificed accpetable to God in any sence, yet i do not conclude the designation "temple of God" cannot refer to jewish temple Jesus call the temple "my fathers house" yet said it was "desolate" and "den of thieves" i believe the apostles where boring the same theme


----------



## sastark

You *assume* that that is what the first century reader would understand Pauls meaning to be, but the first century reader would have also read Paul's other works where he clearly states that the Church is the temple of God.

Again, I must emphasize the need to interpret Scripture with Scripture, not the percieved mindset of a first-century Christian.


----------



## cornelius vantil

that is why i provided rev.11 and luk.21 as support for my thesis. i have not seen any exegetical response to what i said just the line that since Paul calls the church the "temple" in other places that means he is refering to it here, but you have not compared 2 thes. with the other eschatalogical passages that Paul is alluding to..ie the olivet discourse. i have given exegetical reasons for the conclusion i have made. i realize that i bring assumptions to the text, but we all do that. but i have tried in this thread to show my conclusions from the text themselves and not rely on mere assertions.


----------



## andreas

Quote:"you are right. the destruction of the temple is a key event redemptive-history right along with pentacost. it marked then end of Jewish dispensation."

The end of National Israel as the external corporate representation of the kingdom of God occured on the cross.Before the cross, sacrifices pointed to Jesus,the Lamb,who was sacrificed for our sins.When Jesus was crucified,the veil was rent.Matthew 27:51.The temple was no longer holy,and Jerusalem was no longer a holy city.This was the end of the era of National Israel,at the cross ,not 70 A.D.

andreas.


----------



## cornelius vantil

brother form one that constantly says all i do is make assertions, you have not provided and exegetical defense of your claim is the case nor have offered counter exegesis to my work that was posted here. you are right just making statements is not enough, please offer some proof, lets engage the bible


----------



## andreas

Herminio,you tell us that you have proved conclusively that the prophecy of Matthew 24 came to fruition in 70 AD,when Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus.(The gospel according to Josephus).That can not be.Verse 27 says,

"For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

In verse 29 to 30 God ,and not Josephus says,

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

These things have not happened.Therefore, it is not a prophecy about 70 AD,but about the end of the world,the second coming of Jesus.

andreas.


----------



## andreas

Herminio,let us look at Matthew 24,

We are told that the sun is darkened and moon does not give her light and stars fall from heaven.This is judgment day language and the destruction of the universe.,nothing to do with 70 AD.

" And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places".Revelation 6:12-14

andreas.


----------



## andreas

Bob,

The sun is darkened and the moon does not give her light,suggest end times.The sun and moon regulate time,so when they fail to function,time has finished, and we move into eternity.When there is no more time,the end is here and Jesus has returned.

andreas.


----------



## andreas

Bob,
Regarding your question on 2 Peter 3:10-13,

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

We again see judgment day language.The old universe has to be destroyed, for it is under the curse of sin.Not only man was cursed but also the universe.We read in Romans 8,"the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain".

Matthew 24, 2 Peter 3,and Revelation 6, all talk judgment day, the end of the world, and the second coming of our Jesus.Nothing to do with 70 AD,or the Josephus gospel.

andreas.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> Bob,
> The sun is darkened and the moon does not give her light,suggest end times.The sun and moon regulate time,so when they fail to function,time has finished, and we move into eternity.When there is no more time,the end is here and Jesus has returned.


Andreas,
Thanks for the clarification. 

I've never heard that interpretation before, but associating the sun, moon, and stars with time seems like a valid alternative to the literal interpretation.

Gen 1:14-16 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 

Its used similarly in the OT, especially in Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Joel. I've not taken the time yet to study those passages closely, perhaps somebody else has. Do these passages all point to the end of time itself just before the judgment, or are they applied to actual historical events in the OT (perhaps both)?


----------



## kevin.carroll

Andreas, I have to tell you, your current avitar is a good deal more disturbing than the last!


----------



## cornelius vantil

ok andreas you brought up the apocalyptic language found in the nt and say that they could not be used to describe the fall of jerusalem but have to be refering to the end of history. while it is possible that you are correct, i would suggest we look at other places in scripture where similar language is used and see if this thesis hold any water.

1. here is how Isa. describes the fall of bablyon

"9 See, the day of the LORD is coming 
"”a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger"” 
to make the land desolate 
and destroy the sinners within it. 

10 The stars of heaven and their constellations 
will not show their light. 
The rising sun will be darkened 
and the moon will not give its light." Isa.13:9-10

2. the fall of Edom

"4 All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved 
and the sky rolled up like a scroll; 
all the starry host will fall 
like withered leaves from the vine, 
like shriveled figs from the fig tree. 

5 My sword has drunk its fill in the heavens; 
see, it descends in judgment on Edom, 
the people I have totally destroyed." Isa.34:4-5

3. the fall of egypt

" 7 When I snuff you out, I will cover the heavens 
and darken their stars; 
I will cover the sun with a cloud, 
and the moon will not give its light. 

8 All the shining lights in the heavens 
I will darken over you; 
I will bring darkness over your land, 
declares the Sovereign LORD." Ezk. 32:7-8

in these and in many other passages the fall of kingdoms are described in apocolyptic language. so now the question is would 1st century jews have understood the apocolyptic language that Jesus used any diffrent than how it was used in the rest of scripture? i would argue no just as the prophets used this type of language to describes the fall of gentile kingdoms Jesus used it to described the fall of jerusalem.


----------



## sastark

> _Originally posted by cornelius vantil_
> that is why i provided rev.11 and luk.21 as support for my thesis. i have not seen any exegetical response to what i said just the line that since Paul calls the church the "temple" in other places that means he is refering to it here, but you have not compared 2 thes. with the other eschatalogical passages that Paul is alluding to..ie the olivet discourse. i have given exegetical reasons for the conclusion i have made. i realize that i bring assumptions to the text, but we all do that. but i have tried in this thread to show my conclusions from the text themselves and not rely on mere assertions.



What my assertation is, is this: That after the death and resurrection of Christ, the Temple of God was the church. No longer was the physical building in Jerusalem to be considered the "temple of God" because God no longer dwelt in it. The New Covenant had been established, and God now dwelt among his people, not in temples made with hands (Acts 7:48 and Acts 17:24).

Citing Rev. 11 as proof doesn't hold water, because, again, there is no Scriptural evidence that John sees the physical temple in Jerusalem - this is another assumption you are reading into the text.

Why do you assume that Paul is alluding to other eschatological texts, but yet you do not assume that he is alluding to other ecclesiological texts (such as Eph. 2:19-22)?

And lastly, do we have any examples in Scripture of God residing in two temples simultaneously? Because, what you are saying is that both the building in Jerusalem and the church were temples of God, at the same time. How can this be?


----------



## cornelius vantil

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> What my assertation is, is this: That after the death and resurrection of Christ, the Temple of God was the church. No longer was the physical building in Jerusalem to be considered the "temple of God" because God no longer dwelt in it. The New Covenant had been established, and God now dwelt among his people, not in temples made with hands (Acts 7:48 and Acts 17:24).



while agree with you here, it does not nesecarrily follow that the phrase "temple of God" cannot refer to jerusalem. that is just an asertion



> Citing Rev. 11 as proof doesn't hold water, because, again, there is no Scriptural evidence that John sees the physical temple in Jerusalem - this is another assumption you are reading into the text.



i compared rev.11 with luk.21 where they are speaking about the same event. then show that Jesus in this context was answering a spefic question "when will the temple be destroyed" *not* when will the final judgment be. he says when you see jerusalem surounded by armies you will know it is near...hmm sounds alot like rev.11. then he further enphasises the fact "this generation" will not pass away before it happens. i am waiting for an exegetical rebuttal for understanding "This generation" as meaning anything other than the contemporary 1st century audience.



> Why do you assume that Paul is alluding to other eschatological texts, but yet you do not assume that he is alluding to other ecclesiological texts (such as Eph. 2:19-22)?



b/c of the particular language and events surounding 2 thes.2 that are uniquely paraell to the olivet discourse and revelation. i believe these passages speak more to the understanding of 2 thes. than eph.2:19-22



> And lastly, do we have any examples in Scripture of God residing in two temples simultaneously? Because, what you are saying is that both the building in Jerusalem and the church were temples of God, at the same time. How can this be?



where did i say that God dwells in 2 temples?!?!?!?! thinking that b/c i say that the apostles can refer to jerusalem as the "Temple of God" will mean that God dwells in 2 temples is an assumption that *you* bring to the text. it is not a problem for me. i have not nor have i ever believed something like that.


----------



## andreas

Kevin,

For obvious reasons the beast is called,

Mantis religiosa

andreas.


----------



## Wthompson

Good Work, Seth.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Thomas Manton on The Man of Sin, The Son of Perdition described in 2 Thess. 2.3

Thomas Manton's 18 Sermons on 2 Thess. 2

[Edited on 8-8-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## non dignus

*The \'temple\' is in his mind.*

Sastark,
I always took 'sitting in the temple of God' as being subjective to the 'man of sin'. Whether or not he sets up a grand edifice, the individual thinks or acts like he is God and thinks he is sitting in the temple of God.


----------

