How do preterists defend 2 Thessalonians being written before Nero?

[fab413]

Cards on the table: I am a Postmillenialist (mostly... maybe 51% Postmil, 49% Amil) who is a partial preterist. But I read this recently from Sam Storms that got me thinking about a point I didn't have a good response to:

"We know with some measure of confidence that Paul wrote 2 Thess in either 50 or 51, some four years before Nero came to power. Yet Paul clearly indicates that both he and the Thessalonians knew who the man of lawlessness was. This forces the preterist to conclude that by some special revelation God had made known his identiy to the apostle, for there was no other way that Paul could have known that a man who, in 50, was still nearly four years from the throne..."

Keith Mathison mentions Nero being "restrained" per 2 Thess in 50-51 AD... so it seems to line up with the passage, but he doesn't address the area Storms critiques.

Any thoughts? I'm less curious about arguments against the partial preterist view, and more about which arguments you've heard against what Storm said.

 

[arapahoepark]

Cards on the table: I am a Postmillenialist (mostly... maybe 51% Postmil, 49% Amil) who is a partial preterist. But I read this recently from Sam Storms that got me thinking about a point I didn't have a good response to:



Keith Mathison mentions Nero being "restrained" per 2 Thess in 50-51 AD... so it seems to line up with the passage, but he doesn't address the area Storms critiques.

Any thoughts? I'm less curious about arguments against the partial preterist view, and more about which arguments you've heard against what Storm said.

If Paul knew by immediate divine relevation, as he did nearly everything else, I don't see how that is a problem in Storms' eyes...

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I'm responding as one who is Amil. Partial preterism operates under the conviction that some (greater or lesser amount) of NT biblical prophecy--be it book of Revelation or Olivet discourse, mainly--finds fulfillment within a generation (approx. 40yrs) of the death/resurrection/ascension of Christ. The destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70 AD is typically regarded as the terminal event. Anything unfulfilled is referred to the end of the NT age and Christ's return. I do think some NT prophecy relates to the near term, so I may qualify as a partial preterist, but probably barely. These are the parameters for my reply.

It isn't obvious to me that Paul in 2Ths.2 has in mind a certain man, a named person. I wonder why a partial preterist would certainly think Paul must have, and also that he shared that figure's identity with the Thessalonians. If Paul had Nero (specifically) in mind, why shouldn't he state so plainly? There is too much speculation that Paul writes in code, or makes vague allusions to his previous, in-person and more specific designation. When a rigid hermeneutical grid is brought to this or any text, the danger of eisegesis mounts.

My sense is that the partial preterist who is mostly or maximally preterist, but still orthodox in terms of Christ's future return, finds himself boxed in when faced with an issue like the one raised. Being committed in advance to the identification of "the man of lawlessness" as the same beast/anti-Christ of Rev.13 (who has been identified in some schemes as Nero), I suppose it could seem natural for Paul to be explicit.

I suggest there is no burden even for a partial preterist eager to categorize NT passages as past fulfillment, if he is willing to allow that Paul was probably not so explicit. I don't think 2Ths.2 references a near term fulfillment, so I can easily afford Paul's nebulous commentary; but it seems like those of another mind could also evade the horns of that dilemma by not going beyond the text to assume additional content of the in-person teaching of which Paul alludes.

 

[Phil D.]

"Paul clearly indicates that both he and the Thessalonians knew who the man of lawlessness was."

As I browse a dozen or so commentaries on 2 Thess. 2:3, I don't see any that suggest this was the case. So, it would have to be said that something that is supposedly clear apparently escaped many leading theologians throughout history. Some of the more detailed exegetical treatments see the grammar and syntax of the passage as most likely indicating the man of lawlessness is an apostate, or false professor that comes from within the church. He is also called the son of perdition, just as Judas Iscariot was from among the Apostles (John 17:12).

 

[fab413]

"Paul clearly indicates that both he and the Thessalonians knew who the man of lawlessness was."

As I browse a dozen or so commentaries on 2 Thess. 2:3, I don't see any that suggest this was the case. So, it would have to be said that something that is supposedly clear apparently escaped many leading theologians throughout history. Some of the more detailed exegetical treatments see the grammar and syntax of the passage as most likely indicating the man of lawlessness is an apostate, or false professor that comes from within the church. He is also called the son of perdition, just as Judas Iscariot was from among the Apostles (John 17:12).

I think Storms is referencing 2 Thess 2:6:

6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time.

So I think he is implying that if they knew explicitly what was restraining the man of lawlessness they would know the identity. In this case it would be Nero's mom (I think), so if they knew she was restraining him from the throne it would be clear it was Nero. But this would had to have been known years before he ascended to the throne. Something like that.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

τὸ κατέχον, with the article, present active participle, accusative neuter singular, "that which restrains"
If this refers to the mother of the emperor, it is oblique to the point of inscrutability. "It" is sexless. If the context supplies a linguistic clue (look for an antecedent) a neuter noun would call for a corresponding participle, but there is none; so the gender of the thing is the only clue.

When in v.7 there follows the nearly identical term:
ὁ κατέχων, with the article, present active participle, nominative masculine singular, "he who restrains,"
we are compelled to consider what is the connection between the two terms used so closely together, if they speak of one thing or two related things. Then too, how would the masculine term connect (supposedly) to a female actor?

These are exegetical items, embedded in the text, about which the interpreter should be occupied. Whatever he brings to the passage must not override the essential quality of the text. If one has a hard time coming up with a straightforward explanation for how the dowager fits the inspired language, I think the proposal should be rethought.

 

[fab413]

τὸ κατέχον, with the article, present active participle, accusative neuter singular, "that which restrains"
If this refers to the mother of the emperor, it is oblique to the point of inscrutability. "It" is sexless. If the context supplies a linguistic clue (look for an antecedent) a neuter noun would call for a corresponding participle, but there is none; so the gender of the thing is the only clue.

When in v.7 there follows the nearly identical term:
ὁ κατέχων, with the article, present active participle, nominative masculine singular, "he who restrains,"
we are compelled to consider what is the connection between the two terms used so closely together, if they speak of one thing or two related things. Then too, how would the masculine term connect (supposedly) to a female actor?

These are exegetical items, embedded in the text, about which the interpreter should be occupied. Whatever he brings to the passage must not override the essential quality of the text. If one has a hard time coming up with a straightforward explanation for how the dowager fits the inspired language, I think the proposal should be rethought.

Definitely get what you're saying here, but I don't think that hits Storms' point that the Thessalonians "knew" who/what was restraining the man of lawlessness in 50 or 51 AD. So gender aside, person aside, etc. it seems to indicate they knew.

Any thoughts on this?

Again - I agree with what you're saying about, but don't think this is the point he is making.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

When Paul says in 2 Thess 2:5,6, "Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time", I find no basis for drawing a conclusion that what he "clearly indicates" pertains to the actual identity of a person or persons, but rather to one coming who shall make himself to be as God and sitting in the temple of God, that is, the NT temple, the professing church.

He is speaking of a real person – unknown but yet to come. As for "what withholdeth" and "he who now letteth", I am satisfied to not clearly understand, whether that be the preaching of the gospel eventually forbidden, and/or the Spirit of God allowing such. It does clearly indicate what I need to know – whatever Sam Storms meant.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Definitely get what you're saying here, but I don't think that hits Storms' point that the Thessalonians "knew" who/what was restraining the man of lawlessness in 50 or 51 AD. So gender aside, person aside, etc. it seems to indicate they knew.

Any thoughts on this?

Again - I agree with what you're saying about, but don't think this is the point he is making.

OK, but as I'm not interacting with Storms directly, only writing on the reported claim: "[Paul] and the Thessalonians knew who the man of lawlessness was," I react to that and to the further claim (post #5) as presented here, namely: that the "restrainer" is or could be Nero's mother. That datum being set out minimally as a possibility, I raised the objection to counter it. To further clarify: I don't know what position Storms himself defends; I'm only reacting to the quotations and proposals posted in the thread itself. If Storms writes critically of the preterist position, I think he scores a valid point.

Which leaves the exegetical question still present: to what thing or things is Paul referring to as restraint on the man of sin, whoever he is? Part of the defense of "Nero" as the titled figure is identifying the restraint with reasonable plausibility. V6 states that what the Thessalonians know is the restraining factor; it does not say (or imply, in my opinion) that the Thessalonians are aware of the personal identity of the man of sin.

There's an asymmetrical quality to the demand for knowledge, depending on whether the man of sin is personally identifiable. I can be definite (as much as the Thessalonians were) of the restraining factor(s) meaning I can know essentially what they knew based on my knowledge of Scripture, while remaining ambiguous about the man of sin. But anyone who is sure of the identity of the man of sin must present a case for labeling the restraint, because the claim seems to be: definite knowledge of the latter proves definite knowledge of the former, if not by Thessalonians in 50/51 yet by others since.

So, that's the conundrum. It could raise questions for those trying to work out prophetic interlocking pieces into a coherent picture, within the frame of their fixed confidences. For some people, "Nero" is a fixed point, a sure thing; so the rest of the data must eventually fit coherently around that immovable item. But the identity is predicated on extrabiblical confidence. Nero is never named in the NT text (yes, some people think his name is coded in the number "666," but it's still a number and requires some kind of "key" to decode it, and "Nero" is extrabiblical information).

Prioritizing exegesis requires us to make that of which we are most confident arise from the text. I find an odd parallel between the dispensationalist's confidence in their intricate system--"Look, it is so self-reinforcing, it must be true!"--and the preterist confidence in another system. These are both rationalizing systems, that have as their basis a few immovable axioms leading to a few more deductive certainties; after which everything else is inserted into the picture. And if the text and terms of Scripture must be massaged for the sake of the system... it's a small price (in their eyes) to pay. Exegesis must be made servant to the cause.

I think that's what's happening here. Paul must have and share prophetic insight into the actual personal identity of the man of sin, because Nero is that man, and the Thessalonians know it, because they know the restraining factor(s). "Nero" is an a priori brought to 2Ths.2 to guide following conclusions, all the way to equipping the Thessalonian Christians with an exact prediction of the imperial succession. I think the a priori should be dropped in favor of an exegetical focus on the restraining factors.

At best, Nero should be relegated to a possibility for identifying the man of sin. If he's only a possible, rather than a probable or certain identification, the preterist loses one of his fixed positions, a strongpoint from which he argues for the superiority of his preferred interpretive paradigm.

 

[arapahoepark]

Even looking at the passage in question we are only told of signs which will ultimately precede his revealing. It does leave a lot left open which Paul necessarily having to be cryptic.

 

[fab413]

V6 states that what the Thessalonians know is the restraining factor; it does not say (or imply, in my opinion) that the Thessalonians are aware of the personal identity of the man of sin.

This hits the nail on the head for my question. So when you look at the Greek for 2 Thess 2:6, it only means something is restraining the man of lawlessness and the Thessalonians only know something is restraining the man, but it does not imply they know specifically what the restraint is, correct?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

This hits the nail on the head for my question. So when you look at the Greek for 2 Thess 2:6, it only means something is restraining the man of lawlessness and the Thessalonians only know something is restraining the man, but it does not imply they know specifically what the restraint is, correct?

Well, they may (and I think they do) know exactly what Paul previously identified as the restraint; it's something that by its nature restrains sin and more particularly the man of sin--a kind of apotheosis of sin. If I know the restraint of the whole class and every instance in the class, even the most potent, it doesn't mean I must then be aware of the specific identity of that most potent of instances. The restraint covers the field.