Man of Sin, Sitting in the Temple of God

Status
Not open for further replies.

cornelius vantil

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Puritan Board Graduate
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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.
 

non dignus

Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top