The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Your Eschatology?

That's interesting. I've never met anyone who doesn't believe there is going to be a third temple during the tribulation.. What brought you to that conclusion? Do you have any scripture to support this idea?

If you are right; how do you explain this?

"Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." {2Th 2:4 KJV}

And what about all the media coverage of the plans to rebuild the temple, the Sanhedrin being reestablished, the creation and expansion of the Temple Institute and it's training of priests, the red heifers, etc...?

Dr. Kenneth Gentry
Dr. Greg Bahnsen
Pastor Jeff Durbin
David Chilton
Gary North
Gary DeMar(although I think he’s a closet hyper-Preterist)
John Owen
R. J. Rushdoony
Doug Wilson


All these taught/teach there is no literal future temple in Israel.

Now, let’s look at the surrounding vss in 2 Thess. 2:4 to establish the context, and I’m using the NASB95…

Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.[2 Thessalonians 2:1-12]

As we see, the immediate context is to you & your. Now, who exactly are they? The Thessalonians Paul was writing to. As highlighted in the above, now was the time of his restraint(not millennia later but at the time of Paul writing to them) and that he was already at work(as Paul attests in the above and not at work millennia later). I believe it was Emperor Nero who was the man of lawlessness and I’ll provide an article by Dr. Kenneth Gentry, Jr. why I believe it’s him.

Let me add this: why would Paul warn ppl of something that’s happening millennia later? That’d be like me knowing where you live and God showing me that on March 26, 3156 where you live at, Russia, China, Italy, Germany, England, Brazil, and Columbia were going to obliterate where you live at on that day and me warning you to flee from there. Why would I warn you to flee when it’s more than 1,100 years later that will take place? It’s fruitless to warn ppl of something that’s to take place millennia later is my point.

IDENTIFYING THE MAN OF LAWLESSNESS


In this blog article I will provide my third installment of my study on Paul’s Man of Lawlessness. In this study I will show the case for the Man of Lawlessness being . . . Nero Caesar.

Paul shows a deep concern regarding the deception (2Th 2:3a). To avoid the deception and to clarify the true beginning of the Day of the Lord upon Jerusalem, Paul informs them that “that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition” (2:3). Before they can say the Day of the Lord “is come,” then, they must witness first (see RSV) the falling away and the revelation of the man of lawlessness, who is also called “the son of perdition.” (These do not necessarily occur in the chronological order presented, as even dispensationalists admit.1 Verse nine is clearly out of order and should occur in the midst of verse eight, if strict chronology were important.)

The word “falling away” is apostasia, which occurs in the New Testament only here and in Acts 21:21. Historically, the word can apply to a revolt: either political or religious.2 But to which does it refer here? Does it point to a future worldwide apostasy from the Christian faith, as per pessimistic eschatologies? Amillennialist William Hendriksen writes that this teaches that “by and large, the visible Church will forsake the true faith.” Dispensationalist Thomas L. Constable comments: “This rebel-lion, which will take place within the professing church, will be a departure from the truth that God has revealed in His Word.” 3 Or does the apostasia refer to a political rebellion of some sort?

I believe that it speaks primarily of the Jewish apostasy/rebellion against Rome. Josephus certainly calls the Jewish War against Rome an apostasia (Josephus, Life 4, 9, 10; J.W. 2:2:7; 2:16:4; 7:4:2; 7:6:1). Probably Paul merges the religious and political concepts here, though emphasizing the outbreak of the Jewish War, which results from their apostasy against God (Mt 22:1–7; Lk 19:41–44; 1Th 2:14–16). The emphasis must be on the revolt against Rome because it is future and datable, whereas the revolt against God is ongoing and cumulative. Such specificity would be necessary to dispel the deception on which Paul is focusing. In conjunction with this final apostasy and Jerusalem’s consequent destruction, Christianity and Judaism are forever separated and both are exposed to Rome’s wrath.4

The “man of lawlessness” is Nero Caesar, who also is the beast of Revelation, as a number of Church Fathers believe.5 This passage’s difficulty lies in the fact that Paul “describes the Man of Sin with a certain reserve” (Origen, Celsus 6:45) for fear of incurring “the charge of calumny for having spoken evil of the Roman emperor” (Augustine, City of God 20:19). Paul and his associates had already suffered at the hands of the Thessalonican Jews for “acting contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king – Jesus” (Ac 17:7). Wisdom demands discreetness when referring to imperial authority; his recent (1Th 2:17) personal ministry among them allows it: they were to “remember” that while with them he “told [them] these things” (2:5).

Paul clearly implies that something is presently (ca. AD 52) “restraining” (present participle) the man of sin “that he may be revealed in his own time” (2Th 2:6). The man of lawlessness is alive and waiting to be “revealed.” This implies that for the time being, Christians could expect at least some protection from the Roman government: the Roman laws regarding religio licita are currently in Christianity’s favor, while it remains a sect of Judaism. This begins to end after the malevolent Nero ascends the throne, for he begins persecuting Christianity in AD 64. Paul certainly enjoys the protection of Roman law (Ac 18:12ff) and makes important use of it in AD 59 (Ac 25:11–12; 28:19), when he seeks protection from the malignancy of the Jews. He expresses no ill-feelings against Rome when writing Romans 13 in AD 57–59, during the early reign of Nero, the famous Quinquennium Neronis.6

Notes

1)Constable, Bible Knowledge Commentary: NT , “2 Thessalonians,” 718. Non-dispensationalist Marshall comments: “The argument is difficult to follow, partly because of the way in which Paul tackles the theme in a non-chronological manner.” I. Howard, Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 185.

2)For political apostasia see the Septuagint at Ezra 4:12, 15, 19; Neh 2:19; 6:6. For religious apostasia, see: Septuagint at Jos 22:22; 2Ch 29:19; and 33:19, and in the New Testament at Acts 21:21.

3)William Hendriksen, I and II Thessalonians, 170. Constable, “2 Thessalonians,” 718.

4)“The destruction of Jerusalem and of its temple marked not the end of the world, but the end of a world. It indicated the final separation of Judaism from Christianity, of the synagogue from the Church . . . which thereby opens up principally to the Gentiles.” Feuilett, Johannine Studies, 229–30. “The fall of Jerusalem left a permanent mark on the development of the Church. First and foremost, it meant a violent shift of centre, in which the Church was gradually to lose Palestine, the homeland of Jesus and his disciples, and with Palestine Aramaic-speaking Judaism, including the opportunity of spreading eastwards beyond the Roman Empire into Persia and to the second great centre of Jewry at Babylon.” Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, 133.

5)For example: Augustine, City of God 20:19; Chrysostom cited in Alford, Greek Testament, 2:80. If we are correct in equating him with the beast, we could add: Victorinus, Apocalypse 17:16; Lactantius, On the Death of the Persecutors 2; Sulpicius Severus, Sacred History 2:28, 29. See my book, Beast of Revelation.

6)Trajan, Epistle 5; cf. Suetonius, Nero 19. See: Henderson, The Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero, ch. 3.

https://postmillennialworldview.com/2013/12/23/identifying-the-man-of-lawlessness/

THE RESTRAINER AND THE MAN OF LAWLESSNESS

This is my fourth and final installment (for the time being!) on Paul’s Man of Lawlessness. Though it is a difficult passage, it serves as a foundation stone to peculiar dispensational beliefs involving the rebuilt temple and the re-institution of animal sacrifices. I have been showing, however, that this passage is dealing with first century concerns, not last century ones. We will see this further in today’s installment.

The Restrainer at Work

In 2Th. 2:7 we read: “for the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.” When Paul writes 2 Thessalonians 2, he is under the reign of Claudius Caesar. In this statement he even seems to employ a word play on Claudius’ name. Let’s see how this is so.

The Latin word for “restraint” is claudere, which is similar to “Claudius.” 1 Interestingly, Paul shifts between the neuter and masculine forms of “the restrainer” (2Th 2:6, 7). This may indicate he includes both the imperial law and the present emperor when referring to the “restrainer.” While Claudius lives, Nero, the man of lawlessness, is powerless to commit political lawlessness. Christianity is free from the imperial sword until the Neronic persecution begins.

Remarkably, imperial law keeps the Jews so in check that they do not kill James the Just in Jerusalem until about AD 62, after the death of the Roman procurator Festus and before Albinus arrives (Josephus, Ant. 20:9:1). So then, with these events the “mystery of lawlessness” is being uncovered as the “revelation of the man of lawlessness” occurs. That is, we are witnessing Paul’s anticipation of the transformation of the Roman imperial line into a persecuting power in the person of Nero.

The evil “mystery of lawlessness” is “already working,” though restrained in Claudius’ day (2Th 2:7). This perhaps refers to the evil conniving and plotting of Nero’s mother, Agrippina, who famously poisons Claudius so that Nero can ascend to the purple (Tacitus, Annals 12:62ff; Suetonius, Claudius 44).

He exalts himself

The Roman emperor, according to Paul, “exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped” (2Th 2:4a). Apparently Paul is highlighting the fact that Nero intends or desires to present himself as God. We can see the evil potential of emperor worship just a few years before, when the emperor Caligula (a.k.a. Gaius) attempts to put his image in the temple in Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant. 18:8:2–3; Philo, Embassy to Gaius). Philo tells us that “so great was the caprice of Caius [Caligula] in his conduct toward all, and especially toward the nation of the Jews. The latter he so bitterly hated that he appropriated to himself their places of worship in the other cities, and beginning with Alexandria he filled them with images and statues of himself.” 2

But Caligula is not Nero. So how can Nero be the Man of Lawlessness of whom Paul states: “so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” He never did such a thing. To resolve this potential problem we need to understand Paul’s phrasing here. When an infinitive such as kathisai (“to sit”) follows the consecutive particle h ste (“so that”), it indicates a purpose intended, not necessarily a purpose accomplished. We see this operating in a clear case in Lk 4:29. There the Jews led Jesus to a hill “so as to cast him down (hoste katakremnisai auton).” 3 The angry Jews intended to cast Jesus down the hill, “but passing through their midst, He went His way” (Lk 4:30).

The future emperor Titus, for all intents and purposes, accomplishes this enormity, when he concludes the temple’s destruction set in motion by Nero. Titus actually invades the temple in AD 70, with the following result: “And now the Romans . . . brought their ensigns to the temple, and set them over against its eastern gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them, and there did they make Titus imperator, with the greatest acclamations of joy” (Josephus, J.W. 6:6:1). This parallels Matthew 24:15 and functions as Paul’s abomination of desolation, which occurs in “this generation” (Mt 24:34).

Not only so but in Nero the imperial line eventually openly “opposed” (2Th 2:4) Christ by persecuting his followers. Nero even begins persecuting Christians, when he presents himself in a chariot as the sun god Apollo, while burning Christians in order to illuminate his self-glorifying party: “their death was aggravated with mockeries, insomuch that, wrapped in the hides of wild beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or fastened to crosses to be set on fire, that when the darkness fell they might be burned to illuminate the night” (Ann. 15:44).4

Destroyed at the bright coming

Second Thessalonians 2:8–9 reads: “And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders.” 5 The lawless one is eventually openly revealed. The mystery form of his character gives way to a revelation of his lawlessness in Nero’s wicked acts. This occurs after the restrainer [Claudius] is “taken out of the way,” allowing Nero the public stage upon which he can act out his horrendous lawlessness.

In Christ’s judgment-coming against Jerusalem, we also discover judgment for the man of lawlessness, Nero. Thus, Christians may take comfort in the promised relief from both Jewish and Neronic opposition (2Th 2:15–17). Not only does Titus destroy Jerusalem within twenty years, but Nero himself dies a violent death in the midst of the Jewish War (June 9, AD 68). His death, then, will occur in the Day of the Lord in conjunction with Christ’s judgment-coming against Israel. Christ destroys Nero with “the breath of his mouth,” much like Assyria is destroyed with the coming and breath of the Lord in the Old Testament (Isa 30:27–31) and like Israel is crushed by Babylon (Mic 1:3–5).

Notes

1)F. F. Bruce, New Testament History, 310.

2)Philo, Embassy to Gauis, 43, as cited by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2:6:2.

3)E. W. Best, First and Second Thessalonians, 286–290. Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar, 214.

4)Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 279–284.

5)Such imperial arrogance would produce alleged miracles as confirmation. Vespasian is called “the miracle worker, because by him “many miracles occurred.” Tacitus, Histories 4:81; Suetonius, Vespasian 7.

https://postmillennialworldview.com/2013/12/25/the-restrainer-and-the-man-of-lawlessness/

Wow, that is a lot of information. Thanks for sharing. It is nice to hear other peoples opinions on how they believe the bible unfolds. So if Nero was the "man of lawlessness", does that mean that he would have also been the antichrist? If not, when would the antichrist appear according to a postmillennialism theory?

I don’t want you to think I’m letting Dr. Gentry do my talking for me, but he expresses it way better than I ever can.

No Worries, I do the same thing all the time. But if you don't mind, you still haven't answered my original question:


For the sake of conversation, Lets assume they do rebuild the temple, would you still believe what you believe now, or would you considering rethinking your belief?

Exactly what purpose would a rebuilt temple and animal sacrifice do? Seeing God wasn’t pleased with animal sacrifice to begin with, per per Isaiah 1:11, Hebrews 10:6,8? How would animal sacrifices in the future please Him when they didn’t in the past? How would animal sacrifices give them right standing before Him in the future when they didn’t in the past?

many who hold to that view would see it as Memeorial in the Millinium as observing and remembering Jesus, same way Church does now in the Communion

just as long do not head in heresy of full pretierism

Ppl are looking to Israel and not the Bible, and that worries. The same vss ppl use today to say the rapture is close are the same vss used a century ago to prove the rapture was near at that time.


From Phillip Mauro’s Revelation commentary written around 1920:

It is worthy of special notice that the proposed League of Nations is not a plan conceived in the mind of some great leader or statesman, nor is it a system of visionary ideals, such as socialism; but it is being born, as it were, out of the political conditions, which the war and the menace of "militarism" have forced upon the world. It is not so much the product of human contrivance as of political and dire necessity. Conditions which the world now faces are admittedly such that "civilized" man must needs create something greater than himself to save him from the results of his own "civilization." This is the point to which human "progress" has brought us.


This very clearly appears by the latest, and perhaps the most weighty, utterance of President Wilson (pronounced September 27, 1918, only a short time [365] prior to the writing of these lines) wherein he declared that "the only instrumentality" by which "a secure and lasting peace" can be attained is "a league of nations formed under covenants that will be efficacious." And he goes on to say:

"And as I see it, the constitution of that league of nations and the clear definition of its objects must be a part of the peace settlement itself."

Manifestly, if President Wilson is right in this view of the situation, the Federation foretold by the prophets will soon be a reality.

Further in the course of the speech from which we have quoted, Mr. Wilson confidently declared that one effect of the war has been to promote the consolidation of all mankind. So we have here a very striking testimony indeed, and from a highly competent witness, to the great fact which it was the main object of this volume to demonstrate, namely, that current movements were tending to the virtual unification of mankind through the bringing into existence of a vast system, embracing the political, economic and religious affairs of the civilized nations, or the greater part of them. Thus, Mr. Wilson said:

"The common will of mankind has been substituted for the particular purposes of individual states."

And again:

"National purposes have fallen more and more into the background, and the common purpose of enlightened mankind has taken their place." [366]

Thus Mr. Wilson has announced to the world, which listens with deepest respect to his utterances, the advent of universal Democracy, and confidently declares that it soon will be established upon a permanent basis. And this recalls to mind his earlier phrase, in which he declared that the purpose of the war was, and its outcome will be, "to make the world safe for Democracy"--that is to say for the rule of Man.

It is of deep interest in this connection to note that in our day the demand of the authorities for "peace" is coupled with an insistent demand for "safety" also, which shows that we are at last in the days foretold in 1 Thess. 5:2, 3--"For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they (i. e., the rulers) shall say (literally, decree or say with authority) peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them."

Some people believe that the third temple needs to be rebuilt for the son of satan. Since the modern day Jews do not believe Messiah has come yet, they are looking for a savior to come and lead them to war against the enemies of Israel. This would be considered the great deception:

"(3) Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; (4) Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." {2Th 2:3-4 KJV}

If there is a 7 year tribulation, and if there is an antichrist (the son of satan in the flesh); then there would need to be a temple for the son of satan to be worshipped as God. This temple would need to be built to fullfill prophecy and thus would require animal sacrifice so that antichrist can defile it.

Also, just a side note; the guy @SovereignGrace quoted said:


But that is not true. The Latin word for "restraint" is actually "coerceo," while "claudere" means "to close" or "to shut." These terms are related but have different meanings in Latin. Also, the orginal greek word is "κατέχω" Pronunciation kat-ekh'-o . Restrain is one way this word is translated into english, but it sounds to me like this guys is trying to base an idea on a English translation of a Greek word and then use a Latin translation of the English translation to form the opinion.