According to the belief of many Christians
(e.g., those who belong to the Roman Catholic Church and many mainline
Protestant denominations), God’s covenant people, Israel, have no further
prophesied role to play in God’s redemptive plan, and have no distinct
expectation or eonian destiny apart from that which belongs to “the ecclesia which is
[Christ's] body” (Eph. 1:22). I think
this view is mistaken, and have written several articles in refutation of it
(see, for example, my four-part study, “God’s Covenant People,” as well as
the related, follow-up articles I posted on my blog during the months of
October and November in 2018). God’s numerous promises to Israel
throughout Scripture – as well as Paul’s words in Romans 11 – completely refute
the “replacement theology” (or “supersessionism”) that has, unfortunately, been
affirmed by many Christians throughout “church history.”
In connection with the view defended in
the articles referred to above, the position for which I’m going to be arguing
in this study is that, at some point in the future (quite possibly the near
future, but definitely before this present eon ends), a third Jewish temple is
going to be built in Jerusalem. And in conjunction with the rebuilding of the
Jewish temple, I believe that Israel’s sacrificial system is going to be
reinstated. However, at some point after the construction of this future temple
has been completed (perhaps very soon after), the regular sacrifices that will
have been taking place are going to be caused to stop, and an object that
Christ referred to as the “abomination of desolation” (Matthew 24:15) is going
to be set up “in the holy place.”
I want to make it clear that my main
reasons for holding to this admittedly controversial position are not based on
current political/religious events and developments taking place in Israel or
the rest of the world (and depending on who you ask, things may or may not be seen
as moving in a direction that makes the construction of a third temple in the
near future likely). Instead, my belief that a third (as well as a fourth)
Jewish temple is going to be built at some future time is based primarily on my
understanding of scriptural prophecy. Thus, it is to scripture – rather than to
current world events – that I will be appealing in defense of my position. I should also add that I am in no way a “Zionist,” or sympathetic toward the
Zionist political/religious movement. Christians who think that God approves of
(and will bless) those nations or individuals that support and “stand with” the
modern state of Israel today are, I believe, about as misguided as a
first-century Christian would’ve been for supporting Saul of Tarsus before his
conversion on the road to Damascus. The fact that I believe that the existence
of the present-day state of Israel is in accord with God’s sovereign plan (as
is everything else that exists or takes place in the universe) doesn’t mean
that I approve of everything the state of Israel does, or consider it ethically
superior to (or more “deserving” of national existence than) other nation
states and people groups in the world today. In any case – and regardless of
what one’s stance is toward the state of Israel and Zionism – this article is
not a defense of the present-day Israeli state/government, or its
national/international policies.
With the above preliminary remarks out of the way, let's now consider Matthew 24:15-16. In these verses we read that Christ declared the following to his disciples
while they were gathered together on the Mount of Olives: “Whenever, then, you may be perceiving
the abomination of desolation, which is declared through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him who
is reading apprehend!); then let those in Judea flee into the mountains.”
The “holy place”
in which we're told the “abomination of desolation” will be
“standing” refers to the first division of the Jewish tabernacle and temple
(the second division being the “most holy place”). In support of this understanding,
consider 1 Kings 8:6-8 and Hebrews 9:1-3 (cf. Acts 6:12-13; 21:28):
1 Kings
8:6-8
Then the
priests brought the ark of the covenant of the Lord to its place in the inner sanctuary of the house, in the Most Holy Place, underneath the wings of the cherubim. For the cherubim spread out their
wings over the place of the ark, so that the cherubim overshadowed the ark and
its poles. And the poles were so long that the
ends of the poles were seen from the
Holy Place before the inner sanctuary; but they could not be seen from
outside. And they are there to this day.
Hebrews 9:1-3
Now even
the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of
holiness. For a tent was
prepared, the first section, in
which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the
Presence. It is called the Holy Place.
Behind the second curtain was a
second section called the Most Holy Place.
As noted in the
last passage, it was in the holy place that the golden lampstand and the table
for the bread of presence (as well as the altar of incense) were present. But
what, exactly, is the “abomination of desolation” that Christ said would be
“standing” in the holy place at some future time?
Notice that
Christ said this “abomination” will be something that was ”declared through Daniel the prophet.” There are several verses from Daniel in which the phrase “abomination
of desolation” – or some similar, related expression – is found. For example,
in Daniel 11:31 we read, ”Forces from him shall appear and profane the
temple and fortress, and shall take away
the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that
makes desolate.”
Most scholars understand this prophecy to have
been fulfilled in 168 BC when the Syrian ruler, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, put an
end to the daily sacrifice in the temple and set up an altar to a Greek god
(probably Zeus) in the most holy place, thereby polluting the sanctuary (see 1
Maccabees 1:48, 54). This is the view to which I hold as well. However,
according to Christ’s prophecy in Matt. 24:15, there is another “abomination of desolation” that is “declared through
Daniel the prophet,” and which will be “standing in the holy place” at a
yet-future time. And it is this
prophesied event that I believe is in view in the remaining verses from Daniel that
refer to the “abomination of desolation”:
Daniel 8:13
Then I
heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the one who
spoke, “For how long is the vision concerning
the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the
giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled underfoot?”
Daniel 9:27
He will
make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and
offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the
temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator.
Daniel 12:11
And from the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that
makes desolate is set up, there shall be 1,290 days.
Notice that, in all four of the above verses, the
abomination of desolation (or “transgression that makes desolate,” in the case
of Dan. 8:13) is inseparably connected with the cessation of sacrifice and
offering. In fact, the clear implication of each of these verses is that the
setting up of the abomination of desolation is something that either coincides
with (or shortly follows) the cessation of sacrifice/offering, and that both of these related events will be occurring on the same day (this is especially evident from Daniel 12:11, where it's revealed that the taking away of the regular burnt offering and the setting up of the abomination of desolation will occur 1,290 days before another related event takes place).
This point should be kept in mind by the reader when coming to the words of Christ in Matt. 24:15, and should inform our interpretation of this important prophecy. For in light of this background information, we can conclude the following: in order for something to qualify as the prophesied “abomination of desolation” that Christ had in view in Matt. 24:15, it must be part of an event that involves (1) the cessation of sacrifice and offering and (2) the setting up of an abominable thing “in the holy place” (i.e., the first division of the temple) on the same day. Moreover, in light of the historical event involving Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 BC, it's reasonable to conclude that the future “abomination of desolation” will also be associated with idolatry, or the worship of some false god (which, when occurring in the temple, would be considered a terrible abomination by any devout Jew). But is there any other passage of scripture that refers to the abomination of desolation that Christ had in view in Matt. 24:15? I think so.
In Revelation 13:14-15, we read the following concerning a certain individual who is elsewhere referred to by John as the “false prophet” (and who will be acting on behalf of another individual – i.e., the “wild beast” – and the political/religious system that this figure represents and heads up):
This point should be kept in mind by the reader when coming to the words of Christ in Matt. 24:15, and should inform our interpretation of this important prophecy. For in light of this background information, we can conclude the following: in order for something to qualify as the prophesied “abomination of desolation” that Christ had in view in Matt. 24:15, it must be part of an event that involves (1) the cessation of sacrifice and offering and (2) the setting up of an abominable thing “in the holy place” (i.e., the first division of the temple) on the same day. Moreover, in light of the historical event involving Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 BC, it's reasonable to conclude that the future “abomination of desolation” will also be associated with idolatry, or the worship of some false god (which, when occurring in the temple, would be considered a terrible abomination by any devout Jew). But is there any other passage of scripture that refers to the abomination of desolation that Christ had in view in Matt. 24:15? I think so.
In Revelation 13:14-15, we read the following concerning a certain individual who is elsewhere referred to by John as the “false prophet” (and who will be acting on behalf of another individual – i.e., the “wild beast” – and the political/religious system that this figure represents and heads up):
And it [the false prophet] is deceiving those dwelling on the earth because of the
signs which were given it to do in the sight of the wild beast, saying to those
dwelling on the earth to make an image
to the wild beast which has the blow of the sword and lives. And it was
given to it to give spirit to the image
of the wild beast, that the image of the wild beast should be speaking also,
and should be causing that whosoever should not be worshiping the image of the
wild beast may be killed.
Now, I realize that there are many who will scoff
at the idea that any detail found in the above passage should be taken
literally, or that what’s being described will be fulfilled at some future time
through actual, historical events that will involve the creation and worship of
an “image” of some world ruler (or an image connected with the
political/religious system headed up by this person). However, if there is
anything referred to in the New Testament that could be understood as referring
to the “abomination of desolation” that Christ said would be “standing in the
holy place,” then the “image of the wild beast” is surely it.
Now, notice that, at some point after the “image of
the wild beast” has been made, those who refuse to worship it will begin to be put to death. This fact is alluded to in Revelation 20:4 as well,
where we read of “the souls of those
executed because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God,
and those who do not worship the wild beast or its image…” The fact that the making of the “image of the wild beast” will lead to
the execution of those who refuse to worship it ties right in with the
immediate context in which we find the abomination of desolation being referred
to by Christ. In Matt. 24:16-22, we read that the setting up of the abomination
of desolation in the holy place will be a sign indicating that a time of “great
affliction” is about to begin:
Whenever, then, you
may be perceiving the abomination of desolation, which is declared through
Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him who is reading
apprehend!); then let those in Judea flee into the mountains...for then
shall be great affliction, such as has not occurred from the beginning of the
world till now; neither under any circumstances may be occurring. And, except
those days were discounted, no flesh at all would be saved. Yet, because of the
chosen, those days shall be discounted.
According to Christ’s exhortation in this passage,
as soon as those dwelling in Jerusalem and the surrounding area become aware of
the “abomination of desolation…standing in the holy place,” they must flee the
region. No matter what they happen to be doing at the time, their safety will
depend on evacuating the area as quickly as possible and “fleeing into the
mountains.” For the setting up of the
abomination of desolation in the holy place will mean that a time of “great
affliction” is about to begin. So terrible will this time of affliction be that “no flesh at all would be saved” if it were to
continue beyond the limit set by God. Moreover, when we let Rev. 13:14-15
inform our understanding of Matt. 24:15-22 (and thus interpret scripture with
scripture), it’s reasonable to conclude the following: those who are being
admonished to flee into the mountains will consist of believing Jews who, in
defiance of the command that will go forth after the abomination of desolation
has been set up, will refuse to worship “the image of the beast.”
Another passage from Revelation that I believe
sheds light on the event of which Christ was prophesying in Matthew 24:15-22 is
Revelation 12:6, 13-16. In these verses we read the following:
And the woman fled into the wilderness, there
where she has a place made ready by God, that there they may be nourishing her
a thousand two hundred sixty days…And when the dragon perceived that it was
cast into the earth, it persecutes the woman who brought forth the male. And
given to the woman were the two wings of a large vulture, that she may be
flying into the wilderness into her place, there where she is nourished a
season, and seasons, and half a season, from the face of the serpent. And the
serpent casts water as a river out of its mouth after the woman, that she
should be carried away by its current. And the earth helps the woman, and the
earth opens its mouth and swallowed the river which the dragon casts out of its
mouth.
In part two of my 2017 study on Revelation 12 (”Identifying the sun-clothed woman”), I argued that the “sun-clothed woman” being referred to in this
passage represents the believing Jewish remnant that will be dwelling in the
land of Israel at the time when the midpoint of Daniel’s 70th week
is reached, and will include the 144,000 referred to in Rev. 7:2-8 (in contrast
with this company of believing Israelites, I believe that those referred to in Rev.
12:17 as “the rest of her seed” will be
comprised of believing Israelites who will be dwelling outside the land of Israel at this time, and who are described by
John as “a vast throng which no one was able to
number” in Rev. 7:9). As soon as those comprising this believing Jewish
remnant perceive the abomination of desolation “standing in the holy place,”
they will heed Christ’s exhortation to flee into the mountains. And in this
way, the future event which John saw being symbolically represented by the
sun-clothed woman fleeing into the wilderness will be fulfilled.
Here, then, is the chronological sequence of events
being prophesied by Christ in Matthew 24:15-22:
1. The “abomination of
desolation, declared through Daniel the prophet” will be “standing in the holy place.”
2. Those who heed Christ’s exhortation to quickly
escape the city and surrounding region when this event takes place will “flee into the mountains” (where they will be
protected for 1,260 days, or 3 ½ years).
3. During this time there shall be “great affliction, such as has not occurred from the
beginning of the world till now.”
So what are the implications of this? Well, in
light of the above considerations, we can conclude that the events of which
Christ prophesied in these verses (and which are symbolically depicted in
Revelation 12) have not yet occurred. For since the time that Christ uttered
the words recorded in Matthew 24, there has never been an event involving the termination
of sacrifice/offering and the setting up of an abominable thing in the holy
place that has preceded a time of “great affliction.” There is simply no
historical record of this having ever taken place, and no scripture-based
reason to believe that it has taken place.
In fact, not only is there no evidence for this
event having already occurred, but – in light of what was argued in part two of this study – we can know for a fact that this event is yet to be
fulfilled. How so? Well, we know that those Jewish believers who will be
“perceiving the abomination of desolation…standing in the holy place” will also
go through the time of “great affliction” referred to in v. 21. We also know that this time of
great affliction has not yet occurred (since Christ’s “coming on the clouds of
heaven with power and much glory” will take place “immediately after” this time
of great affliction, and will involve the “deliverance” of the believers who
will be living through it; see Luke 21:27-28). From this it logically follows
that the prophecy concerning the abomination of desolation in Matt. 24:15 is
just as unfulfilled as the coming of Christ itself. Thus, both the “abomination
of desolation” and the “holy place” in which it will be standing belong to a
yet-future time.
It’s commonly believed by preterists that the surrounding of Jerusalem by “encampments” (or “armies”) that we find referred to in Luke 21:20 should be equated with the “abomination of desolation” referred to by Christ in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 (this view also presupposes that the “encampments” or “armies” Christ had in view belonged to the Romans, and that this event occurred sometime before the siege of Jerusalem). For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the interpretation of Luke 21:20 which sees this event as having been fulfilled in the first century (i.e., sometime before the siege of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.) is correct, and that the “encampments” or “armies” Christ had in view in Luke 21:20 belonged to the Romans. Given this assumption, is it at least possible that these “encampments” or “armies” could’ve been the fulfillment of the “abomination of desolation” referred to by Christ in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14? No.
As argued earlier, in order for something to qualify as the prophesied “abomination of desolation” that Christ had in view in Matt. 24:15 and Mark 13:14, it must be part of an event that involves (1) the cessation of sacrifice and offering and (2) the setting up of an abominable thing “in the holy place” (i.e., the first division of the temple) on the same day. However, there is no evidence from history that this occurred in the first century. Even if we were to grant, for the sake of argument, that “the holy place” referred to by Christ in Matt. 24:15 could refer to something other than the first division of the Jewish temple, what we read in Mark's account is inconsistent with the abomination of desolation being a reference to the “encampments” or “armies” referred to by Christ in Luke 21:20. For in Mark 13:14, Christ clearly spoke of the abomination of desolation as a singular thing or object that would be standing in the holy place (hence the words, “...the abomination of desolation, declared by Daniel the prophet, standing where it must not...”). The term translated “encampments” (or “armies”) is, of course, plural. Thus, the “encampments” or “armies” Christ had in view cannot be the singular thing that will be “standing where it must not.”
But if (as I believe to be the case) Luke 21:20-24 is a prophecy that refers to the same future time as Matt. 24:15-22, why would Christ refer to the “abomination of desolation” in Matt. 24:15 (and Mark 13:14), and refer to “encampments” (or “armies”) surrounding Jerusalem in Luke 21:20? Answer: I believe Christ was simply providing his followers with another sign to look for that is distinct from, but related to, the setting up of the abomination of desolation in the holy place. Apparently, around the time that the abomination of desolation will come to be standing in the holy place, there will be military forces surrounding Jerusalem (perhaps in anticipation of what's about to occur in the temple, and the negative response it will inevitably provoke from the Jewish people).
It’s commonly believed by preterists that the surrounding of Jerusalem by “encampments” (or “armies”) that we find referred to in Luke 21:20 should be equated with the “abomination of desolation” referred to by Christ in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 (this view also presupposes that the “encampments” or “armies” Christ had in view belonged to the Romans, and that this event occurred sometime before the siege of Jerusalem). For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the interpretation of Luke 21:20 which sees this event as having been fulfilled in the first century (i.e., sometime before the siege of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.) is correct, and that the “encampments” or “armies” Christ had in view in Luke 21:20 belonged to the Romans. Given this assumption, is it at least possible that these “encampments” or “armies” could’ve been the fulfillment of the “abomination of desolation” referred to by Christ in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14? No.
As argued earlier, in order for something to qualify as the prophesied “abomination of desolation” that Christ had in view in Matt. 24:15 and Mark 13:14, it must be part of an event that involves (1) the cessation of sacrifice and offering and (2) the setting up of an abominable thing “in the holy place” (i.e., the first division of the temple) on the same day. However, there is no evidence from history that this occurred in the first century. Even if we were to grant, for the sake of argument, that “the holy place” referred to by Christ in Matt. 24:15 could refer to something other than the first division of the Jewish temple, what we read in Mark's account is inconsistent with the abomination of desolation being a reference to the “encampments” or “armies” referred to by Christ in Luke 21:20. For in Mark 13:14, Christ clearly spoke of the abomination of desolation as a singular thing or object that would be standing in the holy place (hence the words, “...the abomination of desolation, declared by Daniel the prophet, standing where it must not...”). The term translated “encampments” (or “armies”) is, of course, plural. Thus, the “encampments” or “armies” Christ had in view cannot be the singular thing that will be “standing where it must not.”
But if (as I believe to be the case) Luke 21:20-24 is a prophecy that refers to the same future time as Matt. 24:15-22, why would Christ refer to the “abomination of desolation” in Matt. 24:15 (and Mark 13:14), and refer to “encampments” (or “armies”) surrounding Jerusalem in Luke 21:20? Answer: I believe Christ was simply providing his followers with another sign to look for that is distinct from, but related to, the setting up of the abomination of desolation in the holy place. Apparently, around the time that the abomination of desolation will come to be standing in the holy place, there will be military forces surrounding Jerusalem (perhaps in anticipation of what's about to occur in the temple, and the negative response it will inevitably provoke from the Jewish people).
Seated in the Temple of God
In my refutation of preterism in part two, I quoted Revelation
11:1-2 to demonstrate how long the “eras” (or “seasons”) will be during which
the nations will be treading Jerusalem after the abomination of desolation
comes to be “standing in the holy place.” In addition to revealing this bit of
information, these verses also provide us with further confirmation that the
Jewish temple is going to be rebuilt before this eon concludes. Here, again, is
the passage:
“And a reed like a rod was given me, and
one said, “Rouse, measure the temple of
God and the altar and those worshiping in it. And the court outside of the temple cast outside, and
you should not be measuring it, for
it was given to the nations, and the holy city will they be treading forty-two
months.”
One would, I
think, have to perform some pretty impressive interpretive gymnastics of an
allegorical nature to view the “temple of God,” the “court outside the temple,”
the “altar” and the “holy city” spoken of in these verses as referring to
anything other than literal structures and places (which is what a straight-forward, natural reading of the text
communicates to the reader). Given the fact that the “temple of God” referred to
here should be understood as a reference to a literal building located in the
city of Jerusalem (in conjunction with the fact that the period of “forty-two months” during which we’re told the nations
will be treading the holy city is still future), these verses provide further
evidence for a rebuilt Jewish temple.
With the words of Revelation 11:1-2 kept in mind, the
last passage that I want to consider in support of the view that a third Jewish
temple is going to be constructed before Christ’s return is 2 Thess. 2:3-4. In
these verses we find the following prophecy from Paul:
“No one should be
deluding you by any method, for, should not the apostasy be coming first and
the man of lawlessness be unveiled, the son of destruction, who is opposing and
lifting himself up over everyone termed a god or an object of veneration, so
that he is seated in the temple of God, demonstrating that he himself is God?”
As
with what we read in Revelation 11:1-2, I submit that the most plain and straightforward meaning of the words
“temple of God” in v. 4 is that of a building that’s intended for the worship of the one true God by his covenant people, Israel. Moreover,
when we compare Paul’s words here with certain prophetic passages found in
Daniel concerning a future wicked world ruler who will exalt himself, blaspheme
God and oppress God’s people (e.g., Daniel 7:23-25, 8:9-12 and 11:36-39), Paul’s
words harmonize with, and fit right into, this broader prophetic context. Consider,
especially, Daniel 11:36-39:
“And the
king shall do as he wills. He shall exalt himself and magnify himself
above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God
of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for
what is decreed shall be done. He shall pay no attention to the gods of his
fathers, or to the one beloved by women. He shall not pay attention to any
other god, for he shall magnify himself above all.”
That
Paul had this prophecy from Daniel in view when he wrote what he did concerning
the “man of lawlessness” in 2 Thess. 2:4 seems clear. When we read Paul’s
prophecy in light of Daniel’s prophecy, the most reasonable conclusion at which
to arrive is that the “man of lawlessness” of 2 Thess. 2:3-4 and the “willful king”
of Daniel 11:36-39 are one and the same. What’s more, in Daniel’s prophecies
concerning this future lawless ruler, the focus is clearly on events that will
be transpiring shortly before the kingdom of God is established on the earth
(which is to occur at the time of Christ’s eon-terminating return). Both Daniel
and Paul also refer to the demise of the lawless ruler (Dan. 7:11, 26; 11:45; 2
Thess. 2:8). There is even compelling evidence from Daniel (especially when
read in conjunction with Christ’s words in Matthew 24:15-16) that the wicked
world ruler who will be persecuting the saints just prior to Christ’s return
will put an end to the daily sacrifice and desecrate the temple in some way
reminiscent of what Antiochus IV Epiphanes did shortly before the Maccabean
revolt (Dan. 8:9-13; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; cf. Matt. 24:15-16) – something which
would, of course, be consistent with what we know about the character of the
man of lawlessness (as well as where we’re told he’ll be sitting in 2 Thess.
2:4).
These
considerations notwithstanding, one fellow believer with whom I’ve discussed
this particular passage on a public forum (and to whom I’ll be referring by his
initials, R.L.) expressed his disagreement with this interpretation of this
passage, and suggested that our understanding of the “temple of God” referred
to here should be informed by what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 3:16-17 and 6:19 (where
Paul figuratively referred to those in the body of Christ as the “temple of
God”). Here is what R.L. wrote:
“From my understanding of what
God calls a temple of God, my thoughts are this lawless one is indeed standing
in the temple (his own body) of God. The lawless one(s) may not know they are a
temple of God (some think they are God), but, according to what a temple of God
is (humans) described by Paul, they are standing in a temple of God. And the
lawless one(s) will continue to stand in a temple of God, calling him/herself
God, until God brings him/her into a realization that he/she is in fact the
temple of God.”
In
contrast with what is said by R.L. in the quotation above, Paul didn’t say that
the man of lawlessness will be “standing
in the temple of God” (although, assuming he’ll have use of his legs at the
time, he’ll probably be “standing” in the temple before he eventually takes his
seat in it!). It also seems clear that, in contrast with R.L.’s use of the
plural “lawless one(s)” (and the plural pronoun “they”), Paul had a single individual in view in this prophecy. This is
evident from the fact that he referred to him as the “man of lawlessness,” the
“son of destruction” and the “lawless one,” and used singular personal pronouns
(“he” and “himself”).
A
bigger problem with R.L.’s view is that, unlike in 2 Thess. 2:4, it’s clear
from the context that Paul was using figurative language when he referred to
those in the body of Christ as “the temple of God” in 1 Cor. 3:16-17 (cf. Eph.
2:20-22, where similar figurative language is used). Paul wasn’t, of course,
redefining the expression “the temple of God” here (no more so than he was
redefining the word “body” when he figuratively referred to the believers to
whom he wrote as “the body of Christ”). Rather, Paul was simply using
metaphorical language to express the idea that believers are like the temple of God (in that we, like
the temple of God, are holy, and are indwelled by God’s spirit). Similarly, in
1 Cor. 6:19, Paul makes it clear that he’s referring to each believer’s literal
body (i.e., the “organic substance” that constitutes us as human beings) as a
“temple of the holy spirit.” As with Ephesians 2:20-22, there is no question
that Paul was using metaphorical language in these verses to refer to something
other than the literal building in Jerusalem that was, at that time, being used
by the Jews to worship God.
Moreover,
although R.L. seems to believe that humans, in general, can figuratively be
considered a “temple of God,” this view cannot be derived from what Paul wrote
in these passages. What makes the figurative “temple of God” imagery of 1
Corinthians 3 and 6 appropriate and true is that Paul had believers/saints in
view, and not humans in general. Not
all human beings are “holy” or have God’s holy spirit in them in the sense of
which Paul wrote in these passages; rather, the “holy spirit” that Paul had in
view in these verses is something that is, at present, “making its home” in
believers only (cf. 1 Cor. 2:12; 2
Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Gal. 3:2, 14; etc.). And assuming that Paul did have in view a person’s
spirit-indwelled body when he referred to the “temple of God” in 2 Thess. 2:4,
then what does it even mean to say that the man of lawlessness will be “seated
in” his own holy spirit-indwelled body? I’m sitting down right now as I type this,
but I would never think of (or refer to) myself as “sitting in my own body.”
Not only would that be a highly unusual and bizarre way of speaking, it really
doesn’t make any sense. Or even assuming that the “temple of God” in 2 Thess.
2:4 is a figurative (and enigmatic) reference to believers, collectively, what
does it even mean to say that a certain lawless man will, at some future time,
be “seated in” believers, collectively, and demonstrating that he himself is
God? Again, such an interpretation not only requires that one disregard the
larger prophetic context in which Paul wrote what he did in these verses, but
it doesn’t even make sense.
I
would be more sympathetic to R.L.’s interpretation of Paul’s words in 2 Thess.
2:3-4 here if it actually served to clarify, and make better sense of, what
Paul wrote here. However, this it does not do. Rather than bringing clarity to
the meaning of what Paul wrote, R.L.’s interpretation only results in
head-scratching confusion. The ordinary, straightforward meaning of what Paul
wrote makes perfectly good sense (and to quote David Cooper, “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other
sense”).
In contrast with what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 3:16-17 or 6:19, no such
qualification or explanation is to be found in 2 Thess. 2:4 concerning the
nature of the “temple of God” that Paul had in view. There are no contextual
indicators provided by Paul in 2 Thessalonians (either in the immediate or
broader context of this letter) that would lead one to believe that Paul was
referring to either believers collectively or to their bodies when he referred
to the “temple of God” in which the “man of lawlessness” will be “seated.” And
without such contextual indicators, I submit that it’s far more reasonable to
understand Paul to have had in view the same sort of temple of which we read in
(for example) Matthew 21:12, 23:21, Acts 2:46, 3:1, 5:42 and Revelation 11:1-2.
Moreover, as already noted, the immediate context in which 2 Thessalonians 2:4 occurs
clearly has far more in common with the prophetic, “eschatological” context in
which the “temple of God” is referred to in Revelation 11:1-2 than it does with
what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 3:16-17 or 6:19.
In
conjunction with the above considerations, the last point I want to make is this: if the
position for which I argued in part one of my study on the timing of the
snatching away in relation to the 70th week of Daniel is
sound, then the spirit-indwelled believers who constitute the body of Christ
will not even be present on the earth when the “man of lawlessness” is
unveiled. As I argued in this study, the “era” that will commence with the
lawless one’s unveiling is the “day of the Lord,” and the saints in the body of
Christ are going to be snatched away to meet the Lord in the air before this era of divine indignation
arrives. Thus, those that Paul figuratively referred to as the “temple of God”
in 1 Cor. 3:16-17 will not even be present on the earth when the man of
lawlessness is unveiled, and later takes his seat “in the temple of God,
demonstrating that he himself is God.”
No comments:
Post a Comment