"Temple Issues" Part 2

[eschologizer]

The first post I made could be said to be my support for the traditional view of the temple and Antichrist. Namely, that the Antichrist will set himself up in a literal, rebuilt, temple in Israel prior to the second coming. That is here:

http://www.fulfilledprophecy.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=56126

However, I would like to use this post to show the "other side" of the temple issue, namely issues associated with the end times temple that are spoken of in ways that are to say the least, unusual. I am just simply free flowing my thoughts here and seeing what others think. I have not yet come to a conclusion.

I will firmly state that I cannot, nor will not depart from the idea of an eschatological Antichrist. The reasons are manifold, but the strongest arguments have to do with his relationship with the second coming and especially, being destroyed by Jesus at that time (2 Thessalonians 2:8; Revelation 19).

Let it be said again that the following notes are not necessarily my view, nor how I view the situation. They simply express my confusion. The first post "temple issues" I basically contend with my frustration of a lack of a literal presence of a Jewish temple and how some Scriptures, when viewed together, seem to require this. It is my intention in this post to take a "devil's advocate" idea, using the Bible as support as well. Bible translations either ESV (literal with words and thought for though) or NASB which is literal with words and sentence structure.

I will go book by book:

Daniel

When discussing passages associated with the Antichrist (Daniel 9:27; Daniel 7, Daniel 11:36-12:13) the temple building itself is NEVER mentioned in those passages:

"And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of (EM)abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a (EN)complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

"Then the king will (HY)do as he pleases, and he will exalt and (HZ)magnify himself above every god and will (IA)speak monstrous things against the (IB)God of gods; and he will prosper until the (IC)indignation is finished, for that which is (ID)decreed will be done.

11"From the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the (JN)abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.

However, when discussing the history associated with his "type" Antiochus Epiphanes, the temple is specifically mentioned (at least the sanctuary fortress).

30"For ships of (HL)Kittim will come against him; therefore he will be disheartened and will return and become enraged at the holy covenant and take action; so he will come back and show regard for those who forsake the holy covenant. 31"Forces from him will arise, (HM)desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice And they will set up the (HN)abomination of desolation.

Most Bible scholars would relate all the verses up until 36 as to relate to this man, the persecutor of the Jewish people in 168 B.C. The phase shifts to the end times in v 35, when it talks about the wise being purified until the end, and that the end WILL still come. Verses 36-39 then to go on to describe a character that Paul directly alludes with the second coming (2 Thessalonians 2:4). In Daniel his career continues to be discussed in the terms of the end times.

Even in the passage that doesn't hesitate to speak of the destruction of the temple, (Daniel 9:26) it goes on to speak of desolation and even someone causing desolation, in relation to idols "abominations," but no mention of the temple specifically being desolated.

The term abomination of desolation means an abomination (mostly related to idols) that causes desolation (something to be left abandoned or empty, laid waste). When Antiochus set up the image of Zeus near the altar in 168 B.C. this fulfilled the prophecy of the "abomination of desolation." At that point, and even up until today, that has been the only historical event that is specifically called by that term. So when Jesus comes along and says there will be another "abomination of desolation" right before his second coming, the disciples have no other choice but to think of that event, which by definition serves as a model or type to the last one. It seems by implication, Jesus speaks of extreme idolatry in the end times relating to a specific object/person. Revelation 13 describes the extent of this in a very horrifying and vivid way.

http://biblos.com/daniel/11-31.htm

This verse specifically shows the Hebrew words associated with the first "abomination of desolation." If one clicks on "abomination" it is a disgusting or detested thing, especially relating to idols. If one clicks on desolation, it has to do with being desolated, appalled, or amazed.

So in conclusion, regarding Daniel, idolatry is certainly associated with the Antichrist. But as far as what is made desolate or a temple building, it is not specifically mentioned in relation to the Antichrist passages. But in contrast, it is mentioned "sanctuary fortress" is mentioned in regards to Antiochus Epiphanes. It will also be duly noted that, historically, i don't think it can be proven that Antiochus put the Zeus statue IN the holy place, but it was near the altar (I think).

Revelation

This fact has always weirded me out a little bit. No temple desecration is ever spoken of in the book of Revelation!!!!! Even though it is supposed to be one of the most important end time events. Even when discussing the image of the beast (revelation 13) which many consider to be the abomination, it is assumed by writers to be placed in a temple. The text doesn't even say that much.

It is also strange in Revelation 12, when the Jews flee to the desert. We know that at the sighting of this idol (abomination of desolation) standing in the wrong place the Jews should flee to the mountains (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14). In Revelation 12, we see the Jews fleeing to the desert to be protected for 3.5 years. But no idolatry is mentioned in connection with any temple. Idolatry is only seen in Revelation 13, and even then, there is no discussion of an end times temple being desecrated. Whatever is happening, it is causing "desolation" (immediate flight to the desert.) But no idolatry (abomination) mentioned until Revelation 13.

Revelation 11:1-2 talks about a temple of God (naon) and an altar. John is supposed to measure this and count the worshipers inside, but to exclude the outer court because the Gentiles will trample it for 42 months.

1Then I was given(A) a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told, "Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, 2but do not measure(B) the court outside the temple; leave that out, for(C) it is given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for(D) forty-two months.

This raises many issues, some of which have been raised before.

1)If the Antichrist specifically desecrates the temple, then why is it only the outer court that is trampled on by Gentiles? Wouldn't trampling the court + antichrist in temple, entail trampling the whole thing? Is the temple in another location as some have suggested? Is it even there at all?

2)John never gives us the results of his measurements. It is my understanding that all other instructions to measure the temple in the whole bible result in actual blueprints. This one does not.

3)This temple is referred to as a temple of God. At the end of the chapter 11, a "temple of God" (Same phrase in Greek as Revelation 11:1-2, by this i mean strong's numbers are the same) is seen in heaven. Any temple in the NT that is spoken of as "temple of God" is undebatably a place of God's actual residence, as seen here (Revelation 11:1-2 and 2 Thess2.4 are disputed). But any Jewish temple would not be blessed with God's special residence. Perhaps the temple spoken of in 11:1-2 is the temple in heaven, because it has worshipers in it and it is the "temple of God."

Which leaves us with the remaining passages by Jesus and Paul

Jesus

Jesus speaks of the abomination of desolation in Matthew 24 and mark 13. He speaks of desolation by armies in Luke 21, but no "abomination" or idol is mentioned. I believe this is explained by the fact that most end time Bible scholars would say that Luke 21 is not primarily about the end times, but the recording of Christ's response to the disciples question about the destruction of the temple, not the end. The answer to their question pertaining to the end is mainly seen in Matthew 24, and largely Mark 13, though some elements of the past are in Mark 13. However, I do believe Luke 21 has some elements of end times, as it says the city will be trampled on until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. Then Christ goes on to describe cosmic signs of his return. (Which of course, happens at the end of the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled).

As far as the end time abomination of desolation, we see this spoken of by Jesus.

15"So when you see the abomination of desolation(AD) spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in(AE) the holy place ((AF) let the reader understand), 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

14"But when you see(AD) the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be ((AE) let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

Both of these don't necessarily require a temple. "Holy Place" is a technical term for a room in the inner sanctuary of the temple. The author of Hebrews discusses this in regards to the tabernacle structure in Moses time. Hebrews 9

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.

But it is interesting to note that Jesus does not use the exact Greek phrase that the author of hebrews uses when he speaks of the holy place.

The author of hebrews to refer to the term "Holy Place" says "hagion."

http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/39.htm

The interlinear refers to it as "sanctuary."

Jesus says "topos hagios."

http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/40.htm
http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/5117.htm

As far as I'm aware, the only other times that "topos hagios" are used are in Acts 6 when the Jews riot and say that Paul speaks against the holy place and when they accuse Paul of bringing a Gentile into the temple.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+21:27-29&version=ESV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+6:12-14&version=ESV

Now, I do not think they are suggesting that Paul brought Titus into the "HOLY PLACE" (the room called by that). They just mean he took him in past the court of the Gentiles. So here, "holy place" is a very general reference to the temple. I don't think they even applied the term to necessarily the Holy Place room, so I don't think this necessarily means it is a building. The Jews today even consider that place to be sacred, to the point that they don't want anyone up there. This is evidenced by the sign by the temple mount.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hebrew_domeEntrance_sign.jpg

In light of all this, is Jesus suggesting that the abomination stands in the temple building? Certainly allowable. But required?? I think not.

So far, I think i can definitely be shown that the Antichrist commits idolatry by idolizing himself. Also, the image of him is also extreme idolatry. (Revelation 13). And all those horrible blasphemous things he says which raise himself about all gods are also are idolatry. (Revelation 13; Daniel 11:36-39). He also makes "desolate" (Daniel 9:27 he is the "one who makes desolate"). Also, Mark 13:14 uses a masculine pronoun, referring to the "abomination of desolation," to the point that one major translation even us the word "he" instead of "it" (also, NIV footnotes that "it" is masculine). Also, he makes desolate because the Jews must immediate flee upon sighting him. However, up until this point, I don't think it can be proven that a temple building must be desecrated or present even.

This leaves us with 2 Thessalonians 2.

Paul

This passage has been the topic of much discussion and debate in another thread, especially how it relates to the temple. I will simply summarize my thoughts here. I am in much internal conflict over these verses.

1Now we request you, (A)brethren, with regard to the (B)coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our (C)gathering together to Him, 2that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a (D)spirit or a (E)message or a (F)letter as if from us, to the effect that (G)the day of the Lord (H)has come. 3(I)Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the [a](J)apostasy comes first, and the (K)man of lawlessness is revealed, the (L)son of destruction, 4who opposes and exalts himself above (M)every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, (N)displaying himself as being God. 5Do you not remember that (O)while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? 6And you know (P)what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. 7For (Q)the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only (R)he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 8Then that lawless one (S)will be revealed whom the Lord will slay (T)with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the (U)appearance of His coming; 9that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of (V)Satan, with all power and (W)signs and false wonders, 10and with all the deception of wickedness for (X)those who perish, because they did not receive the love of (Y)the truth so as to be saved. 11For this reason (Z)God will send upon them a (AA)deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12in order that they all may be judged who (AB)did not believe the truth, but (AC)took pleasure in wickedness.

This at first glance appears to have completely shot down the idea that a temple is not necessary in the end times, especially relating to the Antichrist.

However, here are some facts we can gather:

1) Paul never says "heiron," here nor does any passage that could potentially be speaking of an end times temple. He says "naos" (so does Revelation 11:1-2). Heiron is most commonly used to refer to the Jerusalem temple. But "naos" can also be used, but it only denotes the inner sanctuary room. Compare the meanings below:

http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3485.htm
http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2411.htm

2) As far as "naos" is concerned, that is the word Jesus used when he spoke of destroying the temple and raising it in three days. (Speaking of his body). Jesus has also used that word to denote the physical sanctuary. Whenever Paul says our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, he uses "naos."

This would seem to settle the case of the temple issue. However, the next fact those a wrench into things. I will spell out my internal conflict before you.

3) Paul does not simply say "temple" he says "temple of God."

Here I will debate with myself:

This wouldn't be a problem, except the new testament never refers to anything as the "temple of God" unless God is actually there. This is also the case of the Old Testament. The Old Testament refers to places as the "temple of God." It is known that God actually lived in the first and second temples. (though not always, due to sin I think). It is a temple specifically for God to live in. These were legitimate temples, because of the Old Covenant. But in the new covenant, to call something the temple of God, is unusual to me. (Credit to Ampersand for exploring this possibility).

The only exception to this is possibly Revelation 11:1-2 (discussed earlier) and possibly the passage in question. All others involve God's actual dwelling. For this reason, in the New Testament, the "temple of God" often refers to the church/believers, because that is where God actually lives.

Also, when Paul speaks of idolatry in the church, he makes this very telling statement.

14Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? [b]16What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."[c]
17"Therefore come out from them
and be separate, says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you."[d]
18"I will be a Father to you,
and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty."

Emphasis mine.

So Paul says there is no harmony between the temple of God and idols. It is likely he was thinking of Antiochus Epiphanes at this time as well, who desecrated the Old Covenant temple (a legitimate temple) with an image of Zeus. He here also applies the statement that mixing the temple of God and idols as incompatible, and extends it so far as to say that the church is the temple of God.

Here is just a theory, I have not fully resolved it yet. But perhaps, Paul is thinking in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 that the end time abomination of desolation is far worse than a man going inside a building and saying he is God. It is the temple of God (Christians) succumbing to idolatry of Antichrist worship. This "abomination of desolation" one of believers putting the Antichrist in their heart where Christ belongs, is a far worse desecration of a very real temple (where God actually lives) than any desecration of a building on the Temple Mount.

I could be accused of being overly allegorical (if you believe so, please say so). However, I believe that we could hold such a view even with a literal interpretation of prophecy. If I say "temple of God" in normal conversation, I could literally be speaking of the church or a believer, because that is where God literally dwells and lives and "tabernacles". Same applies if I say "sanctuary of God" and "house of God."

I am not at all saying that the Antichrist won't enter a physical place and defile the area (such as the Temple mount). I think Jesus and Daniel and Revelation strongly indicate that. I just think that Paul may not be limiting himself to that and using the opportunity to show the complete picture.

However, I do disagree with myself in this regard and have not fully resolved this. Perhaps Paul is simply specifying that this is a temple for YHWH (may his holy name be praised), instead of one of a pagan deity, like Diana. Because the word "naos" to a Gentile audience can mean any shrine. Perhaps Paul is simply specifying that this is a Jewish shrine, not a pagan one.

(interesting side note that the dome of the Rock is over the holy of holies and is called a "shrine" and a "sanctuary.")
Adamantine suggests this in his great end times powerpoint here: http://unsealedprophecy.wordpress.com/

Also, I have seen an argument that, since Thessalonians is written very early, that the metaphor of referring to the "temple of God" as meaning believers had not fully come into use yet and the old definition (physical building) remained. This author argues that the building has the literal notion in view in 50 AD (around the time Thessalonians was written). The church/believers definition was developed in the mid 50's, and in full use by the 60's.
http://bible.org/article/%E2%80%9Ctemple-god%E2%80%9D-2-thessalonians-24-literal-or-metaphorical

Also, my biggest problem with this idea is the use of very physical words in respect to this temple. Especially the word "sit." A man cannot physically sit inside the body of a believer (definitely not Paul's idea). Nor can a man physically "sit" in the church. One can physically "sit" in a church building somewhere, but I could not physically "sit" down in the Church in the sense that it is all members of the body of Christ. (By sit down physically I mean in the same sense that someone sits in a chair.) The Greek word supports the physical idea.

http://concordance.biblos.com/kathisai.htm

Also, he "sits" and displays himself as God. The sitting in the location seems connected with who he is making himself out to be.

http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/584.htm

Also, the Thessalonians, who had very serious theological troubles that none of us have (like the idea that the wrath of God is happening now and that the day of the Lord has already come). This warranted a letter, to clarify confusion about the second coming. It is difficult for me to believe that he expected the Thessalonians to have such a deep theological understanding that they would automatically assume "temple of God" to mean themselves, when they were such a new group of Christians and the idea that we are God's temple is still being taught. Though he had previously discussed end times with them, it is difficult for me to simply assume that is when he told them they are the temple. When Paul speaks of us being the temple of God, he always clarifies it instead of leaving the words "temple of God" there all alone.

So that was yet a very longwinded post that was not intended to be so. In this post, I intended to show the "other side" of the temple issue. In my first post "temple issues" I show how I struggle with the idea that the temple wouldn't be rebuilt. This post is meant to show my struggles with the other side, namely, the extreme unusual character of the times that do discuss what may be an end times temple, and how an end times temple is not necessarily required.

Other post here:
http://www.fulfilledprophecy.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=56126

As far as sacrifices are concerned, I am still exploring that.

Any feedback anyone is willing to give is appreciated.

Just an FYI, many ideas presented here I learned from this webpage. Nevertheless, I do not take the exact same view as the author:

http://www.tribwatch.com/corner.htm

I also find the discussion of "kanaph" there to be interesting and of significance, but I am not sure what that points to, only that it would be weird to use that phrase in regard to a temple.

Love to hear from you guys.

Thanks,

Eschologizer

[Mr Baldy]

Hi eschologizer,

After reading your post, and the previous suggestion that you made, in which you stated that the "image" (spoken of in Scripture) could actually be a Television recording, or some sort of video footage has me thinking. I'm now wondering if this is what the AOD will actually be.

Perhaps I'm way out of line, and someone else has previously mentioned this on this forum also, but would some sort of audible video footage placed on the Wailing Wall - where the Jews pray; and is a "holy place"; meet the requirement?

[eschologizer]

I see that picture in my mind as a possibility, lately especially.

I thought about half-jokingly ending my above post with a statement like this: If we see them roll a big jumbotron TV onto the temple mount should we be concerned??????

I am not sure how it will happen, but the fact that Paul and Jesus and Revelation seem to imply that the AOD will be a rather public event. The TV on temple mount idea is viable in my mind.

I was also thinking of this fact earlier: The fact that the image is worshiped by everyone on earth would imply that everyone would have to see that image.

Mr Baldy I think it is interesting, when you describe this television theory, you help me think of aspects of it I hadn't thought of before. Especially the idea that it is a worldwide television broadcast itself could be the image spoken of, even if the main one is like a big scoreboard TV by the temple mount.

Others have proposed this idea as well, a TV being the image of some kind. Others have proposed holograms/demon posessed statue or a very advanced robot.

I am not 100% sure it will play out that way, but if I was Satan and had 3.5 years to do whatever I wanted, a global television broadcast would probably be one of the things I would do.

All of these things are very interesting to think about. I just hope we are able to know very soon. I sure hope the ENPI is it.

[SueAnn]

re: TV broadcast from the Temple Mount.....let's not forget the 2 witnesses will be there, preaching away and protected from the violence their preaching will cause.

So, here's my question....can the 2 witnesses and the image that will be worshiprequired be "playing" at the same theater at the same time, i.e. the Temple Mount?

[eschologizer]

Good question.

Whatever the image is, it's location is not specifically stated. But I think it would be likely to be put in Israel, even the temple mount.

Perhaps the two witnesses could be there as well. They would be an incredible nuisance to the false prophet and the antichrist. Them screaming constantly about how evil the image is would not be good advertising for the beast. However, no one will be able to approach them to kill them. There is also nothing saying that the two witnesses will try and stop the beast from doing his beastly things. There job is to prophesy and strike the earth with any type of plague whenever they want. (rev. 11:3-6)

I find this verse intriguing.

27"And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of (A)abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a (B)complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."

It is interesting that he continues to make desolate until he is destroyed. I would think that the Antichrist would not want to be present at the site of "desolation" for a whole three and a half years day and night. An image is a way for him to do this.

[Mr Baldy]

It is interesting that he continues to make desolate until he is destroyed. I would think that the Antichrist would not want to be present at the site of "desolation" for a whole three and a half years day and night. An image is a way for him to do this.

Yes, as in some form of on-going Television like fixture mounted there. In some translations the word "wing" of the temple is used.

[eschologizer]

This idea seems appealing to me. But the whole temple issue I wrangle about in the post is something I am very unsure about. Also, I am wondering how sacrifices will be fit into all this?

As far as exploring this issue, this ted montgomery post is interesting.

http://www.tedmontgomery.com/bblovrvw/emails/templelocation.html

[watching]

Hi eschologizer,

I'm not sure if you've seen this thread from a while back, but it has some interesting ideas concerning the "sacrifice."

http://www.fulfilledprophecy.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=48113

At this point, I don't see what else could be taken away from the Jews, in terms of worship and the Temple Mount, that hasn't already.

[eschologizer]

Thanks Watching, for posting the link. It at least must be considered that prophecy may happen apart from our expectations, and this is one of those possible areas.

I found some interesting thoughts by the church fathers on what the "continual" or the "sacrifice and offering" is that, weirdly enough, does not favor the traditional dispensationalist view but falls more along the lines of what is being suggested, namely, that it is worship and prayer that is stopped.

In St. Jerome's (347-420 AD) commentary on Daniel he makes this suggestion in the part on Daniel 12 and the continual [sacrifice].

Verse 11. "And from the time that the continual sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination unto desolation shall be set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days." Porphyry asserts that these one thousand two hundred and ninety days were fulfilled in the desolation of the Temple in the time of Antiochus, and yet both Josephus and the Book of Maccabees, as we have said before, record that it lasted for only three years. From this circumstance it is apparent that the three and a half years are spoken of in connection with the time of the Antichrist, for he is going to persecute the saints for three and a half years, or one thousand two hundred and ninety days, and then he shall meet his fall on the famous, holy mountain. And so from the time of the removal of the endelekhismos, which we have translated as "continual sacrifice," i.e., the time when the Antichrist shall obtain possession of the world (variant: the city) and forbid the worship (A) of God, unto the day of his death the three and a half years, or one thousand two hundred and ninety days, shall be fulfilled. (730).

Hippolytus (c. 170 – c. 236) who believed that the 70th week was future, does not attribute "sacrifice and offering" with animal sacrifices and incense offerings, but with something else that seems more general in nature. Below are fragments from some of his writings that indicate that he thought this was the case.

It is interesting that both these men, Hippolytus and Jerome, along with many others such as Irenaus, Tertullian, appear to believe in a future rebuilt temple (even though they wrote after 70 A.D.). I find it fascinating that two of these men, who affirm the literalness of the temple in the end time, seem to agree that the end time references to what is translated as "daily [sacrifice]" or "sacrifice and offering" do not apply to blood offerings and incense offerings. It is not to say that I take this view, but we should certainly be open to that idea.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0502.htm

21. For this reason, then, the angel says to Daniel, Seal the words, for the vision is until the end of the time. But to Christ it was not said seal, but loose the things bound of old; in order that, by His grace, we might know the will of the Father, and believe upon Him whom He has sent for the salvation of men, Jesus our Lord. He says, therefore, They shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall; which in reality took place. For the people returned and built the city, and the temple, and the wall round about. Then he says: After threescore and two weeks the times will be fulfilled, and one week will make a covenant with many; and in the midst (half) of the week sacrifice and oblation will be removed, and in the temple will be the abomination of desolations.

22. For when the threescore and two weeks are fulfilled, and Christ has come, and the Gospel is preached in every place, the times being then accomplished, there will remain only one week, the last, in which Elias will appear, and Enoch, and in the midst of it the abomination of desolation will be manifested, viz., Antichrist, announcing desolation to the world. And when he comes, the sacrifice and oblation will be removed, which now are offered to God in every place by the nations. These things being thus recounted, the prophet again describes another vision to us. For he had no other care save to be accurately instructed in all things that are to be, and to prove himself an instructor in such.

As far as the temple itself, I had been reading around the internet quite a lot. One person said that many church fathers anticipated that the Antichrist himself will enable the building of the temple. In history Julian the Apostate in 135 AD attempted to rebuild the temple and had people go do it, but it ignited a war which prevented them. Perhaps the antichrist will allow the Jews to do this, not necessarily at the seven year covenant, but even close to the midpoint.

I was also wondering, is it theologically feasible for the Antichrist to build the temple for himself in the first place on the holy of holies? Could he come forward and say he's God and because of that begin ordering the construction of a Jewish temple for himself to be worshipped in? More wild speculation on my part.

Also, I saw an idea that was more on the extreme end but interesting. Someone suggested the same idea that the Temple of God is not the Jewish temple or the church, but the temple in heaven. They suggested that the demon from the Abyss enables the Antichrist to sit up in heaven and display himself as God. While this very very remotely possible in a theological sense, considering Satan has access to heaven (Revelation 12), I don't really see support for that view, and it is much more extreme than the already very vivid images portrayed in Revelation. It would be unusual for Revelation to not go to the full extent, as the images seem to not hesitate to show the drastic vividness of the situation.

If I remember correctly, this person used the following verses as support for their view. I also saw these verses crossreferenced in ESV Bible gateway to 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

Isaiah 14:14

14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.'

Ezekiel 28:2

2(A) "Son of man, say to(B) the prince of Tyre, Thus says the Lord GOD:

(C) "Because your heart is proud,
and(D) you have said, 'I am a god,
I sit in the seat of the gods,
in the heart of the seas,'
yet(E) you are but a man, and no god,
(F) though you make your heart like the heart of a god—

It is very interesting if these verses are in some way supposed to be tied to the prophecy paul gives (2 Thess 2:4) in some way, though probably not in the sense that the Antichrist literally goes up to heaven.

It is very strange, the wording in the Greek if we look at it one way. If I went into a building, I don't see how that would be me "demonstrating" or somehow make me "show forth" that I am God. I can see the idea of how it is normally interpreted. He sits in the temple in the way that is supposed to display himself as God.

I may be reading into things, but is it worded as if just the act of him going there somehow is supposed to demonstrate/show forth/ exhibit him to be God? If a person just sits in a building, it doesn't prove anything about them. But this seems to suggest the possibility that it is somehow considered evidence of the fact that he simply sets himself up there. I am not sure what to make of that. I am probably just reading into that, however.

http://biblos.com/2_thessalonians/2-4.htm

But as far as the temple, still wrangling with the issue in my head.

[learningeachday]

This idea seems appealing to me. But the whole temple issue I wrangle about in the post is something I am very unsure about. Also, I am wondering how sacrifices will be fit into all this?

As far as exploring this issue, this ted montgomery post is interesting.

http://www.tedmontgomery.com/bblovrvw/emails/templelocation.html

Ted's post is very interesting! Thanks for posting it, E!

My thought after reading Ted's post is that if the Psalm 83 war is the next big prophetic thing to come, and it knocks out the Jewish people's threat from the surrounding Muslim nations (as many experts believe), wouldn't it be rather easy for the Jews to use the Dome of the Rock as they pleased?

[watching]

Hi eschologizer,

Hippolytus (c. 170 – c. 236) who believed that the 70th week was future, does not attribute "sacrifice and offering" with animal sacrifices and incense offerings, but with something else that seems more general in nature. Below are fragments from some of his writings that indicate that he thought this was the case.

I realize that, Hippolytus, apparently, believed that the 70th week was future, but I really do not understand why.

Because here is what Daniel says:

26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off,...........

Of course, if you add the first seven, then that would make it after sixty nine weeks. And since seventy comes after sixty nine, then that would place this event in the seventieth week.

I really don't see anyway around that.

It also seems logical, to me, anyway, that the seventy weeks prophecy, as well as the seventieth week would have been suspended at the precise moment that the Messiah was "cut off."

This would also explain verse 27:

............and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice (zebach) and the oblation to cease,................

Hebrews 10:1-12 (King James Version)

1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

7Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

It would also explain why a 3 1/2 year prophetic future time frame is described in the book of Daniel and Revelation.

I was also wondering, is it theologically feasible for the Antichrist to build the temple for himself in the first place on the holy of holies?

That's an interesting idea. In fact, that might actually explain this verse:

Daniel 11:45 (King James Version)

45And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

Also, I saw an idea that was more on the extreme end but interesting. Someone suggested the same idea that the Temple of God is not the Jewish temple or the church, but the temple in heaven.

Well, Daniel 8 does seem to have spiritual connotations:

Daniel 8:10-12 (King James Version)

10And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.

11Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down.

12And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.

It is very interesting if these verses are in some way supposed to be tied to the prophecy paul gives (2 Thess 2:4) in some way, though probably not in the sense that the Antichrist literally goes up to heaven.

It is very strange, the wording in the Greek if we look at it one way.

Well, as this has been explored before, here is what the verse actually says: (from your link)

2 Thessalonians 2:4 Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)
ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός.

Here is my translation:

ὁ the ἀντικείμενος one who opposes καὶ and ὑπεραιρόμενος one who is self exalted ἐπὶ over πάντα everything λεγόμενον said to be θεὸν of God ἢ or σέβασμα something that is to be worshipped, (emphasis added here) ὥστε so as / insomuch as αὐτὸν [for] him εἰς in τὸν the ναὸν temple τοῦ of θεοῦ God καθίσαι to sit ἀποδεικνύντα showing / pointing to ἑαυτὸν himself ὅτι that ἔστιν he is θεός God.

As you can see, this is more or less a characterization, written, for the most part, in the present tense, with the exception of, to sit, which is in the aorist tense (indefinite).

So, I, personally, do not see this verse as proving, or disproving, a future physical temple.

If I went into a building, I don't see how that would be me "demonstrating" or somehow make me "show forth" that I am God. I can see the idea of how it is normally interpreted. He sits in the temple in the way that is supposed to display himself as God.

I may be reading into things, but is it worded as if just the act of him going there somehow is supposed to demonstrate/show forth/ exhibit him to be God? If a person just sits in a building, it doesn't prove anything about them. But this seems to suggest the possibility that it is somehow considered evidence of the fact that he simply sets himself up there. I am not sure what to make of that.

When I read that verse, I don't visualize someone just going into a temple and sitting down.

Here is what I visualize when I read that verse:

http://www.newprophecy.net/Temple_of_Zeus_1.jpg

As we know, it has happened this way before, historically, but as for, how it will happen in the future, I do not know.

[Mttw633]

I apologize if this sounds disjointed, but my child wants to go on the computer. I don't think there will be a literal temple for the last abomination. Jesus said, your house is left to you desolate. That was at the last abomination in 70ad. The image-is a representation or likeness. The fp breaths life, pneuma-a spirit into it.

The beast from the abyss is antichrist. He has 5 months to rule. He inhabits a body which gets a mortal wound. The fp breaths pneuma into it and lives with the pneuma of one of the previous kings. It is named in the Bible: it's Apollyon. The abomination is done by the one who speaks proud words and blasphemies for 42 months. After his time is up he dies. Then Apollyon will inhabit him.

[watching]

Mttw633 and eschologizer,

I also find the discussion of "kanaph" there to be interesting and of significance, but I am not sure what that points to, only that it would be weird to use that phrase in regard to a temple.

Let me say first of all, that I do not know Hebrew, but based on the following word for word translation, it appears to me that "kanaph" is referring to abominations, not the temple.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/dan9.pdf

According to the following definition, kanaph basically means wing, but it can also mean extremity.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3671&t=KJV

And if you look at the Gesenius's Lexicon section and click for the rest of the entry, you will see (towards the bottom) that it is comparable to the Greek word "πτερύγιον," which also means wing (literally) or pointed extremity (figuratively).

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4419&t=KJV

And "kanaph" is apparently comparable in it's use, according to Gesenius's Lexicon, to the way "πτερύγιον" was used in the following verse:

ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 4:5 (1550 Stephanus New Testament)

5τοτε παραλαμβανει αυτον ο διαβολος εις την αγιαν πολιν και ιστησιν αυτον επι το πτερυγιον του ιερου

Matthew 4:5 (King James Version)

5Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

So here's how I see it. When the verse says, "on the wing of abominations," or "for the overspreading of abominations," I take that to mean the "extremity" of abominations, or the "pinnacle" of abominations, if you will.

So, I don't see this as having anything to do with a temple.

In fact, as eschologizer has already stated, there is no mention of a temple in verse 27.

We were, however, told in the previous verse that the city and the sanctuary would be destroyed and onto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Daniel 9:26 (King James Version)

26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

The question, however, is:

Is the desolation, of Daniel 9:27, due to the cutting off of the Messiah, which, btw, I, personally, would consider to be the "extremity" of abominations, (at least so far), or is the desolation due to the "abomination of desolation" that Jesus warned about in Matthew 24, or both?

Here is verse 27 for reference:

Daniel 9:27 (King James Version)

27And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Here's how I, presently, see it. (I say "presently" because I have changed my view on this.)

The way I see it is this. Anyway you look at it, there is an abomination of deslation at the midpoint, whether it be at the end of the first half of the seventieth week, or at the beginning of the second half of the seventieth week.

So, I do believe that Jesus was referring to Daniel 9:27 in Matthew 24:15.

But, if you will notice, Jesus never mentioned anything about an anti-Christ seven year covenant.

Here is Matthew 24 in it's entirety:

Matthew 24 (King James Version)

1And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

2And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

3And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

4And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

5For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

6And 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.

7For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

8All these are the beginning of sorrows.

9Then 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.

10And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

11And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

12And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

14And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

15When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

16Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

17Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

18Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

19And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

20But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

21For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

22And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

23Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

25Behold, I have told you before.

26Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

27For 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.

28For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

29Immediately 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:

30And 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.

31And 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.

32Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

33So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

34Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

35Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

36But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

37But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

40Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

41Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

42Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

43But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

44Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

45Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?

46Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.

47Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.

48But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;

49And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;

50The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,

51And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

[eschologizer]

Watching,

Sorry I took so long to respond.

Thanks for taking the time to provide feedback. This is a very interesting topic we are exploring here.

So just to clarify. You see the main thrust of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 as more of a characterization of someone's personality, as opposed to its main intention being to specify some type of event the man of lawlessness does? Just trying to further understand what you mean.

If so, (you may have already clarified this), I am interested in what you picture in your mind when you imagine this event in the future?

As you said, it is very interesting that the word "sat" is in past tense (or aorist, not sure what that means). I am no expert in languages or Greek for that matter, but I have a guess at why that could be. I think Paul is basically just saying that unless the apostasy has come, and the Antichrist has not sat down in the temple (past tense), the day of the Lord will not/has not come. Of course, I could be incorrect in this interpretation. The reason I lean towards this perspective is because Antiochus did not personally set himself up as God in the temple (though he did something, very very close to that). If I understand correctly, he stopped sacrifices by ordering that an altar to Zeus be placed on top of the regular one (causing sacrifice to stop just by its presence). Then, an statue of Zeus was set up and it was in some way made to look like Antiochus, as he called himself "Epiphanes" or "Manifest." I am pretty sure that as a general rule he called himself God. Of course, this situation has extremely obvious parallels to Revelation 13. But I could be wrong about this situation. That is how I have understood it from what I have read.

I have taken another strategy in my research of the temple issue. In order to better understand the word usage/connotations of Greek words, I have started searching the Septuagint for those words and how they are used in context. The first thing I realized was very much a confirmation of what we had already been suspecting. I looked up "the holy place" or "holy place" in the Septuagint and compared all of the different ways that phrase is used in Greek.

I found a very interesting conclusion. When Jesus refers to the "holy place" in 24:15, he uses a less commonly used, but definitely occasionally occurring, phrase to express that. He says "topos hagios." This is interesting for many reasons. First, looking at just the New Testament, we can see that the author of Hebrews does not use this construction to refer to the sacred room the "Holy Place." He simply uses "hagion" (variation on hagios) to designate the main sanctuary room. The other two times that "holy place" is used in the new testament is when the Jews accuse Paul of speaking against the holy place and are worried that he has defiled this holy place (topos hagios) by bringing Titus, a Gentile, into the temple. I saw in the Bible knowledge commentary, this evidently does not mean he brought Titus into the "Holy Place" (the room for the priests). It simply indicates that he brought Titus into the court of men. So anytime, it says "holy place" (topos hagios) the New Testament seems to indicate that is a reference to the location that is the general temple area, as opposed to the sacred edifice itself.

When I studied the Septuagint references, this pattern was confirmed. When referring to the Holy Place room, it seems just "hagios" or a variant is used. This is what is most commonly rendered by the phrase "holy place" in English. However, there is more than one use of the alternate, with a definite difference in connotation. Sometimes, though it is a minority of time, the english phrase "holy place" in the Septuagint denotes "topos hagios," which is what Jesus said in reference to the Abomination of Desolation. That is either phrased in the NASB indefinitely "a holy place" or very occasionally as "the holy place." When it says "a holy place" it always seems to refer to simply a locale that is sacred (somewhere in the temple area). It does not seem to be denoting a building. One time (specifically Leviticus 6:26, it most certainly does not mean a building, but a courtyard).The occasional time it is used with the definite article, it seems to be yet again referring to a location, not so much as an edifice or room. (Ecclesiastes 8:10 seems to speak of the phrase as referring to the general temple area where people regularly went in and out.) You can see my search results in the link below. When it says holy place, with just holy underlined, it is an instance referring to the HOLY PLACE room. When it underlines both, holy place, it denotes a variant of "topos hagios." The greek from Septuagint is listed below the verse.

http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=%22holy+place%22&section=0&it=nas&oq=%2522holy%2520place%2522&ot=lxx&nt=na&new=1

One interesting example of this is in Leviticus 10:13-18.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2010:12-20&version=NASB

Especially at verse 17, he reprimands people for burning up the sacrifice and not eating it at the "topos hagios." Then he goes on to say that it should be eaten in the sanctuary itself. So it is confusing if he means them to go into the Holy Place room or not. But ESV (a literal thought for thought translation) seems to make it clear that when topos hagios is used, though it may mean the sanctuary, the phrase itself means the "place of the sanctuary."

See verses 17-18 in ESV below.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2010:12-20&version=ESV

So long story short, it does seem that "topos hagios" though used less often, does not necessarily refer to a room but refers to the location aspect of the sacred area as opposed to emphasizing a building or room of a building, as hagios does . I believe this somewhat verifies our suspicions.

After doing that, I extended my study to the use of naos in the Old Testament. It seems that when referring to the inner sanctuary edifice of the temple building it, "naos" is used. This seems to be consistently rendered heykel in hebrew. This seems to be a definite reference to the room, the Holy Place. This does not come into use until 1 Samuel, as far as I can tell. I also realized something strange. "Heiron" is never used in the Greek OT, or not that I can find. It is extremely hard to search the Septuagint for Greek words and get them all/find them in the text.

It would seem we could completely reject the idea of a new temple being required for prophecy, if it wasn't for 2 Thessalonians 2:4. Saying that it simply refers to the "topos hagios" or location of the Temple Mount, would solve most of our theological "unusualities" associated with the idea of temple desecration if it wasn't for 2 Thess. 2:4. We would understand why the outer court seems to be trampled but the temple has worshippers in it (whether this is all simultanious, I don't know). Also, it would explain the curious absence of temple discussion in Revelation and Daniel. And also, it would make perfect logical sense with Christ's phrase "topos hagios" as far as the location of the Abomination of Desolation is concerned.

But I immensely struggle with rejecting the idea of a literal edifice or room for many reasons. Here they are:

- the verb seems to be very literal, regarding the man of sin physically siting in the temple of God.
-It would be hard to take any other way in a sense that is obvious to the already confused thessalonians, other than what it seems to be saying on the surface.
-Though a temple is not required in other areas describing the Antichrist, phrases usually associated with the temple are (abomination of desolation) and the stopping of sacrifice and offering. You don't need to have a temple to sacrifice (I realize this may not mean what some say it means). But when you have a few places implying sacrifice is stopped, and many temple/temple are references, it is hard to escape the idea of a temple.
-The early church does seem to largely agree (except Origen) in an end times temple, even when they are writing after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. I struggle to disagree with all of them.

But if 2 Thessalonians 2 is a literal temple building, it raises many questions.
-if it is a physical event in the temple, why doesn't Paul elaborate on such a strange event and simply states it with one sentence?
-why does he call it a "temple of God"?
-why is this the lone use of Paul saying "naos" of God in reference to a building?

I am sorry I am rambling. Simply thinking out loud.

I remember reading that you were Greek. If so, I had a question, if you don't mind. Lets just say that Paul wanted to refer to the temple area in Jerusalem, even though the temple would someday not be there. What would be the best way for Paul to say this? Would saying what he said "naos" of God, be an acceptable way to refer to that piece of real estate (the temple mount) when explaining it to a Gentile audience? Though one could argue that the Temple Mount is not even necessary to fulfill these prophecies, it does seem to be somewhat of a central area, considering matt 24:15, "topos hagios," Pauls apparent reference to a Jerusalem temple, and Revelation 11:1-2 etc.


A few quick thoughts on the 70th week of Daniel. I agree that Daniel 9:24-27 is a confusing passage and seems to use ambiguous words. So I will simply humbly present my thoughts. A lot of this is stuff you probably have already considered. Please forgive me for any rehashing/repeating of evidences you are already familiar with.

The main reason I would say the 70th week of Daniel has to be future is because the launch event (confirming a covenant/alliance for 7 years) was never done by Christ. Also, I do not believe it could be said that Titus made such a political arrangement, even though his war was about 7 years. He never made such a covenant (I think the Hebrew word there also carries possible connotations of an alliance or confederacy (see esword)). And of course we would both agree that Antiochus never did that either (I think some liberal scholars try and say that, but we would both agree that is impossible).

Also, though Christ did stop the necessity of sacrifice and offering 3.5 years into his ministry, those sacrifices and offerings continued until 70 AD. I definitely see the appeal this approach, but I personally just don't think Christ meets the qualifications for this.

You did present an interesting viewpoint. That the suspension of the 70 weeks prophecy doesn't happen after the 62 weeks, but halfway into the 70th week. It is my personal opinion that it would be easier to say "after 62 weeks" as being the suspension, than suspending the the 70th week itself in the middle. Because, saying "after" the 62 weeks, doesn't have to require that the 70th week starts immediately. Its just an event that happens afterwards. Also, I think this is why it is very carefully said that it is not the ruler who will come that destroys the sanctuary, but his people. Also, very similar to the bridge between Antiochus and Antichrist in Daniel 11:35-36 by referring to the end, I believe this also happens at the end of verse 26, when it changes focus towards the end.

You raise an interesting and valid point about Christ not mentioning the "Antichrist 7 year treaty." I have noticed this as well. My personal view on that is that it is a less noticeable/early on political prophecy associated with the end, like the political events associated with the ten kings (Daniel 7:25). Also, I believe that when Christ describes the signs in the Olivet discourse, he is describing very global signs that signal very impending end. 7 year covenant places the end at least 3.5 years away and it is what I like to call a "political prophecy." The fact that Jesus doesn't mention it has lead some to believe that not everyone will know it when it happens (like people without access to the internet/books for example.) However, that is just my opinion, as is this post.

I am sorry I rambled so long. I would appreciate any thoughts or feedback you have on this. Thanks for responding and sharing your thoughts!!

Thanks,

Eschologizer

[ampersand]

Well, eschologizer, you've really covered a lot of things in your posts. Way too much to respond to at once. You know where I stand on this verse in the letter to the Thessalonian church, but allow me to point out one thing for the time being:

2:4 describes the man of sin/son of perdition as: "opposing and self-exalting"...with the result: so as "to sit him(self) in the temple of God as God, demonstrating/showing-off himself that he is God."

If one firmly believes that this verse is describing an actual sitting down in the temple of God, what does the phrase "as God" tell you/us? How would you know when someone is sitting in the temple of God "as God", as opposed to sitting there NOT "as God"?

'How' does God sit in the Temple of God?

I think this phrase is just another element of this verse that is suggestive of an "effective" sitting in the temple of God (what you may call "metaphorical", though I don't think that's the best word). God has never physically sat in an earthly temple of God (unless you consider Luke 4:20 or John 8:2 to be related to this verse in 2Thess...but then those verses speak of the "synagogue" and "hieron", respectively, not the "naos". We have no record of God physically sitting in the earthly "naos.").

in Christ,
&



{some may say, "there is no article before the word God, so it could be god not God." I don't think so. I'm certain that "as God" is referring to The One True God, as it is immediately proceeded by a reference to Him. Compare with Romans 1:21 for the exact same usage of "as God".}

[ampersand]

...
the verb seems to be very literal, regarding the man of sin physically siting in the temple of God.
...

You have mentioned several times that this verb seems very "literal." I assume you mean very "physical." Allow me to point out one thing:

In Matthew 23:2, is the "sitting" a physical sitting in Moses' seat?

in Christ,
&

[ampersand]

...
-It would be hard to take any other way in a sense that is obvious to the already confused thessalonians, other than what it seems to be saying on the surface.
...
-The early church does seem to largely agree (except Origen) in an end times temple, even when they are writing after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. I struggle to disagree with all of them.
...
If so, I had a question, if you don't mind. Lets just say that Paul wanted to refer to the temple area in Jerusalem, even though the temple would someday not be there. What would be the best way for Paul to say this? Would saying what he said "naos" of God, be an acceptable way to refer to that piece of real estate (the temple mount) when explaining it to a Gentile audience? Though one could argue that the Temple Mount is not even necessary to fulfill these prophecies, it does seem to be somewhat of a central area, considering matt 24:15, "topos hagios," Pauls apparent reference to a Jerusalem temple, and Revelation 11:1-2 etc.
...

All of these things are interesting to think about, but the common element in these considerations is the question "how would/did the audience understand this?" or "what did Paul mean when he wrote this?" -- and then the use of the answer to those questions as the basis for our understanding of the text. I personally consider this type of reasoning unsound (to a certain extent), because really, "who cares" how the Thessalonians understood it? I'm not trying to be flippant or rude by making such a statement, but the reason I take this approach is in part explained by the following text:

Jesus said to them, Destroy this sanctuary, and in three days I will raise it up. Then the Jews said, This sanctuary was forty six years being built, and do you raise it up in three days? But He spoke about the sanctuary of His body. Then when He was raised from the dead, His disciples recalled that He said this to them. And they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus spoke.

If I was to concern myself with how the audience perceived the message, I would definitely think that Jesus was discussing the temple of Jerusalem, especially because He was actually in the temple when He uttered those words! However, He was NOT speaking of the temple! Therefore, the approach I take is "what is God saying" not "what is Paul saying" or "what would the audience think?"

I didn't always think this way...

I think this is highly dependent on one's view of Biblical inspiration. I believe in verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures: every word is from God, therefore from His perspective -- that's why "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14).


As for your question of how could one refer to the Jerusalem temple -- in the book of Acts, the temple of Jerusalem is never called the "temple of God" or the "temple unto God", yet it is clear when the Jerusalem temple is being discussed. IMO, all that is necessary to correctly identify the temple is to identify the town being discussed.

in Christ,
&

[watching]

Hi eschologizer,

You have brought up a lot of issues in your post, so it looks like I will have to make a long winded post, as well, in reply to your post.

I actually did not have time to start on this over the weekend, and even though things have slowed down a bit now, it looks like I'm going to have to work on this a little at a time and save my work in a draft until I'm ready to post, since there are so many issues involved.

Of course by the time you read this, my post will have been completed, and I will have already posted it. But, in any case, that's how it was done, (even though it hasn't been done yet).

And now for the first installment:

So just to clarify. You see the main thrust of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 as more of a characterization of someone's personality, as opposed to its main intention being to specify some type of event the man of lawlessness does? Just trying to further understand what you mean.

Yes, that is my understanding based on the wording of the text.

If so, (you may have already clarified this), I am interested in what you picture in your mind when you imagine this event in the future?

Well, first of all, let me just say, based on the way that the text was written (specifically verse 4), I don't think it necessarily implies that this particular event, that is described in verse 4, will occur as a one time future event, necessarily. (However, I say this based on the wording alone, without factoring in the context, at this point.)

As you said, it is very interesting that the word "sat" is in past tense (or aorist, not sure what that means). I am no expert in languages or Greek for that matter, but I have a guess at why that could be. I think Paul is basically just saying that unless the apostasy has come, and the Antichrist has not sat down in the temple (past tense), the day of the Lord will not/has not come. Of course, I could be incorrect in this interpretation. The reason I lean towards this perspective is because Antiochus did not personally set himself up as God in the temple (though he did something, very very close to that). If I understand correctly, he stopped sacrifices by ordering that an altar to Zeus be placed on top of the regular one (causing sacrifice to stop just by its presence). Then, an statue of Zeus was set up and it was in some way made to look like Antiochus, as he called himself "Epiphanes" or "Manifest." I am pretty sure that as a general rule he called himself God. Of course, this situation has extremely obvious parallels to Revelation 13. But I could be wrong about this situation. That is how I have understood it from what I have read.

I realize that, initially, I was insisting, (in the following thread,viewtopic.php?f=53&t=53803) that the word "καθισαι" is past tense, because that is basically, how that word is understood in Greek today, (in the modern Greek, that is).

Incidentally, however, I was recently looking into this issue to see if what I was saying was correct, or not. Because, as I had already stated in that thread, I was just speaking off the top of my head (as always), and I was wondering if I needed to go back and correct myself, because, what I said, obviously, was not based on any grammatical knowledge.

In any case, as it turns out, the word in question, which is phonetically pronounced "kathise," is, actually, still classified as being in the aorist tense, in the Greek today. However, it is now classified as being in the indicative mood, which is basically understood as past tense, as opposed to the infinitive mood (which was the case with "καθισαι" in the Koine Greek). The infinitive mood is, however, indefinite in terms of past, present, or future.

So, since I verified that "kathise" is in the indicative mood (in modern Greek), which is understood as past tense, I didn't see any need to correct myself, in terms of my statements regarding the modern Greek.

However, the word in question which is pronounced "kathise" (phonetically) is spelled a little differently in the Greek today, but it still sounds the same.

To verify if what I said is correct, (because, again, I am not an authority on this issue, obviously), you may want to take a look at the following link. You will see the word "κάθισε," in the first aorist section. It is next to the word "έκατσε" (which is a variation of the same word).

http://modern-greek-verbs.tripod.com/kathomai.html

You may at this point be thinking, why am I wasting everyone's time, by discussing modern Greek.

Well, the point that I would like to make regarding this issue is that there is no way, (that I know of, anyway), to express the meaning of the word "καθισαι," as it was understood in Koine Greek, in the Greek language today. Just as there is no way to express that concept in English today.

The closest alternative is to precede the word "sit" with the word "to" in order to arrive at a somewhat comparable meaning, which is how it is done in the English, as well as the Greek today. Except for the fact that in Greek the word "sit" would be preceded by the word "να," which is comparable to our word, "to." And the word sit would still have to be conjugated accordingly, as to whether it is first, second, or third person; singular, or plural; past, present, or future tense, as can be seen from the second aorist section in the same link above.

So, as you can see, there is always an implication as to past, present, or future tense (in modern terms that is). However, that was not the case in Koine, or ancient/ Classical Greek.

As a result, what I have come to realize, is, that there is no way for one to adequately, convey the concept of the meaning of the word, "καθισαι," without also teaching someone ancient/Koine Greek. Which is why, if I had to choose from the available translations (other than my own), I think I would choose either the KJV, or the YLT, because by putting this word in the present tense, or past tense, one cannot automatically assume, or make the inference that this is referring to a specific, actual, literally precise, future event, which is, essentially, what has happened anyway. Keep in mind though, that I'm not saying that it wont be a specific, actual, literally precise, future event, because I don't know, if it will or not.

But, in any case, the text does not necessarily state that it will be, if one understands the aorist tense.

I would also like at this point to clarify the problem that I had with lambslave's translation, "so as to seat himself." And that is, that, although it comes very close, it is not exactly on target, in my opinion, because there is a slight difference between the word, and the concept of, "seat" as opposed to "sit."

The verb "seat" involves only a moment in time. It is the transition of going from a standing position to a sitting position. Whereas the verb "sit" is indefinite in terms of time.

Also, for this same reason, (and I'm not sure if this is true grammatically, or not, because I know about as much about English grammar as I do Greek, which is practically nil), but, nevertheless, based on the wording of lambslave's translation, I would be inclined to see this as a future event, but that's just me.

And as I said before, I'm not sure if that was the original intention of the text, or not.

So, to summarize what I am trying to say, the aorist tense is indefinite in terms of past, present, or future. And as others have attested, Greek is a very precise and complicated language, (as is probably the Hebrew, I would imagine, because it also has the aorist tense, and numerous variations from what I have noticed), which is why, I, personally, feel that it was no accident, that God chose these two languages as a vehicle for giving His word to us. Because, with the Greek language, (and I'm assuming Hebrew as well), you can be very precise, when you want to be.

BUT, you can also be very indefinite (or evasive), when you want to be.

And it just may be that, that is exactly how God wanted it to be.

In fact there is a word in the Greek language today, aside from conjugations, which means vague or indefinite. Can you guess what that word is?

http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon

So, to sum it up, here is my view regarding verse 4.

I do not feel that it was by accident that the word for "sit" was in the aorist tense. Maybe it is not for us to know how things will play out exactly, until it actually happens.

Besides, isn't that how prophecy is generally written, anyway?

And that's about all, for my first installment, until next time,

watching

................................................................................................................................................

Okay, now on to my second installment:

I have taken another strategy in my research of the temple issue. In order to better understand the word usage/connotations of Greek words, I have started searching the Septuagint for those words and how they are used in context. The first thing I realized was very much a confirmation of what we had already been suspecting. I looked up "the holy place" or "holy place" in the Septuagint and compared all of the different ways that phrase is used in Greek.

I found a very interesting conclusion. When Jesus refers to the "holy place" in 24:15, he uses a less commonly used, but definitely occasionally occurring, phrase to express that. He says "topos hagios." This is interesting for many reasons. First, looking at just the New Testament, we can see that the author of Hebrews does not use this construction to refer to the sacred room the "Holy Place." He simply uses "hagion" (variation on hagios) to designate the main sanctuary room. The other two times that "holy place" is used in the new testament is when the Jews accuse Paul of speaking against the holy place and are worried that he has defiled this holy place (topos hagios) by bringing Titus, a Gentile, into the temple. I saw in the Bible knowledge commentary, this evidently does not mean he brought Titus into the "Holy Place" (the room for the priests). It simply indicates that he brought Titus into the court of men. So anytime, it says "holy place" (topos hagios) the New Testament seems to indicate that is a reference to the location that is the general temple area, as opposed to the sacred edifice itself.

When I studied the Septuagint references, this pattern was confirmed. When referring to the Holy Place room, it seems just "hagios" or a variant is used. This is what is most commonly rendered by the phrase "holy place" in English. However, there is more than one use of the alternate, with a definite difference in connotation. Sometimes, though it is a minority of time, the english phrase "holy place" in the Septuagint denotes "topos hagios," which is what Jesus said in reference to the Abomination of Desolation. That is either phrased in the NASB indefinitely "a holy place" or very occasionally as "the holy place." When it says "a holy place" it always seems to refer to simply a locale that is sacred (somewhere in the temple area). It does not seem to be denoting a building. One time (specifically Leviticus 6:26, it most certainly does not mean a building, but a courtyard).The occasional time it is used with the definite article, it seems to be yet again referring to a location, not so much as an edifice or room. (Ecclesiastes 8:10 seems to speak of the phrase as referring to the general temple area where people regularly went in and out.) You can see my search results in the link below. When it says holy place, with just holy underlined, it is an instance referring to the HOLY PLACE room. When it underlines both, holy place, it denotes a variant of "topos hagios." The greek from Septuagint is listed below the verse.

http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi ... t=na&new=1

So long story short, it does seem that "topos hagios" though used less often, does not necessarily refer to a room but refers to the location aspect of the sacred area as opposed to emphasizing a building or room of a building, as hagios does . I believe this somewhat verifies our suspicions.

Hi eschologizer,

I have only looked at the first page of your examples (20/60), and I would tend to agree with you that, it does appear that when reference is being made to the inner room of the sanctuary, or the altar, the word "agion" is generally used, and that the term "topos agios" does seems to be a more generalized term in regard to the sanctuary, from what I have seen, so far, anyway. But, as I said, I haven't examined all of the examples.

Just as a note, however, it seems to me, that the word "agion," (when it is not being used as an adjective), is basically the noun from of the word "agios" which means "holy."

Correspondingly, I think the same also applies with the word "ieron," in that, (when it is not being used as an adjective), it is basically the noun form of the word "ieros" which also means "holy."

But, then again, as you know, I am no expert in grammar. So, please take my comments for what they are worth.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G40&t=KJV&sstr=1
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G40&t=KJV&sstr=1
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2411&t=KJV

After doing that, I extended my study to the use of naos in the Old Testament. It seems that when referring to the inner sanctuary edifice of the temple building it, "naos" is used. This seems to be consistently rendered heykel in hebrew. This seems to be a definite reference to the room, the Holy Place. This does not come into use until 1 Samuel, as far as I can tell. I also realized something strange. "Heiron" is never used in the Greek OT, or not that I can find.

I'm not sure what the difference between "ναός" and "ἱερόν" is, but I find it ironic that "ναός" refers to the inner sanctuary, because the word "ναός," is basically generic, (as you have noted, as well), and can refer to any temple. (see second definition) http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 3485&t=KJV However the word ἱερόν" has the word "holy" built into it. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2413&t=KJVSo, this is very confusing to me, to say the least.

"Heiron" is never used in the Greek OT, or not that I can find. It is extremely hard to search the Septuagint for Greek words and get them all/find them in the text.

Apparently it was used quite a bit. You may want to try the following website:
http://lexicon.katabiblon.com/index.php?search=IERON

I remember reading that you were Greek. If so, I had a question, if you don't mind. Lets just say that Paul wanted to refer to the temple area in Jerusalem, even though the temple would someday not be there. What would be the best way for Paul to say this?

Quite frankly, if I wanted to refer to a physical location that was holy (not necessarily real estate because there are other words for real estate, but more generically, in the same sense that we would use the word "place" in English), I, personally, can not think of any better way to refer to it, other than "topos hagios." Because that's what "topos hagios" means, "holy place" (except in reverse order).

Would saying what he said "naos" of God, be an acceptable way to refer to that piece of real estate (the temple mount) when explaining it to a Gentile audience?

I wouldn't refer to "naos of God" as the Temple Mount any more than I would refer to "temple of God" as the Temple Mount, but that's just me. However, I would only be speaking, strictly, in human terms, and not spiritual, if I were making reference to the Temple Mount. (So, any spiritual aspect would not be factored in, if I, personally, were referring to the Temple Mount.) But then again, I'm not the one who wrote the Bible, nor am I qualified to speak about spiritual things.

However, I do get the indication, from scripture, that the "city" and the "temple" are intricately connected.

Here is an example:

Isaiah 44:28
That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

I thought Cyrus' decree was just to build the temple.

See the decree here:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezra+1&version=KJV

Hence, it appears to me, that building the temple, and building the city, seem to go hand in hand.

I could go off at this point, into a debate about which decree was the one to restore and build Jerusalem, but don't worry, I won't.

I think we already have enough on our plate as it is.

Saying that it simply refers to the "topos hagios" or location of the Temple Mount, would solve most of our theological "unusualities" associated with the idea of temple desecration if it wasn't for 2 Thess. 2:4. We would understand why the outer court seems to be trampled but the temple has worshippers in it (whether this is all simultanious, I don't know).

Regarding the outer court, you may want to read some of my comments in the following thread:

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=55790 or here, I'll just copy my comments:

Actually, I decided to check on this, and was surprised to find out that the word translated as "without" in the Textus Receptus is the word ἔσωθεν which actually means "within."

The GNT morph, however, uses the word ἔξωθεν which means "without."

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2081&t=KJV
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=11&v=1&t=KJV#conc/2

What else is interesting, is that the word translated as "leave," actually, in it's most common usage, means "cast out."
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1544&t=KJV


Interesting.

:thinking

In terms of the word translated as "without." It really does not matter whether the word is in italics in your version of the King James or not, because I already posted a link to the original text in both the Textus Receptus, which I believe was the one used by King James, from my understanding, as well as the GNT morph/Wescott Hort Text.

And the word translated as "without" in the Textus Receptus was the word ἔσωθεν which actually means "within." The word ἔξωθεν meaning "without" was, however, used by the GNT Morph/Westcott Hort Version.http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=11&v=1&t=KJV#conc/2

So, based on the above, here is what would be a word for word translation for the Textus Receptus, which is the one, from my understanding, that the King James Version was based on:

11:2 καὶ τὴν αὐλὴν τὴν ἔσωθεν τοῦ ναοῦ ἔκβαλε ἔξω, καὶ μὴ αὐτὴν μετρήσῃς ὅτι ἐδόθη τοῖς ἔθνεσιν καὶ τὴν πόλιν τὴν ἁγίαν πατήσουσιν μῆνας τεσσαράκοντα δύο

11:2 καὶ and τὴν the αὐλὴν court τὴν the ἔσωθεν within τοῦ of the ναοῦ temple ἔκβαλε cast ἔξω out, καὶ and μὴ do not αὐτὴν it μετρήσῃς measure ὅτι for ἐδόθη it is given τοῖς to the ἔθνεσιν gentiles καὶ and τὴν the πόλιν city τὴν the ἁγίαν holy πατήσουσιν they shall tread/step on μῆνας months τεσσαράκοντα forty δύο two


The reason I find this interesting is because for one to take a literal approach in regard to this verse, that means that the court within the temple is to be cast out (based on the usual meaning of these words per the definitions in the above link).

I just wanted to clarify something regarding the following:

And the word translated as "without" in the Textus Receptus was the word ἔσωθεν which actually means "within." The word ἔξωθεν meaning "without" was, however, used by the GNT Morph/Westcott Hort Version.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2081&t=KJV
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1855&t=KJV
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=11&v=1&t=KJV#conc/2

I just wanted to say that I don't think this means that there is a discrepancy between the two texts, although it may seem that way at first glance. Because obviously a court yard (αὐλή), even if it's "within" (ἔσωθεν) a temple complex, is always going to be outside of or "without" (ἔξωθεν) the temple, because a court yard (αὐλή), is always going to be "outside," obviously.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G833&t=KJV

What was more interesting to me, was the choice of the word, used in both texts, translated as "leave" (ἔκβαλε), which can mean to "leave out" according to the definition.

However, it's just interesting, to me, to see how this word has been used, in most cases, in the New Testament:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1544&t=KJV

Just wanted to clarify what I was trying to say.

Please let me know, if you would like for me to elaborate on what I was trying to say, because there is much more I could say about this, but I am trying to keep from making my post too, ridiculously, long.

Well, anyway, my computer's virus is acting up, so I think it's about time for another break.
(I think it's from the advertising.)

Until next time,

watching

................................................................................................................................................


Okay, now for my third and, hopefully, final installment.

I didn't realize how drawn out this was going to be!

A few quick thoughts on the 70th week of Daniel. I agree that Daniel 9:24-27 is a confusing passage and seems to use ambiguous words. So I will simply humbly present my thoughts. A lot of this is stuff you probably have already considered. Please forgive me for any rehashing/repeating of evidences you are already familiar with.

The main reason I would say the 70th week of Daniel has to be future is because the launch event (confirming a covenant/alliance for 7 years) was never done by Christ.

Hi eschologizer,

If I'm not mistaken, the word "for" is not in the original Hebrew text. See word for word translation of Daniel 9, again:

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/dan9.pdf

According to the above link the word for word translation reads:

"And he has mastery covenant to the many ones seven one.............................."

The "seven one" or "one seven" is referring to one of the seventy sevens.

I know I've said this before, but I will say it again, the book of Daniel tells us that:

26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off,................

If you add the first seven, then that would be after sixty nine weeks.

And since, mathematically, 70 comes after 69, that means the Messiah was cut off in the 70th week.

I don't see any other way to interpret this.

Now let me ask you, when did Jesus confirm the New Covenant/Testament?

Matthew 26:26-28 (King James Version)

26And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Wasn't it shortly before, He was "cut off," which we already determined would have been in the seventieth week?

Also, though Christ did stop the necessity of sacrifice and offering 3.5 years into his ministry, those sacrifices and offerings continued until 70 AD.

The Hebrew text, says:

27And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,

If you look at the following concordance you will see that the Hebrew word "shabath" (to cease) is Hiphil Imperfect tense.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Dan&c=9&v=27&t=KJV#conc/27

Now look at (c) in the following definition:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7673&t=KJV

You did present an interesting viewpoint. That the suspension of the 70 weeks prophecy doesn't happen after the 62 weeks, but halfway into the 70th week. It is my personal opinion that it would be easier to say "after 62 weeks" as being the suspension, than suspending the the 70th week itself in the middle.

Because, saying "after" the 62 weeks, doesn't have to require that the 70th week starts immediately. Its just an event that happens afterwards.

Actually, it does, because we already know, not only from scripture, but historically, when the Messiah was "cut off."

So, if the suspension of the seventy weeks prophecy, would have occurred at the "end" of the 62nd week, as you are proposing, that would, effectively, place the "cutting off" of the Messiah between the 69th and the 70th week, as if it were not integral to the seventieth week prophecy, which is UNFATHOMABLE in my opinion.

Also, I think this is why it is very carefully said that it is not the ruler who will come that destroys the sanctuary, but his people.

Much has been made concerning the mention of "the people" in the Masoretic text, but it's interesting that "the people"
is not even mentioned in the Septuagint version.

Here is a translation I found, recently, of the Septuagint text.

excerpt:

26 And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint [the city] to desolations.

http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=50&page=9

You raise an interesting and valid point about Christ not mentioning the "Antichrist 7 year treaty." I have noticed this as well. My personal view on that is that it is a less noticeable/early on political prophecy associated with the end, like the political events associated with the ten kings (Daniel 7:25). Also, I believe that when Christ describes the signs in the Olivet discourse, he is describing very global signs that signal very impending end. 7 year covenant places the end at least 3.5 years away and it is what I like to call a "political prophecy." The fact that Jesus doesn't mention it has lead some to believe that not everyone will know it when it happens (like people without access to the internet/books for example.) However, that is just my opinion, as is this post.

Christ may not have mentioned the ten kings in the Olivet discourse, but it is mentioned here:

Revelation 12:3
And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

Is a seven year anti-Christ covenant mentioned anywhere in the New Testament?

............................................................................................................................................


Whew!

This was the longest post I have ever made.

If you have any more thoughts about my comments, eschologizer, please let me know.

Blessings,

watching

[ampersand]

....
Well, the point that I would like to make regarding this issue is that there is no way, (that I know of, anyway), to express the meaning of the word "καθισαι," as it was understood in Koine Greek, in the Greek language today. Just as there is no way to express that concept in English today.
...

. . . but in that chart that you linked, isn't the last verb (κάτσει, καθίσει) in "aorist, active, infinitive" form, and therefore perfectly suited to satisfy these requirements of the Koine?

Also, isn't "kathemai" different from "kathizo"? I am assuming this modern verb "kathomai" that you are describing is related to "kathemai", not "kathizo" which is found in 2Thess2:4. Or are you saying that in the modern Greek, "kathizo" has been subsumed under "kathomai"?

Even so, in the modern Greek text, "καθηση" is used. Also, it is preceeded by "να", which you state is required. So, it looks legit to me. Do you know what the conjugation is of "καθηση" and whether it is from "kathomai" or "kathizo" ?

As for the English, why isn't the simple infinitive "to sit" enough to express the aorist, active, infinitive nature of "kathisai"? It seems well-suited for this from my perspective. "To sit" doesn't contain any time information, so the 'aorist' requirement is met. What is missing?

Thanks!

&

ps. btw, you may find this article interesting, especially w.r.t. the aorist tense. I don't think the use of this tense is meant to be evasive. It just refers to the action, plain and simple, without respect for time -- kathisai is aóristos w.r.t. time, but that doesn't mean it makes all of 2Thess2:4 aóristos .

btw, I myself am guilty of abusing this tense, as we saw in the other temple thread.

[watching]

"κάτσει", "καθίσει" are used for future tense.


"kathomai" is I sit.

"kathizo" is I seat.


"καθηση" is he/she/it "to sit" (present tense) correction: (future tense)

Sorry, ampersand, didn't realize this was a link. I was wondering where you got the word from since I didn't see it on the chart that I had linked. Sometimes it's easier to tell what the conjugation is when I see the word used in a sentence. After seeing it used in a sentence I realized that it is in the future tense. Sorry for the mistake.

Also, isn't "kathemai" different from "kathizo"? I am assuming this modern verb "kathomai" that you are describing is related to "kathemai", not "kathizo" which is found in 2Thess2:4. Or are you saying that in the modern Greek, "kathizo" has been subsumed under "kathomai"?

I didn't realize that these were links, either.

It looks like kathemai is aorist tense for "seat" whereas "kathisai is aorist tense for "sit." (edit: based on the definition provided in the link. However, after seeing it used in a sentence (Rev. 18:7), it appears to be a variation of "kathomai" (I sit).

Kathizo is I seat (present tense).

As for the English, why isn't the simple infinitive "to sit" enough to express the aorist, active, infinitive nature of "kathisai"? It seems well-suited for this from my perspective. "To sit" doesn't contain any time information, so the 'aorist' requirement is met. What is missing?

Because there is always an implication, of past, present, future, based on context.

Can you think of a situation where there isn't?

kathisai is aóristos w.r.t. time, but that doesn't mean it makes all of 2Thess2:4 aóristos .

I didn't say all of 2 Thess2:4 is aoristos, but only as it relates to sitting in the temple.

edit: deleted unnecessary comments

[ampersand]

Hi watching,

"κάτσει", "καθίσει" are used for future tense.

Oh, then the chart you linked to must be incorrect. . .

As for the English, why isn't the simple infinitive "to sit" enough to express the aorist, active, infinitive nature of "kathisai"? It seems well-suited for this from my perspective. "To sit" doesn't contain any time information, so the 'aorist' requirement is met. What is missing?

Because there is always an implication, of past, present, future, based on context.

Can you think of a situation where there isn't?

What about the sentence: "I want to write." Though I presently want "to write", "to write" doesn't in itself indicate when the writing should take place. I may be thinking about writing a novel 10 years from now, and the sentence still makes sense. The focus of the infinitive is on the action -- writing -- not the time of the action.

The basic point I am making is that, IMO, the English infinitive is a suitable substitute for the Koine aorist infinitive. Though the context may indicate the time of the verb (in either language), by definition, the verb doesn't say anything about time. In this case, I think "to sit" is a suitable translation of "kathisai" as it focuses on the action and not the time of the action, as does the Koine aorist infinitive.

As you mentioned, context can give temporal info. In this instance in 2Thess2:4, I think the co-text at the very least gives us an indication of when "kathisai" will take place relative to the other things in the text. Specifically, I am referring to "hoste" which, as we've discussed before, indicates consequence or result. Also, as we've discussed before, "hoste" + an infinitive is a common construction for what is termed an "infinitive of result." Therefore, from the grammar alone (as I understand it), we can say that the "sitting" is a result/consequence of the preceding -- specifically, the "opposing" and "self-exalting".

Therefore, the man of sin/son of perdition is described as "opposing" and "self-exalting"...and the result of these actions is "so as to sit in the temple of God as God..."

So, in this case, context does give some temporal information about the aorist infinitive "kathisai", though the verb itself doesn't contain any temporal info. By "temporal information" I mean: the sitting is causally linked to the preceeding -- therefore, it occurs simultaneously or after it, but not before. It may seem like a minor point, but I've heard a lot of people saying that the man of sin's opposition and self-exaltation is the result of his sitting in the temple of God. Not so.


Just the way I understand it.

in Christ,
&


minor edits

[watching]

watching,

watching wrote:"κάτσει", "καθίσει" are used for future tense.


Oh, then the chart you linked to must be incorrect. . .

"κάτσει" and "καθίσει" are never used alone that I am aware of they are always preceded by certain words that define their tense, such as:






έχω κάτσει.......................... I have sat
έχω καθίσει

έχεις κάτσει.......................... you have sat
έχεις καθίσει

έχει κάτσει.......................... he/she/it has sat
έχει καθίσει

θα κάτσει, θα καθίσει.................... he/she/it will sit

θα έχω κάτσει......................... I will have sat
θα έχω καθίσει

θα έχεις κάτσει ......................... you will have sat
θα έχεις καθίσει

θα έχει κάτσει ......................... he/she/it will have sat
θα έχει καθίσει

να κάτσει, να καθίσει .................. to sit........................*implication is future*

να έχω κάτσει ......................... to have sat (first person)
να έχω καθίσει

να έχεις κάτσει.......................... to have sat (second person)
να έχεις καθίσει

να έχει κάτσει .......................... to have sat (third person)
να έχει καθίσε

[ampersand]

hi watching, Thanks for the explanation! I didn't know that.
So, it goes to show how important context (or co-text) is for understanding the timing of the aorist.

&

[watching]

Hi ampersand,

I just wanted to say a couple more things.

Infinitive of result does not necessarily mean future tense.

When you say "so as to sit" in English, the implication is future.

When you say "hoste na kathise" in modern Greek, the implication is future.

However, when you say "hoste kathisai" in Koine Greek the implication is not necessarily, past, present, or future.

At least, that's my understanding.

Btw, I'm presuming that is why the KJV translators translated the text they way they did. Of course, nobody can go back in time to ask them. But that's just my suspicion.

[ampersand]

Infinitive of result does not necessarily mean future tense.

I agree. I hope nothing that I wrote implies that.

When you say "so as to sit" in English, the implication is future.
...
However, when you say "hoste kathisai" in Koine Greek the implication is not necessarily, past, present, or future.

This depends on what you mean by "future" -- do you mean "future" in absolute time or "future" relative to the preceding verbs? Here's what I mean:

If "hoste kathisai" is an infinitive of RESULT, then by definition, the RESULT/CONSEQUENCE must follow the CAUSE, or occur simultaneously with the CAUSE. By 'cause' I mean the event/condition that gives rise to the action. The cause is "opposing and self-exalting." The result is "to sit."

Remember how we discussed this to be an adverbial infinitive, giving more information about the controlling verb? -- the controlling verbs here are "opposing" and "self-exalting".

"opposing and self-exalting...so as to sit..."


It doesn't imply anything future in absolute time, but it does speak of a something future or contemporaneous in relative time (that is, the "time" in the sentence -- the time of the main verb(s) )


{btw, my personal position is that the "to sit" is CONTEMPORANEOUS with "opposing", "self-exalting", and the other verbs in the sentence, while still being the RESULT of "opposing" and "self-exalting"}

&