2Thessalonians 2 From an Orthodox Preterist Perspective

[Rufus]

Good Morning, Saints: I have a question about 2Thess 2:1-12 from a classical preterist viewpoint. This passage has long perplexed me due to my understanding of the Mt. Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24-25. And I have to confess that I have been greatly influenced by Kennneth Gentry Jr.'s exposition of this discourse in his excellent little book The Olivet Discourse Made Easy. In this book he laid out a 13-pt. argument of how Mat 24:36ff. breaks off sharply from all that Jesus said prior to that verse in order for the Lord to address the second question posed by this disciples in v.3 when they inquired about the sign of his coming and of he end of the age. Basically, Gentry argues strongly that from v.4 through v.35, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple would be accompanied with all kinds of signs. Conversely, v. 36 addresses the second question and all that Jesus said from that point on differs dramatically from what he said previously about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in the sense that no signs will precede his Second Coming. The Lord's return will be sudden, unexpected and things here on earth will be as business as usual, as in the days of Noah, etc. The people of Noah's day "knew nothing about what would happen", which stands in sharp contrast with all the signs that Jesus gave his disciples regarding the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D.

Therefore, how does this sudden, unexpected signless Second Coming square with 2Thess 2: 1-12 in which this "Man of Lawlessness" will perform all manner of signs and wonders? It would seem that his signs and wonders would be a big tip off to the Lord's imminent return. Yet, this would fly in the face of what Jesus taught in Mat 24:36ff.

How I have always understood this passage is that it's indeed talking about the Parousia (the Lord's physical return) and that when the one who will be taken away -- the same one who is now holding Satan back (the strong angel who seized Satan and locked him in the Abyss for a "thousand" years) then the final rebellion will begin. And the "temple" is most likely the Church to which the "Man of Lawlessness" will proclaim himself to be God. Many think this "Man" is the antichrist but I have my doubts -- unless the "Man of Lawlessness" is actually the pagan, unbelieving world that is in Adam in the corporate sense, which would be the same sense as "the antichrist".

So, preterists, what is your understanding of 2Thessalonians 2?

 

[civic]

The god of this world will blind them from the truth with great deception is my answer . The world are his pawns and will control all media to deceive . It’s happening now with the medias deception as most people cannot discern what it true anymore . And this is just a precursor for what is to come. When God removes His restraining force all hell breaks loose with great deception .

 

[Rufus]

The god of this world will blind them from the truth with great deception is my answer . The world are his pawns and will control all media to deceive . It’s happening now with the medias deception as most people cannot discern what it true anymore . And this is just a precursor for what is to come. When God removes His restraining force all hell breaks loose with great deception .

Okay...but what about the saints who cannot be blinded or deceived by the god of this world? Would not the signs and wonders performed by the "Man of Sin" serve as a sign for them to the imminency of the Lord's coming?

 

[civic]

Okay...but what about the saints who cannot be blinded or deceived by the god of this world? Would not the signs and wonders performed by the "Man of Sin" serve as a sign for them to the imminency of the Lord's coming?

Depends upon your eschatology pov

 

[Rufus]

Depends upon your eschatology pov

Which is Partial Preterism, as stated in my opening post.

 

[civic]

Which is Partial Preterism, as stated in my opening post.

I’m premillennial so it’s not an issue at all for me

 

[ReverendRV]

Good Morning, Saints: I have a question about 2Thess 2:1-12 from a classical preterist viewpoint. This passage has long perplexed me due to my understanding of the Mt. Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24-25. And I have to confess that I have been greatly influenced by Kennneth Gentry Jr.'s exposition of this discourse in his excellent little book The Olivet Discourse Made Easy. In this book he laid out a 13-pt. argument of how Mat 24:36ff. breaks off sharply from all that Jesus said prior to that verse in order for the Lord to address the second question posed by this disciples in v.3 when they inquired about the sign of his coming and of he end of the age. Basically, Gentry argues strongly that from v.4 through v.35, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple would be accompanied with all kinds of signs. Conversely, v. 36 addresses the second question and all that Jesus said from that point on differs dramatically from what he said previously about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in the sense that no signs will precede his Second Coming. The Lord's return will be sudden, unexpected and things here on earth will be as business as usual, as in the days of Noah, etc. The people of Noah's day "knew nothing about what would happen", which stands in sharp contrast with all the signs that Jesus gave his disciples regarding the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D.

Therefore, how does this sudden, unexpected signless Second Coming square with 2Thess 2: 1-12 in which this "Man of Lawlessness" will perform all manner of signs and wonders? It would seem that his signs and wonders would be a big tip off to the Lord's imminent return. Yet, this would fly in the face of what Jesus taught in Mat 24:36ff.

How I have always understood this passage is that it's indeed talking about the Parousia (the Lord's physical return) and that when the one who will be taken away -- the same one who is now holding Satan back (the strong angel who seized Satan and locked him in the Abyss for a "thousand" years) then the final rebellion will begin. And the "temple" is most likely the Church to which the "Man of Lawlessness" will proclaim himself to be God. Many think this "Man" is the antichrist but I have my doubts -- unless the "Man of Lawlessness" is actually the pagan, unbelieving world that is in Adam in the corporate sense, which would be the same sense as "the antichrist".

So, preterists, what is your understanding of 2Thessalonians 2?

I just looked at Matthew 24, and there is a break in the NIV at Verse 36 as you say. I can see your point...

What is it that you want me to see in 2nd Thessalonians 2?

I need my nose rubbed in it...

 

[ReverendRV]

I’m premillennial so it’s not an issue at all for me

I would think that no matter what our Eschatology is, if the Premillennial Dispensational Rapture is true; it doesn't matter to any Christian who gets Eschatology wrong...

In a way, this unimportant indifference has a lot to do with me not diving into Eschatology like the rest of y'all. I would love to take the plunge; I just don't know how to start...

Occam's Razor has me happily married to Amillenialism, until I can reconcile all the Positive Points from each Eschatology...

 

[ReverendRV]

Which is Partial Preterism, as stated in my opening post.

Partial Preterism usually comes with Post Millenialism or Amillenialism...

 

[Marty]

Good Morning, Saints: I have a question about 2Thess 2:1-12 from a classical preterist viewpoint. This passage has long perplexed me due to my understanding of the Mt. Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24-25. And I have to confess that I have been greatly influenced by Kennneth Gentry Jr.'s exposition of this discourse in his excellent little book The Olivet Discourse Made Easy. In this book he laid out a 13-pt. argument of how Mat 24:36ff. breaks off sharply from all that Jesus said prior to that verse in order for the Lord to address the second question posed by this disciples in v.3 when they inquired about the sign of his coming and of he end of the age. Basically, Gentry argues strongly that from v.4 through v.35, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple would be accompanied with all kinds of signs. Conversely, v. 36 addresses the second question and all that Jesus said from that point on differs dramatically from what he said previously about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in the sense that no signs will precede his Second Coming. The Lord's return will be sudden, unexpected and things here on earth will be as business as usual, as in the days of Noah, etc. The people of Noah's day "knew nothing about what would happen", which stands in sharp contrast with all the signs that Jesus gave his disciples regarding the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D.

Therefore, how does this sudden, unexpected signless Second Coming square with 2Thess 2: 1-12 in which this "Man of Lawlessness" will perform all manner of signs and wonders? It would seem that his signs and wonders would be a big tip off to the Lord's imminent return. Yet, this would fly in the face of what Jesus taught in Mat 24:36ff.

How I have always understood this passage is that it's indeed talking about the Parousia (the Lord's physical return) and that when the one who will be taken away -- the same one who is now holding Satan back (the strong angel who seized Satan and locked him in the Abyss for a "thousand" years) then the final rebellion will begin. And the "temple" is most likely the Church to which the "Man of Lawlessness" will proclaim himself to be God. Many think this "Man" is the antichrist but I have my doubts -- unless the "Man of Lawlessness" is actually the pagan, unbelieving world that is in Adam in the corporate sense, which would be the same sense as "the antichrist".

So, preterists, what is your understanding of 2Thessalonians 2?

I see it differently the coming in the Olivet Discourse was His coming in judgement and the end of the age was the end of the temple and sacrificial age in 70AD.

The man of Lawlessness isn't the antichrist but the sea beast of revelation who I believe was Nero. John describes the beast and the antichrist very differently and even gives them different purposes

 

[ReverendRV]

I see it differently the coming in the Olivet Discourse was His coming in judgement and the end of the age was the end of the temple and sacrificial age in 70AD.

The man of Lawlessness isn't the antichrist but the sea beast of revelation who I believe was Nero. John describes the beast and the antichrist very differently and even gives them different purposes

On one hand, I curse Partial Preterism; but on the other hand, I praise Partial Preterism...

I have to take the Olivet Discourse to have a Double Fulfillment. I have no other choice...

 

[ReverendRV]

Good Morning, Saints: I have a question about 2Thess 2:1-12 from a classical preterist viewpoint. This passage has long perplexed me due to my understanding of the Mt. Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24-25. And I have to confess that I have been greatly influenced by Kennneth Gentry Jr.'s exposition of this discourse in his excellent little book The Olivet Discourse Made Easy. In this book he laid out a 13-pt. argument of how Mat 24:36ff. breaks off sharply from all that Jesus said prior to that verse in order for the Lord to address the second question posed by this disciples in v.3 when they inquired about the sign of his coming and of he end of the age. Basically, Gentry argues strongly that from v.4 through v.35, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple would be accompanied with all kinds of signs. Conversely, v. 36 addresses the second question and all that Jesus said from that point on differs dramatically from what he said previously about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in the sense that no signs will precede his Second Coming. The Lord's return will be sudden, unexpected and things here on earth will be as business as usual, as in the days of Noah, etc. The people of Noah's day "knew nothing about what would happen", which stands in sharp contrast with all the signs that Jesus gave his disciples regarding the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D.

Therefore, how does this sudden, unexpected signless Second Coming square with 2Thess 2: 1-12 in which this "Man of Lawlessness" will perform all manner of signs and wonders? It would seem that his signs and wonders would be a big tip off to the Lord's imminent return. Yet, this would fly in the face of what Jesus taught in Mat 24:36ff.

How I have always understood this passage is that it's indeed talking about the Parousia (the Lord's physical return) and that when the one who will be taken away -- the same one who is now holding Satan back (the strong angel who seized Satan and locked him in the Abyss for a "thousand" years) then the final rebellion will begin. And the "temple" is most likely the Church to which the "Man of Lawlessness" will proclaim himself to be God. Many think this "Man" is the antichrist but I have my doubts -- unless the "Man of Lawlessness" is actually the pagan, unbelieving world that is in Adam in the corporate sense, which would be the same sense as "the antichrist".

So, preterists, what is your understanding of 2Thessalonians 2?

He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. - 2 Thessalonians 2:4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Thessalonians2:4&version=NIV

I suppose this is what you really want to talk about?

 

[armylngst]

I see it differently the coming in the Olivet Discourse was His coming in judgement and the end of the age was the end of the temple and sacrificial age in 70AD.

However, the sacrificial system was still going on from 132-135AD. Doesn't that kind of cause some problems?

The man of Lawlessness isn't the antichrist but the sea beast of revelation who I believe was Nero. John describes the beast and the antichrist very differently and even gives them different purposes

However, if you follow the instruction given by Polycarp's student on the beast, the number of the beast is calculated using Greek, whereas for Nero they used Aramaic and Hebrew. Irenaeus actually had a lot to say of those people who would tag ANYONE with the number, and say that in that way they may very well miss the second coming of Christ.

 

[Rufus]

Partial Preterism usually comes with Post Millenialism or Amillenialism...

Yup, that's describes me pretty much to a T <g>. I'm on the fence between the two.

 

[Rufus]

By the way, I want to apologize to everyone for my long absence after I started this thread. I guess this forum doesn't send out emails to alert people to new posts in a thread? I got busy on a couple of other forums and since I didn't receive any emails from this one, I just assumed no one was interested in the topic. Sorry 'bout that.

 

[Rufus]

He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. - 2 Thessalonians 2:4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Thessalonians2:4&version=NIV

I suppose this is what you really want to talk about?

Yes, I'm trying to reconcile this passage with other truth that basically says the Parousia will not be accompanied by any signs -- that the Day of the Lord will come suddenly, unexpectedly like a thief in the night in a world that will be conducting its affairs as usual -- just the way the Flood came upon an unexpecting world.

 

[Rufus]

I see it differently the coming in the Olivet Discourse was His coming in judgement and the end of the age was the end of the temple and sacrificial age in 70AD.

The man of Lawlessness isn't the antichrist but the sea beast of revelation who I believe was Nero. John describes the beast and the antichrist very differently and even gives them different purposes

I have a tough time with that kind of preterist interpretation. First of all of Nero didn't go into any Jewish temple. But even more than that the subject of the 2Thess passage is the Second Coming. So...to say that this "man of sin" has already appeared on the scene nearly 2,000 years ago, and here we are still waiting for the Parousia seems to be a bit of a stretch.

If by the term "temple" Paul meant the Church then that gives a whole different spin to the passage, since the Church is now God's living temple in this New Covenant dispensation. Someone once suggested that this "man of sin" or "man of lawlessness" is most likely Adam in the corporate sense -- in other words all mankind that is in Adam and not in Christ. This is an interesting interpretation because this would make this "man of sin" rather ubiquitous and, therefore, unnoticeable to the world and even to many saints.

 

[Marty]

I have a tough time with that kind of preterist interpretation. First of all of Nero didn't go into any Jewish temple. But even more than that the subject of the 2Thess passage is the Second Coming. So...to say that this "man of sin" has already appeared on the scene nearly 2,000 years ago, and here we are still waiting for the Parousia seems to be a bit of a stretch.

If by the term "temple" Paul meant the Church then that gives a whole different spin to the passage, since the Church is now God's living temple in this New Covenant dispensation. Someone once suggested that this "man of sin" or "man of lawlessness" is most likely Adam in the corporate sense -- in other words all mankind that is in Adam and not in Christ. This is an interesting interpretation because this would make this "man of sin" rather ubiquitous and, therefore, unnoticeable to the world and even to many saints.

we the church are the temple of God after the first advent

It wasn’t the second coming but Jesus coming in judgement

 

[Rufus]

we the church are the temple of God after the first advent

It wasn’t the second coming but Jesus coming in judgement

I just don't read 2Thess that way. I read it as the Second Coming. There's nothing in the passage to suggest an invisible coming in judgment.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Yes, I'm trying to reconcile this passage with other truth that basically says the Parousia will not be accompanied by any signs -- that the Day of the Lord will come suddenly, unexpectedly like a thief in the night in a world that will be conducting its affairs as usual -- just the way the Flood came upon an unexpecting world.

The events would catch the ungodly and the sinners unaware, but not those who were watching for the signs they had been given by Christ. It's just as Daniel 12:10 once wrote, "...and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand." For the wicked, this Day of the Lord would come like a thief in the night. But as Paul said in 1 Thessalonians 5:4, "But ye brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief."

It is stated quite plainly in 2 Thessalonians 2 that the believers Paul was writing to were already aware of the identity of the "restrainer" of the Man of Lawlessness, because Paul had told them in person. That meant both the restrainer and the Man of Lawlessness were first-century individuals who have long since died, and are not a threat for our future.

The "restrainer" was the high priest Ananias ben Nebedeus, before whom Paul was on trial in Acts 23. Paul prophesied in that AD 60 year that "God is about to smite thee, thou whited wall." Ananias the high priest was not only the "who" that was doing the restraining, but also the "what" (the institution of the high priesthood) that was restraining the Man of Lawlessness from being revealed. And Ananias was truly "about to" be smitten by God before long - in AD 66 precisely.

The Man of Lawlessness was the first-century Zealot Menahem, who actually got into the temple in AD 66, dressed in King Herod's royal robes stolen from Masada. Menahem was "exalting himself" over every other claimant for the Messiah role in those days. By presenting himself in the temple dressed as the "King of the Jews", Menahem was claiming to be Daniel's prophesied "Messiah the Prince" that was prophesied to come in that generation. Menahem came into power in Jerusalem briefly by murdering Ananias the former high priest who had been keeping the Zealot factions in check until then. Menahem's exaltation to power in Jerusalem lasted only a couple weeks before Ananias' son Eleazar killed this Man of Lawlessness.