I want to start with 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in which the "temple" is interpreted by Dispensationalists to be a physical temple in Jerusalem and by the Amillennialists as the Church:
2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.The Amillennialist argument is that the "temple" refers to Christians because that's the only way Paul has used the word elsewhere, so that anyone who disagrees would have to prove that he's departed from his usual use of the word for this one verse.
In principle I don't have a problem with the temple-as-the-church idea because Paul has shown many times in his New Testament writings that Christians are the true Temple of God. Also, Dr. Riddlebarger at one point made it clear that there is historical support for this interpretation: The Protestant Reformers regarded the temple in this verse as the church because they believed the papacy was the seat of the Antichrist. I found that Matthew Henry's Commentary shares this understanding. (I have to assume they still regarded the Roman Church as including enough true Christians to justify seeing the Pope as sitting within the Church of God).
But I end up disagreeing with him, and I'll sketch out my reasons:
1. "... he as God sitteth in the temple of God... This doesn't read like it could possibly be a metaphor rather than a literal reference to a building. I can't see Paul describing someone who arises out of the Church as "sitting in the temple of God." It's a very awkward and unnecessary way of talking that I can't impute to Paul.
The amillennialist answer is that "to sit" simply means "to rule" but that just seems to make it even more unlikely, as if Paul suddenly starts speaking in cryptic symbolic language when he has never done so before. He would TEACH such symbolism but he wouldn't just casually USE it. Can they show anywhere else that Paul ever uses such a metaphorical way of speaking? I can't think of one place myself. In the other passages where Paul refers to Christians as the Temple of God, he is teaching the people that they are the temple and what that means. But in 2 Thess 2:4 if the Amillennialists are right he would be using the word in a completely different way, using it to imply something he could have said much more directly, such as He will arise out of the Church to rule over the people of God, pretending to be God himself. [I've listed all the places Paul refers to a temple at the bottom of this post]
2. But now this begins to show another problem with this reading in that the true Church would never be the seat of a ruling Antichrist, he could only rule over an apostate church, and it's hard to see that Paul would call THAT church the Temple of God. This was pointed out in different contexts in commentaries I read.
3. Another point is that since the Jerusalem temple was still standing at that time, and Paul is writing to people who knew it was standing, he wouldn't just toss off such a cryptic use of the term and expect them to know that he was using it in the sense of the Church. Just because the Church is now the true Temple of God doesn't mean the physical temple has lost all meaning in everyone's mind. In 1 Cor 9:13 Paul does refer to the physical temple, to illustrate his point that workers for the gospel deserve to be supported by those they serve. So this is another reason why if he's going to use a phrase like "sit in the temple" to refer to the Church he'd have to make a clear distinction so as not to be misunderstood, and he doesn't do that. Also, Paul continued to participate in the temple functions himself although he knew the temple no longer represented God, and many believing Jews went on practicing their customs and rituals for many years, so although it is true that a rebuilt temple now would amount to blasphemy, there's no reason to think that it had yet that meaning in those days.
No, he wouldn't just toss out a phrase like "sit in the temple of God" and expect his audience to know he meant the Church. Therefore he didn't mean the Church.
So I disagree with the Amillennialists on this point, and agree with those who read this to refer to the physical temple in Jerusalem.
This of course does imply that if the Antichrist is yet future there will have to BE a temple in Jerusalem for him to sit in to show that he's God and right now there isn't one. But there have been plans for many years for it to be rebuilt. So I think if we believe God's word, and trust that His prophecies will all be realized in historical time, that this temple WILL be rebuilt at some point in the future and then it will be there for the Antichrist to sit in.
The objection that its rebuilding would be blasphemous is a rather odd objection, it seems to me, since we're talking about a time when evil is to be permitted to come to its perfect flowering, and when unbelieving Jews will be saved en masse out of the evil to the glory of God.
====================================
All the scripture verses where Paul uses the word "temple:"
1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
1Co 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
1Co 9:13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
No comments:
Post a Comment