The earliest Christian writer who quite directly addressed the prophecy of Daniel’s 70 weeks was Ireneaus in his Against Heresies (ca. A.D. 180). In 5.25.2 Irenaeus quotes Matthew 24:15 and states that this will be fulfilled with the Antichrist literally entering the Jewish temple for the purpose of presenting himself as Christ. In Book 5.25.4 Irenaeus discusses the Antichrist, and links him to Daniel 9:27 stating:
“And then he [Daniel] points out the time that his [Antichrist’s] tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: ‘And in the midst of the week,’ he says, ‘the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.’ Now three years and six months constitute the half-week.”
Roughly 20 years later, Hippolytus, a student of Ireneaus, wrote about Daniel’s 70 weeks, and argued for the full final week to be at the end of the age just before the return of Jesus.
At about the same time, Clement of Alexandria, the head of the school in Alexandria that sought to intermingle Greek Philosophy with the Bible, argued against the view of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and other early Premillennialists. Concerning Daniel’s 70 weeks, Clement argued that the 70 weeks should be interpreted as non-literal. He also argued that entirety of the 70 weeks were fulfilled by 70 AD.
Later Origen, an interpreter infamous for his exceedingly imaginative allegorical interpretations of Scripture, succeeded Clement as the head of the school in Alexandria. Origen built upon Clement’s non-literal foundation, arguing for the complete fulfillment of the 70 weeks historically in Christ.
Thus began a long history of conflict within the Christian Church over this essential Old Testament prophecy. Following in the general categories established by these four writers, those who would embrace a spiritualized view of the Millennial Kingdom of God and most often a spiritualized view of the people of Israel (ie. replacement theology), followed Clement and Origen. On the other hand, those who held to a literal understanding of the Millennium, followed Irenaeus and Hippolytus’ views. While many sub-categories under these two general headings developed throughout the centuries, for the most part, these two positions have come to define the debate.
In recent years however, a newer hybrid view expressed by several students of prophecy, seems to be developing. This view, while Premillennialist in its orientation, embraces a somewhat mixed selection of arguments traditionally employed by Amillennialists, Post-Millennialists and Preterists. This view, as I have observed it, most often expresses the following distinctives:
-
(1) The 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 are divided up into two segments: 486.5 years and then at the end of the age, just before the return of Jesus, one final 3.5 year period.
(2) The first 3.5 years refer to Jesus’ earthly ministry, with the last 3.5 referring to the “Great Tribulation.”
(3) There will be no “peace treaty,” “security pact,” “covenant,” or any other such agreement made with, or by the Antichrist that will mark the final seven year period before the return of Jesus.
(4) The reference to the Antichrist entering, abominating, desecrating, or trampling the Temple referred to in Daniel 8:11-14, 9:27, 11:31, 12:11, 2 Thessalonians 2:4, and Revelation 11 are not literal, but should be understood as spiritual.
(5) The beginning of the final 3.5 period or Tribulation will come suddenly with no significant signs preceding it.
(6) The one who causes offering to cease in Daniel 9:27 is Jesus and not Antichrist. Thus because Jesus caused offering to cease, there will not be any future Temple to continue literal offerings.
If I understand those who espouse this view correctly, then I believe they are most often motivated by the following reasons:
-
(1) A rejection of what is traditionally considered (though wrongly so) a distinctly Dispensationalist doctrine.
(2) A concern that if there is not the expected sign of some form of “peace treaty” then many Christians will be deceived and receive the Antichrist, or at the every least will be unprepared.
(3) A desire to interpret Daniel’s prophecy in a way that exalts the atonement and the centrality of finished work of the cross of Christ to the Biblical narrative.
Having defined this view, I want to very soberly qualify the remainder of this article by saying that because the Scriptures speak of deception as such a primary feature of the last days, and because by definition, pride is blindness, we all must remain humble, understanding the views of other brothers and sisters, while remaining alert and well aware that no one is immune from misunderstanding or misinterpreting a passage and being wrong, even when we are adamantly confident we are right. As someone who has accepted the call on my life to be a teacher, I place myself at the very top of this list in terms of accountability. As a teacher, I’ve accepted the fact that I will be judged more harshly than others, when what I need more than anything is a much more merciful judgment.
That said, I personally believe that the Scriptures teach the traditional view of Daniel’s 70 weeks, with the full final week yet to come. I believe this is one of the more important and emphasized concepts taught in the Scriptures concerning the last days. I believe it was central to the Book of Daniel and I believe it was a central feature of Jesus’ Olivet Discourse. For this reason, I submit the following to you as Bereans to carefully and prayerfully consider. The following list details just some of what I see as significant weaknesses with this newer developing view. I’m sure there are other points that I could add at another time, but for now, I think the following points roughly encapsulate the most significant problems or weaknesses with this view.
(1) It argues that the references to the Temple mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, Rev. 11 and four times in Daniel (8:11-14, 9:27, 11:31 12:11) all be taken as spiritual and not literal. This position argues this despite the fact that there is no basis within the actual context of these passages to understand them in a non-literal sense. Those who espouse this view look to various examples in the NT where the Temple is used in a metaphorical sense as their basis to universally and even retroactively reinterpret passages in the OT that speak of the literal Temple in a spiritual sense. But this is the precisely the hermeneutic of replacement theology. Those who espouse Replacement Theology look to the few examples in the NT where Israel or the Jews are spoken of in a spiritual sense and use this as the basis to go back to OT verses that reference a future blessing for literal Israel and Jews, and reinterpret these passages spiritually to refer to the Church. This form of interpretation, in my opinion, is not only wrong, it is extremely spiritually dangerous. I might also add that it finds its origins in syncretistic school of Alexandria that deliberately sought to merge together the Biblical worldview with the pagan Greek philosophical worldview. If the various references in Daniel, 2 Thess 2:4, and Rev 11 to the Temple are literal however, then it also stands to reason that the Temple must be built before the Antichrist can desecrate it, thus giving us some fair warning. But because one of the primary purposes of this view is to argue that the end times events will happen suddenly without any clearly preceding signs, it must argue for an unnatural reading of literal passages concerning the Temple (as well as Temple related terms such as “holy place” etc.) non-literally. It also stands to reason that if there is a future literal Temple in Israel, there will also likely be some form of agreement with the surrouding Muslim nations to allow this, thus a “covenant” of some sort as we see in Daniel 9:27. The traditional premillennialist position reads the text according to its natural reading and does not seek to impose an unnatural spiritual reading onto the text. Under the subheading of this issue one could add several additional problems:
-
2 Thessalonians 2:4 says that the Antichrist “will sit in the Temple of God.” The operative term here is “sit”. Needless to say any effort to read this in a spiritualized manner requires an extremely odd reading of the text.
-
In Daniel 8:13-14, we are told that after the Antichrist tramples and desecrates the Temple for 2,300 days and nights, the Temple will be “cleansed” (KJV), “reconsecrated” (NIV), “restored” (NASB). Obviously, it is impossible to restore, reconsecrate or cleanse something that doesn’t exist or did not previously exist.
-
This view argues that the Church is the Temple of God, which is true, but it argues that because the Church is the Temple, there can no longer be an actual physical Temple in Jerusalem. An obvious problem with this of course is the fact that the Scriptures clearly teach a literal physical Temple will be rebuilt during the Millennium (eg. Ezekiel 40-47).
(2) This view requires that Jesus’ ministry last exactly 3.5 years in order to fulfill the first 3.5 years of the final 70th week. The problem however is that very few scholars today believe that Jesus’ ministry lasted more than 3 years. Jesus was crucified on Passover, and there are only three total Passovers mentioned in the Gospel of John. This limits Jesus ministry to roughly two years, certainly less than three years. Yet if Jesus’ ministry was not precisely 3.5 years, then the idea that the first half of Daniel’s week correlates to Jesus’ ministry has no basis whatsoever. Consequently, we are not surprised to learn that the very notion that Jesus ministry was 3.5 years originated with Origen (who was later declared a heretic) and Eusebius (a Roman apologist with a very strong anti-Semitic supercessionist theology) who specifically developed this view in order to justify their pagan, anti-Semitic, and supercessionist understanding of Daniel 9:27. I believe we would do well to note this fact.
(3) This view requires that we interpret “the covenant” of Daniel 9:27 as taking place “during” rather than “for” one week. If the “covenant” is “for one week” then it cannot be applied to Jesus, as the covenant which Jesus made is eternal, and not merely a seven year covenant. The problem with this of course is that there not a single Bible version that translates it as “during” one week. Instead, virtually every translation one will find consistently translate it as “for” one week. This view must stake its case on the idea that the KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, RSV, ASV, NIV, NLT, DBY, WEB, HNV, and several others are all wrong.
(4) This view divides the final week in half and inserts a 2000 year gap into the middle of the week. Needless to say, this would be a very unusual way to organize the timing of the prophecy, particularly without stating that this was the meaning. We must note that the division of the 70 weeks within the prophecy is broken up into 7 weeks + 62 weeks + 1 week. Notice that it is not broken up into 7 + 62.5 + 3.5.
(5) This view requires that the 69th week concludes at Jesus’ baptism, leaving 3.5 years for His ministry. Yet of the four “decrees” which are considered by scholars as candidates to fulfill Daniel’s decree, (if Daniel and Revelation’s 360 day year), none align with 483 years from Jesus’ baptism. It is for this reason that Amillennialists and Preterists who also take the view (that the 69th week ends with Jesus’ baptism) all must use a non-literal, very fluid accounting of the years mentioned. In other words, because they cannot make the numbers work, they just say the numbers are not literal and fudge them to make them fit. This view simply does not work with the chronology.
(6) This view must reject any reference to the historical-prophetic security alliances referred to in either Isaiah 10 or 28 as having any eschatological-prophetic application. Rather than acknowledge the historical realities and prophetic implications of these passages, this newer view must essentially ignore these very relevant passages.
-
It is also very important to note that the prophecy is broken up into 70 shabuwim. This is not merely referring to 70 periods of seven years, but 70 sabbath cycles of years. According to the Biblical reckoning of the cycle of years, after six years, a sabbath year would follow to give the land time to rest. The important point here is that each sabbatical cycle was one complete unit. For this reason, it would not make any sense to the Biblically oriented mindset to break a shabuwa (sabbath week) in half.
(7) This view must deny that “the flood” spoken of in both Isaiah 28 and Daniel 9 are referring to the same prophetic events. It must deny any connection between these two floods, as this would validate a connection between the two covenants also mentioned in both passages, which of course would show that the two passages are prophetically referring to the same eschatological event.
(8) This view must see the Antichrist as responsible for the Abomination of Desolations and the ceasing of offerings in 3 passages in Daniel (8:11-14, 11:31, 12:11) and Christ in the fourth (9:27). This view fails to acknowledge the clear connection between these four passages. It interprets 9:27 in an inconsistent manner from the other references to the Abomination that Causes Desolations and the ceasing of offerings. Consider the following charts:
A. The first chart shows the traditional Premillennial View interpretation.
B. The second chart shows the interpretation of newer perspective which I am critiquing, as well as the Preterist, Amillennial and Post-Millennial positions.
(9) This view must reject Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:8 as being a reference to “birth pangs”. If Jesus used the language of “the beginning of birth pangs” (A well known motif from Isaiah 26:17-19 referring to the pains that precede the resurrection) to refer to the signs that come before the Abomination of Desolations, then He is clearly dividing up the signs that precede his coming into two distinct periods (the beginning of birth pangs, and the actual birth pangs) divided by the Abomination that Causes Desolation. Because this view rejects the notion that there is a distinct or marked period before the Abomination that Causes Desolations, they must argue that Jesus was not using the language of birth pangs here. Yet every Greek Lexicon consulted will make it quite clear that this is the meaning of the words that Jesus used. This view must literally reject the very definition of the word to merely mean a general form of pain or sorrow.
(10) This view must understand the passage in a way that violates the normal rules of grammar. The subject of a pronoun normally follows its immediate antecedent. This is true in both English and Greek. But consider the thoroughly inconsistent manner in which this view criss-crosses the subjects and pronouns versus the traditional premillennialist interpretation:
After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One (Christ) will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come (Antichrist) will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. He (Christ) will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he (Christ) will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he (Antichrist) will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him (Antichrist).”
Once again, here is how this new view interprets the various subjects and pronouns:
-
1. The Anointed One (Christ)
2. The ruler who will come (Antichrist)
3. He (Christ)
4. he (Christ)
5. he (Antichrist)
6. him (Antichrist)
Now, here is how the traditional Premillennial view interprets the subjects and pronouns that follow:
After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One (Christ) will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come (Antichrist) will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. He (Antichrist) will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he (Antichrist) will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he (Antichrist) will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him (Antichrist).”
And simplified:
-
1. The Anointed One (Christ)
2. The ruler who will come (Antichrist)
3. He (Antichrist)
4. he (Antichrist)
5. he (Antichrist)
6. him (Antichrist)
Needless to say, the traditional Premillennialist view is consistent and follows the proper rules of grammar here, while this newer view is neither consistent nor does it follow the proper or normal rules of grammar. This newer view must see an anomaly here in order to support its claims.
I will leave it at that for now. I hope that this list and accompanying thoughts have been helpful and edifying as we all seek together to be faithful students of His Word.
Many Blessings,
Joel
34 Responses
There can only be one definition for the word “naos” translated as “the temple” in 2Th 2:4, and it is based upon how the word (naos) was written. Thayer (his original works, of course) writes that any time this form of the word “naos” is used it means the literal temple, and specifically, the Holy of Holies. So while Satan no doubt sits in many temples in a spiritual sense, this verse does not refer to that.
There is no multiple choice for the meanings of words in scripture. The rendering of the word in it’s original written language almost always determines the definition. That’s a very convenient thing about ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek. A tool like the Strong’s simply gives the basic form of a word and lists the multiple meanings. Determining which is correct does not depend on one’s understanding or theology, but by how the word was actually written.
Btw, I’ve read some of your books and the learning experience was outstanding. I thought you made an excellent case for some of the scenarios we can expect in these last times.
A great review of this problem and you’ve certainly poked enough holes in it to send it to the bottom.
I don’t recall seeing you mention it but of course any common sense reading of the passage must cause us to conclude that Messiah is slain at the end of the 69th week, and not being baptized or making a covenant
Joel;
Thanks for this very helpful post. I was wondering if you have any comments or thoughts about the fact that the Daniel 9:26 passage does not actually read with an article used with anointed as can be seen in the ESV. I have read Charles Cooper’s take on this in his book, The Elect and the Great Tribulation and was just wondering if you had time to address this for me. Thanks! Merry Christmas and I continue to pray for you almost daily. Praying the Lord will give you added insight to all that you are doing. I lean heavily on your work…knowing that it is pioneering in nature and must be tested twice, three and four times over. As you said, teachers receive stricter judgment! (I currently hold the same position you do on this subject with the exception of teaching THE ANOINTED ONE is referring to Christ. I think Sir Robert Anderson’s work is flawed at the core because of this mistake if it is one.) Cooper planted many seeds of doubt in my mind after reading his book. He says the word is not articulated.. in the original and should be translated anointed as the ESV did. He says it is used 39 times in the original and never except here is used with an article. This is on page 282 and 283 of his book THE ELECT and the GREAT TRIBULATION. This has bothered me ever since I first discovered it. I was just wanting your take on this extremely important issue. It makes a HUGE difference!
The word 4899 is only used twice this way and only here…in Daniel’s two verses. 9:25 and 26.
4899. מָשִׁיחַ mashiach (603c); from 4886; anointed:—Anointed(1), anointed(34), anointed ones(2), Messiah(2).
Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.
Bonjour Joel,
Thank you for your last few posts and for sharing your notes on the 70 weeks of Daniel. It is very interesting to see this issue being debated between you and ICA’s from MidnightWatcher’s Blogspotand (I do not know his name!) I must admit that both your arguments and his are convincing. At this stage, my heart still ballances!
May Abba enlightened those like me who are still not sure!
Blessings’n’shalom,
FX
Hi Kurt,
Without actually looking into it in detail, I would say yes, the reference to the “Holy Place” (A very specific term has a very specific and literal meaning) would refer to the return of Christ.
As for the other variations in how the offerings and sacrifices is worded, again, without looking into it, I would assume this to be just a variation of essentially saying the same thing.
I’ll dig into some of my commentaries and see what I come up with.
Blessings
This is really very good and simple. What convinced me was how you pointed out how the security alliance that Israel made with the Assyrian and Syria is just a taste of what is gonna happen. I just can’t see how we can write this away as a non-important piece of Israel’s history. I think it is prophecy of their final act of refusing to rely on Jesus Christ the chief cornerstone. Thanks for your ministry Joel. I really enjoy your teachings.
Troy,
I have not read Cooper’s book, but will have to pick it up after the Christmas season is over. Thanks for the heads up.
Blessings
Kurt,
I may have read over your comments too quickly. You said:
Am I reading your comments correctly that you are not sure if this has end time application beyond Antiochus? With regard to the second part of your comment:
The answer here would be yes, eschatologically speaking, it would be at the return of Jesus. Ezekiel 40-47 say that there will be a literal Temple with sacrifices and offerings throughout the Messianic Kingdom of God. For example, 46:12-14 says that sacrifices will take place
It is also worth noting that Antiochus desolated the Temple for roughly 3 years. There is no way to account his desolation as 2600 days and nights. Antiochus did not fulfill this portion of the prophecy. And of course, if we accept the words of the angels, then this must be with regard to the “time of the end” and thus refer to Antichrist.
All this said, how can the “holy place” be “reconsecrated” or “restored” if it never existed in the first place? Doesn’t this argue for a rebuilt temple that is desolated and then “restored” when Christ returns? And why is Jesus restoring something that he himself, according to your view of Daniel 9:27, caused to cease forever? The only option is to interpret all of the many details of Ezekiel 40-47 as non-literal and spiritual.
Blessings
Though we don’t have Papias books, I would almost guarantee that he would have taught like Ireneaus that there is still a future literal fulfilment of the AntiChrist going into the actual Jewish temple of God in Israel. The most important thing to remember is that they had the benefit of having the last living Apostle to personally disciple them for decades while all the other Apostles had been dead for a long time in Rome and Egypt, the Apostle John was still alive in Asia Minor.
This means their understanding of eschatology would have been far more Apostolic than those elsewhere, and since all of the Apostle John’s disciples were Millennialists, we should be too!
David,
Exactly.
The earliest believers most close to the Apostles were all Premillennialists. This included Papias, Polycarp, Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Lactantius, etc. But very quickly did the eschatology of the Church fall into corruption from the pagan Greek philosophy with its rejection of the physical realm, thus the resurrection, the millennial kingdom and its instance on the spiritualizing of everything. In this case, the Temple, etc. In the conversation that has unfolded over this issue, I’ve been truly shocked and saddened at the lack of basic knowledge concerning the eschatology of the early believers and its early corruption.
If we are to hold to the Apostolic doctrines, we must fully return to Premillennialism and fully cast off the long historical coma that has bound the Church of Origenistic allegorizing and spiritualizing.
Blessings!
I agree Joel,
First Fruits of Zion did a television show about the centrality of the gospel of the kingdom, and how often the future physical kingdom of Messiah is talked about in the scriptures. It’s important, because if one wants to take any other eschatological position, they have to “Wite-Out” the myriads of chapters that explicitly speak in great detail about this real physical age to come, where Messiah reigns the world on behalf of His Father, just like Joseph reigned on behalf of Pharaoh and was not himself King by second, the same is true of Yeshua. That’s why He’s called the Prince in Ezekiel, because the King is His Father who is in heaven, but the Son (who is second to the Father) rules in His place, who will eventually hand over anything so that God may be all in all.
, who is invisible and obviously can’t be here on earth to rule, but His son makes him known.
Joel,
Thank you for your insight on the 70 weeks of Daniel it was very illuminating. What is the best resource(s) that one could purchase or go to on the eschatological teaching of the early church fathers?
Thank you,
Obed
Hi Obed,
A good place to start:
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/on_end_time.pdf
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/on_antichrist.pdf
Also, get Tim Warner’s book The Time of the End
I would also very highly recommend the following teachings:
http://danieltrainingnetwork.org/moses-versus-plato-one-hope-one-boast-conference/
http://danieltrainingnetwork.org/biblical-versus-western-worldview-biblical-theology-seminar/
http://danieltrainingnetwork.org/biblical-worldview-introduction-biblical-theology/
Bless you Brother!
Joel, I have come to the conclusion of a hybrid of the view you critique and the view you espouse. The one who causes offering to cease in Daniel 9:27 is Antichrist, but the first half of the future seven-year covenant isn’t part of the Seventy Weeks. It is mentioned only because it sets the stage for the event that begins the conclusion of the countdown, the abomination of desolation.
The time gap doesn’t run from the crucifixion to the signing of the covenant, but rather from the crucifixion to the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21) which will occur as a result of the abomination (Matthew 24). I believe this event mentioned in Daniel 9:26 does not refer to the the A.D. 70 desolation, as commonly taught, but the oft mentioned eschatological desolation.
A comparison of Micah 5 to Revelation 12 is what led me to the belief there are only 3.5 years left in the Seventy Weeks:
“…Bethlehem…out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel…Therefore He shall give [Israel] up, until the time that she who is in labor has given birth; then the remnant of His brethren
shall return to the children of Israel.” (Micah 5)
“[Zion] being with child, cried out in labor and in pain to give birth…[she] bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron…Then [Israel] fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days.” {Revelation 12)
Two related things to consider.
1.) Jesus told those in Judea to flee into the mountain wilderness when they see the abomination of desolation. This agrees with Revelation 12.
2.) Jesus said He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel during His earthly ministry. This agrees with Micah 5.
Great article. I see truth in much of it, though not all.
One other thing, Joel. My position agrees with a Daniel 9:26 interpretation of an Islamic Antichrist. If I am correct and this destruction refers to the one that will occur at the abomination of desolation rather than the A.D. 70 event, then the “Chaldeans” are the “people of the prince who is to come.” Habakkuk mentions this attack at the time of the end.
Thank you Joel.
Dear Joel,
I would be very interested in hearing your comments on Joyce Pollard’s study on Daniel’s 70 weeks.
http://www.rightwordtruth.com /Papers on the End Time / Daniel’s 70 Weeks
also /Papers concerning other Subjects / Koran
Fascinating papers; we are telling our daughter, who is reading your books now, to study these papers in conjunction with your Mid East Beast….
Thank you for all your work…you have changed our entire outlook….
Rosemarie Kelly
Hi Joel,
During this discussion about when Daniel’s 70th week occurs, whether a physical temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem before Jesus returns, etc, I’ve become aware of the fact that when Paul talks about the temple using the word “naos” (G3485) its to describe the ekklesia, and is expressed as the temple of God or the temple of the Holy Spirit. Not a single time that he uses “naos” is he talking about the physical Jerusalem temple.
The use of the word “naos” includes 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, “Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”
The one time Paul does talk about the physical temple in 1 Cor 9:13 “Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar?” he uses the word “hieron” (G2411). Per the “Blue Letter Bible” the word is used 70 other times in Matthew thru Acts and of all the occurrences of it I looked at it always referred to the temple in Jerusalem—doesn’t it stand to reason then that in 2 Thes 2:4 Paul means the ekklesia and not a physical temple?
Thanks,
Kurt
Hi Kurt,
First, this is not true. Paul’s use of “naos” in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is unarguably referring to the actual Temple in Jerusalem. He is of course expounding on the various references in Daniel which show the AC to set up the Abomination of Desolation in the Temple, as a reflection of what was done by Antiochus. I will come back to touch on this at the end of this discussion. As you know, that Paul was speaking of a literal Temple was of course the view of Irenaeus, the earliest ECF to write about these things. The reason I say that it is unarguable is because the wording used in 2 Thessalonians says the Antichrist “sits” (kathisai) “in” (eis) “the Temple” naos. The word translated “in” (Greek: eis) means, “into, unto, to, towards, for, among”. The notion as has been suggested that it means “against” is really quite absurd. Consider this if you will. Although there are 26 times that eis is translated as “against” in the KJV of the New Testament, this is actually the single least common translation. Its used 1,776 times in the New Testament, which mean that it is translated as “against” only 1 out of every 69 times. So what determines how it is used? It is the verb that it is connected to, and the appositional relationship of the verb, in this case to “the Temple”. In other words, what makes more sense, that the AC “sits against the Temple, proclaiming himself as God” or that he “sits in the Temple, proclaiming himself a God”? The cases where eis is used to mean “against” is when the verb is something like “sin” in which case, one does not sin “on” someone etc., but one sins “against” them. If one is determined to argue that eis here means that the AC will sit against the (Spiritual) Temple, I suppose no army of New Testament Greek scholars could stop them, but to do so, quite simply is to twist Scripture to fit one’s preconceived ideas (eisegeis). But apart from a preconceived idea, there is no basis to translate it this way. This is the method of arriving at doctrine used by cults the world over, but it has no basis in responsible Scriptural exegesis.
Next, you asked:
Not at all. Please think through this with me. Throughout the New Testament and the LXX, naos is the word used for the inner sanctuary, while heiron or heirou are used for the greater Temple. Of course, the Biblical view is that the naos is the dwelling place of God. So when Paul wishes to say that God dwells in us, of course he would use the word naos. So first, it’s a really terrible argument (that would truly lead to some bizarre results if applied elsewhere) to say that if a word is used to mean X five (or even several) times, it must mean X everywhere. But second, and much more importantly, let me ask you this: If Paul had wanted to say that the Antichrist would sit in the literal Temple, what other word would he have used? This is the only word that he could use.
Next, you said:
Actually this is not true either. In 1 Corinthians 3:16,17, 6:19 and 2 Corinthians 6:16 Paul used naos to refer not to the ecclesia, but to the body of the individual believer who has the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. In Eph. 2:19-22 Paul uses naos to refer to the ecclesia. Go back and look at the verses. And finally in 2 Thessalonians, he uses it simply to refer to the actual Temple. To take this further, we could go back to your previous claim, and say that since Paul uses naos four times to refer to the physical body of the individual believer, he must mean this every other time. Obviously, this is not true.
Finally, I want to go back to my earlier comment that Daniel was obviously speaking of a literal last days Temple. In Daniel 8, we are twice told by the angel that the prophecy concerns the time of the end. We are also told that the Antichrist will defile the Temple for 2,300 days and nights. Most understand this to mean 1,150 days. History is clear that Antiochus did not fulfill this, having only desecrated the Temple for 3 years, 3 months shy of 1,150 days. But after this time of 2,300 days and nights, we are told that the temple will be “cleansed” (KJV), “reconsecrated” (NIV), “restored” (NASB). How can one restore, reconsecrate or cleanse something that doesn’t exist or did not previously exist? If one wishes to claim that there will not be any future Temple, how can we say that the Temple will be cleansed or reconsecrated?
Also, the argument that because we are the spiritual Temple there cannot be another physical Temple falls down, as it is really quite impossible to argue that there is no Temple during the millennial kingdom. This is pretty much the entire subject of Ezekiel 40-47.
I would also add this extra thought to chew on. In the four references cited when Paul spoke of the individual believer as a temple, or the one case where he speaks of the Church as the Temple, during this very time, the actual Temple still stood. It had not yet been destroyed. Of course, the various sacrifices offered there could not provide atonement. Though I would also argue that they have never been able to provide forgiveness, even before Christ. But my point is that simply because the individual or the Church is a Temple, or a the very dwelling of God, in no way does this mean that there cannot also be a physical literal earthly structure called the Temple. What would be different from a last days Temple than the Temple that stood for 40 years after Jesus had already provided atonement?
Anyway, I hope this has helped and cleared up any confusion.
Blessings
Hi Joel,
Thank you for your reply. You wrote
Just to be clear, in Acts 24 and Acts 26, when Paul is defending himself against Felix and Agrippa respectively and describes the Jerusalem temple he uses the word “heiron”, as he does in 1 Cor 9:13 when describing those ministering in the temple/at the altar, but 4 out of 5 times he uses the word “naos” he is talking about the ekklesia or individual members of the ekklesia. The fifth time, the one in question, he uses the same phrase “temple of God” he uses to describe the ekklesia elsewhere. Stripped of all other connotations and influences, based on these facts alone, isn’t it at least conceivable here he is also talking about the ekklesia here? That’s all I’m saying.
You wrote
I didn’t try to make the case that eis should be translated “against” as opposed to “in”, because personally I don’t think it matters to the argument, however, I happen to know who/what you are talking about. Its interesting that this is exactly how Paul describes the one setting himself “eis” the temple, as “the man of sin” (hamartia) in the preceding verse “…the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness (KJV, “sin”) is revealed, the son of destruction…”
As you stated, “eis” is translated 23 times “against”. For the sake of argument, let’s accept that Islam’s “Mahdi” will be the Biblical Antichrist. The Mahdi of Islam (the “man of sin” per 2 Thessalonians 2:3) would set himself up as God by declaring himself to be the “savior of humanity.” According to the God of the Bible, this would be usurping the office of Yahweh’s Messiah — God in the flesh — for Yahweh says “I am the LORD and apart from me there is no savior… I am God, and there is none like me” (Isaiah 43:11, 46:9b). The Mahdi would therefore be setting himself against the temple of God by blaspheming the God of our Salvation and boastfully declaring that everyone (particularly Jews and Christians) must worship none other than “Allah” for Islam is the only path to enter heaven. Follow the “Mahdi” and be “saved.”
Not trying assemble any armies of Greek scholars… 😉
You wrote
I also believe there will be a Millennial temple built after Christ’s return. In case I hadn’t stated it explicitly before, one of my concerns with the belief that there will be a treaty with Muslims and a temple built beside the Dome of the Rock on the temple mount is that if Christians or even “cultural” Christians are waiting for that to happen before identifying the Antichrist, and it doesn’t happen, perhaps they won’t be preparing themselves for the Lord’s return?
You wrote
Actually 1060 days vs 1150 days is not that far off—perhaps in the ensuing 2,500 years the facts have grown hazy, the history books are wrong and the biblical prophecy is correct, that Antiochus’ actions resulted in 1150 days of desecration? All the other aspects of Daniel 8 sure seem to point to Antiochus. Since the temple existed prior to Antiochus it could be restored/reconsecrated, which it was following his death. How can a non-existent temple (currently) be reconsecrated?
Thanks for your insights,
Kurt
Kurt,
Right. Paul was simply speaking of the Temple in a general sense. He was not specifically referring to the inner sanctuary.
I try not to develop doctrine based on what is “conceivable”, but on what is reasonable and ideally, sound.
There’s another important missing part of the equation. Paul also uses naos to refer to a physical Temple in Acts. It is Luke having recorded Paul’s words in a sermon:
So technically, we would say that Paul referred to naos 4 times to refer to individuals, 1 time to refer to the corporate Church, and 2 times to refer to an actual physical Temple. The argument that Paul always used naos in the same way and therefore we should also understand it this way in 2 Thess 2:4 is simply a seriously faulty (and untrue) argument. But again, the simple point remains, if Paul wished to say that the AC was going to sit in the Temple, as in the actual Holy Place, as did Antiochus, what other way could he have said it?
Ummm, no. You cannot ignore the word “sit”. The point of the verse is not to say that the Antichrist is not going to “sit against the Temple”. Now of course the AC will be opposed to the Temple and the God of the Temple. But that is not what this verse is saying. Again, it is simply expounding what Daniel has already said.
And finally, you said:
The dates of Antiochus’ desecration are actually well established. This is where we get the holiday of Hanukkah. But are you actually saying that despite the words of the angel that the vision concerns “the time of the end” that it was fulfilled entirely 200 years before Christ? This is what I meant by warning you of the leaven of preterism. Once you accept some of preterism’s faulty premises, as you have sadly done, it is quite natural to slip right down that slope. I would so deeply encourage you to reconsider some of the faulty premises that you’ve already embraced.
Bless you Kurt.
This is what confuses me….Why would building a temple in Jerusalem and stopping sacrifices be a bad thing. I mean for there to be another temple built….it would be a holy place at all because God allowed the temple to be destroyed in 70 ad…because there was no more need of it AT ALL because HE sent us HIS SON to be the greatest and last sacrifice forever. For there to be a new temple again….that would be a very bad thing….in the sense that it is USELESS because Christ was the sacrifice and now WE are the temples.
Also….for there to be a STOP to the oblation and sacrifice…WHO CARES….how could that be an ABOMINATION….God NO LONGER will be in a TEMPLE made with human hands…but in US. I see a REBUILDING of a temple in Jerusalem as the ABOMINATION because by building it….it says that Christ did not come and that Jesus was NOT the SON OF GOD/GOD IN THE FLESH…..That to me is ABOMINATION. I believe that this part ( abomination of Daniel) was the destruction of Jerusalem and the time of Nero. Even the time frame fits. The persecution lasted 3 1/2 years. I see NO TEMPLE being built and I surely don’t see the abomination being the anti-c putting an end to the sacrifice as bad. To even start a sacrifice AGAIN …that I see as an abomination because it goes against all that Christ did.
Charlanne,
Will the Temple be a “bad thing” during the Millennium?
Joel:
Oh brother.
I go to a supercessionist Reformed church, and I keep bringing up passages like that (another favourite of mine is the 144,000 Israelites in Revelation, named BY TRIBE). …And they (pastors/elders/etc.) just don’t know what to do with these things (since they don’t fit the traditional Reformed paradigm), and so they tend to give me some waffly allegorical interpretation, wherein the passages are effectively dismissed. But in truth, they couldn’t be less interested in them.
Last week, when I was querying another passage which didn’t really fit their traditional interpretation, I was at last told by a young pastor with a soupy grin that this passage “had no bearing on the Gospel”; in other words, that I should forget it and shut up. It drives me nuts: they are so wedded to their traditions and are interested only in the Gospel (the Calvinist one, that is — the young pastor I mentioned referred to the Arminians as preaching a Gospel “of sorts”). Of course I’m not an enemy of the Gospel and understand its centrality, but they elevate it pretty much to the exclusion of the rest of Scripture. One wonders why they think God gave them sixty-six books, when they seem to believe they could manage just fine with Paul’s letters alone. …Sola Scriptura, my foot.
The more I read God’s Word, the more I’m led to take it at its face value and reject the systems cooked up by churchmen.
سلام
Paul.
Paul,
Despite the tremendous good that is found within the reformed tradition, I would argue that their “reformation” simply does not go back far enough. For if it did, they would be premillennialists. And like those thoroughly Gospel-centered, yet thoroughly premillennialist early believers, they would have a much greater potential to “turn the world upside-down”. Grateful for historic premillennialists such as Piper within the reformed camp.
Blessings!
Hi Joel.
Thanks for replying. I agree wholeheartedly with you about the Reformation (I’m inclined to think that what was needed back in the middle ages was not so much reform as starting from scratch with what the text says — taking the early/Apostolic church as a model, rather than a “partial rollback” to the doctrines and practices which arose in later centuries). But I suppose we have what we have…
As for premillennialism, my impression is that my church probably are mostly premillenialists, only they don’t really take any interest in it — they appear to think that only fruitcakes are interested in studying End-Times prophecy. (They scoff at dispensationalism and have a couldn’t-care-less view of the future: as you can imagine, this gets rather depressing for a fellow like me who has an interest in considering world events in the light of unfulfilled Bible prophecy.)
Looking at what the commenter above (‘Charlanne’) has written, that’s a pretty good summary of the reaction I got to my question about the closing chapters of Ezekiel:
Charlanne:
The pastor at my church got quite indignant about the idea that God might build a future temple, with sacrifices and so on. How dare God do that! Doesn’t He know that’s blasphemy?! Why, it doesn’t fit the systematic theology! Joking aside, there’s a problem when even evangelicals have to ‘spiritualise’ things like the liberals in order to cling onto their traditional interpretation.
And lest there be any confusion in what I’m saying here, yes, I believe Christ’s sacrifice was perfect and all-sufficient; yes, my trust is in Him alone — but the text says what the text says. …And if God wants to build a temple and crank up the sacrificial system again, then I for one am not going to argue with Him. …Even if I haven’t a clue why He’s doing it.
Let God be true and every man a liar.
…Dig your blog, dude.
Joel,
Just wondering if you ever got around to getting that book THE ELECT and the GREAT TRIBULATION by Charles Cooper? There was a gentlemen asking the same question I now have on Daniel 9:25-26 concerning the ESV translation. Would love to hear your response on the matter!
Thanks
Daniel
I did. But I did not agree with Cooper on this issue.
Joel can you please explain more in detail why you think the sacrifices will be reinstated when the whole Old Testament shows the blood of animals can’t redeem sin. That Jesus was the perfect lamb of God. The all sufficient sacrifice. I believe in an actual thousand year reign but this part has really confused me.
Krista,
Perhaps sometime when I have more time I can elaborate on this difficult issue. The one thing to remember is that sacrifice never atoned for sins. No will they in the future. Ongoing sacrifices do not represent a challenge to the finished work of Christ on the cross in any way. Assuming such is more due to preconditioned thinking that doesn’t really understand the purpose of sacrifice etc. Forgive my brevity.
If you want to check what I believe to be a more correct interpretation of that portion of Scripture, you can do so by reading my booklet HE IS THE ONE. A free copy in PDF format is available for download at:
http://www.prophecysociety.org/PDF/HITO_FREE.pdf
Joel, thank you for all of your time, dedication, effort, and love toward Christ, His people, and His word.
I am a web developer by trade and a Christian by the grace of Our Lord! So please be patient with me lol.
A few considerations, I a premillennial believer and I believe that there will be a literal Temple, but I am considering to that other view referenced in your article citing Jesus as all references in Daniel 9. I believe it is referring to the A.D. 70 destruction but not negating a future Temple. Here are the reason I read the passage this way:
v25: “you are to know and understand that….. until Messiah The Prince” – Christ -69 weeks
v26 ” after 62 weeks (69).. the Messiah will be cut off.” — (I am not a Hebrew scholar) but I keep the idea that the reference to The Prince who is to come being a reference to The Messiah (hold for reasoning)
v27 “And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week.. put a stop to sacrifice”
v28 “wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate”
Simply:
(v25) Christ
(v26) Christ/Christ
(v27) Christ/Christ
(end of 27) “come one” antChrist
I will lay out some reasons:
1. I believe that in 26 that “The people of the prince who is to come” refers to the Jews- Jesus’ kinsmen according to the flesh. They cause the city to be destroyed and the temple as well by way of rejection of Christ. Even historically, they revolt against Rome and thus destroy the city.
2. The end of the City and Sanctuary happens sequentially after The Messiah is cut off. And there was war in that City even until the full destruction of The Temple.
3. I believe Jesus made a covenant with Israel, desiring to gather them to Himself, but they were not willing. Now in Zachariah 11 I want to look at a few things in sequence If you will entertain a less learned man than yourself, I don say this sarcastically!
(v4) The LORD our God says to Shepherd “The Pasture Doomed to slaughter”
(v6) The LORD will no longer pity the inhabitants of The Land but will hand them to their king and they will strike the land.
(v7) so I Pastured the flock doomed to slaughter hence the afflicted of the flock. (Jesus is The Physician that came for the sick.)
He came with 2 staffs on the unified Israel and Judah called Union and the other called Favor (He is there of the sick but initially the others are united)
(v8) Jesus annihilates the 3 shepherds because of His impatience with them and their weariness of Him.
(v9) Then He said He will not pasture them.
(v10) He breaks His staff called favor (no longer choosing them) “to break My covenant which I had made with all the peoples”
(v11) The afflicted of the flock saw this and knew it was The Word of The Lord (I think this is the point of the Cross from v10 – v13)
(v12-13) 30 shekels represent judas’ wages for betraying Christ which he gives back to the Temple and then they buy a potters field.
(v14) Then He breaks His second staff called union “to break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel” (Ch. 12 shows why covenant theology is wrong)
(v15) This verse them implies to me that Jesus took the implements of a foolish Shepherd because a Messiah that dies (appears to be) a foolish Shepherd).
v(16) Show that the reason is that He will raise up a shepherd who wont care for the people which i think referencing the antiChrist spoken of in Daniel 11.
Now for this same reason, I interpret Matthew 24 and Luke 21 to be intentionally grammatically different because one points to the surrounding of the Temple in A.D. 70 and the other to the future where the abomination is “in” the Most Holy Place. (So yes I am saying same conversation but Divinely written to make separate points,)
I am no Theologian but I thank you, brother, for engaging with the lay peoples!
I didn’t finish my points:
4. I believe that at the end of 27 when it says ” on the wing of abominations” it means because of the post destruction abominations of the Jews who rejected Christ will “come one” (now talking about a 3rd person in the passage — the antiChrist) who makes desolate see Zechariah 11;16 — and a complete destruction is poured out on the antiChrist.
Correction:
4. I believe that at the end of 27 when it says ” on the wing of abominations” it means because of the post destruction abominations of the Jews who rejected Christ will “come one” (now talking about a 2nd person in the passage — the antiChrist) who makes desolate see Zechariah 11;16 — and a complete destruction is poured out on the antiChrist.