Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, Paul is correcting a serious problem. False teachers have come
to the church in Thessalonica and were instructing the people that the day of the Lord, or the
second coming of Christ, had arrived. In response to their error, Paul states that two specific
events will take place before the day of the Lord comes. “Let no one deceive you in any way. For
that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed,
the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of
worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God” (2
Thessalonians 2:3-4, emphasis added).1 The question that this paper will answer is what Paul
meant by the statement “the temple of God.” It will focus solely on the location and meaning of
the “temple of God,” and will conclude that Paul has a literal temple with a metaphoric
application in mind.
This will be done by looking at the word “temple” and its meaning in Pauline New
Testament usages, exploring the Jewish origin of Paul’s eschatological thought process, looking
at both the literal and metaphorical views of the “temple of God,” setting out a proposal for a
literal-metaphoric view of the “temple of God,” and examining objections and their following
refutations in favor of a literal-metaphoric interpretation. This paper will only go outside the
context of 2 Thessalonians as needed to assist the thesis, and will analyze this single aspect of
eschatology in Pauline thought alone. The four Gospel accounts and the Revelation of John will
not be referenced.
1
All Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version.
1
A Pauline Eschatology of the “Temple of God” in 2 Thessalonians 2:4
Exegetical Summarization
In the New Testament, two different words are used to denote the temple. Naos
specifically indicates the temple sanctuary (or the dwelling place of the deity), while to hieron
refers to the grouping of buildings that made up the temple in Jerusalem.2 Because naos is the
word that Paul utilizes in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, only the Pauline usage of naos will be explored in
Paul uses naos in his writings only eight times, and 2:4 is the singular occurrence of naos
in 2 Thessalonians.3 He also uses it four times in his first letter to the Corinthians, one of which
being his famous statement, “do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit
dwells in you?” (emphasis added). In almost every occurrence of naos, Paul uses it explicitly to
refer to believers as the temples of God.4 However, just because Paul uses naos in a spiritual
sense in Corinthians and other writings does not mean that it is used in the same way in 2
Old Testament book of Daniel.5 Daniel contains the original Jewish concept of a prominent evil
2
W. Von Meding, “Temple,” vol. 3 of the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed.
Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978), 781.
3
Udo Borse, “ναός,” vol. 2 of the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Horst Balz and Gerhard
Schneider (Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd., 1990), 457.
4
Von Meding, 784.
5
Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1952), 111.
2
figure rising up against God in rebellion and oppression.6 In heavily symbolic language, Daniel
describes this figure as, “…the horn that had eyes and a mouth that spoke great things…this horn
made war with the saints and prevailed over them,” and “…the abomination that makes desolate”
(Daniel 7:20-21, 11:31c). In language very similar to what Paul wrote in 2 Thes. 2, Daniel also
writes, “He shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing
things against the God of gods” (Dan. 11:36b). Paul also may have used the symbolism of the
“Lucifer passage” from Isaiah 14 for his foretelling of the evil man sitting “in the temple of
God”: “You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my
throne on high…’” (Isaiah 14:13ff).7 As seen here, Paul’s eschatological thought process of the
man of lawlessness taking his place in the temple of God is firmly rooted in Jewish eschatology.
Those who hold this view believe that Paul intends to be strictly literal in his usage of the
“temple of God.” There is evidence that supports their claims. In the context of this passage,
naos is possibly referring to the most inward sanctuary of a temple where the god dwelled.8 This
“inner sanctuary” in question most definitely points to the place in which the God of the Jews
resided, the Holy of Holies in the temple of Jerusalem. The small phrase, “of God,” that Paul
adds to “temple” signifies that “a specific building” is in Paul’s intentions here.9 Also, naos
6
George Eldon Ladd, The Last Things (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 58.
7
J. Julius Scott, “Paul and Late-Jewish Eschatology: A Case Study,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 15, no. 3 (Summer 1972): 140.
8
Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New
International Greek Testament Commentary, ed. I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque (Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 246.
9
Ibid.
3
needs to be understood literally if Paul’s point is to show “an observable, symbolic event” that
Christians can use to conclude that the day of the Lord is fast approaching.10
Most people connect the self-deification here to the Roman emperor Caligula, who tried
to place an image of himself in the Jerusalem temple in AD 40, but died before it could happen.
Paul may have had this incident in mind at the time of his writing about ten years later, sometime
in AD 50.11 However, what this man of lawlessness will do will go far beyond Caligula’s petty
attempt to set up an image of himself in the temple. Instead, this man will physically sit in the
place reserved for the deity’s presence. The language that Paul uses points to the “single act of
taking the seat.”12 For this literal prediction to come to pass, a physical temple must be rebuilt in
Jerusalem.
Adherents to this view believe that because the man of lawlessness exalts only himself,
he will sit in the sanctuary (naos) of God, which is the church.13 To see this, one must go outside
of 2 Thessalonians to the Corinthian and Ephesian epistles where naos is also clearly used as a
metaphor. This man will take authority over the people of God in the church, even though they
10
D. Michael Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians, vol. 33 of the New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen
(Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 236.
11
Gordon D. Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, The New International Commentary
on the New Testament, ed. Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 241.
12
Leon Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, The New International Commentary on
the New Testament, rev. ed., ed. F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991), 223.
13
William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Thessalonians, Timothy, & Titus (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Book House, 1983), 178.
4
will not adhere to his command. Additionally, this Jewish temple metaphor that Paul uses is a
Another key reason that Paul uses this metaphor for the church is that the church is now
“indwelt” by the Holy Spirit,15 taking the place of the Jewish temple as the location of the
presence of God.16
Most interpreters of the “temple of God” fall into two extremes; on the one side, it is a
strictly literal interpretation that points to a future construction of a new temple in Jerusalem, and
on the other it is a loose metaphorical picture that says the church will spawn the man of
lawlessness who will then commandeer them. This section will propose a midpoint of sorts, a
“literal-metaphoric”17 view.
This view does not go as far as to say that a literal temple must be built in Jerusalem for
Paul’s prediction to be satisfied, nor does it say that the man of lawlessness will come out of the
church and take complete authority of it. Instead, it holds a balance of the two extremes. It
affirms that Paul is indeed speaking of the literal temple in Jerusalem, but does so with a specific
14
George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1993), 605.
15
Kim Riddlebarger, The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books, 2006), 125.
16
Kim Riddlebarger is a contemporary Reformed theologian who draws heavily from G. K. Beale’s
commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians in his book on the Man of Sin. However, Beale gives the foundation of his
argument by going outside of the immediate context of Pauline thought, straight to the Gospel accounts and
Revelation. Even though it may seem he is attempting to do a systematic study, he concludes by saying that all his
research in the Gospels and Revelation point to fact that Paul is referencing the church in 2 Thes. 2:4. Both Beale
and Riddlebarger also hold to replacement theology in terms of Israel and the Church, which raises another red flag.
17
This term is the author’s original term. It was coined while reading Gordon Fee’s New International
Commentary and F. F. Bruce’s Word Biblical Commentary, both on 2 Thessalonians 2.
5
purpose in mind. According to Gordon Fee, Paul was referencing notable defacements of the
Jewish temple, the latest one being the failed attempt from the Roman emperor Caligula ten
years before he wrote the letter, to figuratively depict the evil man’s “self-deification.”18 F. F.
Bruce affirms this view, saying that Paul is speaking of the literal temple in Jerusalem. However,
the separating factor from the strictly literal viewpoint is the reality that the listeners would have
thought of Paul’s illustration as “a graphic way of saying that [the man of lawlessness] plans to
usurp the authority of God.”19 Like a modern-day sermon illustration, Paul references a literal
The main point of debate for the metaphorical view is that the “temple of God” stands for
the church. This would mean that the man of lawlessness would make the church his “base of
operations,” and will set himself up there with the claim of self-deification.20 However, at the
moment this happens, the church’s status as the church of Christ will be terminated. This abrupt
falling-away of the church as a whole is nowhere to be found in either the Jewish or Christian
Scriptures. The strikingly expressive language that Paul uses is too explicit to think it refers to
anything but taking a seat “in a formal way” in the sanctuary of God. Because no physical temple
in Jerusalem currently exists, it is assumed that the best conclusion of the passage is to assume
18
Fee, 284.
19
F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, vol. 45 of the Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger
(Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982), 169.
20
Morris, 223.
6
that it will be some sort of “material building” that the man of lawlessness will use to make his
self-deifying statements.21
Even though Paul uses naos in other places to refer to Christians as spiritual temples,
using the same interpretation in this passage is extremely difficult to warrant.22 Gentile and
Jewish Christians alike would have immediately realized that this reference is pointing to the
majestic Jewish temple in Jerusalem, and even more so because of the hint of Jewish eschatology
from Daniel and Isaiah that Paul is utilizing. The spiritual, or “figurative,” meaning of naos does
not measure up to the literal weight that this passage demands. The man of lawlessness, a human
being, cannot physically sit down in either the church as a whole or any “heavenly temple”
where God dwells.23 Also, it is impossible that Paul is thinking of the church as the temple he is
describing, because during his day the churches did not occupy magnificent and grandiose
buildings for the man of lawlessness to sit in.24 Finally, if some want to say that the man of
lawlessness will rule the church, the whole picture of this man’s evil deeds will be much larger
than just the church. While the view that this man will come from and sit on the throne of the
church is being refuted, he will still make an incredulous demand of “absolute preeminence”
over every deity that is worshipped on the earth and the complete devotion of every living
person.25
21
Morris, 224.
22
Wanamaker, 246.
23
Robert L. Thomas, “2 Thessalonians,” in Ephesians–Philemon, vol. 12 of the Expositor’s Bible
Commentary, ed. Tremper Longman III & David E. Garland, 441-486 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 468.
24
I. Howard Marshall, “Church and Temple in the New Testament,” Tyndale Bulletin 40, no. 2 (1989): 212.
25
Martin, 236.
7
The literal view holds that a literal temple must be rebuilt in Jerusalem in order for the
final process of the last things to begin. In response, this whole line of argument is built on pure
speculation. If this man of lawlessness has to sit in a literal temple, and if a temple has not been
in Jerusalem for almost two thousand years, than it must be rebuilt.26 The hypothesis and logic
seem simple.27 However, Scripture does not ever foretell this. Some state that this is the correct
interpretation of Daniel 9:24, which says, “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and
your holy city…to anoint a most holy place” (emphasis added). Even though it seems to be
saying this at face value, it is only one interpretation in a large group of possible options.28
From the Jewish perspective, a temple has not been in Jerusalem for almost two thousand
years. While some organizations of Judaism pray three times a day for their temple to be restored
to Jerusalem, Reform Judaism “has no interest” in rebuilding a temple there and does not foresee
one ever being built again.29 Also, the Dome of the Rock, the second most important mosque in
Islam, currently takes up the very place in Jerusalem that God originally set aside for the temple.
Interestingly enough, Teddy Kolleck, the late former mayor of Jerusalem, recorded in his
autobiography that he received almost thirty letters per year from “fundamentalist” Christians
asking him to rebuild the Temple, “because they regard this as a prerequisite for the return of
Christ.”30
26
Gary S. Shogren, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, vol. 13 of the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament, ed. Clinton E. Arnold (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 284.
27
“It is this sort of apocalyptic calculus that the NT discourages and certainly has no place in this or other
Pauline letters.” Shogren, 283.
28
Ibid.
29
David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary. Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament
Publications, Inc., 1992), 628.
30
Ibid., 629.
8
Conclusion
Even though the debate of the correct location and meaning of the “temple of God” in 2
Thessalonians 2:4 has well-respected conservative biblical scholars on both sides and shows no
promising end to the arguments, this paper has made an attempt to put forth evidence for the
third, middle-ground position of the literal-metaphoric interpretation. This was done first by
looking at Paul’s usage of the word “temple” and his Jewish origin of his eschatological thought
process. Then, the literal and metaphorical views of the “temple of God” were examined, and a
third view, a literal-metaphoric one, was proposed. Lastly, major objections and their subsequent
refutations were stated in favor of this literal-metaphoric view. As this is the only location of
Paul’s theology of the “man of lawlessness” and his seat in the “temple of God” in his canonized
writings, this paper’s thesis should be seriously considered as a valid option of Paul’s complete
eschatology of the location and meaning of the “temple of God” in relation to the “man of
lawlessness.”
When I read what Gordon Fee said in regards to Paul writing this second letter to the
believers in this city, that he wrote to them to give them hope and “comfort,” it confused me at
first. How can a detailed and confusing (at some points) description of the future be comforting?
Then, while writing the paper, I understood. Paul was worried about these believers because the
false teachers were deceiving them through their errant teaching of these things. They were being
led astray.
Sunday mornings or in the classroom setting. I have been realizing over the last few years that
teaching Scripture is much more than simply regurgitating knowledge and facts. It is
communicating the Spirit-inspired texts that ultimately lead to personal relationship with the
9
creator God and a transformed life through it. True teaching from Scripture brings hope and
comfort, not evil deception, just like Paul demonstrated in this letter. I want for this hope to be
always increasing in my personal life as God transforms me more and more through my intake of
Scripture, and that others around me would see this hope in me and forsake any evil deceptions
in their lives by turning to God and making Him and His ways their ultimate hope and comfort.
10
Sources Consulted
Borse, Udo. “ναός.” Vol. 2 of the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Horst
Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd., 1990.
Bruce, F. F. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Vol. 45 of the Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by Bruce
M. Metzger. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.
Fee, Gordon D. The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians. The New International
Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009.
Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary: Thessalonians, Timothy, & Titus. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983.
Ladd, George Eldon. The Last Things. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1978.
____________. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1993.
Marshall, I. Howard. “Church and Temple in the New Testament.” Tyndale Bulletin 40, no. 2
(1989): 203-222.
Morris, Leon. The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. The New International
Commentary on the New Testament
Riddlebarger, Kim. The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Books, 2006.
Scott, J. Julius. “Paul and Late-Jewish Eschatology: A Case Study.” Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 15, no. 3 (Summer 1972): 133-143.
Shogren, Gary S. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Vol. 13 of the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the
New Testament. Edited by Clinton E. Arnold. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012.
Stern, David H. Jewish New Testament Commentary. Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament
Publications, Inc., 1992.
11
Von Meding, W. “Temple.” Vol. 3 of the New International Dictionary of New Testament
Theology. Edited by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978.
Vos, Geerhardus. The Pauline Eschatology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1952.
Wanamaker, Charles A. The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text.
The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and
W. Ward Gasque. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990.
12