The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

2 Thessalonians 2.1-4:

2.1 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.

Is this the kind of thing an author would say while the temple actually lay in ruins? Or is this evidence that the letter predates 70? Does not the author come across as innocent of the knowledge that the temple had been destroyed? Or is a rebuilding implied in this text somehow? Are there examples of this kind of writing about the temple from after its destruction?

Contrast a verse like Barnabas 16.4:

4 So it comes to pass; for because they went to war it was pulled down by their enemies. Now also the very servants of their enemies shall build it up.

It is not altogether clear from context that the temple to be built up is meant as literal, but the one which was torn down pretty much has to be the literal temple in Jerusalem.

What do you think? (I am not asking about the authenticity of this epistle, incidentally. Only about its date.)

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by MrMacSon »


.
the day of the Lord ... will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes, and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
.

There's a lot there. Could it refer to Caligula? He is reported to have referred to himself as Jupiter and wanted others to do so, too.

Caligula, of course, ordered the erection of a statue of himself in the Jewish Temple of Jerusalem (though I don't think it ever happened*).

* eta: maybe it did. From wikipedia -
The Governor of Syria, Publius Petronius, fearing civil war if the order were carried out, delayed implementing it for nearly a year. Agrippa finally convinced Caligula to reverse the order. But Caligula issued a second order to have his statue erected in the Temple of Jerusalem. In Rome, another statue of himself, of colossal size, was made of gilt brass for such temple. The Temple of Jerusalem was then transformed into a temple for Caligula, and it was called the Temple of illustrious Gaius the new Jupiter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligula#Eastern_policy
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:43 pm
.
the day of the Lord ... will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes, and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
.

There's a lot there. Could it refer to Caligula? He is reported to have referred to himself as Jupiter and wanted others to do so, too.

Caligula, of course, ordered the erection of a statue of himself in the Jewish Temple of Jerusalem (though I don't think it ever happened*).

* eta: maybe it did. From wikipedia -
The Governor of Syria, Publius Petronius, fearing civil war if the order were carried out, delayed implementing it for nearly a year. Agrippa finally convinced Caligula to reverse the order. But Caligula issued a second order to have his statue erected in the Temple of Jerusalem. In Rome, another statue of himself, of colossal size, was made of gilt brass for such temple. The Temple of Jerusalem was then transformed into a temple for Caligula, and it was called the Temple of illustrious Gaius the new Jupiter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligula#Eastern_policy
The idea of someone desecrating the temple could be based on Antiochus, on Pompey, or on Caligula. No, I do not think Caligula actually got his statue installed (he died too soon, saving Petronius' life), but the question still remains: no matter what the motif is based on, does this way of writing about the temple imply a date before 70?

I might add, it may be tempting to imagine a forger writing in Paul's name, aware that Paul predated the temple himself, who wrote in such a way as to imply that the temple is still standing (so as to help authenticate the forgery). However, a forger doing this sort of thing while attributing a prediction to Paul would be making it seem as if the prediction had already failed, for how can the temple be desecrated if there is no temple to desecrate? Such a forger would have to be imagining Paul as imagining, without saying so, that the temple would be rebuilt first. Is this possible? Of course it is. Our forger may be one quirky fellow, or perhaps just a bit inept. But is that option more likely than, or even as likely as, the option whereby the passage predated 70?
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sat Feb 17, 2018 9:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:55 pm
.
the day of the Lord ... will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes, and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
.

no matter what the motif is based on, does this way of writing about the temple imply a date before 70
I often wonder if references in the NT to 'the temple' are always references to the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

2 Thessalonians 1 (KVJ) previously refers to churches and, apart from 'the church of the Thessalonians', there is no other reference to places in 2 Thessalonians -
1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: 2 Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth; 4 So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure
eta: Is the temple passé by then?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:24 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:55 pm
.
the day of the Lord ... will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes, and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
.

no matter what the motif is based on, does this way of writing about the temple imply a date before 70
I often wonder if references in the NT to 'the temple' are always references to the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.
Well, not all of them are. Some are most definitely references to a spiritual temple of some kind (the body of the believer, the church itself, a heavenly place, and so on). But is this one? Does it come across as a spiritual temple in which the man of lawlessness takes his seat in a way obvious enough to qualify as a sign of the end? How would that work in this case?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by andrewcriddle »

I have never found convincing the idea that 2 Thessalonians is non-Pauline.
It is a puzzling letter whether Pauline or non-Pauline.

Merely being puzzling is not however an argument against authenticity.

Andrew Criddle
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by hakeem »

andrewcriddle wrote: Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:55 am I have never found convincing the idea that 2 Thessalonians is non-Pauline.
It is a puzzling letter whether Pauline or non-Pauline.

Merely being puzzling is not however an argument against authenticity.

Andrew Criddle
Being puzzled is not an argument for authenticity.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Bernard Muller »

I do not think the temple of God is a reference to the temple of Jerusalem. It is a spiritual temple for Christians. See 1 Cor 3:16-17, 6:19 and 2 Cor 6:16

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote: Tue Sep 26, 2017 3:40 pm I do not think the temple of God is a reference to the temple of Jerusalem. It is a spiritual temple for Christians. See 1 Cor 3:16-17, 6:19 2 and Cor 6:16

Cordially, Bernard
So you think the man of lawlessness taking a seat in the temple of God is a metaphor for somebody... doing what? Being a leader in the church? ...?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Ben,
2 Th 2:3b-4 the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition,
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.

At second look, the man in question might be Domitian (having people calling him "my Lord and my God"), presented here as a part of a prophecy (the author pretending to be Paul, writing some 40 years earlier). I figure that was intended to give hope that the Day will arrive soon, because that man was in power.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Post Reply