The date of 2 Thessalonians.

[Ben C. Smith]

The more I consider 2 Thessalonians 2:4, the less confident I am that the author is referring to a contemporaneous standing temple.

Parsing the sentence itself:

ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος
ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα,
ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι,
ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός.

My translation--

Who opposes and exalts himself
above every worshipped god or sacred thing,
so as to seat himself in the temple of God,
claiming that he himself is God.

King James--

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 "as God" you have included in your boldfaced italics (for reasons unclear to me) in the KJV is a Byzantine variant (ὡς θεὸν). The standard Greek texts, as well as most of the earlier manuscripts (including Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus), lack it. It is not in the Greek text that you provided above it, for example.

Also, the phrase "every worshiped god" does not answer to anything in the text. The participle modifying "god" is λεγόμενον; σέβασμα is a separate thing. It is more like "everything called 'god' or [every] thing worshiped."

The author is spelling out an imagined condition to be met before the parousia. The self-exalting of the man of lawlessness "above every god or sacred thing" is the main thought, which is elaborated with a clause of result: (by) seating himself in the temple of God, he declares himself to be God. The thought of the whole verse is essentially hypothetical: there will be this sort of man who will do this sort of thing so as to make out that he is God.

This is ὥστε plus the infinitive; it is an ordinary result clause. Here are a few others:

Romans 7.6: 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve [ὥστε δουλεύειν = "with the result that we serve"] in newness of the spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Romans 15.18-19: 18 For I will not presume to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me, resulting in the obedience of the Gentiles by word and deed, 19 in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the spirit; so that [ὥστε] from Jerusalem and round about as far as Illyricum I have fully preached [πεπληρωκέναι, the perfect infinitive = "with the result that I have fully preached"] the gospel of Christ.

1 Corinthians 1.4-8: 4 I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, 5 that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge, 6 even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you, 7 so that you are not lacking [ὥστε ὑμᾶς μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι = "with the result that you are not lacking"] in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 5.1: 1 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has [ὥστε... τινα... ἔχειν = "with the result that someone has"] his father's wife. 2 You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.

2 Corinthians 2.6-7: 6 Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority, 7 so that on the contrary you ought rather to forgive [ὥστε τοὐναντίον μᾶλλον ὑμᾶς χαρίσασθαι = "with the result that you ought rather to forgive"] and comfort him, otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.

The Christians of which Paul writes in Romans are not merely "the sort" of people who would serve in newness of spirit if they could; nor is Paul himself merely claiming to be "the sort" of person who would preach in a wide arc if he could; nor are the Corinthians, according to Paul, "the sort" of people who who would lack no spiritual gift if they could, nor even "the sort" of people who would welcome someone who has his father's wife if they could; nor is Paul merely hoping that the Corinthians might be "the sort" of people who would forgive if they could. The results are, in all cases, in some sense real: either they have already really happened (in the past) or they are what is really being hoped for (in the future). A result clause just is not the best way to convey some abstract, hypothetical notion about "the sort" of person one might be. The best way to make sure we are rendering a result clause properly is to mentally plug in the English word "result" once: "...who opposes and exalts himself above everything called 'god' or that is worshiped, with the result that he sits in the temple of God, displaying himself that he is a god." Your translation has obscured the connection somewhat: this man is going to think so highly of himself that the result will be or ought to be that he takes a seat in the temple of God and claims to be a god. (A result clause does not have to guarantee the outcome; the result may be intended but not destined; but the outcome is also not just some vague contingency, since the intent is a real one.)

Finally, the whole point of 2 Thessalonians 2.3-4 is to provide a visible sign (as implied both by the context and by ἀποκαλυφθῇ) that has not come to pass yet. Yet, on your reading, the most visible part of the sign — the taking a seat in the temple of God and displaying oneself as a god — is reduced to a mere contingency: the person revealed is, not a man who actually does something, but rather a man of "the sort" who would do something if he could. While not impossible, this is clearly not the best reading.

It is the "temple of God" because he sits himself in it as God.

It is the "temple of the God." The man of sin claims to be a God (no definite article), but he sits down in the temple of the God (definite article).

Similarly, the New Jerome Biblical Commentary (1994):

"the temple image "may function simply as a 'classical image' referring to the rebel's usurping God's prerogative. No concern for the physical Temple of Jerusalem is required by this visionary scenario."

Lattke himself could not have argued it better.

ETA: Let me add another point, one which you yourself actually made earlier today:

In case this wasn't already noted--

2 Thessalonians 2:4	Daniel 11:36 (LXX)
ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι, ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός.	καὶ ποιήσει κατὰ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑψωθήσεται καὶ μεγαλυνθήσεται ἐπὶ πάντα θεὸν καὶ λαλήσει ὑπέρογκα καὶ κατευθυνεῖ, μέχρις οὗ συντελεσθῇ ἡ ὀργή, εἰς γὰρ συντέλειαν γίνεται.
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.	And the king shall do according to his will; he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is determined shall be done.

Yes, the book of Daniel is probably the original and main source (probably tweaked by the likes of Pompey and Caligula, just as modern Christians have tweaked their expectations of the Antichrist in light of dictators like Hitler and Stalin) for the man of sin's alleged actions and character; and the book of Daniel is famously all about the actual desecration of the literal temple in Jerusalem:

Colin R. Nicholl, From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: We judge that the temple is most probably the Jerusalem temple, the reference being to the abomination of desolation referred to by Daniel (Dan. 9:27; 12:11; cf. 8:13; 11:31) and the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 13:14; Matt. 24:15). This position pays due respect to the dependence on Dan. 11:36–7 in the preceding and succeeding context; ‘Paul’ apparently understood Dan. 11:36ff. as prophesying that a future figure (distinct from Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the apparent referent of the immediately preceding Danielic verses) would arise who would desecrate the temple, persecute the people of God and consummate world history (Dan. 9:27; 11:36–12:1), fulfilling Daniel’s predictions and heralding the end.

[Irish1975]

The "as God" you have included in your boldfaced italics (for reasons unclear to me) in the KJV is a Byzantine variant (ὡς θεὸν). The standard Greek texts, as well as most of the earlier manuscripts (including Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus), lack it. It is not in the Greek text that you provided above it, for example.

I should have suspected that, thanks.

Also, the phrase "every worshiped god" does not answer to anything in the text. The participle modifying "god" is λεγόμενον; σέβασμα is a separate thing. It is more like "everything called 'god' or [every] thing worshiped."

πάντα, unless I am mistaken, is a singular masculine accusative adjective modifying θεὸν, rather than a neuter plural substantive, "everything." Thus, every so-called god, or every putative god, or every worshipped god. Maybe "worshipped" is too sociological, so okay: "every so-called god or sacred thing".

This is ὥστε plus the infinitive; it is an ordinary result clause.

That's why I translated it as a result clause: "so as to seat himself in the temple of God."

Here are a few others:

Romans 7.6: 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve [ὥστε δουλεύειν = "with the result that we serve"] in newness of the spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Romans 15.18-19: 18 For I will not presume to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me, resulting in the obedience of the Gentiles by word and deed, 19 in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the spirit; so that [ὥστε] from Jerusalem and round about as far as Illyricum I have fully preached [πεπληρωκέναι, the perfect infinitive = "with the result that I have fully preached"] the gospel of Christ.

1 Corinthians 1.4-8: 4 I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, 5 that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge, 6 even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you, 7 so that you are not lacking [ὥστε ὑμᾶς μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι = "with the result that you are not lacking"] in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 5.1: 1 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has [ὥστε... τινα... ἔχειν = "with the result that someone has"] his father's wife. 2 You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.

2 Corinthians 2.6-7: 6 Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority, 7 so that on the contrary you ought rather to forgive [ὥστε τοὐναντίον μᾶλλον ὑμᾶς χαρίσασθαι = "with the result that you ought rather to forgive"] and comfort him, otherwise such a one might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow.

The Christians of which Paul writes in Romans are not merely "the sort" of people who would serve in newness of spirit if they could; nor is Paul himself merely claiming to be "the sort" of person who would preach in a wide arc if he could; nor are the Corinthians, according to Paul, "the sort" of people who who would lack no spiritual gift if they could, nor even "the sort" of people who would welcome someone who has his father's wife if they could; nor is Paul merely hoping that the Corinthians might be "the sort" of people who would forgive if they could. The results are, in all cases, in some sense real: either they have already really happened (in the past) or they are what is really being hoped for (in the future). A result clause just is not the best way to convey some abstract, hypothetical notion about "the sort" of person one might be. The best way to make sure we are rendering a result clause properly is to mentally plug in the English word "result" once: "...who opposes and exalts himself above everything called 'god' or that is worshiped, with the result that he sits in the temple of God, displaying himself that he is a god." Your translation has obscured the connection somewhat: this man is going to think so highly of himself that the result will be or ought to be that he takes a seat in the temple of God and claims to be a god. (A result clause does not have to guarantee the outcome; the result may be intended but not destined; but the outcome is also not just some vague contingency, since the intent is a real one.)

I think you're interpretation of me is that I was basing the hypothetical nature of the prophecy on (a faulty understanding of) the result clause. But I should have analyzed the whole sentence, which is a conditional sentence:

ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ ἡ ἀποστασία πρῶτον καὶ ἀποκαλυφθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, 4ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἐστὶν θεός.

for [that day will not come] unless the rebellion comes first, and 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.

ἐὰν μὴ, "unless," frames the whole statement as hypothetical, imaginary, abstract, not real. "The negative of the protasis [of a conditional sentence] is μὴ because the subordinate clause expresses something that is conceived or imagined" (Greek Grammar, Smythe, 2286).

It is the "temple of God" because he sits himself in it as God.

It is the "temple of the God." The man of sin claims to be a God (no definite article), but he sits down in the temple of the God (definite article).

I disagree. The man of lawlessness exalts himself above every so-called god or sacred thing, putting himself forward as "the one true God." To say that he puts himself forward merely as "a god", a god like any other god, seems to distort the author's meaning.

But this is beside the point for me. I base my non-referential interpretation of this occurrence of "temple" squarely on the hypothetical nature of the prophecy.

Similarly, the New Jerome Biblical Commentary (1994):

"the temple image "may function simply as a 'classical image' referring to the rebel's usurping God's prerogative. No concern for the physical Temple of Jerusalem is required by this visionary scenario."

Lattke himself could not have argued it better.

If you're implying that I've contradicted myself, because I reach different conclusions about "temple" in these two cases, that seems unwarranted. It's not as if every occurrence of the word "temple" in the New Testament could survive the "direct reference to second temple" standard that you are laying down. There are plenty of imagined temples, in Revelation or Hebrews, right? And of course most do not read "temple" in the gospels as pre-70, or they need not. Every text needs to be examined on its own terms, and I think I was fair in examining this one. (And anyhow I don't have a horse in the race of how 2 Thss is dated.)

[Ben C. Smith]

πάντα, unless I am mistaken, is a singular masculine accusative adjective modifying θεὸν, rather than a neuter plural substantive, "everything."

The word πάντα is singular here, yes. But "everything" is singular, too, in English. ("Everything is," not "everything are." "Everything are" is gibberish.) A neuter plural would be better translated as "all things."

Thus, every so-called god, or every putative god, or every worshipped god. Maybe "worshipped" is too sociological, so okay: "every so-called god or sacred thing".

My point is that the only thing in your translation answering to σέβασμα is "worshiped," but you have it modifying "god" in English, which σέβασμα does not do in the Greek.

This is ὥστε plus the infinitive; it is an ordinary result clause.

That's why I translated it as a result clause: "so as to seat himself in the temple of God."

"So as to" can sometimes translate a result clause, but it can also translate a purpose clause and several variations involving the subjunctive (the subjunctive being, by the way, a good way to express contingency of the kind it appeared you were going for). Your translation was ambiguous in that regard.

I think your interpretation of me is that I was basing the hypothetical nature of the prophecy on (a faulty understanding of) the result clause.

Yes. That is the clause that you boldfaced and italicized — and also the clause which "the sort" of man who would sit in the temple responds to — so that is the clause I thought you were focusing on.

But I should have analyzed the whole sentence, which is a conditional sentence:

ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ ἡ ἀποστασία πρῶτον καὶ ἀποκαλυφθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, 4ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἐστὶν θεός.

for [that day will not come] unless the rebellion comes first, and 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.

ἐὰν μὴ, "unless," frames the whole statement as hypothetical, imaginary, abstract, not real. "The negative of the protasis [of a conditional sentence] is μὴ because the subordinate clause expresses something that is conceived or imagined" (Greek Grammar, Smythe, 2286).

Yes, good. The ἐὰν μή marks off the protasis of a future more vivid condition. The apodosis is not even expressed in the Greek; it has to be understood to be something like "it will not happen" (future indicative).

(To be clear, μή is always the negative in a clause with the subjunctive and ἄν. It is not as if the writer has a choice and goes with μή when the possibility is more remote or some such. The way you marked off the quotation did not make this clear, so I am making sure the average reader knows what is going on.)

Here are some more examples of this kind of condition:

Romans 10.15a: 15a How will they preach unless [ἐὰν μή] they are sent?

Romans 11.23: 23 And they also, if they do not [ἐὰν μή] continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

1 Corinthians 9.16: 16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not [ἐὰν μή] preach the gospel.

In all of these cases, two different outcomes are being imagined:

• Romans 10.15a: (A) They are not sent; therefore they will not (or can not) preach. (B) They are sent; therefore preaching will now be possible.
• Romans 11.23: (A) They continue in unbelief; therefore they will not (can not) be grafted in. (B) They do not continue in unbelief; therefore grafting in will now be possible.
• 1 Corinthians 9.16: (A) I do not preach the gospel; therefore woe will be inevitable. (B) I preach the gospel; therefore woe will no longer inevitable.

So far so good. This is just how future more vivid conditions work. Nothing fancy.

So now let us consider the passage on the table:

• 2 Thessalonians 2.3: (A) The apostasy does not come and the man of sin is not revealed; therefore the day of the Lord will not happen. (B) The apostasy comes and the man of sin is revealed; therefore its happening will be possible.

Do you really think that the author is contemplating the reality of option A, that the day of the Lord is not going to happen? He seems committed enough to it in 1.6-12 and in 2.6-12. But, if the author thinks that the day of the Lord is going to happen, then he must also think that the man of sin is going to be revealed. The latter is a necessary condition for the former. I truly have no idea what you are getting out of this sentence being a conditional statement; granted the event in the apodosis (the day of the Lord), the events of the protasis have to happen (the apostasy takes place; the man of sin is revealed, with the result that he takes a seat in the temple).

I disagree. The man of lawlessness exalts himself above every so-called god or sacred thing, putting himself forward as "the one true God."

Please defend this statement. The definite article is not there.

Or never mind, if it is not important to you:

But this is beside the point for me. I base my non-referential interpretation of this occurrence of "temple" squarely on the hypothetical nature of the prophecy.

It's not as if every occurrence of the word "temple" in the New Testament could survive the "direct reference to second temple" standard that you are laying down. There are plenty of imagined temples, in Revelation or Hebrews, right?

Oh, yes, plenty! There are lots of figurative or metaphorical temples.

Some of those temples are in heaven; they are the "real" temple of God, as it were. But this is not likely to be the case here, since the man of sin taking a seat in the temple is supposed to be a sign to the Thessalonians.

Some of those temples are the human body; the body of a believer is said to be "a temple of God." But this is not likely to be the case here, since these instances are introduced, as they should be, anarthrously, whereas "the temple of the God" indicates the temple in Jerusalem.

If you could present an example of one of these figurative temples that you think sheds light on 2 Thessalonians 2.3-4, that would be great.

And of course most do not read "temple" in the gospels as pre-70, or they need not.

The gospels presuppose the temple's destruction (Matthew 24.1-2 = Mark 13.1-2 = Luke 21.5-6). Does 2 Thessalonians? The issue is not just any old mention of the temple. I myself have mentioned the temple hundreds of times on this forum, but I am well aware that it is no longer standing. The issue is a mention of the temple that depends upon it still being standing. Water carrying things to the temple in the Odes requires that the temple still be standing (if that passage is not describing the destruction of said temple); a man sitting down in the temple of God requires that the temple still be standing. These are references to the temple which are seemingly innocent of the knowledge that the temple has been destroyed, as if I suggested that you and I take a road trip and visit the top of the Twin Towers in New York City.

[Irish1975]

Do you really think that the author is contemplating the reality of option A, that the day of the Lord is not going to happen? He seems committed enough to it in 1.6-12 and in 2.6-12. But, if the author thinks that the day of the Lord is going to happen, then he must also think that the man of sin is going to be revealed. The latter is a necessary condition for the former. I truly have no idea what you are getting out of this sentence being a conditional statement; granted the event in the apodosis (the day of the Lord), the events of the protasis have to happen (the apostasy takes place; the man of sin is revealed, with the result that he takes a seat in the temple).

The parousia is very much not something "granted"! You're reversing the logic of a conditional statement, which is: "granted" the condition, the apodasis follows. It is idle anyhow to speculate what the author thinks about the parousia (except that he wants to dampen the expectation aroused by 1 Thss, but that's another matter.)

My point is straightforward and you have not addressed it. The author, by introducing the whole statement as the protasis of a conditional statement, is proposing an imagined condition for the parousia. Or rather, two conditions: the apostasy, and the man of lawlessness seating himself in "the temple of God." Because the latter is an abstract event, a hypothetical, a prophecy emanating from the author's imagination, there is no assertion being made about a contemporaneous building. The recipients of the letter are welcome to imagine some new "temple of God" being built in the future. If the "true" temple of God is in heaven, the earthly copy of said temple could be something altogether different from Herod's temple (eg, built today by the state of Israel). It could still fulfill the prophecy.

[Ben C. Smith]

Do you really think that the author is contemplating the reality of option A, that the day of the Lord is not going to happen? He seems committed enough to it in 1.6-12 and in 2.6-12. But, if the author thinks that the day of the Lord is going to happen, then he must also think that the man of sin is going to be revealed. The latter is a necessary condition for the former. I truly have no idea what you are getting out of this sentence being a conditional statement; granted the event in the apodosis (the day of the Lord), the events of the protasis have to happen (the apostasy takes place; the man of sin is revealed, with the result that he takes a seat in the temple).

The parousia is very much not something "granted"!

Then you must think that the author does not believe it is going to happen. And that is incredible to me.

It is not "granted" by the grammar of a Greek conditional statement. Grammar is not ontological. It is granted by the author's expressed beliefs elsewhere in the epistle. The day of the Lord is going to happen, according to the author, but it is not going to happen until something else happens first.

You're reversing the logic of a conditional statement, which is: "granted" the condition, the apodasis follows.

No, you are trying to make a condition mean something ontological, and that is not what any point of grammar does. What the grammar of a condition does do is to set up a necessity. In order for the day of the Lord to happen, the man of sin must be revealed first. Your only way out is to deny that the author thinks the day of the Lord is going to happen, and that is... just... wrong.

It is idle anyhow to speculate what the author thinks about the parousia (except that he wants to dampen the expectation aroused by 1 Thss, but that's another matter.)

What are you talking about? It is idle to speculate whether the author thinks that that the Lord is going to come when that is exactly what he says in 1.6-12 and 2.6-12? That makes no sense. One may as well stipulate that it is idle to speculate whether Paul thinks that Jesus is Lord; never mind that he asserts that Jesus is Lord at various junctures.

My point is straightforward and you have not addressed it. The author, by introducing the whole statement as the protasis of a conditional statement, is proposing an imagined condition for the parousia. Or rather, two conditions: the apostasy, and the man of lawlessness seating himself in "the temple of God." Because the latter is an abstract event, a hypothetical, a prophecy emanating from the author's imagination, there is no assertion being made about a contemporaneous building.

The assertion is that if the day of the Lord happens, it will happen only after the man of sin is revealed. That is as far as the condition itself gets us. But we have the rest of the epistle, and we know that the author thinks the day of the Lord will happen; this necessarily entails, by the logic of the condition, that the man of sin will be revealed and take his seat in the temple.

It is possible, as I have stated before, that the author is imagining that the temple will be rebuilt by then. But that seems less likely. If it seems more likely to you, then have at it, by all means.

But to suggest that conditionals by themselves are capable of determining what the author thinks of the probability of the condition coming true is just nonsense. Note this example:

Amos 3.7 (OG): 7 διότι οὐ μὴ ποιήσῃ κύριος ὁ θεὸς πρᾶγμα ἐὰν μὴ ἀποκαλύψῃ παιδείαν αὐτοῦ πρὸς τοὺς δούλους αὐτοῦ τοὺς προφήτας. / 7 Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets.

The point here is not that the Lord God never does anything, or that him doing anything is some vague hypothetical event. The point is that, when he does something, he will reveal it to his prophets. Amos is a prophet himself; he does not think that prophecy does not exist or that God never reveals his will to prophets. Same goes for 2 Thessalonians 2.3-4: the point is not the day of the Lord is just some hypothetical event that may or may not happen; no, it will happen (according to the author), but that happening will entail certain signs to watch out for in advance.

[Ben C. Smith]

Or take this verse from Mark as an example:

Mark 7.3: 3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless [ἐὰν μὴ] they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders.

By your logic, whether the Pharisees and Jews eat food is some hypothetical about which we cannot speculate. But of course they eat food; they just always make sure they wash their hands first. (Besides, how would one know that they always wash their hands before eating if they never ate?)

Likewise, in 2 Thessalonians 2.3-4, of course the day of the Lord is going to happen; it will just be preceded by the revelation of the man of sin.

In both cases, the "of course" is derived, not from the constraints of the condition, but from the context and from common sense.

[Irish1975]

You're claiming that this reference to the temple of God indicates pre-70 composition.

I'm saying that it doesn't, because the assertion about "the temple of God" is presented as part of the "necessary condition" of the parousia, both of which are nothing more than imagined possible events. That necessary condition could be fulfilled at any time, for all that is in the text. The eschatological urgency of the author may be evident, but that doesn't make his prophecy about the "temple of God" a historical reference. He claims not to know the timing, but only the signs, of the end: the apostasy and the man of perdition. Of these he gives no indication of knowing when they will happen. Here is the subsequent passage (2 Thess 2:5-10):

Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you this? 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his appearing and his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

All just apocalyptic, with no hint of claiming to know when the events foretold will happen. In a year? In a million years? It's all left wide open, as is typical for biblical prophecy. "The temple of God" could mean anything in this context.

It is idle anyhow to speculate what the author thinks about the parousia

What are you talking about? It is idle to speculate whether the author thinks that that the Lord is going to come when that is exactly what he says in 1.6-12 and 2.6-12? That makes no sense.

Well then it's a good thing that I never said that the author thinks the parousia won't happen. Just that it is idle to speculate beyond what is said, as you do here:

It is possible, as I have stated before, that the author is imagining that the temple will be rebuilt by then. But that seems less likely. If it seems more likely to you, then have at it, by all means.

But to suggest that conditionals by themselves are capable of determining what the author thinks of the probability of the condition coming true is just nonsense.

Also nothing I have said. I am generally skeptical of all talk about what an author (might have) believed probable.

[Ben C. Smith]

You're claiming that this reference to the temple of God indicates pre-70 composition.

I'm saying that it doesn't, because the assertion about "the temple of God" is presented as part of the "necessary condition" of the parousia, both of which are nothing more than imagined possible events.

My point, again, is that the author of the epistle does not think of the day of the Lord as an imagined and/or possible event; he thinks of it as a future and certain event. To deny this is to refuse to read the epistle.

He also, incidentally, appears to think of it as an event which will happen within the lifetime of the Thessalonians:

2 Thessalonians 1.6: 6 For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

It is not death or time which is going to give relief to the beleaguered Thessalonians; it is the appearance of the Lord Jesus with his angels.

The idea that 2 Thessalonians wishes to draw out the timing is mistaken; promising a sign before the day of the Lord does not mean that the day of the Lord is far off. In fact, it is 1 Thessalonians 5.1-11 (which I take either to be or at least to contain an interpolation) that wishes to draw out the timeline. 2 Thessalonians still anticipates the coming of Jesus within the lifetime of its recipients.

All just apocalyptic, with no hint of claiming to know when the events foretold will happen. In a year? In a million years? It's all left wide open, as is typical for biblical prophecy. "The temple of God" could mean anything in this context.

I disagree with this, for the reason given above. Jesus' coming is supposedly going to give relief to the Thessalonians ("you").

I am generally skeptical of all talk about what an author (might have) believed probable.

You are not being very clear. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The author of 2 Thessalonians believes that the day of the Lord is a future and certain event (that it will happen).

[Ben C. Smith]

With respect to the Odes of Solomon:

Lattke takes the position that this occurrence of the word "temple"

"...may not have any specific meaning..." (p.81)

I think this interpretation is a complete mess.

With respect to 2 Thessalonians:

Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you this? 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by his appearing and his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

All just apocalyptic, with no hint of claiming to know when the events foretold will happen. In a year? In a million years? It's all left wide open, as is typical for biblical prophecy. "The temple of God" could mean anything in this context.

I think this interpretation is a complete mess.

[Irish1975]

My point, again, is that the author of the epistle does not think of the day of the Lord as an imagined and/or possible event; he thinks of it as a future and certain event. To deny this is to refuse to read the epistle.

Yes, but so what? Preachers in every age have been "certain" of the end.

He also, incidentally, appears to think of it as an event which will happen within the lifetime of the Thessalonians:

2 Thessalonians 1.6: 6 For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

It is not death or time which is going to give relief to the beleaguered Thessalonians; it is the appearance of the Lord Jesus with his angels.

The idea that 2 Thessalonians wishes to draw out the timing is mistaken; promising a sign before the day of the Lord does not mean that the day of the Lord is far off. In fact, it is 1 Thessalonians 5.1-11 (which I take either to be or at least to contain an interpolation) that wishes to draw out the timeline. 2 Thessalonians still anticipates the coming of Jesus within the lifetime of its recipients.

Let me see if I understand this. Because the author is promising the audience of his letter relief from their sufferings, and retribution for those who afflict them, we can therefore conclude that the author expects the parousia to happen before any of these people die? If that were the case, he would be a poor student indeed of 1 Thessalonians:

3 Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. 14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

Promising relief for those who suffer is nothing more than a platitude.