The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and the Antichrist.

(2Thessalonians 2.4) He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.


Wed, Apr 27, 2005, 11:16am

Subject: Re: FW: The Antichrist

Hi J.,

Your patient waiting for this response was appreciated. Feel free to share it with anyone you wish. I have carbon-copied this e-mail to more than a dozen others who also may have interest in the topic.

The article you sent stands written by Richard L. Gurgel, a professor at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary, Mequon, Wisconsin. The article is found on page 9 in the January 2005 edition of the WELS publication Forward in Christ and is posted at http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1712&cxDatabase_databaseID=1&id=7671

Scripture quotations in this response are from the NIV, following the lead of the article.

Notes are indicated by braced, asterisked numbers, e.g., {*1}, {*2}, {*3}, etc.
- - - - - - -

The article states:

"There's no evidence in Thessalonians that [Paul] suddenly uses the [word 'temple'] differently [than he does in 1 Corinthians 3:16]."

Evidence to the Contrary

Any number of chronological Bibles, Bible dictionaries, and Bible commentaries will document the near certainty that 2Thessalonians predates 1Corinthians, 2Corinthians, and Ephesians. It is therefore misleading for and unwitting of one to assert that no evidence exists for Paul "suddenly" using the word "temple" in Thessalonians to mean something other than "Christ's believers". Such an assertion ignores the chronology of the epistles. Such an assertion ignores the near certainty that "temple" in 2Thessalonians 2.4 is the Holy Spirit's very first use of that term by the hand of Paul in Scripture.

More Evidence to the Contrary

When "temple" appears in the singular and is to be understood in any way other than an earthly, material, sanctified habitation in Jerusalem in the land of Israel the Holy Spirit seems always to clarify so, and that in the immediate context. The following are all the verses where the Greek "naos" ("temple") occurs in the singular in the New Testament, with any and all divine clarifications cited.{*1} The list follows the generally accepted chronology:---

Luke 1.9:

Luke 1.21:

Luke 1.22:

John 2.19: Divine clarification, "the temple he [Jesus] had spoken of was his [Jesus'] body" (v. 21).

John 2.20:

John 2.21: Divine clarification, see v. 19.

Matthew 23.16 (bis):

Matthew 23.17:

Matthew 23.21:

Matthew 23.35:

Matthew 26.61/Mark 14.58:

Matthew 27.5:

Matthew 27.40/Mark 15.29:

Matthew 27.51/Mark 15.38/Luke 23.45:

2Thessalonians 2.4:

1Corinthians 3.16: Divine clarification, "you yourselves are God's temple".

1Corinthians 3.17 (bis): Divine clarification, "you are that temple."

1Corinthians 6.19: Divine clarification, "your body is a temple".

2Corinthians 6.16 (bis): Divine clarification, "we are the temple".

Ephesians 2.21: Divine clarification, "you too are being built together to become a dwelling" (v. 22).

Revelation 3.12: Divine clarification, "Never again will he [who overcomes] leave it." This earth will pass away (21.1). This particular "temple", then, is not of this earth.

Revelation 7.15: Divine clarification, "they [who have come out of the great tribulation] are before the throne of God". The scene is ethereal (cf. Matthew 23.22, Hebrews 12.2).

Revelation 11.1:

Revelation 11.2:

Revelation 11.19 (bis): Divine clarification, "in heaven".{*2}

Revelation 14.15: Divine clarification, see v. 17.

Revelation 14.17: Divine clarification, "in heaven".

Revelation 15.5: Divine clarification, "in heaven".{*3}

Revelation 15.6: Divine clarification, see v. 5.

Revelation 15.8 (bis): Divine clarification, see v. 5.

Revelation 16.1: Divine clarification, see 15.5.

Revelation 16.17: Divine clarification, see 15.5.

Revelation 21.22 (bis): Divine clarification, "in the city," i.e., in "the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven" (v. 10).

Do not allow the NIV to cloud the issue with the words "God's temple" in 2Thessalonians 2.4 and "the temple of God" in Matthew 26.61 and Revelation 11.1. The underlying text of all three is "ho naos ho theos". There is no reason for the Greek not to be uniformly rendered "the temple of God," or, perhaps better, "the [sanctified] habitation of God" in all seven occurrences (Matthew 26.61, 1Corinthians 3.17 [bis], 2Thessalonians 2.4, Revelation 3.12; 11.1,19).

Do not allow the NIV to cloud the issue with the words "the temple of God" in 2Corinthians 6.16 and "God's temple" in 1Corinthians 3.16. The underlying text of both is "naos theos". There is no reason for the Greek not to be uniformly rendered "God's temple," or, perhaps better, "God's [sanctified] habitation" in all three occurrences (1Corinthians 3.16, 2Corinthians 6.16 [bis]).

And More Evidence to the Contrary

Second Thessalonians is largely apocalyptic. The Apocalypse 11.1-2 speaks of "the temple of God" in "the holy city".

Summary

Any and all difficulty over the intended meaning of "temple" is resolved if we simply refrain from disturbing the text in which it appears. Clarification where given, we do well to receive. Clarification where absent, we do well to leave. An earthly, material "temple of God" in "the holy city" in the land of Israel in the days to come prior to the Second Advent is not irrealizable ( see http://www.temple.org.il/ ).{*4}
- - - - - - -

The article states:

"Scripture leaves no doubt [that] 'the lie' [of 2 Thessalonians 2:11] is . . . self-righteousness."

"[T]he lie" can be the moral antithesis of "the truth" (v. 10), true, but such an interpretation here seems broad. The context seems to suggest the Greek "toi pseudei" ("the lie") relates especially to the Greek "pseudous" (literally "of a lie/of falsehood"; NIV, "counterfeit") in verse 9. No hint is given the "miracles, signs and wonders" of falsehood are merely pretended, purported, professed; but actually performed in the very sight of the elect (Matthew 24.24, Mark 13.22; cf. Deuteronomy 13.1-2; cf. also John 4.48). The "miracles, signs and wonders" of falsehood all seem to serve as convincing evidence of the Antichrist's false claim "to be God" (v. 4). This claim to be God it seems is the particular lie of the passage. The fate of those who prefer this lie over "the truth" proclaimed evidently is the depiction of Revelation 14.6-13.

Notice it is because of the rejection of the gospel's truth by those happily dead in their sins that the "powerful delusion" is sent (v. 11). The delusion's purpose is to generate within these folk trust in "the lie" in order that they may be judged (v. 12; cf. Revelation 14.6-16.21). The "powerful delusion" being sent for the purpose of generating confident trust in self-righteousness, as professor Gurgel asserts, seems redundant when one considers that the rejection of the righteousness of God is self-righteousness by default. The "miracles, signs and wonders" of falsehood and the "powerful delusion" all appear to be for the purpose of convincing the unsaved (not just unsaved Roman Catholics) to entrust themselves to "the beast" (Revelation 13.4,8,12-15) so that the wrath of God may be poured out upon them all.
- - - - - - -

The article states:

"[C]an we know who this great Antichrist is? . . . [1.] [W]e are looking for someone holding great authority in the midst of the visible church. [2.] His beginnings are at apostolic times, and he continues until Jesus' return. [3.] He supports the great lie of self-righteousness that diametrically opposes the gospel's truth. . . . [T]he one 'capital A' Antichrist who fits all these scriptural criteria is the papacy of the Roman Catholic Church."

Point 2 is valid based on 2Thessalonians 2.7-8 and 1John 2.18; 4.3, but points 1 and 3 are _not_ "scriptural criteria". They are professor Gurgel's _interpretations_ of scriptural criteria.

The closing paragraph of the WELS "Statement on the Antichrist"{*5} reads:

"We reject the idea that the teaching that the Papacy is the Antichrist rests on a merely human interpretation of history or is an open question. We hold rather that this teaching rests on the revelation of God in Scripture which finds its fulfillment in history. . . . Scripture teaches that the Antichrist would be revealed and gives the marks by which the Antichrist is to be recognized . . ."

What these penmen either fail or refuse to see or admit is that the marks by which Antichrist is to be recognized _must be interpreted_. The WELS interprets one of these marks, namely "God's temple" of 2Thessalonians 2.4, as metaphorical, but the literal is not impossible.{*6} Professor Gurgel interprets "the lie" of 2Thessalonians 2.11 as self-righteousness, but "the lie" might refer to "counterfeit" in verse 9. Let us pray these brothers and sisters of ours have not closed their minds as they have the question.
- - - - - - -

Allow me to end this e-mail by quoting at length from an April 1899 address{*7} by the Rev. T. Graham, late Vicar of Southborough:

"But what shall we say of the papacy? Does it not so fulfil the prophecy [of 2nd Thessalonians II] that we need not look for further fulfilment? This, it must be admitted, was one of the firmest convictions of the Reformers; and of the English translators of the Bible, who in their address to James I., flatter that monarch with having 'given such a blow unto that man of sin as will not be healed.' It certainly is not surprising that this interpretation should have been warmly accepted by those who bore the full burden and heat of the battle against Rome in the height of her power. And it remains that there is such an agreement between the features of the papacy and those of the man of sin, that it may be said with confidence, the prophecy anticipates the papacy, and the papacy fulfils the prophecy. But here, as often elsewhere, the prophecy is not satisfied by one fulfilment. Its 'height or fulness' has not yet been reached, even in the iniquities of the papacy; the awful possibilities of sin have not yet been fully and finally revealed, no, not even in Rome at her worst. In particular, the prophecy conveys the idea of a person, an individual, rather than that of a system continued from age to age, and headed by a succession of men. Moreover, 'he that opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called god or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God,' goes further than even Papal blasphemy. The Pope pretends to create objects of worship, but he himself adores and insists upon adoration of them. The Papal claim is a claim for divine honours, but for these as the visible representative of God, the personal Vicar of Christ. But the man of sin will not hear of any Being higher than himself. He is no Vicar---no representative of deity, and as such to be honoured. He is the avowed adversary of every object of worship but himself. He does not say, 'I am in the place of God,' but, 'I am the one and only God, the sole object of divine worship---the Godhead is myself.' This is future. There have been monstrous forms of sin, the papacy not the least of them, in which the prophecy has had large fulfilment; but the ever working enmity to God in the heart of fallen man has yet to be consummated."


Notes:

{*1} "Naos" occurs in the plural thrice in most manuscripts (Acts 7.48, "houses"; 17.24, "temples"; 19.24, "shrines").

{*2} This apparently is the "pattern" after which Solomon built the earthly "naos ho theos" ("temple of God") (1Chronicles 28.11-19; cf. Daniel 5.3; cf. also Judith 5.18).

{*3} This apparently is the "pattern" after which Moses made the earthly "skene ho marturion" ("tabernacle of the Testimony") (Exodus 25.9,40, Acts 7.44, Hebrews 8.5).

{*4} Scripture sometimes speaks of things as they once were, though they do not continue to be. This might be the case with "the temple of God" in Revelation 11.1 and 2Thessalonians 2.4 and "the holy city" in Revelation 11.2; for consider Matthew 27.53 calling Jerusalem "the holy city" though she murdered the prophets and had just crucified our Lord (Luke 13.33; cf. Revelation 11.8), and consider "the temple of God" being reputed by man as such (Matthew 26.61) though Jesus said it was _their_ house now (Matthew 23.38).

Condemned stands any city or temple---even any city or temple in the land of Israel---that rejects the salvation from the payoff of sin against God. That salvation is offered by grace alone through reliant trust alone in and upon the Lord Jesus Christ alone as one's only hope of safety from the wrath of God against sin (Romans 1.1-5.11).

{*5} http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?2617&collectionID=795&contentID=4441&shortcutID=5297

{*6} Some 110 years _after_ the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple Irenĉus (c. A.D. 180), the disciple of Polycarp (the companion of the apostle John), had the following to say in chapters 25 and 30 of book 5 of his work "Against Heresies":

"The Lord also spoke as follows to those who did not believe in Him: 'I have come in my Father's name, and ye have not received Me: when another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive,' [John 5.43] calling Antichrist 'the other,' because he is alienated from the Lord. This is also the unjust judge, whom the Lord mentioned as one 'who feared not God, neither regarded man,' [Luke 18.2-5] to whom the widow fled in her forgetfulness of God---that is, the earthly Jerusalem---to be avenged of her adversary. Which also he shall do in the time of his kingdom: he shall remove his kingdom into that [city], and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ. . . .

"But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that 'many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.' [Matthew 8.11]"

{*7} Rev. T. Graham, "The Mystery of Iniquity," "Things to Come" 6 (September, 1899): p. 29.

The author entreats that his commentary hold no element in one's determination of the truth. As with all humanity, my sin, too, leaves me short of the glory of God. I conclude myself as Job, "Behold, I am vile". A fallen creature can hardly aspire to understand in totality, interpret with precision, and completely communicate the immeasurable breadth, length, depth, and height of the blessed Creator's word. Attainment of the purest Bible knowledge, understanding, and wisdom a human can hope for is solely by ever diligently seeking after God, not through the writings and commentaries and expositions of mortals, but through His only begotten Son Jesus, Whose "name is called The Word of God."

My writings are imperfect, wholly inept, needless. Yet should it please the Holy Spirit to even faintly enlighten one through my efforts in His Word of truth, then all credit and thanks must be directed and given to our Father in the heavens as I know and can know nothing apart from Him.

Copyright İ 2005 by Thomas John Dexter. All rights reserved. The matter of this work may be reproduced for distribution, but it is not to be sold. The matter of this work (with the exception of any Scripture or quote) is the sole production of the copyright proprietor and is subject to change as he grows in knowledge and wisdom concerning the Word of God.