Who is the Devil Incarnate?

1. Maybe this isn't worth writing about, but when so many Americans get their theology from Hollywood movies, perhaps some clarification is in order. 

2. The Bible has an Antichrist figure. He's not the devil, but a high-ranking human agent of the devil. Preterists tend to view the Antichrist as a personification for oppressive pagan or secular regimes. 

Futurists regard the Antichrist as an individual whose advent is a precursor to the return of Christ. He has a twofold role: as a sorcerer and a world leader. In Rev 13, these are split up. 

The "Antichrist" is a Johannine title, but it's used to designate a parallel figure in Paul (2 Thes 2:1-4). Same figure, different nomenclature. The Antichrist has OT motifs. 

3. Hollywood has developed its own legend of the Antichrist. In the mythology of Hollywood movies, the Antichrist is in some sense the Devil Incarnate. The Devil Incarnate is a fictional character, not a biblical figure. 

In that respect the Antichrist is a diabolical parody or travesty of the Christian Incarnation. Christ and the Antichrist are both symmetrical and diametrical figures. 

4. The two best examples are Rosemary's Baby and The Omen. In Rosemary's Baby, the devil impregnates a woman, thereby spawning a human/diabolical hybrid. He's not the Devil Incarnate but the devil's son. 

5. The origin of the Damien in The Omen is somewhat murkier. He isn't born to Katherine. Her child is said to be stillborn (actually the victim of infanticide), and there's a switch at birth. Damien's "mother" is a jackal, a surrogate mother. But Damiel certainly as a diabolical pedigree. 

6. In terms of Hollywood genetics and Antichristology, the Antichrist could be the Devil Incarnate in the Apollinarian sense that the Antichrist is the Devil with a human body. The Devil is a rational spirit and his mind takes the place of the human soul. That would be a dualistic model: two natures: a human body possessed by Satan. 

In vampire lore there's the question of whether the victim loses its soul, or if this is case of possession or multiple personality disorder where one personality is dominant while the other is suppressed. This this is fiction, there is no right answer. 

7. Of course, the Devil Incarnate is often used as a facetious metaphor. 

The advent of the Antichrist

Cats are the devil's familiars. They sense that the pandemic presages the advent of the Antichrist. They are waiting for their Master's imminent return!

Prophetic climate crisis

On the one hand, the Apocalypse envisions cataclysmic natural disasters. On the other hand, environmentalists warn that we're on the brink of cataclysmic natural disasters. 

In principle, the worst-case scenario of the green lobby is generally consistent with a premil reading of Revelation. Ironically, a premil could agree with environmentalists that we're facing an unprecedented "climate crisis," but one that's inevitable. Premils could incorporate that into their eschatology, but by the same token, say countermeasures are futile at this point. We've passed the point of no return. We are  watching end-time prophecy pick up speed as it gathers to the culmination. 

I suppose they could also say that the totalitarian impulse of environmentalists to seize control of the world economy sets the stage for the Antichrist. 

Now I'm an amil, but I take sardonic delectation in watching rabidly secular environmentalists unwittingly recite a script from Revelation. Mass extinction scenarios consistent with premil eschatology. And I'm open to the possibility that the premil reading might be vindicated by future developments. As a rule, prophecy is best understood in retrospect. So only time will tell. 

Mind you, the earth has undergone many warming and cooling cycles. And I think the plot of Revelation is generally recursive rather than progressive, although the final chapters break the cycle. But in some cases it's best to keep our interpretation options open, even if we have a default position. 

The mark of the Beast!

The mark of the Beast has been scientifically diagnosed:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/20/horns-are-growing-young-peoples-skulls-phone-use-is-blame-research-suggests/

Cellphone addiction is literally devilish!

Beastmode

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NW9ZHSuGtY&t=101s

Diabolical Trinity

This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666 (Rev 13:18).

I'd like to suggest another possible interpretation. The number of the Beast (i.e. Antichrist) may well be a diabolical parody of the Trinity. The number is a multiple of 3. And it's bigger and better! 

As Vern Poythress documents, theological counterfeiting is a major theme in Revelation:

https://frame-poythress.org/ebooks/the-returning-king/

The number of the Beast

This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666 (Rev 13:18).

I'm going to consider three interpretations of this famous verse.

1. A cryptogram for Nero or Nero redivivus. 

Many scholars and commentators identify the Antichrist figure in Rev 13 & 17 with Nero redivivus. That's a respectable interpretation, but not without difficulties:

i) Why would John resort to a cryptogram? Is the motivation that John is concealing the seditious nature of indictment in case his prophecy falls into the hands of Roman authorities? That John is thereby protecting Christian recipients of his Apocalypse? 

But that generates a dilemma. If the identity of the Beast is sufficiently transparent to John's target audience, then it would be sufficiently transparent to Roman authorities. 

ii) There's the question of whether a Nero redivivus figure is an artificial modern scholarly construct. In the Sibylline oracles, Nero doesn't return from the dead. Cf. Jan Willem van Henten, "Nero Redivivus Demolished: the Coherence of the Nero Traditions in the Sibylline Oracles", Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 11/21 (April 2000), 3-17.

iii) It's difficult to correlate the eight kings in Rev 17:10-11 with Roman emperors. Any particular correlation is arbitrary. Cf. C. Koester, Revelation (Yale 2014), 72-73. So interpreters who favor that identification must use a file to make the evidence fit the Neronic identification. 

2. Generic numerology

On this view, the Beast aspires to, but falls short of, the divine number seven. So this is part of John's stock numerology. The Beast comes tantalizingly but frustratingly close to the goal, making his failure all the more aggravating. That's my own interpretation. And that's open to a past or future fulfillment. 

3. Future Antichrist

i) For the sake of argument, I'd like to explore another identification. A challenge of prophetic hermeneutics is that we can only judge whether or not a oracle has been fulfilled by our own place in history in relation to the oracle. Candidates from the time of the oracle up to our own time. From the past to the present. In the nature of the case, we lack access to future candidates. 

So, for instance, Nero or a Nero redivivus figure might be best available candidate, given where we stand, but he might still be the wrong candidate. As I already noted, in reference to Rev 17:10-11, Nero/Nero redivivus isn't a tight fit with the 1C evidence at our disposal. Scholars who favor that identification can't simply take the evidence as it stands, but must file it down. 

By contrast, a future figure might be an exact fit. Easily recognizable. If he was on our list of candidates, he'd be the obvious candidate. But the only available candidates are past and present candidates. Nero wins by default because he comes closest to the profile, even though scholars who pick Nero have to wedge him into the evidence. 

ii) As commentators note, 666 is a triangular number. There are different ways to visually represent triangular numbers. In addition, triangular numbers overlap square, cubic, and hexagonal numbers, viz.,

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TriangularNumber.html

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HexagonalNumber.html

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SquareNumber.html

In theory, the Antichrist might have a symbol or organization that subtly exemplifies some variations on triangular numbers. That's more sophisticated than gematria. And it's something only future readers would be able to discern, given advances in modern mathematics. 

Because prophecy is future-oriented, identification of the fulfillment often depends on a combination of past and future knowledge. Not just what the original audience was in a position to grasp. At the same time, this can be a trap since mathematical solutions invite excessive ingenuity, and offer too many solutions. 

Is Skynet the Antichrist?

13 And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems on its horns and blasphemous names on its heads. 2 And the beast that I saw was like a leopard; its feet were like a bear's, and its mouth was like a lion's mouth. And to it the dragon gave his power and his throne and great authority. 3 One of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed, and the whole earth marveled as they followed the beast. 4 And they worshiped the dragon, for he had given his authority to the beast, and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?”

5 And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling, that is, those who dwell in heaven. 7 Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation, 8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. 9 If anyone has an ear, let him hear:

10 If anyone is to be taken captive,

    to captivity he goes;

if anyone is to be slain with the sword,

    with the sword must he be slain.

Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints.

11 Then I saw another beast rising out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon. 12 It exercises all the authority of the first beast in its presence, and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound was healed. 13 It performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in front of people, 14 and by the signs that it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast it deceives those who dwell on earth, telling them to make an image for the beast that was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15 And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain. 16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. 18 This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666 (Rev 13).

The identity of the Antichrist and/or the Beast and the False Prophet exerts enduring fascination among Christians. The  candidates depend on the reader's own place in the course of church history. As we move forward into the future, certain candidates are eliminated while new candidates present themselves. As some candidates move into the past, it's too late for them to be viable candidates. For a medieval Christian, there were different candidates than for a modern-day Christian.

When I was a kid, I saw a movie, set in the Cold War, about two doomsday machines that take over the world: Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970). This idea was further popularized by The Terminator franchise. 

That was science fiction. But computers increasingly control our lives in a hitech civilization. And that can be very convenient so long was we control the computers. 

Recently there were sensational headlines about Facebook shutting down chatbots after they invented their own language. That may have been hyped.

However, A.I. needn't be a realistic prospect to lose control. If computers "talking" to each other do invent their own language, which humans can't understand, then couldn't things get out of hand in a hurry? Computers needn't be intelligent to do that. They just need to have adaptive software with learning cycles. 

If we don't know what computers are telling each other–computers which regulate so many critical aspects of a hitch civilization–then won't computers become highly unpredictable? What happens if computers run amok–not because they're malicious, but have simply taken on a life of their own (as it were)? Even if we still have the off-switch, that's a dilemma if you can't shut down a computer network without shutting down everything that depends on a computer network. You have so many interconnected systems in a hitech society. So much coordination and synchronization. If it breaks down, there's a cascade effect. 

Anyway, I said that to say this: suppose the Antichrist or Beast/False prophet will be a rogue computer network? Civilization will be at the mercy of this inscrutable, inhumane machine. 

Mind-control

11 Then I saw another beast rising out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon. 12 It exercises all the authority of the first beast in its presence, and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound was healed. 13 It performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in front of people, 14 and by the signs that it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast it deceives those who dwell on earth, telling them to make an image for the beast that was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15 And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain. 16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name (Rev 13:11-17).

This depicts the False Prophet, who's the Minister of Propaganda for the Antichrist. Suppose we construe this vision futuristically. On that interpretation, it might refer to technology that the False Prophet uses to captivate the masses. The description is cast in terms of witchcraft because that's a category familiar to the original readers of Revelation, but its futuristic counterpart would be technological rather than supernatural. 

Suppose the False Prophet uses a virtual reality game to ensnare and deceive the masses. As someone who came of age before the advent of smartphones, social media, and computer games, I'm astonished and alarmed by how addictive smartphones are. So many people have an absolutely compulsive need to stay glued to that display screen. I have a teacher friend who told me "I know one 'student' who has gotten so bad that he finds he cannot listen to/watch an online lecture/video for a class without playing a video game at the same time. He also calls people while driving in order to keep from falling asleep."

Imagine the False Prophet using a collective, interactive video game to seduce and delude the masses. As long as they get their fix, they don't care about what's happening in the real world, outside the game. They will surrender their freedom for their fix. A game in which everyone can participate. A contagious game. Everyone is talking about the game. The game becomes their truth. Their idol. Their moral frame of reference. If you don't play the game, that makes you suspect. That makes you politically subversive. 

I'm not a technophobe. But I'm stuck by how many people are hooked and how easily they are hooked. They'd panic if they were incommunicado for 30 minutes. I see couples and friends walking down the street, side-by-side, but they're not talking to each other. Rather, each one is staring at their respective smartphone. They can't peel their eyes away from that little display screen. The psychological equivalent of cubicle people immersed in a self-contained bubble. 

Is Trump the Antichrist?

Short answer: no. I don't think Trump is the Antichrist. But I have a reason for raising the question, which I will get back to after a backgrounder. 

Prophecy teachers are always on the lookout for the Antichrist–and related events. Prophecy teachers write books and serve as keynote speakers at prophecy conferences. There's an insatiable appetite for this sort of thing.

Now, I don't necessarily say that as a criticism. The Bible contains a number of prophecies which remain outstanding: mainly centered on the return of Christ and related events. Christians should take an interest in future prophecies. We are exhorted in Scripture to be watchful. 

I think it's safe to say that John Walvoord was the most prominent prophecy teacher of his time. Among other things, he wrote Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis. That was first published in 1974. 16 years later, he published a revised edition. Then 17 years later, he published another revised edition, under a new title: Armageddon, Oil, and Terror.

Notice the pattern: He sticks to the same basic script, but changes names and dates to make it more contemporary. 

Yet what this means is that his original projections were wrong–repeatedly. That, however, doesn't cause him to go back to the drawing board. Instead, he just updates the plot. The actors change, but the play remains the same. Same characters, different names. 

Surely, though, that goes to a deeper problem which requires more than superficial revisions to rectify. Why did he keep missing the target? Because he entertained false expectations. Yet he doesn't question his expectations, which is why he repeats the same mistakes. 

Suppose the Antichrist is not what we expect him to be? Indeed, it would hardly be surprising if the Antichrist had a hidden agenda. If he concealed his true intentions. 

In other words, there might well be a difference between how the Antichrist presents himself in his rise to power, and what happens once he achieves power.

Due to false expectations, many Christians could be blindsided. The Antichrist didn't fit their profile. If they suppose the Antichrist will resemble a villain in a James Bond movie, they may be surprised. Ironically, this means some pious Christians could unwittingly be political supporters of the Antichrist in his rise to power.

Let's take a few comparisons. Consider Lutheran NT scholar Adolf Schlatter. He was theologically very conservative by German standards. And he was quite philosemitic by German standards. Nevertheless, his views on Nazism and the plight of German Jews are highly ambivalent. Cf. Anders Gerdmar, "Adolf Schlatter and Judaism," Roots of Theological Anti-Semitism: German Biblical Interpretation and the Jews, from Herder and Semler to Kittel and Bultmann (Brill Academic Pub, 2008).

In our own day, evangelicals like Craig Blomberg and Darrell Bock both voted for Obama. In principle, some Christian conservatives might unintentionally throw their support behind the Antichrist, in his ascendancy, because he's not what they anticipated. By the time they catch on, it's too late. 

Likewise, there might be prophecy teachers who support Donald Trump, even though he has the piety of a Borgia pope, because they think his candidacy is a bludgeon to the Republican establishment. In theory, they could be backing the Antichrist, but fail to recognize his true character and agenda, because they have a mistaken preconception of what the Antichrist will be like. 

Never underestimate the power of an orator. Hitler was a great orator. Many voters were swept away by Obama's oratory. And it's disturbing to see how Trump has cast a spell over some conservative voters and pundits through his oratorical posturing. For whatever reason, some people just don't know a showman when they see one. They allow themselves to be manipulated by a flimflammer. This can happen to good people who ought to know better. It's not the first time–and unfortunately, it won't be the last time.  

The "corpus fallacy" redux

I'm going to reply to Alan's post, as well as his podcast:

Imagine if someone took a three-page high school history paper of yours and claimed, "Your entire vocabulary is contained in that paper." Out of the millions of words in your written and oral discourse over the course of your lifetime, your entire terminology is limited to that high school paper.
That sort of application happens with many interpreters of the Bible. Have you read statements such as: "Matthew tends to have X vocabulary, therefore his theology is Y." Or, worse, "Paul does not use the term X in Y sense, therefore he was not aware of another commonly used sense." Or "Matthew uses X in Y sense, but Mark does not, therefore, Mark is not aware or would use its sense." You get the picture.

I don't know whose windmills Alan is tilting at. That wasn't my argument. But I guess Rocinante can use the exercise.

I have heard this type of reasoning for many years. And no linguistic Bible scholar (actually trained in linguistics) would ever use such a naive argument, at least these days.

So long as Alan is attacking a caricature. But that's irrelevant to my stated argument.

However, since he brought it up, let's consider some illustrations:

i) Protestant Pauline scholars typically include word-studies of the dikaioo word-group when attempting to ascertain Paul's usage. And although they don't confine themselves to Pauline usage, they center their discussion on Pauline usage. That's a starting-point. The primary frame of reference. How does Paul use that word-group? 

Catholics, by contrast, appeal to James. Now, is Alan taking the position that it commits the "corpus fallacy" to begin with Pauline usage in determining what Paul means by his own terminology vis-a-vis "justification"? Should we take into account all the thousands of times Paul may have used that word-group without that particular nuance? 

ii) Calvinists say proegno in some NT passages means "to choose beforehand." Arminians counter that the word usually means "to know beforehand."

Moreover, they could appeal to the thousands of times that Peter and Paul may have used that word in the sense of foreknowledge or prescience rather than prior choice. Does Alan think that's a valid tactic?

lii) Arminians appeal to cosmos in Jn 3:16 to prooftext unlimited atonement. Some Calvinists (and even some non-Calvinists) counter by pointing out that in Johannine usage, cosmos often has a qualitative rather than quantitative connotation. Moreover, they note that John often uses cosmos in contrast to Christians. 

But is that a "corpus" fallacy? Should we appeal to all the thousands of times that John may have used cosmos as a synonym for "everyone"? 

I agree, but I am addressing the claim (or the implication) by some who reject that Paul intends a literal sense of naos (temple) in 2 Thess 2:4, and some who think that Paul never would had used (or even been aware!) of the sense of a literal temple with the term naos. To claim that Paul uses the term in a spiritual sense in other contexts therefore it must mean this in 2 Thess 2:4 is ridiculous and sloppy linguistics (not saying this is Steve's position, but others make this deduction). I demonstrated that absurdity in my program in the link in the blog post.

Once again, Alan is shadowboxing with nameless opponents rather than responding to my own argument. 

In addition, yes, we should start with the target context, but I have seen not a few times from historicists to begin outside of Thessalonians and then import a spiritual meaning to naos in 2 Thess 2:4.

Alan also says that in his podcast. I find the oft-repeated accusation that "historicists" have to go outside the text to derive their interpretation ironic considering the fact that in his podcast, Alan said the naos is a makeshift shrine which Orthodox Jews will build, without divine sanction, before the midpoint of the 7-year period, to reinstate Levitical sacrifices, &c. Where did he get any of those crucial details from 2 Thes 2? 

Beale strains the text when his point is grasping at some connection between the apostasy and the temple representing the "covenant community." The exegetical connection is not there. 

Unfortunately, Alan fails to explain, either here or in the podcast, why that's the case. He simply asserts that these are unrelated.

i) Now, I can't speak for Beale, but if I were fleshing out the connection, I think the argument would go like this:

Beale is offering a unified interpretation. These are aspects of the same event. 

Alan himself admits that the apostasy concerns the professing church. He also admits that it will be instigated by the Antichrist. So the apostasy centers on the church, while the action of the Antichrist is directed at the church. 

In that context, it's logical to see the naos as a figurative synonym for the church. 

ii) Moreover, that meaning has linguistic precedent in Pauline usage. 

iii) Furthermore, this has historical precedent in the Antiochean crisis, where the same religious community and same religious institutions lie in view throughout. Antiochus was persecuting faithful Jews as well as desecrating the Jewish temple. 

By contrast, Alan separates the naos from the church–both in time and place. He treats that as something which happens in Jerusalem. Something that's undertaken by Orthodox Jews. And the action of the Antichrist has reference to that.

On the face of it, Alan is the one who's isolating these elements to produce a compartmentalized interpretation of each, resulting in a disjointed interpretation of the passage as a whole. 

It would be incorrect to claim that therefore he would not be able to draw from a literal sense of naos in the 101 instance, just as any Greek-speaking Jew in the first century would have had in his or her semantic range of this term.

I don't know why Alan is fixated on attacking an argument I never used. 

The linguistic skepticism is not warranted, and would reduce us to only make linguistic observations on single authors! and not on the body of Greek language. 
We have an abundance of documentation in the NT and outside of it. We cannot assume that Greek semantic ranges of words are dependent upon not only a single author, but on a very small sampling of that author. The NT has frequent instances of naos in a literal sense. Paul certainly was aware of this sense and easily could draw from it—which bring us back to the contextual question of 2 Thess 2:4. 

For some odd reason, Alan is absolutely obsessed with refuting an argument I never made. It's like trying to correct a computerized misbilling. No matter how often you call the company and patiently explain to them that the bill is wrong, they never purge the system. The computer keeps spitting out the same erroneous bill. 

Thats not an intellectual virtue. You need to update the objection (or else withdraw the objection) to take into account the actual state of the argument.

If there were another instance in his letters where he clearly talks about a temple in a spiritual-church sense associated with the Antichrist figure that is a different matter.

Does Alan think the sense of a word depends on carrying over the entire context? Isn't that a semantic fallacy? It confuses the meaning of a particular word with the meaning of a sentence, pericope, or argument. 

I'll end with saying that I gave about seven reasons why the context in 2 Thess 2:4 indicates a literal temple, not a spiritual temple. These are arguments that historicists need to contend with. 

Let's run through these:

1. The action of the Antichrist would be a conspicuous, concrete, observable event, to correct the false eschatology of 2:2c.

i) Given the parallel with the other precursive sign, we shouldn't expect that to be more or less conspicuous than the apostasy. The apostasy of the professing church is a bit vague. Throughout church history we have examples of that. The apostasy of the professing church is a matter of degree–unless you deny anything faithful remnant.

ii) Moreover, Alan seems to treat these as independent events. The apostasy of the professing church is clearly different from Ultraorthodox Jews erecting a shrine on the Temple Mount. 

If, by contrast, these are conjoined, then the sign is less ambiguous. 

2. "Taking his seat" suggests a literal physical temple.

That simply begs the question. Where's the supporting argument?

If the naos is figurative, then "taking his seat" is part of the same picturesque metaphor. A consistent word-picture. 

3. The definite article implies a particular temple of the true God.

i) But Alan doesn't think the construction of this shrine is authorized by God. At least he's noncommittal. But absent divine sanction, how is that any different than schismatic or sectarian "Jewish" shrines like the rival shrine in Samaria? 

ii) Furthermore, this overlooks the "heavenly temple" interpretation. 

4. The "object of worship" (2:4) implies a material temple rather than a church.

I find that argument peculiar. Isn't a sanctuary a place of worship rather than an object of worship? And in that respect, a church is a place of worship. 

5. Alan cites an article by Dan Wallace:
My Accordance/Gramcord search revealed altogether ten places in which ναὸς θεοῦ occurred (Matt 26:61; 1 Cor 3:16, 17 [bis]; 2 Cor 6:16 [bis]; 2 Thess 2:4; Rev 3:12; 11:1, 19).As well, there are another six instances of οἶκος θεοῦ, and here again a similar development occurs: The gospels refer to the literal temple (Mark 2:26 and pars. in Matt 12:4 and Luke 6:4), while the referential value of the expression has been transferred to the church by the 60s (1 Tim 3:15;5 Heb 6:21; 1 Pet 4:17).6What are we to make of these data? It seems that by 63 CE (the date I would assign to 1 Timothy),7 the idiom had shifted in Christian usage sufficiently that a metaphorical nuance had become the norm. However, it is equally significant that all of the references in the Corinthian correspondence seem to require an explanation (readily supplied by Paul) in order to make the metaphorical sense clear.

But doesn't that commit the "corpus" fallacy which Alan spends so much time attacking? Why does this little sampling suddenly become representative when Alan says no scholar trained in linguistics would use such a naive argument? 

6. Quoting Green:
The orientation of the divine claims of the "man of lawlessness" is toward the world at large and not the church."

Unfortunately, Green doesn't bother to defend his contention.  

i) What is it about the orientation of the divine claims in 2 Thes 2 that's directed at the world rather than the church? Where's the supporting argument?

ii) If, as Alan admits, the apostasy has reference to the professing church, and the Antichrist is the instigator of the apostasy, then isn't that oriented at the church rather than the world?

iii) What does it mean for the Antichrist to proclaim himself to be God? Hard to say for sure, but here's one possibility:

What if the Antichrist claims to be the Second Coming of Christ? That would make him God Incarnate. 

Moreover, it makes sense that the Antichrist might have a Messiah complex. He's a pretender. A usurper. 

And if he gained a sizable following in the professing church, that would certainly qualify as mass apostasy. His claim to be the Second Coming of Christ would be "a conspicuous, concrete, observable event." So would having a huge entourage in the professing church. 

Is there a corpus fallacy?

This forms the backdrop for an email exchange that Alan and I had last night:

http://www.alankurschner.com/2015/02/11/why-the-bible-teaches-a-literal-physical-temple-naos-in-2-thessalonians-24-not-a-figurative-spiritual-temple-ep-23/

Here's what I said:

i) No doubt we're not stuck with Pauline usage or even NT usage when it comes to Koine Greek lexicography. I have no problem with casting a wider net.

However, I think it's a question of concentric priorities. It's best to start with a writer's own usage. Especially in theology, not to mention a deep, original thinker like Paul, the usage may be specialized. His theological idiolect. 

Now, in some cases, the occurrences of a word in Scripture are so few that we have no choice but to look elsewhere. And in some cases–especially in Hebrew–it may be a hapax legomenon, which forces us to ransack cognate languages. However, that's not an ideal procedure. 

ii) Likewise, as you know, LXX usage is often quite germane to NT usage. So, again, it's not as if I'm forbidding usage outside the NT. 

iii) Sure, Paul likely used that word in speech and writing more often than our sampling of his extant correspondence. But as Jacob Neusner is wont to say, what you can't show you don't know. 

And, of course, how he used it on other occasions would depend on the context of his speaking or writing on those undocumented occasions–which we can't assess. 

iv) I haven't taken the position that Paul must be using naos figuratively in 2 Thes 2 because he uses it figuratively elsewhere. Rather, given the fact that he uses it figuratively elsewhere, it's valid to consider that when we come to 2 Thes 2. Of course, in cases where a word has multiple meanings or connotations, context selects for or narrows the range of operative meanings or connotations. 

v) I, for one, never suggested that Paul is unaware of a more common or most common meaning. 

vi) Appealing to Paul's wider, undocumented usage cuts both ways. For by that logic, Paul might well have occasion to use naos in a figurative sense more often than the few documented examples in the extant Pauline corpus. 

vii) If we consider the totality of Greek usage, including undocumented usage–since most Greeks were pagans, it would most commonly denote a pagan shrine. But that would favor Green's identification. 

viii) On a related note, some words have a default meaning. For instance, the default meaning of Paris is Paris, France–not Paris, Texas. An exception would be a resident of Paris TX talking to a fellow resident of Paris TX about their town.

In terms of Paul's undocumented usage, what are the situations in which he most likely had occasion to use that word? Well, when debating Jews or indoctrinating Jewish converts to Christianity, I assume it would most often denote the Second Temple/Herodian Temple. But in that case your appeal would favor preterism.

Likewise, he might well have some occasion to discuss the Solomonic temple.

In both cases, the word would have a more specific connotation than "physical temple." 

ix) We could, of course, distinguish between sense and reference, but I'm not sure how that would aid your argument. 

Literal Antichrist

http://www.alankurschner.com/2015/01/28/5-reasons-the-bible-teaches-a-literal-personal-antichrist-not-figurative-impersonal-ep-22/

Prelude to the Parousia

3 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, 4 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 Thes 2:3-4).

I'm going to discuss a neglected interpretation of this passage, but I will summarize some alternative interpretations before getting to that particular interpretation:

1) According to the preterist interpretation, this refers to events concerning the Second Temple in Jerusalem. But there are problems with a that identification:

i) According to our sources, nothing happened between the time of writing and the fall of Jerusalem that matches Paul's description in 2 Thes 2. 

It's possible that our sources are deficient, but if so, that's an admission that there's no supporting evidence for this interpretation.

ii) If this was fulfilled c. 70 AD, then there's a sense in which it's much too soon to be a useful precursor to the Parousia. After all, it's now 2000 years down the pike. If the interval between the prelude to the Parousia and the Parousia is that distant, it loses significance.

iii) If this was fulfilled c. 70 AD in a symbolic sense, then it's hard to see what grave error Paul is correcting. If the return of Christ is symbolic, what difference does it make to say he came back in the 40s or the 70s of the 1C? In any event, it's business as usual. All the same moral and natural evils continue as before. 

3) Commentator Gene Green thinks it denotes the imperial shrine in Thessalonika, dedicated to Julius and Augustus Caesar. But there are problems with that identification:

i) Would Paul refer to a pagan shrine as the "sanctuary of God"?

ii) From Paul's perspective, why would it be wrong for the Antichrist to oppose the imperial cult? 

iii) Green says "the apostle describes a cult center where people go to offer worship" (312), but I don't see where Paul in fact says that. Green's statement is far more specific.

iv) What historic event does Green think fulfilled this identification? It can't be the imperial cult, itself, for that wasn't opposed to other heathen devotions. 

v) Surely it's awfully provincial to say that Jesus could not return unless and until something happened at the imperial shrine in Thessalonika. 

4) Premils think it refers to the rebuilt millennial temple. But given that the Second Temple in Jerusalem was still intact and functioning at the time of writing, it's hard to see how such a labyrinthine allusion would be intelligible to the original audience. 

5) Commentator Greg Beale believes the "temple" is a synonym for the church. I think that interpretation has much to commend it, although it needs to be fleshed out. 

6) But let's consider a final identification:

It has also been thought by some patristic and modern commentators that Paul is referring to the heavenly temple, where God sits (Ps 10:4: "The Lord is in his holy temple; the Lord, his throne is in heaven": cf. Isa 66:1; Mic 1:2; Hab 2:20; 1 En 14:17-22; 2 Bar 4:2-6). A. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (Yale 2000), 420.

This doesn't mean the Antichrist literally usurps the throne in the heavenly temple. Rather, Paul would be trading on ancient "war in heaven" motif. The Antichrist is an agent of Satan–the archetypal irreligious rebel. The "god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4). So this would be a colorful way of depicting the Antichrist's insolent impiety. 

It has the advantage of allowing for a future fulfillment, as well as bringing the signs of the Parousia into closer conjunction with the Parousia itself. 

Taking his seat in the temple of God

For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 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…9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders (2 Thes 2:3-4,9). 

There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God (WCF 25.6).

1) Traditionally, Protestants identified the papacy with the Antichrist. This post is not defending that identification. I think various individuals and institutions can exemplify the "spirit of the Antichrist" (1 Jn 4:3). 

My immediate point is not to discussion the traditional Protestant view of the papacy, but to discuss some allegations from Catholic sources–allegations which, ironically mirror the traditional Protestant identification.

In his homily given on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul on June 29, 1972, Pope Paul VI made a famous remark about the “smoke of Satan” entering into the temple of God. The full text of the homily was not reproduced in the Vatican collection of Paul VI’s teachings (Insegnamenti di Paulo VI Vol. X, 1972). Instead, a summary of the homily was given. Within the summary, however, there are some direct quotes from the Pontiff. Two of these are memorable for their references to Satan and the preternatural. 

The Holy Father asserts that he has the feeling that “from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered into the temple of God” (da qualche fessura sia entrato il fumo di Satana nel tempio di Dio (Insegnamenti [1972], 707). 

Later, he is quoted as saying: “We believe … that something preternatural has come into the world specifically to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to prevent the Church from breaking out in a hymn of joy for having recovered in fullness the awareness of herself (Crediamo … in qualcosa di preternaturale venunto nel mondo proprio per turbare, per soffocare i frutti del Concilio Ecumenico, e per impedire che la Chiesa prorompesse nell’inno della gioia di aver riavuto in pienezza la coscienza di sé (Insegnamenti [1972], 708).
(notes and translations by R. Fastiggi) 

In his general audience of Nov. 15, 1972, Paul VI addressed in more detail the reality of the Devil. He stated that one of the greatest needs of the Church today is the defense against that evil we call the Devil. (Insegnamenti [1972], 1168-1173). 

http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2009/02/paul-vi-on-smoke-of-satan-june-29-1972.html

Taken in isolation, the first statement about "Satan's smoke" could be purely figurative. However, the subsequent reference to "something preternatural," as well as his general audience about the reality of the devil, suggests that his statement about "Satan's smoke" did have reference to Satanic activity. 

And what's the sphere of Satanic activity? He glosses that in terms of opposition to the Vatican II Council. That might also explain the reference to the "temple of God," since formal sessions of the Council took place in the native of St. Peter's Basilica.

Obviously, Paul VI isn't suggesting that Satan is the real power behind the papal throne. Nevertheless, this is an oddly self-incriminating statement for the pope to make about the headquarters of his own denomination.  

Are there men of the curia who are followers of satan? "Certainly there are priests and bishops. I stop at this level of ecclesiastical hierarchy - (Archbishop Milingo) said - because i am an archbishop, higher than this I cannot go." 

http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr54/cr54pg11.asp

Emmanuel Milingo became an embarrassment to the Vatican. I believe he was subsequently excommunicated and laicized. Due to the prevalence of witchcraft in Africa, he was a strong proponent of exorcism or "deliverance ministry." 

One can certainly question his credibility. However, I'm not the one who made him an archbishop of the Roman Catholic church. To the extent that he's a quack, that reflects poorly on the discernment of the Magisterium, which elevated him to its own ranks. 

Next, let's consider some statements by the late Martin Malachi. He had an impressive resume: 

He received doctorates from the universities of Louvain and Oxford and from Hebrew University in Jerusalem…he became Professor of Palaeontology and Semitic Languages at the prestigious Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome and was a theological adviser to Cardinal Augustin Bea, the head of the Vatican's Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-malachi-martin-1110905.html

Among other things, he said: 

A. Windswept House is a novel. But it is 85 percent based on actual fact, and most of the personages appearing in it are real even though I have given them fictional names. 

Q. Your book [Windswept House] begins with a vivid description of a sacrilegious "Black Mass" held in 1963 in Charleston, South Carolina. Did this really happen? 

A. Yes it did. And the participation by telephone of some high officials of the church in the Vatican is also a fact. The young female who was forced to be a part of this satanic ritual is very much alive and, happily, has been able to marry and lead a normal life. She supplied details about the event. 

Q. In addition to the "Cardinal from Century City," you depict numerous other cardinals and bishops in a very bad light. Are these characterizations based on fact? 

A. Yes, among the cardinals and the hierarchy there are satanists, homosexuals, anti-papists, and cooperators in the drive for world rule. 

The Catholic Church in Crisis,” The New American, June 9, 1997. 

http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?action=printpage;topic=2940508.0 

Indeed Paul [Pope Paul VI] had alluded somberly to ‘the smoke of Satan which has entered the Sanctuary’. . . an enthronement ceremony by Satanists in the Vatican. Besides, the incidence of Satanic pedophilia—rites and practices— was already documented among certain bishops and priests as widely dispersed as Turin, in Italy, and South Carolina, in the United States. The cultic acts of Satanic pedophilia are considered by professionals to be the culmination of the Fallen Archangel’s rites. The Keys of This Blood.

This requires some sifting. With reference to the Black Mass in South Carolina, I believe he's alluding to an allegation concerning Bishop Russell and Joseph Bernardin. There is some partial, independent corroboration of this incident:

Among the hundreds of clerical sex abusers is one Msgr. Frederick J. Hopwood, a priest of the Diocese of Charleston, S.C., whose early career was closely linked to Bernardin's; and when Hopwood's sex abuse victims pressed damages against the Diocese of Charleston, attorneys for the Archdiocese of Chicago, during Bernardin's tenure, worked out the terms of settlement. In March, 1994, six months before a former Cincinnati seminarian named Steven Cook publicly accused Bernardin of sexual abuse, newspapers in South Carolina reported that nine men had come forward to accuse Hopwood of sexual abuse in cases dating back to the 1950s. On March 21st, 1994, Hopwood pleaded guilty to one charge of sex abuse, performed on a minor while Hopwood was rector of the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist sometime in 1970-1971, in a plea agreement that put him in a therapy program instead of jail. About the same time that Hopwood was making the news in Charleston, The Wanderer received an anonymous "fact sheet" (subsequently investigated and substantiated) that drew connections between Bernardin and Hopwood. Both men, who were roommates at the Charleston seminary, were ordained by the late Bishop John J. Russell of Charleston (1950-1958), later bishop of Richmond; Hopwood in 1951, Bernardin in 1952. Bishop Russell was himself accused of sexual abuse. Immediately upon Hopwood's Ordination, Russell appointed him chancellor of the diocese, a post at which he served for a few years, with Bernardin coming on as assistant chancellor in 1953, and replacing Hopwood as chancellor in 1954. For much of the time until Bernardin was named in 1966 as an auxiliary bishop of Atlanta under his mentor, Archbishop Paul J. Hallinan, who had been bishop of Charleston from 1958-1962, Bernardin and Hopwood resided together at the cathedral rectory. What made the Hopwood pedophilia case of more than just passing interest was the involvement of attorneys from Mayer, Brown, and Platt, the Archdiocese of Chicago's law firm, which brokered the settlement for some of Hopwood's victims. According to an attorney familiar with the cases against Hopwood, "he was not your ordinary pedophile. He did hundreds and hundreds of boys, and I can't imagine Bernardin not being aware of it, since they lived together for such a long time.”

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/1998_06_18_Likoudis_EpiscopalScandal.htm

The allegation of a satanic enthronement ceremony at the Vatican occurs in both his nonfiction book (The Keys of This Blood) and his historical novel (Windswept House). As a Vatican insider, who worked there from about 1958 until 1965, he might well be in position to know about Satanists at the Vatican conducting blasphemous ceremonies. 

However, I have reservations about the details of Malachi's allegation:

i) The allegation about the South Carolinian incident seems to trade on the craze of recovered memories involving ritual satanic abuse and/or sexual abuse. So I find that suspect. 

ii) Sodomy and heterosexual rape are hardly interchangeable. But perhaps the motivation wouldn't be so much sexual as sacrilegious.

iii) There's the question of relative chronology. Were these in fact simultaneous events, or does his synchronization reflect artistic license in writing a historical novel? 

Finally:

In a book of memoirs released in February, the noted Italian exorcist Fr. Gabriele Amorth affirmed that "Yes, also in the Vatican there are members of Satanic sects." When asked if members of the clergy are involved or if this is within the lay community, he responded, "There are priests, monsignors and also cardinals!" 

The book, "Father Amorth. Memoirs of an Exorcist. My life fighting against Satan." was written by Marco Tosatti, who compiled it from interviews with the priest. 

Fr. Amorth was asked by Tosatti how he knows Vatican clergy are involved. He answered, "I know from those who have been able to relate it to me because they had a way of knowing directly." 

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/spanish_exorcist_addresses_claims_of_satanic_influence_in_vatican/

As the long-time (but now retired) Chief Exorcist of Rome, I'd expect Amorth to have extensive inside information about clerical satanism, both inside the Vatican and in the city of Rome, where many priests live and work. By that I mean, if it exists, he ought to know better than anyone. 

2) Whether or not we credit these specific allegations, we might assess their antecedent likelihood. If Satanists had access to venerable Christian shrines, it would not be surprising if they practice their rites there. The very point of the Black Mass is to defile sacred space. 

3) In addition, this concretely illustrates how something analogous to 2 Thes 2 could happen in modern times. The point is not whether a Catholic shrine is, in fact, the "temple of God," but to play on the symbolism, to offend traditional reverence, to use that as a foil to defile everything it represents–in the eyes of "the faithful." It could be the Vatican, Mount Athos, Santa Katarina, Canterbury cathedral, the Temple Mount, the Church of the Nativity, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Hallgrímskirkja, &c.