Eschatalks
Eschatalks is a podcast about biblical prophecy and the future God has revealed in His Word. Through careful study of Scripture, we explore how to interpret prophecy, understand what God says is still to come, and consider why those truths matter for Christians today.
Eschatalks
The Great Antichrist Debate: Who is Paul's "Man of Lawlessness" in 2 Thessalonians 2?
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Turn in your Bibles to 2 Thessalonians 2 and take a look at the first ten verses. Here is a text that is perhaps puzzling to the average reader. Who is this man of lawlessness? When did he live? Is he in our past? Is he in our future? Listen in as Patke and Sean have a formal debate concerning the identity of this man. Can we know who he was, is, or will be? Where does he fit in our understanding of the end times? Should he be anywhere in there? Listen in and be challenged to think critically through this inspired text!
Beginning
SPEAKER_00Alrighty, folks. Welcome back to another installment of Theologic. I'm Zach Packey. Sean Muschon.
SPEAKER_01There was a pause there because I got distracted. Zach Deacon here. All right. It's good to be back. Brilliant.
SPEAKER_00We're always changing it up. Well, we want to keep our listeners on our on their toes. So uh uh making sure they're they're uh they know who we actually are. So somebody said to me recently, like they they don't think that uh they can they can't tell the difference between our voices. So well, hopefully really yeah isn't that weird?
SPEAKER_03To me, I I mean again, hearing my own voice is always hard to judge, but I just think that the three of us have distinct voices. Like some people, like, yeah, they kind of sound similar, but I just in my opinion, I think we all have fairly different voices.
SPEAKER_00I was in music theory and I realized there's a lot of ear training that has to go into things. You you just you once you listen, keep listening, you'll be able to tell who we are and what our voices are.
SPEAKER_03So the moral of the story is keep tracking along every other Monday. Yeah, make those downloads. That's right.
SPEAKER_00Leave reviews. That's right. Give us a rating. Follow us and listen, you'll eventually get who we are. So here is our debate. We're gonna be talking about the nature of who Antichrist is, uh, according to scripture. And so we're gonna be debating on 2 Thessalonians
Introductory Exhortations
SPEAKER_002. And I wanted to start, uh, Zach gave me the floor to start and talk about this, is I just want to give you some exhortations. Um, we there's the question, I think, amongst Christian circles to ask the question: is end time stuff really important? Do we really need to have all these things figured out? Um, are these details important? Is eschatology important? And uh I just wanted to give four quick exhortations and then we'll get into the debate together. So um my exhortations to my brethren is this number one, do not be content with being agnostic concerning eschatology. It's important. And if God, first off, if God gave it to us, it is important. He didn't give this to us to waste his breath. Uh what I find amongst so many is this sort of don't know, don't care attitude. And I want to challenge our listeners. Do you believe the Bible is intended to reveal? Uh do you believe that what God communicated is clear? We just need to maybe do the work in the study to figure it out. Uh some important questions we need to ask. And maybe was God unclear what he wrote, or did God give you every detail inspired by the Holy Spirit because he loves you and wants you to know it? Um if he does, uh, you're gonna want to study it. Number two, exhortation number two, do not let your reverence for past church figures and past church documents close your eyes to past scripture. If a church figure or church document is either silent or contradictory to scripture, scripture is always correct. Uh number three, do not let those who sensationalize eschatology and times give you an excuse not to study it. I don't know about you guys if you ever heard this guy. Have you ever heard of Hal Lindsay? Every time I hear from like a non-dispensational guy, and this again, I'm coming from a dispensational background, it almost like they point out Hal Lindsay. This guy was a sensationalist, therefore, dispensationalists are all kooks because this guy's a kook. It's like not everybody is, and there's more to it than just this guy. Um we're talking about Antichrist here in a little bit, and uh, just by way of disclaimer, um, there are people out there who have sought time and time and time again, I think Sean can attest to this, to say that Antichrist was like Prince Charles or some FBI director or Obama or Trump or or somebody else, uh, whatever the case may be. Don't be that guy who's doing that when it comes to end times stuff. But we do know, and I believe, uh, that the Bible does talk about someone named Antichrist, and it's important to do the study to figure this out. So don't let those who sensationalize end time stuff give you an excuse not to study it. If I could put it this way, if your theology is a house, your end times belief is the back room. And I think there are a lot of Christians out there who have a big gaping hole in the back of their house because they just don't want to do the work to build it up. And so my encouragement is make sure to build it up, because it is important. And last exhortation I have, and this is to my reformed and Calvinistic brethren, do not let uh do not do with 2 Thessalonians 2 what Arminians do with Romans 9. And so I think I think you kind of get that idea. Um when you point out in Romans 9 to an Arminian the plain meaning of the text that Pharaoh's heart was hardened, God did the hardening work, uh, and that God shows mercy to whom he's gonna show mercy, there's electing work being done here, and they look at it and say, I don't know what this means, but it can't mean that. It's not enough to do that. You gotta have an answer, you've got to have a reason, and you gotta have something uh in order to make sure you're you're saying what you need to say. So uh my challenge for my brethren is do exegesis, do not do exegymnastics. Uh that is to say, to study the word and don't just jump over things that you just don't know. So, and uh don't do what one podcaster I listened to did, and like Sean, you sent this guy to me. He was like wringing his hands, like, you know, I believe that 2 Thessalonians is written by Paul and all that, but I'm kind of doubting that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians now because why? Uh well the Greek is weird. What you're gonna deny that? I don't know. I just I just find that to be puzzling and a bother. It's like, why would you deny the authorship of 2 Thessalonians at this point? Because the Greek is weird? Anyway, uh don't do with 2 Thessalonians 2 or with any other end times passage what Arminians do with Romans 9 to my Calvinistic and Reformed brethren. Make sure you know, make sure you have an explanation for it before you just say, I don't believe it, or uh it can't mean what you say it means. So that's all I have.
SPEAKER_03Was only your fourth point directed at your Reformed Brothers? Because I definitely it definitely sounded like all four of your points were directed at your Reformed Brothers.
SPEAKER_00Sure, yeah. So uh these are some challenges that I have. These are some things that I wanted to say by way of pre-debate. Just take them for what it's worth. Um you don't have to be a kooky dispensationalist like I am to see the way I'm gonna be explaining here in a little bit uh the Antichrist as as this, I believe, historically been viewed. So is it Hal Lindsey? Yeah, Hal Lindsay. H-A-L-L. Yeah, Hal Lindsay. He was the guy, yes, H-A-L. H-A-L. Yeah. Uh he was the guy who's who I can't written in the 70s, and he said that the locusts of Revelation were helicopters and hinted that 40 years after Israel's founding could have been would be the time when Christ returned. Just sense sensational things like that that I think in some ways just give people a I'm gonna shut up, I'm gonna shut down and not not find any interest in studying these things.
SPEAKER_01So due to time constraints, I uh shut down a pre-debate episode, and so we just uh Pat had some stuff on his heart and really fire away.
Opening Statements Begin
SPEAKER_01Just a reminder to some people listening, there's time constraints on these. Um Zach and Sean aren't just gonna talk for forever. Uh, and so just thinking ahead to how the debate's gonna go. There'd be 15-minute segments, and so not giving you uh credence to jump ahead or anything like that, uh, but please listen to everything, but just know that um uh they might not get everything covered. Yeah. Uh you might have some questions as a listener. Is there a way for people to ask us questions? Do we have that set up yet or don't we? You certainly have our Facebook page. Facebook page would be an ideal spot. Yeah.
SPEAKER_03Especially, especially since we'll be putting this up onto Facebook within the week. Yeah. Underneath that, uh, we'll repost it. That'd be a great spot for questions where maybe there are questions we didn't address or questions about what we said.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, just be gracious with these guys. I mean, obviously, with any debate, uh there's time constraints because we don't have all day, um, literally. Right. And so um these guys got 15 minutes for opening statements, uh, 15 minutes for rebuttal, and 15 minutes for kind of QA back and forth.
SPEAKER_00So they can also email us at theologicpodcast1 at gmail.com if you have any questions.
SPEAKER_01Okay, there you go. Well, Zach's
Patke's Opening: The Man is Future End Times Ruler
SPEAKER_01gonna take uh center stage here first, and he's got 15 minutes.
SPEAKER_00Uh I am here to articulate uh the view uh concerning Antichrist, that uh just to summarize it, that the man of sin, the son of perition in 2 Thessalonians 2 is Antichrist, the same one being talked about in 1 John 2, and that he is a future end times ruler who is to uh dominate and rule over the entire world. Uh this is a future end times ruler, a tool of judgment on the world, and we're gonna see that as we look at 2 Thessalonians 2. And it'll happen at Christ's return, right directly before Christ returns, or at the time rather, when Christ returns, uh he will be destroyed with the breath of his mouth. Uh that is the view that this man is synonymous with Antichrist, the same one as I said. In fact, this is one of the earliest, if not the earliest, view of this passage in church history. Uh, this is the view held by Irenaeus in the 100s A.D., John Chrysostom in the 300s A.D., Jerome in the 300s A.D., and Theodorid of Cyrus in the 400s A.D., and I have the quotes if you'd like to see them a little later on. And I would just I would say this: you don't, as I said, have to be a kooky dispensationalist like I am in order to hold this view, because these guys did. Uh, some of the other names for this man in Scripture are the little horn of Daniel 7. He is the ruler who leads a huge beast of a kingdom, speaks marvelous blasphemies against God, and is ultimately killed by God. He is the prince who is to come of Daniel 9, the one who made a seven-year covenant and breaks that covenant by setting up an abomination, uh. As it says, we'll find out in this, it's in the Temple of God. Um, and he's completely destroyed, and he completely destroys Jerusalem and will be destroyed himself. He is the willful king of Daniel 11, verses 36 and following, the king who exalts himself and magnifies himself above every God, exalting himself as God, and he will rule until judgment is finished, and he will come to his end, and no one will help him. He is the beast of Revelation 11 through 20, the one who in chapter 19 leads the world to worship, follow following worshiping himself, in chapter thirteen, he leads the world's armies to do battle against Christ. Upon Christ's return, at that point he is captured, and by way of destruction he is thrown into the lake of fire, and as I said, is antichrist of 1 John 2, 18. Some of the benefits of this view, you'll have a consistent explanation of Scripture. I mean, that's just a hermeneutical benefit. But secondly, for non-Christians, you have a warning of judgment. As Paul explains the purpose for this man's coming, he says in chapter 2, verses 11 through 12, for this reason God sends them a strong delusion, so that they will believe what is false, so that all will be condemned, those who do not believe the truth, but enjoyed unrighteousness. So this man will be a future final tool of that delusion, even as many other men who have worked the same way in the same vein throughout history, as participating in the spirit of this man, uh he will be the final one, and the world will follow him. And uh this is a, I'll just say it this way, this remains a worthy tool in the belt of an evangelist. Uh, as much as talking about hell is a worthy tool in the belt of the evangelist as well. Um just at camp this past week, one of the pastors decided to go through Revelation, and all these kids are like, I need to know more about this. I'm hungry to know more about this, so it's a beneficial uh for that. Thirdly, for the Christians' confidence, render praise from a relieved heart. And you'll see that in this text, for to God who chose you for salvation. After having explained the terrors of this man, Paul reassures his audience in 2 Thessalonians 2 13, we must always be thankful to God, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God has chosen you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit. So for the Christians saved and redeemed, you have no idea how much terror you have been saved from, and the fact that God has worked in your heart to believe as you do. And when Jesus said, Blessed are you, it almost seemed like an understatement. So what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna exegute the passage, point out the uh scripture passages where Paul gets either the information or the Holy Spirit later revealed more information. If it's in the Old Testament, Paul got it from there. If it's in the New Testament, or the New Testament epistles, rather, um, that were later written after this, the Holy Spirit added more following Paul's writing. So let's start with his commencement in verse one. We request, brethren, uh, verse one, with regard to the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, and your are gathering together to him that you be not quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter, as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Here the Apostle Paul joins together the events of Jesus' return. That is, uh he's talking back about what he said in 1 Thessalonians 4, the rapture and the coming of the Lord. He's also offering comfort to disheartened and frightened people because they're afraid of this time of wrath. And so he talks about the time of wrath called the day of the Lord. It could be a temporal judgment at other times in Scripture. Maybe Joel 1.15 is an example of that, but it is probably best understood, and I would say it is best understood, as a future eschatological judgment. 1 Thessalonians 5, 2 and 3, Revelation 6, 7 tells us that the coming of the Lord will be taken in a time of great judgment that is to come upon the world, a day of wrath that's coming on humanity. And 2 Thessalonians 2 is key in talking about the coming of Christ and the day of wrath, and this man is a mover and shaker, is the man of sin, son of perdition. And so we see his character in verse 3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition. People wonder what this apostasy or falling away is. The word literally is rebellion, and the answer is found right in the context. It is the time in which this man exalts himself up in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God. And notice Paul gives a parallelism, kind of like how Proverb is set up, he is the man of lawlessness, the son of destruction, the son of perdition. Here he's essentially saying the same thing in two different ways: a man deeply depraved by his nature, lawlessness is his title, perdition and destruction, and hell is his character. The similarities between this description and the description of the little horn of Daniel 7 are striking. Daniel 7, verses 20 and 24, in that text, Daniel describes a little horn as a kingly man whose mouth speaks arrogant blasphemies, and that Daniel marveled at the putrid words that came from the little horn's mouth. And it's very striking to Daniel 11. In that text, Daniel describes a willful king who speaks and utters great blasphemies against the God of gods. And yet there is more to Second Thessalonians 2 and how it relates to the rest of Scripture. So we see his corruption in verse 4. Who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called God or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. This is his display of lawlessness, self-exaltation to the degree that many would do privately, but none would have to such a high degree as this man and to such a high level of influence. And notice the place he sits. It is indeed the temple of God, and it will in fact be a literal rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. Though Paul doesn't use those words, this is an act of abomination of desolation, almost identical to what was done hundreds of years ago during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, and Daniel 1131 describes those things as well. According to history, the creature king prophesied by Daniel, set up his own god, Zeus, in the temple, slaughtered a peg on the altar, forbid sacrifices to God. That's found in 1 Maccabees, and he committed great acts of hatred and evil against the Jewish people, and this bears a striking parallel, very striking to what Daniel said, and that this man won't set himself set up Zeus, rather, he'll set himself up as the God. Daniel 9 27, listen to what's prophesied. On the wing of abomination shall be one who makes desolate, even to the consummation which is determined is poured out on the desolate. Concerning this man's self-exaltation, Daniel 11 36, and following in Revelation 3, uh sorry rather 13, verses 3 and 4. Listen to this, Daniel 11. Concerning the willful king, then the king shall do according to his will. He shall exalt and magnify himself above every God, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished, for what has been determined shall be done. He shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any God, for he shall exalt himself above them all. Yet there are more similarities between Second Thessalonians two and other scriptures. Listen to Revelation thirteen. And the world marveled and followed the beast, so they worshipped the dragon who gave authority to the beast, and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like the beast who is able to make war with him? Self-exaltation to the point of Godhood. Thirdly, we see his coming. First off, it was already explained in chapter two, verse five. Don't you remember while I was with you, still with you, I was telling you these things? This wasn't new to them. This wasn't given brand new to them in this conversation. In fact, God used the Apostle Paul to speak to brand new Christians about end time stuff, which tells us the importance of end times teaching. If Paul is going to disciple them in that way, so we. It was already explained. Secondly, it is being prevented. Verse 6, and you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. Here we are given some added information. Other texts of Scripture concerning Antichrist do not reveal this bit of information. There is something at work restraining this final Antichrist from coming from coming, and I think the answer is best explained as God, and it is God the Holy Spirit. He is the one who strives with man to keep their evil restrained, as we saw in Genesis chapter six, verse three. And in that day in which Antichrist is revealed, his restraining work will be taken out of the way, and humanity will plunge very rapidly headlong into judgment with Antichrist at the helm, the man of sin, the son of perdition. I want you to notice this important theme. Paul uses this theme, calling him the man of lawlessness, and then John uses the very same thing concerning Antichrist in 1 John 2. Listen to this. Paul says, In his time he, that is the man of lawlessness, will be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness, that is his character, is already at work. Listen to what John says in 1 John 2, 218 and 4.3. Just as you heard that Antichrist is coming, even now many Antichrists have appeared. And every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of Antichrist, of which you have heard that is coming, and now it is already in the world. Both affirm a single individual, both affirm that the spirit of that individual is already at work in the world. And so we see that striking parallel, clearly evidencing that they are speaking of the same person, and yet I say, But wait, there's more. We say that it will be revealed. Then that lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will slay with the breath of his mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of his coming. A destruction of this man is in conjunction with the return of Christ. When Jesus returns to the earth bodily, this man will be killed. Revelation 19 tells us exactly how Jesus does it. Upon Jesus' return, the beast, the Antichrist, the man of sin, they're lined up, and that is verse nine. Verse 9 tells us that his coming is in accordance with the activity of Satan, with the power signs, and false wonders. And we see some satanic powers as well. Christ will return, throw him into the lake of fire, along with the false prophet. And with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. Again, this man's coming is for the purpose of the full destruction of the wicked. It is for this reason Jesus says in the Olivet Discourse, if it weren't for the elect's sake, no one would survive. We saw the same thing in Daniel 9 27 and 1136. Until the consummation which is determined is poured out on the desolate, Daniel says, He shall prosper until the wrath has been accomplished. God has determined this man as a tool for eschatological wrath, and he will accomplish his purposes. And I'll say this by way of conclusion. There's a lot to it. And my encouragement, my exhortation to my brethren is don't be afraid. Don't be afraid to come to a conclusion that maybe a group of people that you kind of look at and say, uh they got some issues here, and they do. I can't agree with them on these things. It's possible. And uh don't agree with a group of people, agree with scripture. Just study that, study it out, and uh be open to receive what the scriptures teach. And that is all I have by way of opening statement.
Sean's Opening: We can't be certain who the Man is.
SPEAKER_01Okay, very cool. Sean, are you ready then? All right, Sean, go ahead.
SPEAKER_03While the words are still in our ears, let me say that yes, I would agree. Don't be afraid to study hard texts like we're doing right now, but be afraid to press it for what it we are not certain of what it says. Now, I say that kind of jumping ahead of my notes, just as Packy has wrapped up what he has said, and I want to be clear about that, because that is very much the difference of Packy and I on this chapter, is that he believes that there is clarity in it that I do not. And I'll explain more about that in a moment. But my hope, and kind of going back to the beginning of my notes, uh my hope about this discussion, about what Packy says, what I say, the questions that are asked of each other, and I think questions that even Deacon is gonna raise at the end, is that this is a blessing to the listener. That's the goal. Um Packy and I are not really here to persuade one another as much as we are to provide um. Biblical teaching to the listener, and obviously coming from two different positions. But nonetheless, I hope that it is a blessing and that it leads us to consider things. You've heard much about other passages of scripture that may seem to parallel 2 Thessalonians 2, and I don't deny that there are some parallels there, but I want you to consider is Packy able, is he able to sufficiently and reasonably connect those passages? I will agree with him that this figure, the man of lawlessness, is also known as the Antichrist, although not necessarily all of the details that he put forward would I agree with regarding the character and the work and such. But keep that in mind. Which side is able to first give a sufficient explanation into your understanding of this chapter of 2 Thessalonians 2, and then where needed to connect it into other passages, is it done in a reasonable fashion? The other thing I want you to consider is this the dogmatic nature that Packy used talking through 2 Thessalonians 2. Did it match his ability to explain the text itself? 2 Thessalonians 2? Is it as clear as he wants us to think it is? So as we continue, as I begin to make my arguments, let me say that on this chapter we agree on much. There are many details we find agreement on. The second thing I want to say is in light of that, I want to focus in on the differences. Difference of approach, difference of understanding, difference of conclusion. And so I will not be answering every single question that could be raised from the passage, but really honing in on the area that we differ on. So let me walk through the passage as Packy did a moment ago. The first two verses we read, when concerning now concerning the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. So we find Paul beginning this chapter, beginning this unit of Second Thessalonians with these words concerning the coming, and then our being gathered. This coming of the Lord and this gathering was spoken of previously in First Thessalonians four, where we read of the event we usually call the rapture, the being caught up. And the events Paul is about to describe in chapter two, verses three through ten are precursors to that event, which we hear as of the day of the Lord. So a summary of what I've just said and kind of what I'm going into is that the apostasy of verse three and the man of lawlessness that we are about to read of will occur prior to what we commonly call the rapture. Let's move into verse three and four. Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day will not come unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called God and object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. So what we have here are three things. We have we have one, an event, secondly, a person, and third, a person's activity. The event, we have the apostasy across the church. I know that I in my reading of the English Standard Version, it said rebellion. Some versions read apostasy, and it does seem best that apostasy is the term to be used. That is to say that this movement, this godless movement, is more religious in nature, not political. So it is the idea of a falling away from within the church. There becoming a time future to Paul, future to Paul, that there would be a falling away, mass exodus out of the church, a falling away, an apostasy. So that is our event. The person amid all this that's being involved in some form or fashion is the man of lawlessness. At times also known as the Antichrist. And at this time, he's going to be revealed, it's going to be made known, or at some point made known as to who he is. And his activity is that he exalts himself as a God and acts in opposition to all objects of worship. He doesn't share his leadership, he doesn't share worship, it's it's his way or the highway. And this takes place, Paul describes it as the temple, the temple of God. Now, I know that Packy said that this is going to be a literal rebuilt temple. Therefore, the evidence falls onto him to provide another New Testament reference where Paul utilizes that terminology in reference to a building. There is one that is found in 2nd or 1 Corinthians, where Paul is referring to temple worship in a pagan sense. But Paul and the other apostles primarily, if not exclusively, utilized the term temple referring to the church. Let me give you a few of those references. This is not all, but these are a few coming straight from Paul, although Peter and John would also be using things like this. 1 Corinthians chapter 3, verse 16 and 17, 1 Corinthians chapter 6, verse 19, 2 Corinthians chapter 6, verse 16, Ephesians chapter 2, verse 21. These are references where Paul utilizes the term temple, temple of God, to refer to the church. Now that may raise some questions, like how does this, what does this look like? How, how, if this is not a brick temple, then what does this look like? I'm going to explain that in a moment, but I want to at least give credence to that question of what does it mean for the man of lawlessness to enter into the temple if it's not a physical temple to actually walk into on your feet. But let me again remind you, Paul is not the only one that utilizes text like this. The New Testament is full of examples of the apostles taking words, terms, passages of scripture from the Old Testament, and then speaking of them in a new way in the New Testament, where there are things that were material in the old that they're now speaking of in connection to the reality of the church. Paul's doing the exact same thing. Let me state here also that Dr. Anthony Hakoma and Dr. G.K. Beale, some of the leading New Testament scholars of the 20th century as well as the 21st century, note that this is not a literal temple. This is an apocalyptic language. Okay, here we go. Here's the answer to the question. How does the man of lawlessness enter into something that's not material? This is apocalyptic language describing a usurper who seeks honor and worship. He's entering into the temple of God. He is going into the church. G.K. Beale uses the analogy of the papacy. He does not identify the man of lawlessness as the papacy, but he uses it as an analogy. You think about the popes of the ages have, or starting at least the beginning of their history. They were a part of the church. There was never a date where the Roman Catholic Church completely separated from the Orthodox Historic Church. It was a slow process of apostasy. And that is something what it would look like when this person is revealed. Is that someone that's already involved in the church, it's somebody that is already in leadership of the church, and somebody that leads away a great number from the Orthodox historic faith. Again, that's an example. Not saying that I'm naming the papacy as the man of lawlessness, but G.K. Bill utilized that as an example. And so essentially, sometime future to Paul, there would be a church leader who enters into the church, the temple of God, and leads away many. So, in summary, these events are future to Paul, yet before the return of Jesus. So a question for us to consider in light of what we've heard. Think about this, especially, and I'm sure many of you would lean more in Packy's direction because that is the predominant view of our time and our culture. I want you to think about this. In light of what we've heard, is the man of lawlessness future to us? Is there reason to see the revealing of this of the man of lawlessness as well as the revealing of Christ happening within a seven year period of each other? And my other question, could the coming of Christ be centuries after the man of lawlessness? Something to consider. Let's move on to verse five and six. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things, and you know what restrains him now, so that he may be revealed in his time? Paul has already spoken to the Thessalonians about these things, but not only these things that we're hearing about in chapter two, but things not here mentioned, because he assumes a measure of knowledge to exist in their minds, as we see in chapter two, verse six, where he says, You know. Now this is a big point where Packy and I differ. I believe that there are some things that we cannot know about this text because Paul has not provided. It's not that it got lost where some monk that was writing down from one scroll to another that he misplaced a scroll or something, but that by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, God in his wisdom decided that in this particular text we do not have the details that we may want. And I'll talk more about that in my rebuttal time. This is a textual reason right here in verses five and six for us not to be dogmatic about our understanding of these ten verses. There's information that is needed to have a dogmatic view of it that Paul told the Thessalonians while he was in Thessalonica that is not written on this page. So the question has to become why do some men and teachers feel the need to be excessively dogmatic about the conclusions of this text when Paul, by inspiration of the Spirit, makes clear that not all the puzzle pieces are here. Let's move on to verse 7. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, only he who now restrains restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. I want to pause there. I've gone two verses at a time, but here I want to stop in this one. The fact that the identity of this restrainer has been debated for two thousand years only further testifies to the fact that Paul knew his original audience already knew what it was because he spoke of it while he was with them. He doesn't tell us who the restrainer is. It's been debated as to who that restrainer would be, but Paul does not have the need to tell them because he already did when he was visiting. He did not tell them about that in 1 Thessalonians. He told them about it when he was visiting personally. Now, as to this term, the mystery of lawlessness, we also got to camp out here, because this is also another interpretive tool where Packy and I differ. The term mystery, I'm gonna think about this for a moment. We think about mystery. Pacquiao said that this was, and if I misquoted him, I would like him to uh correct this in the rebuttal time, but I believe he said this is referring to the character, the character of this individual. When we think about mystery, whatever is to come about by the man of lawlessness has already begun. Daniel spoke of a future lawless one in Daniel 11. The activity of this man was prophesied, and now Paul speaks of it in a way as to say that it has begun. Now I say it has begun. G.K. Beale, who's wrote Dr. G.K. Beale, who has written much on this topic, this term mystery, explains, number one, that when we read of mystery in the New Testament, it is number one, the beginning of an Old Testament prophecy coming to fulfillment. Though it is not in its completion, the fulfillment will come about over time in a process. Doctor G.K. Bill provides many examples across the New Testament of such a process where it is a mystery, where, yes, it is being fulfilled, but it is a process. Then also he points out regarding prophecy such prophecies in connection to being introduced by mystery by the apostles, is the fulfillment is coming about in a way unexpected. In a way unexpected. Couple examples of that. In Ephesians chapter 2, we read about how the Gentiles are being brought into the covenant people of God. Paul describes that as a mystery. It was something unexpected in the Old Testament. And the same thing with the hardening that comes over Israel in Romans chapter 11. Paul describes that as a mystery, something that was unexpected. And so when we read about Daniel's description of this man of lawlessness in Daniel chapter 11, we must be cautious when we begin to think that what is described there is going to have a mirrored image in some future event. No, the way it's carried out in the future is going to be a way of mystery. It is going to be fulfilled in a process in an unexpected fashion. This is the idea of mystery. That word mystery is a prophecy beginning to be fulfilled in a way that is unexpected. Let's move on to verse eight. In verse eight, we have, and then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will kill with the breath of his mouth, and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. In verse 9 and 10, the coming of the lawless lawless one is by the activity of Satan, with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception, for those who are perishing because they refused to love the truth and be saved. And so this is someone that will be dealt with by the Lord. This is an apostasy. This is a man of lawlessness that will be dealt with by the man by the by the Lord. And as we think about the man, the man of lawlessness, we see that it is Satan's activity, it is his acting. So this is a man that is doing much evil by Satan's acting. There's power, there are signs, there are false wonders that are taking place, and it is a display of the deception, it is a display of Satan's power with the ultimate goal of deception itself. And that is why we circle back around to the apostasy. All of this is wrapped up in some form or fashion, whether it leads to the apostasy, we're not sure. Whether the apostasy is kind of the birthing place of the revealing of the Son of or the man of lawlessness, uncertain. But nonetheless, these are all tied in, and it is a very so I Packy and I would agree on that, that it is an evil, an evil movement in great opposition to the Lord. And that will be the end of my argument.
Patke's Rebuttal
SPEAKER_01Excellent. Thank you, Sean. Um Packy, whenever you're ready, my friend.
SPEAKER_00Alright, so the first uh first thing I want to mention here, uh, he brought up the idea that this chapter lacks clarity. And I do want to ask the question, um, and I'll probably ask it in the cross-examination, because I'm really kind of curious to know his uh his view on this. How does the perspicuity of scripture tie into eschatology? Do you believe the scripture was clear? Was it intended to reveal and not hide? And do we believe all of Scripture was intended to reveal and not hide? And so uh when when we're asking the question of dogmatism uh on that regard, uh if this if I'm being dogmatic on what the scripture says, then I I shouldn't, I guess we shouldn't be as uh uh considering this as problematic as you know being dogmatic about things soteriologically speaking or even things related to ecclesiology. If we take the words of the word, uh we should be just as confident in the words of the word uh as you would uh with eschatology, as much as you would with any other uh doctrinal issue. Um so we find uh with prophecy, just it takes the study, it takes discernment, it takes uh going into the Old Testament in order that you might understand the new. And that's my challenge to our listeners as I had all the way at the beginning. Is the scripture intended to reveal? Do you believe the perspicuity of scripture? Or is it intended to hide? Did God speak unclearly? Um that's an important question we need to ask. Uh, and if that's the case, is there I mean, I understand there are things sometimes that are difficult to understand, and we're gonna do our best to understand it. There are times in which that's the case, and I'm not saying that it's everything is that way, even with eschatology, but when there is clarity, when there is words that you can point back to, will you accept those words? Uh, and that's the question. Uh this will occur prior to the rapture, is one of the things he says. Um I'm I'm curious to know. I think I think he uh he gave a little bit of his exegetical reasons for that. Uh he talked about the apostasy across the church. Um I guess my I'm gonna challenge him on the question. He asks the question, well, where did Paul ever refer to the temple of God and anything other referencing to the church? How about the fact that we have Acts 21 where the Apostle Paul goes into the very temple? He knows what it is. It's not like it's something brand new to him. Um and I I we're gonna ask this in cross-examination as well, but maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. But how does a person enter into the believer's body and then somehow declare himself to be God? Because that's what Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians. It's your body that's the temple of the Holy Spirit, not the church at large that's the temple of the Holy Spirit, each individual Christian and the individual Christians of uh in 1 Corinthians who are believers there, they are the body of the temple of the Holy Spirit. And so it makes this sort of weird, esoteric, how does this work kind of thing, uh, when you go with that interpretation of this passage. Uh and so he so that's that's my challenge. Yeah, the Apostle Paul knew what the temple of God was. He had been there many times, and so this was this wasn't new to him. And in fact, as I said, he got this understanding from the Old Testament. He was an Old Testament scholar, he knew Isaiah like the back of his hand. Um, and you note that when you read the book of uh Romans. He quotes Isaiah left and right, and so he knew what he was talking about, he knew where he got that from. Uh, and so concerning the apostasy across the church, what does it look like? And I'm gonna probably mess up his definition here, but uh something I was trying to write it down, apocalyptic language describing a usurper designed to receive uh worship. I guess in what how do you make that case? I I guess I didn't get that. This is uh uh this is a letter, this is an apocalyptic, this isn't an apocalyptic genre where we're at. This is an epistle. This is the uh the genre that we find ourselves in. And so uh concerning the clarity of these issues, uh, we would I think we might agree that an epistle might be a little clearer in our understanding. Uh more straightforward, we'll say. They don't tend to use apocalyptic language. This is an epistle, so uh I'm curious to kind of understand a little bit more on that. Could he ask the question? Could the coming of Christ be after this man of lawlessness? No. The answer says that he is going to be consumed, the text it says here in 2 Thessalonians 2, this man is going to be consumed by the coming, by the glorious appearing of Christ. And so the answer is it's simultaneous. It is joined together, and the words of the word tell us that. I don't have to uh make an exegetical interpretation, I could just point right to the words. If the text says it is coming by his appearing, by his coming, then we can say, yeah, it is. It is happening at that time when he uh uh reveals that. Verse 5, when he says, Do you not know that when I was with you I told you these things? And uh he was saying, and Sean said something about Paul making clear that not all the puzzle pieces were here, that they weren't all uh all together. And I think the answer is, yeah, they were. Uh what was Paul doing for the church in Thessalonica? Well, what did we see in verse one? Uh they were concerned, they were fearful that the day of the Lord had already come. He's not making clarity as if we're bringing some new information. He's making clarity as to bring the information he already brought to them to bear on their lives right now, so that they would not be fearful. Uh, Paul taught the day of the Lord as something of a judgment that would happen at the end to new believers, and in fact, no doubt, as my guess probably, that it was happening as an evangelistic uh tool for him as well. And so he's pointing them to hope. Listen, these things, you're not in the day of the Lord. You're not in the time of end times judgment that is to come upon the entire world. You're not there right now. Therefore, be comforted, and we see that later on, uh, that you are chosen by God, and you're not going to be ones who're gonna be deceived about these things happening in that day, and you're not gonna be ones who are uh going to be destined for this judgment, which he makes clear in 1 Thessalonians 5 as well. Paul already knew uh these things, and he's giving them the entire message. Maybe my question when he when he brought up the idea of dogmatism, my question would be to him: could we be dogmatic, as dogmatic about things as Paul is when it comes to end time stuff? Um if we can, then we should be, right? He said, Imitate me as I imitate Christ. Um the idea I was I was curious about his definition of mystery. I've never heard that definition before. It's actually I appreciate understanding a little more of the words he's bringing out. And so he defined it something as, and again, I'm I'm he's talking fast, I'm trying to write it down, which is fine. It's just how you gotta do it in debate, but the beginning of an Old Testament reality coming to fruition. I'd never heard that definition of mystery before. Typically, I would define the word mystery as that which is unrevealed in the Old Testament and is now revealed in the new. And so um the mystery of the character of this man, though there's very there's not anything revealed necessarily concerning the character of this man and what he would be, other than what we maybe see in the Old Testament. But I would define it a little differently. And so um we'll just end it at that regarding the rebuttal.
SPEAKER_03So
Sean's Rebuttal
SPEAKER_03again, I'll begin my rebuttal by just um going off what Pacquiao closed with, where he was discussing the definition of mystery. And I would say this that he he said, I would I would define that a little bit differently. I'm gonna throw an argument to authority out on this one, but the definition I provided came from Dr. G.K. Beale, who is one of the most renowned New Testament scholars of our day. So he's pitting his opinion about the term mystery against a man who has done years of study, who has written an entire volume on it. So I'm just gonna put that out there regarding the definition and where that's coming from, as to how we understand the concept of. Mystery, and that's not anything personal toward Packy, but nonetheless, that does need to be clarified. And as for the temple that he mentioned in there, he said there was a time where we see Paul connected to a physical temple. Well, to the argument, Paul in the book of Acts does not use the term. Luke is the author of Acts. We're record it's recorded that Paul goes into the temple true enough, and that's that's fantastic. But Luke is the one that writes it. And so, in light of what Packy brought up, what is more likely, as he's writing to the Thessalonians, if Pacy's right that it's a material temple, what's more likely that when he tells the Thessalonians that this man of lawlessness will enter into the temple of God? By the way, folks, the temple Pacchia's just referring to is standing while Paul is writing. Paul wrote this letter while the temple was still standing. Which is more likely that they're thinking of the temple that's in Jerusalem in their day or some future temple? Just food for thought on that one. Which is more of a logical conclusion that they would understand. If he's talking about a physical temple, I don't think he is, but if he is, where do the Thessalonians be where do their minds go first? Is it something that's currently in their day or some potential future material temple? And then also he mentioned in Corinthians where Paul uses this terminology about the temple, and Packy noted that it's individuals that are the dwelling place. Paul actually does both in 1 Corinthians. He refers to an individual as the temple, but he also in chapter 12 refers to the entirety of the church body and unity as the temple. So I want to clarify that. Now to my rebuttal, this I do have written down previously, but regarding the messy Greek, and I know that Packy took a little issue with that. Let me read some thoughts that I put down previously. Uh it is difficult, now actually add this preface. This is going into that messy Greek, but it's also addressing the topic of essentially the question: is there clear chronology through the first 10 verses of chapter 2? Is Paul merely explaining events that will occur before the return of Christ, or is he giving a chronology? So that's kind of where this is going, but it's also addressing the topic of the Greek, which the guy, the uh podcast that I gave uh Packy was not a solo opinion regarding the topic of the Greek that's in there. That's actually a pretty, as I'll explain, that's a pretty uh pretty common um uh discussion among New Testament scholars. So let me read this. It is difficult to nail down a chronology through the passage. This is due to the messiness of the Greek in which 2 Thessalonians was written. This messiness of the Greek has been attested by the by the fact that so many have questioned whether or not Paul is the author. Now let me pause. I I'm not questioning Paul's authorship at all. I I am not questioning that, but just the fact that the style is so different to bring up the question shows that there's something different. This style and form or lack of form is not seen by Paul elsewhere. This messy Greek makes it difficult to establish a chronological line of thought of one event described and leading to another. We seem to have an excited Paul spewing facts more than trying to give a systematic list of events. To say that the Greek of 2 Thessalonians is not the neatest is no reason to shake our confidence in Scripture in any way. Each book of the Bible has its own personality. Each is inspired by the Holy Spirit, but they are not carbon copies of one another. Our confidence in Thessalonians need not be disturbed, yet we may have to step onto some potentially uncomfortable ground where maybe we can't be as dogmatically sure about the particulars of 2 Thessalonians 2, particularly verses 3 through 10. So let me just, in closing to that section, just say we should read 2 Thessalonians, embracing it as the word of God. There may be some different style to it, but that does not mean you look at the Gospels, very similar in what they're after, but John, Mark, Luke, and Matthew are all very different in how they present the story of Christ. So do not be shaken in your confidence of Scripture. As to the man of lawlessness, a few thoughts there. Regarding the identity of this man of lawlessness, there have been many options about the mysterious figure throughout history. According to the Princeton professor Gerhandes Voss, the phrase the man of lawlessness or antichrist in reference to an individual has only been in popular use for less than 200 years. Most Christian writings spoken of Antichrist as a spirit or an idea, not so much as a man. And although there were times in church history where it was found, it's definitely in the minority compared to today's writings where it primarily today, in the past 200 years, focuses in on a man and not the spirit of Antichrist. So just keep that in mind as you think through your understanding of the Antichrist, is just to always remember how Christians that are dwelt by the Holy Spirit throughout history have thought about the same topic. Before Dr. Voss, we find an interesting detail that I believe would interest many who either hold the view that Pachy is presented, or those who have a special regard for the King James Bible. In the preface to the original King James Bible, the editors identify the man of lawlessness, or what they call the man of sin, as the papal office of the Roman Church. You find this in the third paragraph of the original preface, stating, quote, The English Bible hath given such a blow unto the man of sin as will not be healed. Now let me just say this. Personally, I'm not I'm not saying that the man of lawlessness is the papacy, but I'm pointing out that some rather significant figures in church history have thought so. Along with not only them, but Stephen Nichols points out in the journal of Evangelical Theological Society that many men have perceived the man of lawlessness as the papacy, including Bible translator and martyr John Wycliffe, the reformer Martin Luther, the late Jonathan Edwards of the Great Awakening, and the great English Baptist John Gill. Nichols goes on to name more. Keep in mind on church history, not so much to look for authority from that, but to realize that there is needed and respectable debate that goes on in this passage regarding the term appearance that comes up in verse 8. If it is argued, as does Packy, that appearance refers to Christ's coming at the end of the tribulation, then why does Paul tell his com his contemporaries to look to it with hope? In 1 Timothy chapter 6, verse 14, the same word is used. He says to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ. He's telling them how to live until this appearing. In Titus chapter 2, we are to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. So in Packy's view, that term appearing refers to Jesus coming after the tribulation. That's the next event in the chronological system of eschatology according to dispensationalism. He doesn't tell them to look to the rapture, he tells them to look to the appearing. So the appearance that's referred to there is referring to one and the same, what we might call the rapture or the appearing of Christ, to talk about his coming, his appearance is one and the same events. To circle back to what I said earlier, the events of the man of lawlessness coming about in the apostasy take place prior to the rapture. In light of what I've said here, let me try to work this in as introducing what I'm about to say because it was intended to be the intro. What I've said has displayed more so the areas where Pacchia and I differ. There's a lot we agree on in the passage, but let me speak a word to the differences, some of the background and the big scope of things. And again, I apologize for the lack of clarity on this because this was supposed to be my opening of the rebuttal. But I'm going to begin by addressing the system itself of dispensationalism and how they think through the topics that I just spoke on. Dispensationalism too often looks to answer questions which the scripture does not ask, or they ask questions of scripture that is not intended to be answered. Now, by dispensationalism, let me just define that for this context. If you believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, followed by seven years of tribulation, with an antichrist figure in that, and then followed by a coming of Christ to establish a thousand-year reign, you're the person that I'm addressing, or you're the that's the theology that I'm speaking to. But more than that, it's also a system of theology. This system of theology tries to present a neat and clean doctrine where Scripture does not provide enough foundation for such a system. To say this is not to doubt the authority or the inspiration or the sufficiency of Scripture, but notes that not all teaching in Scripture is as clear as others. Dispensationalism often tries to give a 3D picture to its audience, even when the scripture only provides the detail of a watercolor. Dispensationalism feeds on the natural human desire to have all the details and all the answers. Here, in this text, dispensationalism takes a passage which presents an impartial concept as is self-evident from chapter two, verse five and six, and then tries to argue dogmatically for a particular understanding. In chapter two, verse five, Paul is clear that he has left out portions of information about the man of lawlessness because he had already taught the Thessalonians in person. To be clear, let me say this as I give this critique I have a great respect and admiration for the dispensationalist desire to know Scripture. I desire to imitate the love that Packy and other brothers like him have for Scripture, the truth, the defense of the truth. And so let me put that out there as I say these things, but to continue the thought, this text at hand that we've been discussing is not an easy one. It has baffled some, some of the best theological minds, and some of those being Augustine, B. B. Warfield, to name only two of many. Augustine himself said, I do not know what this text means. Now, this ought not to be shocking, for what did the Apostle Paul or Apostle Peter say about Paul? He said, Our beloved brother Paul also wrote you concern according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all of his letters when he speaks speaks in them of these matters. There are, listen to this, there are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant unstable twist to their destruction. And by quoting that, I'm not calling Packy or his brothers ignorant. But I'm doing the emphasis on the part of being hard, things that are hard. But I do mention Warfield in the quote by Augustine, not to deter us from studying this passage. I agree with Packy, it needs to be studied. It needs to be studied well. We need to understand and seek out what the Bible says about the character of the man of lawlessness. But we have to be careful how rigid we are about our conclusions on this passage. So let me give you some concluding thoughts. Number one, if you have only ever heard one interpretation of a Bible passage that deals with end times, it would be wise and beneficial to inquire of teachers who present other perspectives. So if you have only ever heard what Packy has presented, I would encourage you to seek out Bible teachers such as Vodi Bacham and others as such that would present a different idea. If you have only heard ideas that are more similar to mine, go listen to John MacArthur or maybe Packy in a little bit can recommend some others that would be similar to MacArthur's view. Secondly, my second and last exhortation. Are you giving more emphasis to the doctrine of the Antichrist than Scripture does? Would you be more excited to join a Bible study discussing the Antichrist or to discuss the Christ? That's a question I just want you to think about when it comes to eschatology. I agree with Packy that we do need to be diligent, although he now would define eschatology differently. But just the same, I would agree with him that we need to study it. But just the same, I would also ask: would you be more interested and more anxious to sign up for a Bible study on the Antichrist than you would on the Christ?
SPEAKER_01Okay.
Cross Examination Begins
SPEAKER_01All right. Um my favorite part, although maybe not today, because uh I'm trying to make sure that I have uh questions pulled up. Uh sometimes I ask questions at the end, sometimes we just don't have time, which is fine. Um I like listening to these guys ask each other questions. My remarkable died. And so uh I'm making sure that stuff got synced up to my phone, and I think that most of it did. But yeah, I have questions, and those are always on the back burner. I want these guys to be at the forefront of everything that goes on, and so uh my questions can maybe uh be bonus material for a later time. But anyway, we're gonna get into the QA QA. Um 15 minutes of QA reminding our listeners and our uh passionate theologians here at Theologic um of the rules. Um ask specific, clarifying questions only, please. Um if it is a lengthy statement, please have a question at the end of it. Uh this is not uh another time to get statements in. Uh and if you uh are asking a question that is confusing to me, I um observe all rights to interrupt you and ask for you to clarify.
SPEAKER_00Do it.
SPEAKER_01I also reserve all the rights to inform you that you're not actually asking a question.
SPEAKER_02Yeah.
SPEAKER_01Um please be respectful, uh, the person answering. Um know that the other person is uh under a time constraint. Uh do the best to answer the question, obviously, uh, but don't uh don't take up all the other person's time to ask questions. Uh so it's just uh brotherly love here. So uh we're gonna start with Zach questioning Sean here.
Patke Cross Examines Sean
SPEAKER_00Uh start so I brought up some Old Testament text to tie in, Old Testament text to tie in here uh with the text here. Did you see any discrepancies with the things I brought out in my opening statement uh concerning the Old Testament text I brought out in 2 Thessalonians 2? And if so, where would those discrepancies lie? I know it may be a little broad, but maybe just give a few that'd be helpful.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, I would say I'm gonna compliment you, which is not normal for um cross cross-examination, but I think you far exceeded John MacArthur. Oh. Far exceeded. I think MacArthur does a terrible job. That's high praise. With respect to him, I think he does a terrible job on this passage. Okay. Um he's yeah, so um no, I I if I I would say maybe if I listen back through it more carefully, maybe. But there was nothing that stood out to me as like, no.
SPEAKER_00Okay. So is uh do you do you see any issues with this man of lawlessness being the little horn of Daniel 7 any connection with that? Where would be the discrepancy?
SPEAKER_03Yeah, if you're if and and it's fine if you don't know just so that um again I'm a compliment, I'm gonna answer that question, but also compliment you in that one of the strengths of dispensationalism is that you guys have a greater familiarity with Daniel than most times, generally speaking, the covenantal side of that. But I'm open-minded to that. Okay. Um I see I would I would definitely think that my my for me would be I'm pretty sure that Daniel 11 is, like I referenced in my present presentation. Um and it would be logical that um with Daniel 11 um having this figure, yeah, that it's probably likely that Daniel 7 contains him as well. I think he even in Daniel 7, doesn't he speak haughty things?
SPEAKER_00Yep, speaks blasphemies against the King of Kings.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, so I'm I'm open to that to that idea of it being the same same figure.
SPEAKER_00Okay, cool. Hey, there's that's that's a cool I'm glad we can agree on that. Um I was serious when I said I think there's a lot more on this topic that we this passage that we agree on than disagree. Yeah, that's cool. Hey, I guess I'm I'm hoping that this cross ex cross-acts can uh flesh some of those things out. So I'm curious to know when it comes to end times doctrine, but I believe you believe in the perspicuity of scripture. The term that is the clarity of scripture, correct? Correct. That the Bible's clear to be re that it reveals God's uh um it reveals what God wants us to know, and it doesn't it isn't there to cloud it, it's there to be clear, right?
SPEAKER_03Yes, I would affirm that God has God has done his his good work of revealing what he wants us to know.
SPEAKER_00Right. And when it comes to the doctrine of salvation, the doctrine of God, things, God spoke really uh very clearly about that, right? About who he is and how we would be saved and things like that.
SPEAKER_03What do you um can I return a question? No. I cannot for clarity for clarity on the question. Yeah, okay, for clarity on the question. Yeah. Um could you clarify could you clarify clarity?
SPEAKER_00So that uh uh that in basic elements of salvation and basic elements of the explanation of God, um, and even some some very detailed things concerning the the rich character of God, that God was clear in making those things revealed that we would know and understand.
SPEAKER_03Could you give me some examples of like some of those those things?
SPEAKER_00So particularly let's talk about this the sovereignty of God, right? Maybe Isaiah 46, 9 and 10. Uh, that uh for example, as a text that would just that would make clear the doctrine of sovereignty.
SPEAKER_03Okay.
SPEAKER_00Right. Something like that. Did God speak clearly on those issues? Or do you feel I mean I'm sorry, I don't it sounds I say I feel condescending asking it that way.
SPEAKER_03No, no, no, no, it's a fair question. Yeah, I will I will say this. I don't I believe that God has revealed what he wants us to know, although it may not always be with the clarity that we may desire. Okay. So it's a perfect revelation. There's nothing nothing flawed about it. It's inerrant, right? It's infallible, it cannot, it cannot err. Okay. But because of our creaturely minds, as the infinite creator reveals himself, his will to us, um, there will be some things that we grasp onto much easier, and there will be other things that we struggle with.
SPEAKER_00Okay. All right. Uh concerning things like eschatology, and maybe this isn't connected with it, but what is are are there things that are easy to understand and things that are hard to understand? So where where do we find with that? Okay.
SPEAKER_03Within the general realm of eschatology, there are things that are more um clear because they've they're spoken of in more detail and more often in scripture, and then there are other things that are not spoken of as much and therefore are a little more difficult. Okay.
SPEAKER_00All right, let's go to ch uh chapter two, verse one. What is the day of the Lord?
SPEAKER_03What is the day of the Lord? Yeah. What is the day of the Lord? The day of the day of the Lord is the great revelation before all of humanity without question of his glory. It began with Christ at the cross. Um, the great display of his character was there, but as we would all testify, that is still veiled to uh to many. Um not see the glory of God. But in the day of the Lord, both in his mercy and in his judgment, um, it will be clear to all. There will be none that can even remotely say I'm an atheist today.
SPEAKER_00Is there a text you'd point to regarding the day of the Lord being in conjunction with the cross and forward? Yes. Okay, which text? Matthew 20. You talk about the Olivet Discourse?
SPEAKER_03No, no, no, no, I'm not going there, but that's another debate for another day, my friend. Um I the crucifixion of Matthew, I can't forget, it's like 26, 26, 27, but you know what I'm talking about. Crucifixion. Yeah. The way that the narrative describes the crucifixion, the darkness in day, the splitting of the rocks, the details that are given by Matthew, a Jewish author to a very Jewish audience, are parallel, yeah, painfully parallel to how the prophets describe the day of the Lord. Okay. He's trying to give us the understanding that this is not separate from that.
SPEAKER_00So were the Thessalonians in the day of the Lord then?
SPEAKER_03It would depend on what you mean by day of the Lord.
SPEAKER_00So in the sense that Paul's referring to it in chapter 2, verse 1, where he says that the day of the Lord, that you would not be sh shaken as if the day of the Lord has already come. So were they were they in that day of the Lord? What what do we think in there in that?
SPEAKER_03I know that some of the questions that the commentators discuss is what does Paul mean? So like there are different ways that day of the Lord gets used. Okay. What in in that particular instance, what is Paul referring to? Um, is it referring to the idea of, oh, we've already missed everything, like we've missed the resurrection, we missed all that. Um, or is Paul not necessarily disagreeing with the idea of the day of the Lord being present, but their misunderstanding of the function of it, uh their their placement within it? And so the day of the Lord is more than just a twenty maybe one thing I could say that would help with the conversation is say that it does not necessitate a 24-hour period.
SPEAKER_00Sure, that's I I get that that makes sense. Okay. Uh were there satanic signs and wonders associated with the day of the Lord? As it's maybe the text seems to imply, or where would you where would you see that?
SPEAKER_03With the day of the Lord? Yeah. Like the signs, when you talk about signs and wonders, you're talking about like from Second Thessalonians.
SPEAKER_00Like what Paul's talking about, yeah. In regard to satanic signs and wonders. I guess where does that fall into the whole question of who this man is and where do where's that all about all at?
SPEAKER_03I think that is yeah, that's a good question. You've obviously found one of my weak spots. And I would say that best I could say to that is Paul is giving further detail as to what this man will do, what he'll be up to, by whose power he'll be doing it by that's not merely a depraved man doing his sinful stuff, but that there's something supernatural about this this individual.
SPEAKER_00All right, let's talk about the man of lawlessness and the mystery of lawlessness. Is the man of lawlessness already at work? Or is it uh is that distinct from the mystery of lawlessness? How does that how does that look?
SPEAKER_03I would say it's hard to think through because it's clear the mystery. The mystery is already at work. You and I would agree on that because Paul says it pretty pretty plainly. Sure. Um the revelation of the man of lawlessness is yet future to Paul. We have to discuss if it's future to us, but it's future to Paul definitely in the text. Whether the man is in existence in the time of Paul or even now, that's the part we can't really necessarily determine because the revelation is future. The mystery is present with Paul in his day, but the man that's where I would argue there's some lack of clarity that we should not press too much into.
SPEAKER_00Is it possible that the man of lawlessness was revealed after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70?
SPEAKER_03I'm yeah, I'm open to that idea. I could not I could not in any way refute the idea that he came after. Because I have some sympathies, some sympathies toward it being the papacy. I'm not convinced, but I've got some sympathies toward that.
SPEAKER_00Very good. Let's just jump over the second coming. The text says that he'll be destroyed at Jesus' coming. What do you think Paul is referring to when he mentioned Jesus coming? What exactly is that?
SPEAKER_03That would so I so the first thing I would say is that I would understand that the terms of Jesus coming, his revealing, his appearance is one event, different words used to describe it. Um so that'll be the first thing that I would say to it is it's that return. So is it related to the bodily return of Christ? Is what you're saying, or yeah.
SPEAKER_00Okay, so maybe another way I could put it would be what took place in First Thessalonians 4, 13 through 18. Okay. So it's in reference to uh reference to the uh catching up, the calling up to be uh with him. Right. What is the what do you think this man's role is at Jesus coming?
SPEAKER_03Do the work of deception, okay, manifest the activity and will of the devil, I mean lead lead uh people uh against God?
SPEAKER_00Okay. If this is yet future to him and it's related to Jesus coming, would it not be future to us? I mean, how does that how does that look if it's in connection with Jesus coming?
SPEAKER_03Excellent question. That was actually something that going into this debate I was quite nervous about actually until I read chapter one, verse seven. This is not necessarily a slam dunk answer, but I think it definitely gives us something to think about. Chapter one, verse seven, I'm gonna start back in verse six. Since God indeed considered it just to repay with affliction those of you, uh those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted, as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels. Okay, he's talking to the Thessalonians 2,000 years ago, persons in that day and time, and he is saying that a future event, at least 2,000 years off, if it's, or it could be thousands from now, but sometime way off in the distance, that that return is going to be the answer to their problem in that moment 2,000 years ago. There was there's impact, there's direct connection between a quite far off future event and Paul's day. Okay. So we can't necessarily allow time to completely disregard or disconnect those things. So I think there is a possibility that you could have the man of lawlessness doing his activity, even being revealed before Jesus comes back without it necessarily being within a seven-year time frame.
SPEAKER_00Okay. So just so I can summarize, if I can do that, so what you're saying is that the in being in conjunction with the return of Christ, it doesn't necessarily have to be that because those people in that day were going to be dealt with somehow related to the return of Christ. Am I understand that correctly? Or can you just maybe make a simplification?
SPEAKER_03He said that relief, relief will come to you, you Thessalonians, who are afflicted as well as to us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven. So Jesus accomplishes bringing relief. Why can't it be accomplished that he brings about the end of the man of lawlessness? And something detail we have to consider in this is when we think of man of lawlessness, are we just thinking of a typical man that's going to live a typical 70-year life? There may be more to this man than we know. He could be in existence and revealed over a lengthy period of time. So he could be more than one man.
SPEAKER_00Could it be men of lawlessness?
SPEAKER_03Let me use you as an example. Again, I'm not naming the papacy as this, but using kind of go with G.K. Beale's analogy, hypothetically, let's let's say Martin Luther and John Jonathan Edwards were right that the papacy is it. It is a man in the sense of it is an office that is being held within an apostasy. That's what the Catholic Church is. It's the greatest apostasy that's ever been on this earth.
SPEAKER_02Okay.
SPEAKER_03And so in that sense, it would have begun after Paul, it would have been future to Paul, sometime around maybe year thousand thereabouts, and then Christ comes back and ends it. So there would be an example of what something like that could look like.
SPEAKER_00Okay. So Christ ends it, and it is, it could be when Paula says man of lawlessness, he's not, it could be men of lawlessness, essentially, is what you're talking about.
SPEAKER_03Man sometimes is used for that. I mean, maybe that's the other so there are commentators that question whether or not man should be understood as a singular person or the idea of it being mankind of lawlessness.
SPEAKER_00Alright, we got a couple more questions here. Um concerning the temple of God, are unbelievers the temple of God?
SPEAKER_03No.
SPEAKER_00Are churched unbelievers the temple of God?
SPEAKER_03Are churched unbelievers? No, they're still unbelievers, no.
SPEAKER_00Right. Okay. Would Paul say that only true believers in Christ are the temple of God?
SPEAKER_03Only true believers? They're the only ones that have the indwelling Holy Spirit that he speaks of in 1 Corinthians 12.
SPEAKER_00Will true believers worship this man of sin?
SPEAKER_03No.
SPEAKER_00Okay. Uh and I brought this out here already, but maybe you can address it a little more. 1 Corinthians 6, 19, 1920 tells us that believers' bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Does this man of perdition have the power of spiritual possession? Can he inhabit the body of Christians?
SPEAKER_03I'm gonna say no. I'm just kind of confused where that question's coming from.
SPEAKER_00Well, if again, in relation to the idea of the bodies being the temple of the Holy Spirit, the people of God, not necessarily the external church of God, but the true people of God. I think we're out of time, aren't we? Yeah, finish your question. And the last question here. Will it be by spiritual possession that he might inhabit the bodies of Christians in order that he might be exalted as God?
SPEAKER_03In all of my reading, I haven't seen anything remotely close to that idea of the A.
SPEAKER_00I didn't think you would say that. I'm just I'm just trying to try to be consistent with what Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians 3 and 6, and how that exactly what he's talking about, how that relates to what Temple of God means in first 2 Thessalonians 1 or 2 rather.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell This is why we
Sean Cross Examines Patke
SPEAKER_01meet together and have coffee. Yeah. Because this is what happens and it's great. So uh Sean, same rules for you, obviously apply. Your 15 minutes is uh starting right now.
SPEAKER_03So Okay. Packy. Could you list three to five teachers that hold your view on this text?
SPEAKER_00Uh Irenaeus, um John Chrysostom, uh let's see, Theodoret of I can create I give you the quotes, right? Theodoret of Cyrus, men uh men of the past, uh Jerome, another one who would uh would hold this view of the text that this is antichrist of a future nature. Same question, I'll reword it a little bit.
SPEAKER_03Um other than men that you have named in your opening statements, are there men that you could also name, maybe even current teachers?
SPEAKER_00John MacArthur would be one of them. Um Jade White Pentecost, John Walvard, uh, those are a couple other teachers that would hold this view. So in 60 seconds, could you define eschat what is eschatology? 60 seconds. 60 seconds is the doctrine of the end times. Do I need more?
SPEAKER_03I'm giving 60 seconds. I mean, if you want if you want to go further, I can I can keep moving along if you just want to leave the doctrine of the end times. Because I realized that would be the textbook definition of the word. Right. But like if somebody came up to you and asked you what is eschatology, would you just say doctrine of end times?
SPEAKER_00I guess I could say I guess I could say it's what God has spoken that would take place in the distant future, or perhaps in the near future. In the in the future, what he has promised that will take place in the end.
SPEAKER_03Which is more important in your estimation of Scripture?
SPEAKER_00The Church of God or the brick temple that Solomon built, or any of the temples that stood? Depends on what you mean by important. Are you talking about like important regarding interpreting this text? Mind if I ask for clarification? Um, or important as in like this is what's important for what is real, what is, you know, what should be, right? Yeah, it's a great question. I'll clarify it with another question. Which one did Jesus die for? Uh he died for the people, his people. Which Paul calls. Which Paul calls in 1 Corinthians uh 3 17 and uh 1 Corinthians 6 19 and 20, he says they're they who are the bodies, they're their bodies, is what you're talking about. They are the temple of God.
SPEAKER_03Right. And in Ephesians five, they're the church.
SPEAKER_00Okay. I'll look at Ephesians five, but you may be right. I think you're probably right.
SPEAKER_03No, it doesn't say it didn't say temple of God, I'm saying literally Christ died for the church. Correct. Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. Okay. In light of that, was Antiochus Epiphanes a type?
SPEAKER_00A type of this man?
SPEAKER_03Yes. Type of type of antichrist, type of man of lawlessness?
SPEAKER_00I believe so, yes.
SPEAKER_03Okay, what are some particulars that you see in him that would make him a type?
SPEAKER_00Well, I guess you could say in Daniel 11, in describing his act of abominating the temple of God, uh the abomination of desolation was spoken that he would clearly be the one who would commit the abomination of desolation.
SPEAKER_02Okay.
SPEAKER_00Uh and yet that same similar act where in uh a similar wording in Daniel 9, where he says, concerning uh this man in uh who would make a covenant with Israel for seven years, and uh not Israel, but with many nations, but he would make that covenant and break it halfway through, something Antigus never did. Uh make a seven-year covenant, break it, and then on the wing of abominations he will make desolate.
SPEAKER_02Okay.
SPEAKER_00And uh in fact, Jesus uh looked and used that terminology that when you see the abomination of desolation taking place in the Olive Discourse everywhere, he saw it as something future, even from his time. So um so would we just understand that it wasn't all fitting of Antiochus Epiphanies, if that makes sense. So you could use a type use a type, so something else is going to come along. Correct. Yeah. I would say he was he was a type of the character of this man.
SPEAKER_03So do do types and their fulfillment look identical?
SPEAKER_00Depends on what you mean by that. There are there times when I think so. I think that's probably a good answer. Sure, yeah, I think they could look at the floor. They're identical. They can look identical. I guess it I guess here's how we how I could say it. Um in the way in which the type is intended to portray him, it will be that way. So if it is the character of this man, then he's identical, if not just as evil as this man would be. He's looking toward the evil of this man. But does that mean that every single action is identical to what he would do? Not exactly. No, it doesn't have to be that. Does that make sense?
SPEAKER_03Yep. So in the scriptures, would you agree that the Passover lamb and the the temple itself was well, Passover lamb sacrifices and such were types of Christ? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So types are not, you're so you would agree, types are not identical to their fulfillment. Yeah.
SPEAKER_00Correct. Yeah. In the intention that the type itself was to convey that Christ would be the one who would take away the sins of the world in the same way the Passover lamb was supposed to be an atonement as well. Right. That's how it's I mean, but but Jesus didn't have wool, you know. Right. Right, if that makes sense. Yeah.
SPEAKER_03So which is more which is greater, more severe? Antiochus Epiphanes destroying the temple or the Antichrist destroying not destroying, but corrupting Christ's church?
SPEAKER_00Um, I I guess it it that's different if you're not asking if you're asking the historical reality of these things, like Antichrist corrupting the church. Um, if this text is talking about that, right, that's where our nature of disagreement is, then the corruption of the church. I don't know. I guess I couldn't tell you.
SPEAKER_03So you think that the future Antichrist will be doing pretty much identically what Epiphanes did with a literal temple just like Epiphanes?
SPEAKER_00I do think he will do the same thing with a literal temple, uh, just like Epiphany, except it will be, in the as I said in the opening statement, it will be not an exaltation of Zeus, um, but an exaltation of himself as God, which is why we would say that this is somebody different from Antiochus Epiphanes, uh, which is what uh Daniel 1136 uh begins a different topic from uh the one in the past. So there's another type, if you want to know about it, but uh that's fine. All right, I appreciate it though.
SPEAKER_03So question on genre. Yeah. You had mentioned that I talked about how there's apocalyp apocalyptic language within this passage. And he said it's an epistle, kind of hard to imagine there being apocalyptic literature. So the question with that being said, to bring clarity, the question is can two genres be found in one book?
SPEAKER_00Yeah, it can be, but you have to have clear indication of that. For example, Daniel, right? Daniel has the first half of it is historical, the second half of it begins uh his vision portion, right? And so from chapter 7 on to 12, you have clear indication that we have a vision coming from God, um, whether it's in a dream or whether he's awake, and you start seeing these apocalyptic imageries. It's not as if, like in the middle of just a mere explanation, like an epistle, that we now have all of a sudden he's having this vision or whatever. You know, you start seeing apocalyptic uh imagery that is now on display. Um essentially what Paul is doing is bringing commentary on these things from the Old Testament in order to explain to the people, in a sense, what these things uh are intending to convey and what they're uh and how he ought to be comforted as a result of that.
SPEAKER_03So are there more references to the man of lawlessness andor antichrist within apocalyptic literature in Scripture or within other genres?
SPEAKER_00I think what I would definitely say it's more in prophetic literature. So um I'm reading a book right now, um, I have it right in front of me. Tim Little writes uh in uh Isaiah, Isaiah 13 and 14, that that would be, and that's prophetic, not apocalyptic, that that would be in reference to the man, this this man as well, the final king, the king of Babylon, is what he's called in that text. And so, yeah, it would be Isaiah, you got Daniel, uh, you've got uh Revelation. Uh that would be uh that would be, but I would say this is the segue into understanding these things. Second Thessalonians 2 is a great segue into understanding the rest of prophetic literature on the topic. So yes.
SPEAKER_03Okay.
SPEAKER_00Hopefully that helps. So so Paul has gone into prophetic language, not apocalyptic. Well, he's gone into commentary language, explan explanatory language as to what these things will be. So he's not prophetic. So what's the difference between clarifying prophecy and prophecy? Uh I guess it's about as the same as somebody writing a commentary on the book of Daniel, as opposed to somebody who is uh uh actually Daniel himself giving that that language. That makes sense. Hopefully that probably makes sense.
SPEAKER_03So when Isaiah and Ezekiel and Joel speak about the same events, who's actually doing the prophecy and who's doing the commentating on the prophecy? They're all doing prophecy. They're all doing prophecy.
SPEAKER_00How do you discern the difference between they talk about the same thing and one's well they're all prophesying versus Paul isn't prophesying, he's actually just Because each one says the word of the Lord came to me and said, the word of the Lord came to me, all these things. That's the difference. And I'm not saying that just understand that I'm not saying Paul's con Paul's explanation of this is not inspired scripture, but it's just a different genre of inspired scripture.
SPEAKER_03So when did when does Paul ever say the word of the Lord came to me?
SPEAKER_00Again, this he's not he's not giving prophecy. Again, he's giving an epistle. Um we do understand that the writings of Paul, even as the text you brought out, are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Um that's exactly what uh what Peter said in 2 Peter 3, that they some twist it as many do with other scriptures. So Paul's writings are scripture, but again, Paul's not writing as a prophet like Daniel and John. So Paul's not giving prophecy in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2. Well, he's giving prophecy as revealed from the Old Testament. Does that make sense? It's like I'm talking about genre. Let's not try not to confuse the two. The genre is epistle, right? Can two genres operate in the same book?
SPEAKER_03Yes, they can. Okay. So with Revelation, Matthew 24, are those two are those mixtures of genres?
SPEAKER_00Yeah, there is prophecy that is given in that. Okay. There's prophecy given in Matthew, there's prophecy given in Revelation. Yes. Yep.
SPEAKER_03Okay. Well, let's move on to clarity, the topic of clarity. Um, who is I who is Isaiah speaking of? So you said you talked about how there is an issue of I should we my side should see more clarity within this text than I do. So on that topic, I say it's just bringing context. In Isaiah, who is he speaking of in Isaiah chapter 14, verse 4 through 21?
SPEAKER_004 through 21. I'm uh I'm reading a book right now in order to understand it, right? You've got to do the study, which is one of the points that uh uh, but there are some who believe that this man was uh a king of ancient times like Sennacherib and so on, but the demonstration of the words of the word, as you're looking as I'm reading through this book, by the words of the word, these things just don't make sense. Like it couldn't have been Nebuchadnezzar because the way he's described isn't found there. So we point ourselves back to the word in order to derive those things. And so uh the king of Babylon, the way he's described in there, does seem like there is a lot, and I'm saying seem because I haven't finished the book and I've not come to my conclusion fully on that. But the king of Babylon described there has elements of him that just don't fit any earthly king that we've seen, but also fits very much uh the one who would be dealt with at the end times. And so I would uh I would love to talk with Tim Little on the topic. We could have him on here. Who um who did God put on the Ark during the flood? Eight people altogether and uh two of each animal, plus some clean animals to Have uh any dissertations been written to clarify who God put onto the Ark? Um I'm not aware of any. Okay, because it's pretty clear as to who who is on there.
SPEAKER_03Right. Um what is the mark on Cain's head in Genesis 4?
SPEAKER_00Uh the mark on Cain's head was uh something by way of indicating that he would be um protected. Knowing exactly what that looks like, I would have to do more study on it.
SPEAKER_03Okay. What were the marks that doubting Thomas put his hands into? Those marks, what were they from?
SPEAKER_00They were from the cross.
SPEAKER_03Okay, so did you have to read a book or a dissertation to determine that?
SPEAKER_00No, you just need to look at the words of the word, right?
SPEAKER_03Okay.
SPEAKER_00And that's what the dissertation is pointing to, the words of the word in order to make that conclusion.
SPEAKER_03When Jesus said to his disciples in the book of Luke, um, if you if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak. Okay. Go buy a sword. And they say, We have two swords. Jesus' response is that is enough. What does he mean by that?
SPEAKER_00Now there uh I think what happened at that time, Peter hadn't had thought that that's enough. Okay, I get to bring my sword, so therefore he used it to hack off Malchus' ear uh eventually. But when he said that is enough, having uh I'm just going back to previous knowledge here of my study here, he's saying that it seems like bestie's saying that that's enough, you don't need to deal with this right now, or like knock it off kind of thing.
SPEAKER_03So this all comes from the Word of God, all these questions. Noah, the man in Isaiah. Yeah. So is all truth as clearly revealed in Scripture as other truths in Scripture?
SPEAKER_00Sure. As I mentioned in my opening statement, there are things that are hard to understand, and you're right to say that. And that's exactly what Peter said, right, in 2 Peter 3. Uh, but it is worthy of study, and it is something that you can come to in a lot of ways, a clear understanding of who this is as you compare scripture with scripture.
SPEAKER_03Can you be a faithful, diligent student of the word without reaching explicit clarity on a particular passage?
SPEAKER_00I believe you can. Yep. Okay. Yep. And I'm I would never, again, my challenge at the beginning was for my Reformed brethren to see this as a worthy study. Yeah, it is a worthy study, and you can come to explicit clarity on certain things. Keep going for five seconds. Well, what else would you say to the Reformed brothers? Uh, love you.
unknownOkay.
SPEAKER_03I was just dude, I just I man, I had I was like a minute, like second.
SPEAKER_01Did you have a thought you wanted to finish on? You make you finish.
SPEAKER_03No, no, that was that was I wanted to give Packy just an opportunity to continue. Yeah, I love you guys.
SPEAKER_00Can I finish that? I love I love you guys. Uh I love you, Reformed brethren, and I love you guys who are sitting in front of me. Yeah. This is a worthy endeavor that that I'm so glad to be a part of. Yeah and um yeah, um, you guys all are an important people in my life, and I'm so glad to be able to spend heaven with all of you. Yeah, and looking forward to uh um having a clearer eschatology for all of us in that day.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. I want
Conclusion
SPEAKER_01to just close the debate with I don't we don't have I'm gonna be the party pooper when it comes to time again. I'm gonna leave my questions maybe for another episode or maybe um probably.
SPEAKER_03We could just do like a do a revisit and just an episode revisit.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. Um last year for a while I was in First Thessalonians, haven't spent as much time in Second Thessalonians because of uh other worldly endeavors.
SPEAKER_03Uh but uh can you say that a different way? Because that just didn't mess up.
SPEAKER_00World-based endeavors, not worldly as in uh sin-based endeavors, right?
SPEAKER_01Right. Yeah, thank you for the clarification. Um yeah, not sin-based endeavors. Oh, I knew that, but just to clarify what you said. Yeah, no, I appreciate that. Just that uh one of the things that I remember, and it comes up very clear even in chapter two, is that this is supposed to be something that is encouraging us to hope. Yeah. And so um, however you listen to uh the debate and what you take from it, I hope that you're at least encouraged that the word of God does teach that this is something that uh brings us hope. And so uh, if you guys don't have any other uh closing comments, we'll close. And uh I hope that you've enjoyed another theologic debate.
.jpg)
.jpg)