Intro to 1 Cor 15 Hymenaeus and Philetus Part 5 The Temple Motif No 15

Now, this morning, we're going to, for sure, close the lesson on the subject of Hymeneus and Philetus. But I think I would be remiss if I didn't cover some of the information that I'm going to talk about today when I speak about this objection that is raised by those whom we term as futurists. We have nothing against people who differ with us in terms of how we feel about them, etc. We love them. This is not about our angst toward anyone. It is simply a matter of coming to the Scriptures and studying them and asking your question, what does the Bible say? And coming together to reason together, says the Lord. We know that we have received a tremendous amount of pushback and opposition to the position that we hold that Jesus Christ came in the first century in connection with the fall of Jerusalem as his second coming, or what we style as his second coming, the parrhesia, as taught in the Scriptures. And there's been a tremendous amount of pushback to that, even though we do have many out there who understand and accept the fact that there is a coming of the in the Scriptures. And most will use Matthew 24 to establish that because the Bible says, surely I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away until all these things take place. And they understand that all of the verses leading up to that point would have had to be fulfilled in 70 AD when the temple fell. And so that includes verse 30, which talks about the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. We also have a text in Matthew chapter 16 verses 27 and 28 that speaks of the son of man coming to reward each one according to his works, coming in the glory of his father. And then he would reward each according to his works. And by the way, that's a quote from a couple of Old Testament passages. And then he says, assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death, who will not die until they see the son of man coming in his kingdom. And Mark actually uses the perfect tense and say, they will not die until they have seen the kingdom of God come, which also includes the parrhesia because Christ comes in his kingdom. Nevertheless, as we learned from Luke chapter 17 and verse 20, the kingdom of God does not come with observation. So it's not something that we were looking for to be a nationalistic kingdom set up somewhere in a geographical location on this earth, particularly in the city of Jerusalem, that is not going to occur. And that's because of the nature of the kingdom of God. And when we talk about the kingdom of God, we are of course, talking about the temple as well. And that's going to be a little bit of our focus this morning, maybe more than a little bit of our focus as we look at Hymenaeus and Philetus and look at this in terms of how it is used as an objection to those very clear scriptures that teach that Christ has come. Now it would be good also at some point to talk about some of the implications and the ramifications of what that means, because it's a lot more broad than just a doctrine that we teach and it affects many more things in our lives than many of us are even aware of. And so it's important to at some point delve into that aspect of the subject as well. And of course, people are always asking, well, okay, if that is the case, then what now, what does this mean? And we have a lot of those questions answered. If you check out our YouTube page, as you go through several of the videos, people have asked all kinds of questions that we have responded to. And I also recommend you to check out other pages on the subject, such as Dunn Preston's Morning Musings page. Dunn has answered just pretty much almost every question that can be raised concerning the subject and has responded to it. And of course, you'll find many of those on Facebook as well. And the good thing about the Facebook audience that we have, they can answer the questions too, so ask them and they'll give you some great answers also. But nevertheless, let's go ahead and delve into the subject. I want to put the verse before you again, the verses the Bible says, and their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth saying that the resurrection is already passed. And that is the key point, ladies and gentlemen, of the text that's written here. They were saying that the resurrection is already passed, but they wrote that or set that way back in the first century. And so you can't just plug a text or pull a text, you know, snatch it out of the context, out of its historical setting, out of the first century, and then plug it into the 21st century and then claim that you have a teaching. And, you know, especially when you look at it from this point and you want to take every aspect of the text and impose it on future. And that is extremely critical and important and true when it comes down to a time text, that is a text that has some reference to time in it, because you have to interpret that time from the perspective in terms of which it was written. All right. And unless it gives you something specific relating to a number of years or something, then you have to start from where the time starts. But nevertheless, as we said, who have strayed concerning the truth saying that the resurrection is already passed and they overthrow the faith of some. Nevertheless, the solid foundation of God stands having this seal. The Lord knows those who are his and let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity. But in a great house, there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the master, prepared for every good work. All right. So now that we have the scripture before us, let's talk a little bit about what this means in terms of the subject matter that we have today. And we're going to be focusing on this great house and the other context, I would say, and it's really not the other context, but it is the context of 2 Timothy 2, 17 and 18 with regard to the nature of the resurrection and the events that are spoken of here. Good morning to you, Robin. All right. So when we look at Hymenaeus and Philetus, it's important that we also discuss the nature of the resurrection. Now we cannot escape this. It doesn't matter what view of resurrection that we have. We're going to run into some serious problems if we're trying to make it future, if we're trying to make it a materialistic or physical type of resurrection, et cetera. It's just going to have some colossal ramifications and problems. Now, so the question that we should ask then is what is the nature of the resurrection that Hymenaeus and Philetus espoused? What exactly were they teaching? Was it a physical resurrection that they were denying? Obviously this is how it is used against us. They're saying that we deny a physical resurrection, a future physical resurrection. And that is so true. We do deny that bodies are going to rise as corpses out of the ground. That is just simply not going to happen according to the scriptures. And if that's your first time hearing it, just stay tuned and we'll give you some reasons right here. But as we examine it more closely, let's just think about this for a moment. If the resurrection Hymenaeus and Philetus were denying was physical, then they would have to be claiming that people had already died and were physically raised from the dead. That the general resurrection had already occurred at some time in the past. They weren't denying resurrection, ladies and gentlemen. And see, it amazes me that when we talk about resurrection and we will affirm it from 1 Corinthians 15, from 1 Thessalonians 4, from Revelation 11, from John 5, and just about any other texts that you can bring up, we affirm resurrection. And yet the people who make the objection and who try to shove Hymenaeus and Philetus doctrine down our throats, what they say is we deny resurrection. No, that's not true. Pay attention. We're not denying resurrection. We're denying the timing and the nature that you are placing on resurrection. If you fall into that category of futurism, if you believe that these things have not yet been fulfilled, Hymenaeus and Philetus weren't denying resurrection from the perspective of denying that the event would occur. They weren't saying it didn't occur. They said that it had already occurred. That is an affirmation of resurrection. And the problem is the point that most people just skirt over. And that is that they were saying that it was already passed. They didn't say it wasn't going to happen, that there was no such thing as the resurrection, that this was a bogus doctrine. No, that's not what they did. They simply said the resurrection was already passed. Now, I think that is the point that should be focused on. And the questions should be centered around why were these men saying in around AD 67 to AD 68, before the temple that was in Jerusalem fell, why were they saying that the resurrection was already passed? So the first thing is how could a physical resurrection be passed when all the members of the church were still running around, still living on earth, according to this future, you know, this futurist doctrine that, you know, they're no longer going to be on earth. They're going to be swooped off to heaven somewhere. And how could they say that, that it had already occurred? So that means that they would have believed that Stephen and James and many others who had been put to death had already, and including all the Old Testament saints as well, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Joe, you name it, the whole list of them found in Hebrews 11, they would have to be saying that all of them, both the Old Testament saints who had died in previous generations and all the New Testament saints who had died, as well as all the others who had died, whether they were saints or not, because they believe in this resurrection of the dead for the righteous and the wicked. So that would mean that the physical resurrection, according to them, or that that Hymenaeus and Philetus were affirming that such a resurrection had already occurred. Now, just think about that for a moment, because that's the implication of saying that the nature of the resurrection is physical. That would be what Hymenaeus and Philetus were saying. I don't think the men were that ignorant or uninformed about the resurrection. The second thing is, since resurrection of the living would involve a change, in other words, this mortal must put on immortality, this corruption must put on incorruption, and we know that our futurist friends turned that into a physical change. As the Bible says, the dead shall be raised incorruptible and we, the living, shall be changed. And so they say, well, that means our bodies, our physical bodies are going to be transformed into some non-perishable bodies, some bodies that will not die. Well, if Hymenaeus and Philetus believed that the resurrection had already occurred, they would likewise have to believe that this instantaneous change that the futurists talk about in a moment in the twinkling of an eye, right, had already occurred. And therefore, they themselves, along with Paul and all the rest, were already in their physically immortal state. They had already been transformed. See, that would be the implication of that. But look at what some of the other implications are. If that were the case, that would have to be suggesting that, okay, these men could not die, and yet they're still hanging around here on earth. It would indicate that this concept of physical immortality has, you know, a bit of challenges to it, because here are these men who are allegedly already changed if they're saying the resurrection has already passed. The dead have already been raised, and the living have already been changed into these physically immortal bodies, and yet we have life going on as usual. Now, what does that say about the nature of the resurrection that Hymenaeus and Philetus taught and that they were denying? It could not possibly have been a physical resurrection. It could not possibly have been some type of physical transformation of bodily substance that your cells and bones and blood and everything else that constitutes a human being was going to be changed into some metaphysical condition or state. No, that was not what they were teaching. And it should be obvious, when we look at the text, that they could not have been affirming that a physical resurrection was already passed. I mean, just like today, people would be saying, that's utterly, utterly ridiculous. And so, what else would it be saying regarding all the other eschatological events? Because as Paul taught in 2 Timothy 4 in verse 1, I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is about to judge the living and the dead, and is appearing in his kingdom. Now, he said that in the first century, that he was about to do that, about to judge. In light of all the other constituent elements, Hymenaeus and Philetus would have to also have believed and taught that those things were passed. And you know what that would include? It would mean that the judgment was already passed. Well, see, there's a conflict right there between what Paul said in verse 1 of chapter 4 and what they were saying. They were saying already passed, so that means the judgment was already passed, according to Hymenaeus and Philetus, that Christ had already come and separated the sheep from the goats. And so, that's already done in the past. They would be saying that the thousand years reign was already passed. And therefore, it could not have been a literal 1000 years, which it is not. They would be saying that the everlasting kingdom had arrived. And of course, there was no kingdom set up in Jerusalem at that time. So, it couldn't have been the doctrine of dispensationalism, could it? They would have been saying that the end of the world had already occurred. And yet, there they were with their feet flat, planted on the ground. They would also have been saying that the regathering of Israel had already taken place. Now, if you're going to make that literal, look at what that implication is. That national Israel was already regathered, if that is what they were arguing. All of those are constituent elements of the coming of the Lord. At least, not that it's a natural regathering. I'll get to that in a moment. But there was a regathering of Israel that had to occur. That's what Matthew 24, 31 is all about. That's what 2 Thessalonians 2 is all about. We're going to talk about that. If you want to call in and discuss this, the number is 901-260-5926. And make sure that your questions are pertaining to the lesson because we're trying to cover some points that people need to think about when they start raising the objection of Hymenaeus and Philetus against a fulfilled resurrection in the first century. It would also mean, as I mentioned, that the Lord had occurred. So, where was Christ? Was he sitting on a literal throne in Jerusalem? If the resurrection were already passed, and if they were affirming a physical resurrection, who saw him come on literal clouds out of the sky to sit on a literal throne in Jerusalem? It couldn't have happened, ladies and gentlemen. That tells you the nature of the resurrection they were affirming was not physical. And then, what about the sound of the trumpet? Who heard it? It means that the last trumpet would have sounded already. And yet, everybody must have gone deaf because it doesn't appear that anyone saw it. Let's see what Alvin says this morning. And good morning to you. Oh, absolutely. Great one, Alvin. The end of time would not have occurred because time was still going on. So, that would have told you that Hymenaeus and Philetus did not believe in a resurrection that was associated with the end of time. Nor that the end of time, that's not even in the Bible, except in the New American Standard, but others teach it and believe it. I think it's also, I was thinking it might be in the, I can't even think of the translation. But anyway, we know that it's there and thank you for that. So, do you see the problems with trying to affirm that Hymenaeus and Philetus either were denying resurrection or were teaching that it was a physical resurrection that was already passed. They could not have believed that. That leaves us in view of all of these conditions and circumstances and implications that they must have believed that the nature of the resurrection that was passed was of a spiritual nature. It couldn't have been anything else because all of those other things, the world hadn't burned up, ladies and gentlemen, as people affirm from 2 Peter chapter 3. They weren't walking around on red hot coals of smolting earth and lava and whatever. Can you imagine? Now, if you could throw some of the servants of Nebuchadnezzar in a burning fiery furnace and they burn up before they ever get to the bottom, how much more the earth burning up? You see, that wasn't their doctrine and it wasn't Paul's either. So, it wasn't a physical resurrection and that should be clear from the text. Now, in addition to that, we need to also see a correlation between the doctrine of Hymenaeus and Philetus and that of the Thessalonians in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2. So, let's go over there and see if what the Thessalonians believed was not very similar, if not identical to what Hymenaeus and Philetus believed. And we can see that by looking at the implications of that as well. Now, when we turn to 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 and the verses 1, the Bible says, now brethren concerning what? The coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him. Look, they weren't waiting on the year 2019 to gather. I say that for our Hebrew Israelite friends. And they're not waiting today to gather. For all the dispensationalists out there and even some of the confused futurists who think that there is a regathering of Israel. The Bible says they were already gathering in the first century. Now, I don't believe that there was a long line of Israelites headed down to Jerusalem from all the territories and countries where they had been scattered at the time Paul wrote. And there's no one who can show that in scripture or in history. The Bible says now brethren concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, that's the Pharisee and our gathering, that's a present tense gathering together to him, we ask you. Now they would have to have believed that Christ was already on earth if they were going to be gathering in Jerusalem with me. And our gathering to him, we ask you not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as if we taught it. And that's Paul telling you, look, we didn't teach what we're about to say. As though the day of Christ had come. Now look at that very carefully. If you've got a King James version, you've got a mistranslation of the text. They mistranslated the word for had come. The new King James version got it corrected some of the others. And Terry says, or the end of the age. Exactly. And so he says, as though the day of Christ had come. Now the time of writing second Thessalonians was around AD 52 or so, which was about what, 15 to 17 years earlier than the doctrine recorded by Hymenaeus and Philetus. But I want you to note something when you look at the text again in second Thessalonians, I'm second Timothy chapter two, notice the text says that they were saying that the resurrection was passed already or already passed. And they overthrew the faith of some. Now, what that tells you is that this didn't happen overnight. It wasn't an instantaneous thing. They have had time to teach their doctrine to the extent that people have begun to believe it and turn away from the faith. And Paul records this turning away from the faith, both in first and second Timothy. So if some of them were turning away because of the doctrine of Hymenaeus and Philetus, it shows you that they had been at this at least for some time. How long? We don't know. But if we compare the teaching of Hymenaeus and Philetus with those in Thessalonica, at least you get some idea of how early this doctrine may have originated. So Paul tells them that they weren't to be soon shaken in mind or troubled either by spirit or by word or by letter as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. Now look at how he uses the word soon, by the way. Did he use it to cover 2000 years like these futurists do? No, he used soon in the context of what the Thessalonians were already doing. He says they shouldn't be soon shaken in mind. Well, they were already being shaken. So soon couldn't have been some 2000 years away. And yet we have all these futurists trying to deny the coming of the Lord in the first century, telling us soon doesn't mean soon. They go back and reinterpret every time statement that has ever been invented in order to prop up their doctrine. But he says as though the day of the Lord or day of Christ had come. Now, what does that mean? The word had come in the text is translated from histemi. It is in the, I think the present form in estakin. And that means that it had already come and stood with existing results. That is, they are now living in the results of the return of Christ. That's what the Thessalonians believed. That's what they were teaching. Paul had to write to them and tell them, no, Christ hasn't yet come. Wait a minute. How could they have believed that Jesus had come, that they were living in the post-parousia world. And yet all of those things that we mentioned just a moment ago regarding Hymenaeus and Philetus were the same for these here in Thessalonica. Now look, there are seven occurrences of the word histemi or in estakin in the new Testament. And every time we find the word, it is always translated present. It doesn't mean at hand as the new King James rendered it. They weren't denying that the coming of the Lord was at hand. That's the word in goose. It's not in the text. They were denying that it, or they weren't saying that the coming of the Lord was not at hand. That's not what they were saying. What they were saying was that it had already come in 52 AD and that they were living in the results of that coming. That word in Romans 8 and is translated as things present. And it is contrasted with things to come things that were about to come. So when you have the word things present, it is even placed in opposition to, or in contradiction to things that were about to come. So you have things already present versus things that were about to come. Now look at the text regarding Hymenaeus and Philetus. They were saying the resurrection is already passed. And here is Paul saying, or rather you have Paul saying that these things were about to come. So the word present stands over against about to come, even imminent future things. Then you have the word used in first Corinthians three and verse 22, same concept, things present versus things to come. In first Corinthians seven and when Paul talks about the present distress, that was something that was going on in the first century. It was the tribulation, the persecutions, et cetera, the labor pains that the church was going through during their trials, but it was called the present distress. Same word used here in second Thessalonians chapter two and verse two. In Galatians one and verse four, it's called the present evil age. That's the age of Moses. That's not the Christian age. And yet those who deny these time statements, they will make the Christian age and evil age that Christ died to deliver us from one evil age only to place us in another evil age. How evil is that? Doesn't make sense, ladies and gentlemen, because people are not reasoning from the scriptures and we're just to get them to reason and to think a little bit so that we understand the Bible correctly. In second Timothy chapter two, or excuse me, second Timothy chapter three and verse one, when he says, no, this also that in the last days, perilous times shall come. No, it doesn't say that. It's the same word. It says perilous times shall be present. So there again, it's using the word present. They were already in the last days and the times are already treacherous and present. And then in Hebrews nine and verse nine, when he talks about the law, he says, it was symbolic for the present time. He's talking about the law of Moses. It's symbolic for the present time, not for some future time. And there again is the same word in second Thessalonians two, two. So it means that they believe that the coming of the Lord was already present. And so the common event between second Thessalonians chapter two and verse two and four and second Timothy chapter two verses 17 through 21 is that they both believed that the coming of the Lord had already occurred. And therefore they both would have believed that the resurrection was already passed because you can't have a ladies and gentlemen, without the resurrection. That's what first Corinthians 15 teaches Christ, the first fruit afterward, those who are Christ at his coming. And that would mean that the judgment had already occurred. It would mean that the world had already burned up and here all the Thessalonians just running around, happy, go lucky. They couldn't even feel the fire. It would mean that the thousand years that already occurred, that Satan was already destroyed. Death was already done away with. There should have been no more physical dying after second Timothy two, 17 and 18 and second Thessalonians two. If they believe this was physical, see, this is telling you that not even the Thessalonians believed in a physical resurrection from physical death, but they had to have believed that something had already occurred. And that might've been part of their concern in the first epistle. And the reason Paul told them not to sorrow as others who had no hope, it would mean that the kingdom had already arrived. So all of those things, ladies and gentlemen, that we affirmed for Hymenaeus and Philetus would have to be true for the Thessalonians. Now here's the point that is missed, I think by many in studying the subject of Hymenaeus and Philetus as well as second Thessalonians. Here's the common ground in both of those texts. The common denominator in both of those passages is that the temple in Jerusalem was still standing. The temple in Jerusalem had not yet been destroyed. Now we pointed out very early on in our study of Hymenaeus and Philetus, when we went back to the first epistle of Timothy, we pointed out they were not Gnostics, they were Judaizers. They were affirming things of the law. Now, if you can understand that to teach that the parousia had already occurred as early as 52 AD, or even in 67 or 68 AD, which again, remember that means that they had been teaching this for some time because they'd already overthrown the faith of some. So we have to acknowledge and admit that the doctrine of Hymenaeus and Philetus didn't just pop up when Paul wrote it. And so they were teaching that the resurrection and the coming of the Lord and the end of the age were all separated from the destruction of the temple. And it makes perfect sense because they were Judaizers and they were trying to perpetuate the law of Moses and continue temple worship and priesthood, et cetera, and thereby reject the authority of Christ who was now the high priest. That's what they were doing, simply advocating Judaism. They were trying to combine Christianity with the law and say to the people, you don't have to forsake Moses to follow Christ. You can continue. The temple is going to be here forever. It's not going to be destroyed. Now look, that's why they put Stephen to death because they said, we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will come and destroy this place and change the customs that were delivered to us by Moses. Well, apparently Hymenaeus and Philetus didn't believe that. And apparently many in Thessalonica had begun to doubt that because they were thinking that the resurrection was already passed. Therefore the coming of the Lord, the judgment, the kingdom, all of these things, all of that was in the past. And here's the temple still standing. Now, what does that do to Matthew 24 in verse three? When the disciples asked Jesus the question, when will these things be? What will be the sign of your parrhesia or your coming end of the end of the age? And then the response that he gave them, look, it's going to happen when Jerusalem is destroyed. Luke 21 verses 20 through 22. And when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that his desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let those who are in the midst of her depart and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance that all things which are written may be fulfilled. Now, Jesus placed the fulfillment of all things at the destruction of the temple. Those were the days of vengeance when all things written would be fulfilled. Hymenaeus and Philetus saying, no Lord, they were already fulfilled. But Thessalonica can say they were already fulfilled in 52 AD. Can you see the difference between Jesus' teaching and theirs? See, Jesus taught his coming was in association with the destruction of the temple. But Hymenaeus and Philetus, the Judaizers, along with those who had been misled in Thessalonica were believing it had already happened apart from the destruction of the temple. Now watch the instructions that Paul gives them to tell them how they would know when the coming of the Lord would occur. In verse three, he gives them two signs. Now, this is for all the people out there in futurism land who claim that there are no signs of the Parisia. See, they will go to Matthew 24 and say, Jesus gave signs of his coming at the destruction of Jerusalem, but he didn't give signs of his return. Well, what were they discussing in second Thessalonians chapter two in verse one? I think, no, I don't think let's read it again. No brethren or now brethren concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him. We ask you not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled either by spirit or by word or by letter as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. So they were definitely talking about the coming of the Lord, but look at what he gave them. He gave them two signs. Good morning. Cindy gave them two signs. Let's see. Dale says, but the phrase at hand can mean present or currently as in the topic at hand today is Hymenaeus and Philetus. Well, the topic is present Dale. You can say at hand, but that hand literally means to have your hand before your face. It means that, but I don't think when you look at the distinction between the two, there is a definite distinction between already present and something that is imminent or near. Now you can say something is so near that it appears to be present, but it's actually present when it's occurring. When you look in second Thessalonians two, here's what Paul tells him. He says, let no one deceive you by any means for that day. What day that's the coming of the Lord will not come unless the falling away comes first. And the man of sin is revealed. The son of perdition, the man of lawlessness. So what Paul did, he didn't say, look around under your feet, look in the graveyard, look at the sky. He didn't tell him to go look for anything. He didn't say be gathered back to Jerusalem in a physical gathering. He said that day will not come unless there is the apostasy, the very thing Jesus taught in Matthew 24 verse nine, unless the apostasy, the falling away comes first. So they had to look for a sign in order to see the day of the Lord. You don't use a sign for something that you can see, ladies and gentlemen, you use a sign for something you can't see. So if there wasn't a stop sign at the corner, you would know to stop. So they have to put a sign at the corner to let you know that corner requires you to stop, but you won't see stop written out there in the air somewhere. That's why they put a sign up. So Paul had to give them a sign. Now, when you see this sign, then you will know that it's near, but let's go on. They also read his whole comment. All right, Dale, let's see what you got. Where are you? Uh, let me see if I can get to that. Uh, but the phrase at hand can mean present or currently as in the topic at hand I don't see any more than that, Dale. I'm not sure what you're saying. Uh, you might want to type it in again and I'll look at it and see if I can, uh, catch what you're saying. All right, well, let's go on for the moment because we're running out of time here. And I had a whole nother section that I wanted to, to get to that. I haven't even, um, got to as of now, then in verse four, now watch this who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God. This is the man of lawlessness now, or that is worshiped so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Now, wait a minute. Do you see how Paul connected the coming of the Lord, the day of the Lord with the temple? He said, the man of sin, the man of lawlessness would sit in the temple of God, showing himself that he was God. Where's the temple of day that temple was destroyed in 70, 80. And Paul says, do you not remember that when I was still with you, I told you these things. And now, you know, what is restraining that he may be revealed in his own time. Look, the man of lawlessness was already being restrained. He says, well, the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Here is Paul saying that the mystery of iniquity was already at work. Now, if you're going to believe one already believe the other one as well, only he who now restrains will do so until he's taken out of the way. So there was a restrainer present as well. I don't have time to go into that, but ladies and gentlemen, it was already occurring. Paul had already told him, he says, when you see these things going on in the temple, that's the same instruction Jesus gave them. When you see an abomination of desolation, the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel, the prophet standing in the holy place, then you flee from the city. Then you will know that the coming is near. And yet these people who are using hymen is totally separated and sever it from the teaching of the Pharisee and the temple. That's why Paul said it was about to occur because 70 AD and the destruction of the temple were just a few years away from the time that Paul wrote second Thessalonians and not too far away from the time that Thessalonians was written. Now, let me get in this last text and I don't have time to develop it, but I'm just going to put it there so you can see all of these elements together. Because if you're teaching a Pharisee, a resurrection, a judgment, et cetera, separate and apart from the temple, then you are failing to understand second Thessalonians and second Timothy. And by the way, as I mentioned on last week, when I was talking about second Thessalonians, this is why Paul goes in, I mean, second Timothy, this is why Paul goes into the discussion regarding the great house. Notice he says in verse 19 of second Timothy two, nevertheless, the solid foundation of God stands. What is the solid foundation? The Bible says there's no other foundation that can be laid, which is Jesus Christ. He's the foundation of the new temple of God. And so the solid foundation of God stands having this seal. The Lord knows those who are his and let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity. To reject this new temple was to reject the priesthood of Christ and therefore to fall into the same rebellion of, uh, uh, Nathan, Corinna, Byron and meet the same in impending judgment, as we quoted from Nahum one and verse seven and that context. Then he says in verse 20, but in a great house, what is that house? That's the temple of God. Paul told the church, you are the temple of the living God. So he's not advocating for the physical temple to continue. He's showing the transition from that old Jewish economy to the new Testament economy, where we have a house not made with hands, one that you don't see with your physical eyes. All right, let's see if we can get this passage in very quickly. And Isaiah chapter 27, let's look at all the constituent elements that are placed in connection with the coming of the Lord. In verse nine, the Bible says, therefore, by the iniquity of Jacob, excuse me, therefore, by this, the iniquity of Jacob will be covered. And this is all the fruit of taking away his sin. When he makes all the stones of the altar, like chalk stones that are beaten to dust. Now I asked the futurist not too long ago about this text. And I also asked the Hebrew Israelite, the Hebrew Israelite didn't respond at all. He said he didn't know what he meant. And the futurist tried to make this happen at the death of Christ. So I came back and asked him, well, when were all the chalk stones of the altar beaten to dust at Jesus' death and resurrection? Now he admitted in the text that the fortified city coming up was the destruction of Jerusalem and that this was the taking away of Jacob's sin. And I cited to him Romans 11, 25 through 27, where it says the Lord, the deliverer shall come out of Zion and he shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob for this is my covenant to them. When I take away their sins, that was a future text at the time Paul wrote, it was related to the Parisia and it showed that that was when he was going to take away Jacob's sin. But in this context, he said is when the chalk stones of the altar are beaten to dust, wooden images and incense altars shall not stand yet. The fortified city that's Jerusalem will be desolate. The habitation forsaken and left like a wilderness. There the calf will feed and there it will lie down and consume its branches. When its bowels are with it, they will be broken off. The women come and set them on fire for it is a people of no understanding or quote directly from Deuteronomy 32. Therefore, he who made them will not have mercy on them and he who formed them will show them no favor. That is God bringing judgment on Jerusalem. Now, ladies and gentlemen, in verse 12, he says it will come to pass in that day. And in verse 13, that's the day when the trumpet shall be blown. Put all that together and you will see a time of the coming of the Lord. Look, we're out of time. It's been a pleasure being with you, Dale. I'll have to cover that with you a little bit later, but thank you all for listening. Tune in next week at eight until nine for the All Things Filled broadcast presented by the Church of Christ at Rains Road. I'm William Bell. May God bless you and you have a good morning.