Paul's incomplete answer to the Thessalonians

[AaronBDisney]

2 THES 2:1-4 NKJV
1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 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. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

I agree with the notion that the much talked about "Great Tribulation" is difficult to see in the scriptures, if not impossible to see. I have come to the conclusion that it is probably not a future reality. At least not a future reality foretold by Scripture. I certainly see no reason for believing in a two stage second coming in which we Christians will be removed to be protected from this unparalleled time of agony.

Yet, as I read Paul's answer to the Thessalonians' misunderstanding of the second coming, it seems a bit confusing why he answered it like he did. If the general understanding was that at the coming of the Lord there would be instant destruction to those who loved not the truth and that the world would be destroyed with fire, why would he not point out that this was obviously not happening?

He explains that the second coming has not occurred because the "man of sin" must first be revealed and the "falling away". Why not point out that the dead are not yet raised and the Lord is not with the in their midst....visibly? I can understand why he would reveal these prophetic future occurences of the apostacy and the man of sin, but why does he not point out the more obvious answers to their question? Any ideas?

[steve]

That is a good question, and I can't answer for Paul on his reasons. Perhaps, in this passage, he was not simply trying to say that there were obvious evidences that Christ had not come, but he wished to underscore certain intervening events for their own sake—that is, not only because their not having occurred proves that Jesus has not come (since, as you say, there are many other clear evidences he might also have pointed out if this was his only concern), but because he wanted to call their attention additionally to some of the changes in the world and in the church that were to anticipated.

However, in the same epistle he did speak of the things that he did not mention here:

"...since it is a righteous thing with God ...to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Thessalonians 1:6-8)

The fact that some of the Thessalonian Christians believed that the secon coming had already occurred suggests that they had rather sketchy understanding of what this event would entail (Paul may have only been with them for a few weeks after their conversion (Acts 17).

[AaronBDisney]

Actually, Steve, I didn't notice for some reason, but what you quoted was only a couple of verses after what I quoted. It almost seems that Paul is kind of subtly throwing in the fact that the world will be destroyed with fire at that time - politely indicating that they should have realized that the end had not come. Kind of a "duh" in the form of scriptural doctrine.

In reading this it just struck me that this answer he'd given would be good ammo for the dispensationalist idea of life (somewhat) as we know it continuing on earth after we go to be with the Lord, because Paul did not seem to be astounded at such a suggestion, but calmly reasoned with them on the basis of previously conveyed prophesies.

[Conquest]

Actually, Steve, I didn't notice for some reason, but what you quoted was only a couple of verses after what I quoted. It almost seems that Paul is kind of subtly throwing in the fact that the world will be destroyed with fire at that time - politely indicating that they should have realized that the end had not come. Kind of a "duh" in the form of scriptural doctrine.

In reading this it just struck me that this answer he'd given would be good ammo for the dispensationalist idea of life (somewhat) as we know it continuing on earth after we go to be with the Lord, because Paul did not seem to be astounded at such a suggestion, but calmly reasoned with them on the basis of previously conveyed prophesies.

Have you considered the possiblity that the "coming" addressed in 2 Then 2 is a different event than what is described in other areas of the letters to the Thessalonians like 1 Thess 4?

Conquest

[AaronBDisney]

Have you considered the possiblity that the "coming" addressed in 2 Then 2 is a different event than what is described in other areas of the letters to the Thessalonians like 1 Thess 4?

If you would be referring to 70AD, I'd have a little difficulty seeing it that way. He said that before the 'coming' he refers to here occurs the "man of sin" must appear and that, as far as I understand, could not be until the Roman empire fell according to Daniel, which was long after 70AD.

[MoGrace2u]

Have you considered the possiblity that the "coming" addressed in 2 Then 2 is a different event than what is described in other areas of the letters to the Thessalonians like 1 Thess 4?

If you would be referring to 70AD, I'd have a little difficulty seeing it that way. He said that before the 'coming' he refers to here occurs the "man of sin" must appear and that, as far as I understand, could not be until the Roman empire fell according to Daniel, which was long after 70AD.

It wasn't so much that a man of sin had to be brought on the scene, rather that it needed to be revealed who he was because his iniquity was already at work in that day. This is what was still being kept underwraps until the timing came to uncover it. And then it would be known who it was that was working by the power of Satan when his iniquity reached its fullness. A son who currently appeared to be a servant of God in the temple of God but really was law-less and antichrist - a corrupt high priest, perhaps?

This 'son of perdition' reminds us of Judas who the Lord referred to by the same idiom (John 17:12). And also brings to our recollection who it was that bribed him to betray the Lord with 30 sheckels of silver - the priests.

The manifestation of who were the true sons of God and who were the sons of disobedience was still being effectively concealed in that day when the saints were being persecuted by the Jewish rulers & Rome. It was those Judaizers - sent by the priests, who followed Paul around trying to get him & his disciples arrested. Which is probably the scenario Paul refers to about when he had visited them and first told them about these things (Acts 17).

Things requiring their patient continuance in faith and good works until all these things were brought to their prophetic conclusion.

Robin

[steve]

One of my problems with full-preterism is that it seems compelled to shove all eschatological information into one pigeonhole, whether it is a good fit or not.

For example, I have no problem seeing Revelation as being primarily about AD70, even though it was written to churches in Asia, who were not as directly affected by it as were the Judean Christians (the latter had received separate warnings of the same type from Jesus Himself, in the Olivet Discourse). As the time approached for this calamity, it would be a topic of great interest and concern to all Christians in the Empire, including the churches of Asia.

I have a harder time seeing the material in Thessalonians that way—mainly because this was a brand-new church, not very near the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (AD 49-51), and not very near, geographically, to ground zero (Jerusalem). This does not mean that the destruction of Jerusalem would be of no interest to them. It just seems that it would hardly be such an obsessive interest (as would seem to be the case by its prominence throughout both epistles) to such novice Gentile Christians, who had problems closer to home with which to be concerned—i.e., local persecution (1 Thess.2:14/ 2 Thess.1:5-6).

If "the coming of the Lord," to which Paul refers so frequently in these epistles, is, as I believe, actually the end of the world, which might come at any time (for all anyone knows), then this subject would be—and always has been—of great interest to suffering saints. If, on the other hand, "the coming of the Lord" is a reference to an event that would have little direct impact upon their circumstances—which was some twenty years distant—while it might be a point of some interest, it probably would not eclipse much more pressing concerns to these churches at that point in time.

The fact that the Thessalonian epistles also identify the coming of the Lord with such events as the resurrection of dead saints and the rapture of living ones (1 Thess.4:16-18), which would be the occasion of the Thessalonians' ultimate "rest" from the persecutions they were suffering (2 Thess.1:7), makes it increasingly unlikely that the events of AD70 are here in view. Add to this the fact that these are not apocalyptic-style letters, nor written to Jews, who were familiar with the apocalyptic genre, and the likelihood is further diminished of these being apocalyptic terms for the fall of Jerusalem.

I also see very little merit in the theory that the "man of lawlessness," whom Paul says was to sit in the church (the temple of God) and to proclaim himself to be God, would turn out to be a first-century Jewish temple official. After all, such a man, if there was one, was too obscure to be identified from any historical sources—and would probably have been too obscure to serve as a signal to the Thessalonians, hundreds of miles away, that the final obstacle had now been taken out of the way for the destruction of Jerusalem. Can anyone who holds such a theory explain why Paul would say that such a man "must" be revealed before the Romans could destroy the city? Were the Romans influenced in their aggressive actions by the presence of a bad Jewish priest within the city walls? This seems so far-fetched, to my mind, that I must reject any schema that pressures its adherents to resort to such expedients.

[Sean]

2 THES 2:1-4 NKJV
1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 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. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

I agree with the notion that the much talked about "Great Tribulation" is difficult to see in the scriptures, if not impossible to see. I have come to the conclusion that it is probably not a future reality. At least not a future reality foretold by Scripture. I certainly see no reason for believing in a two stage second coming in which we Christians will be removed to be protected from this unparalleled time of agony.

Yet, as I read Paul's answer to the Thessalonians' misunderstanding of the second coming, it seems a bit confusing why he answered it like he did. If the general understanding was that at the coming of the Lord there would be instant destruction to those who loved not the truth and that the world would be destroyed with fire, why would he not point out that this was obviously not happening?

He explains that the second coming has not occurred because the "man of sin" must first be revealed and the "falling away". Why not point out that the dead are not yet raised and the Lord is not with the in their midst....visibly? I can understand why he would reveal these prophetic future occurences of the apostacy and the man of sin, but why does he not point out the more obvious answers to their question? Any ideas?

One possibility is that this passage still awaits a future fulfilment.

Revelation 20:7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. 9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.

It's possible that Paul is speaking of this final attack and apostasy. Note the similarities between Rev 20 and 2 Thes 2:

2 Thes 2:6 And now you know what is restraining (binding of Satan mentioned in Rev 20), that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 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.

Then what happends when Satan is released?

8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.

And the man of sin, the lawless one is said to be:

9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan

So it's at least possible that Paul is speaking of the final release of Satan, resulting in a singular "man of sin" who wages a final battle against the saints. This causes the weak to fall away, leaving only "those who endure to the end" and it brings the return of Christ in flaming fire.

I'm undecided at this point. But it's interesting.

[AaronBDisney]

Interesting points, Sean. The fact that the Devil must be released for a short period of time is sort of a difficult thing for me to grasp as far as the Amil understanding goes. The chaining and binding make enough sense, but if the cross is what bound him (reduced him to inactivity) how will the power of that binding be releived, even for a little while?

My point to the thread was that these people were afraid they may have missed the boat. They obviously had not if it is in reference to His second coming. It just seemed odd to me that the first things Paul mentions as proofs of that fact were so obscure. It would seem to me he would first have mentioned that the dead were still in their graves, the world was still untouched by fire and the Lord was not visibly present with them.

[MoGrace2u]

One of my problems with full-preterism is that it seems compelled to shove all eschatological information into one pigeonhole, whether it is a good fit or not.

For example, I have no problem seeing Revelation as being primarily about AD70, even though it was written to churches in Asia, who were not as directly affected by it as were the Judean Christians (the latter had received separate warnings of the same type from Jesus Himself, in the Olivet Discourse). As the time approached for this calamity, it would be a topic of great interest and concern to all Christians in the Empire, including the churches of Asia.

I have a harder time seeing the material in Thessalonians that way—mainly because this was a brand-new church, not very near the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (AD 49-51), and not very near, geographically, to ground zero (Jerusalem). This does not mean that the destruction of Jerusalem would be of no interest to them. It just seems that it would hardly be such an obsessive interest (as would seem to be the case by its prominence throughout both epistles) to such novice Gentile Christians, who had problems closer to home with which to be concerned—i.e., local persecution (1 Thess.2:14/ 2 Thess.1:5-6).

But if we follow the story in Acts 17, we find that everywhere Paul traveled preaching the gospel - first in the synagogues of those cities of Asia, persecution followed from the unbelieving Jews. Jason and the brethren were dragged before rulers and charged with treason against Cesar because of Paul. And this was the situation the new saints faced in every city. Paul writes to them to keep steadfast in the faith because their recompense was on its way, when the sins of those men was filled to the full - then the Lord would come.

If "the coming of the Lord," to which Paul refers so frequently in these epistles, is, as I believe, actually the end of the world, which might come at any time (for all anyone knows), then this subject would be—and always has been—of great interest to suffering saints. If, on the other hand, "the coming of the Lord" is a reference to an event that would have little direct impact upon their circumstances—which was some twenty years distant—while it might be a point of some interest, it probably would not eclipse much more pressing concerns to these churches at that point in time.

Well if 20 yrs was a long to time to wait, why would the end of the world be more of a concern to that generation? What would be the point of holding fast to patiently wait for the Lord if there was to be no end in sight to their troubles? The fact that some had misunderstood Paul and had quit working, would seem to show that what they thought was to be the end of the world at the Lord's return was NOT what he meant.

The fact that the Thessalonian epistles also identify the coming of the Lord with such events as the resurrection of dead saints and the rapture of living ones (1 Thess.4:16-18), which would be the occasion of the Thessalonians' ultimate "rest" from the persecutions they were suffering (2 Thess.1:7), makes it increasingly unlikely that the events of AD70 are here in view. Add to this the fact that these are not apocalyptic-style letters, nor written to Jews, who were familiar with the apocalyptic genre, and the likelihood is further diminished of these being apocalyptic terms for the fall of Jerusalem.

And this is exactly where part-pret departs because they too think the resurrection of the dead was to be a dead bodies rising from their graves sort of event. The resurrection of dead saints was to be to heaven - not earth; it was not to be something they would witness, but know had occurred by the signs given.

I also see very little merit in the theory that the "man of lawlessness," whom Paul says was to sit in the church (the temple of God) and to proclaim himself to be God, would turn out to be a first-century Jewish temple official. After all, such a man, if there was one, was too obscure to be identified from any historical sources—and would probably have been too obscure to serve as a signal to the Thessalonians, hundreds of miles away, that the final obstacle had now been taken out of the way for the destruction of Jerusalem. Can anyone who holds such a theory explain why Paul would say that such a man "must" be revealed before the Romans could destroy the city? Were the Romans influenced in their aggressive actions by the presence of a bad Jewish priest within the city walls? This seems so far-fetched, to my mind, that I must reject any schema that pressures its adherents to resort to such expedients.

As far as a single Antichrist figure, Nero would be that beast. But the man of sin who is a son of perdition takes us back to the story of Judas and who it was that paid him the 30 pieces of silver to betray the Lord - the priesthood. These were the men who sat in the temple claiming for all the world to see that they were the ones serving the true God when in fact they were serving the devil. It was from their mouth that the murder of the Lord, the persecutions of the apostles and the saints came - the false prophet of Rev. who was in league with the beast of Rome.

Perhaps we needed to be there to appreciate what was going on everywhere in the empire as a result of the gospel going forth.