2 Thessalonians 1:9

[dwilkins]

My concerns with the preterist perspective are as follows:

• The Jews living in Thessalonika would not have been destroyed during what occurred 1500 km away in Jerusalem. But, the Josephus reference you made may resolve this. Can you please cite where Josephus mentions these events?
• Being destroyed by fire which comes "from the presence of the Lord", seems to be quite different than fire which proceeds from the Roman armies. That is to say, it sounds as if God is acting directly here, not through an agent.
• The idea that Jesus and his angels were "revealed" strikes me as eschatological because this implies, to me, that some visible manifestation of their presence occurs. As far as I am aware, no visible manifestation of either Jesus or his angels occurred at that time, especially in Thessalonika.

1. My primary reference for the Jews being killed by the Romans is the "The Wars of the Jews". However, The following site does a good job of summarizing the point and provides additional sources:

http://rslissak.com/content/genocide-je ... pak-lissak

The Romans killed thousands of Jews during the revolt.

2. Throughout the Old Testament God is described as coming in the clouds or other such naturalistic events and this is usually a description of military or other human caused disaster. Modern tendency to see such passages as literal happenings (learned through a Greek scientific view of the world instead of a Hebrew poetic one) has caused all sorts of confusion in regards to eschatology.

3. Though I would be comfortable with poetic imagery to answer your third point I have seen some people rely on Josephus' telling of armies in the clouds over Jerusalem and such for the fulfillment. If that's satisfying to you, fine. If not, I'd point back to poetic imagery of God working in human history.

The wording of your questions implies to me that you've been through this type of discussion before. What is your usual answer for how 2nd Thessalonians 1 is supposed to be fulfilled? How do you explain Paul promising relief to real people under real persecution in a historical situation that doesn't exist anymore without that promise turning into a false promise embedded in inspired scripture?

Doug

[thrombomodulin]

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

#1 - The link to rslissak.com didn't cite any instances of the Romans destroying Jews near 70 AD, except for those located near Galilee and Jerusalem. Thus, it didn't help to answer my specific question about whether there is evidence that the destruction referenced in 2 Thes 1:9 occurred also in other parts of the Roman empire. Are you be able to cite anything in particular from "The War of the Jews" that would answer the question?

#2 - I had been aware of the "coming in the clouds" OT references from listening to some of Mr. Gregg's lectures. I will admit that I have a tendency to prefer literal interpretations, but I would be willing to accept a non-literal interpretation on this particular point if there were no other issues.

#3 - I was considering that poetic imagery did not apply here because the thing which is being revealed is "The Lord Jesus and his mighty angels" - not the fiery flames or destruction. This inclined me towards the opinion that there should be, or should have been, some physical manifestation of that which is being revealed. Otherwise it would hidden - not revealed.

What is your usual answer for how 2nd Thessalonians 1 is supposed to be fulfilled? How do you explain Paul promising relief to real people under real persecution in a historical situation that doesn't exist anymore without that promise turning into a false promise embedded in inspired scripture?

I don't have a usual answer on this passage. For the first 30 years of my life I had scarcely been exposed at all to any eschatological viewpoint besides dispensational futuristism. A few years ago I listened through Mr. Gregg's lectures, which was the first time I encountered anyone who presented strong arguments against futurism and in favor of a preterist eschatology. It remains a work-in-progress for me to gain an understanding of which interpretations of the various verses are or are not viable. In this case, I was speculating that 2 Thes 1:8 referred to the same future event as Rev 20:9. However, since I embrace methodological individualism, I find the point you raised to be a powerful objection to a futurist interpretation of 2 Thes 1:8 (I will add this point to my notes). Others may find the argument to be less compelling if they accept the idea that the punishment some men deserve is eventually inflicted upon their ancestors.

[dwilkins]

With exceptions like the occasional hail storm of fire and brimstone the images of destruction brought by God are almost always humans being used as agents to destroy other humans. And, imagery associated with this is usually hyperbolic and naturalistic. I have two examples that I think will make the point. First, David's take on what happened when he was delivered from his enemies (Saul, etc.):

2 Samuel 22:1-21 (NKJV)
1 Then David spoke to the Lord the words of this song, on the day when the Lord had delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul.
2 And he said: "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer;
3 The God of my strength, in whom I will trust; My shield and the horn of my salvation, My stronghold and my refuge; My Savior, You save me from violence.
4 I will call upon the Lord, who is worthy to be praised; So shall I be saved from my enemies.
5 "When the waves of death surrounded me, The floods of ungodliness made me afraid.
6 The sorrows of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me.
7 In my distress I called upon the Lord, And cried out to my God; He heard my voice from His temple, And my cry entered His ears.
8 "Then the earth shook and trembled; The foundations of heaven quaked and were shaken, Because He was angry.
9 Smoke went up from His nostrils, And devouring fire from His mouth; Coals were kindled by it.
10 He bowed the heavens also, and came down With darkness under His feet.
11 He rode upon a cherub, and flew; And He was seen upon the wings of the wind.
12 He made darkness canopies around Him, Dark waters and thick clouds of the skies.
13 From the brightness before Him Coals of fire were kindled.
14 "The Lord thundered from heaven, And the Most High uttered His voice.
15 He sent out arrows and scattered them; Lightning bolts, and He vanquished them.
16 Then the channels of the sea were seen, The foundations of the world were uncovered, At the rebuke of the Lord, At the blast of the breath of His nostrils.
17 "He sent from above, He took me, He drew me out of many waters.
18 He delivered me from my strong enemy, From those who hated me; For they were too strong for me.
19 They confronted me in the day of my calamity, But the Lord was my support.
20 He also brought me out into a broad place; He delivered me because He delighted in me.
21 "The Lord rewarded me according to my righteousness; According to the cleanness of my hands He has recompensed me.

The chapter goes on, obviously, but the imagery of the first portion of it is enough to make the point. When did God come down with darkness under his feet? Or, the foundations of heaven quake? Or, the heavens become bowed down? Or, the foundation of the seas become revealed? When Saul was killed by his armor bearer? The images are designed to show the power of God in delivering or guaranteeing the punishment, but if this was found in New Testament eschatology I'd bet someone would postulate Nibiru, some sort of preparation for a giant tidal wave, etc.

The second example is more important:

Isaiah 34:1-5 (NKJV)
1 Come near, you nations, to hear; And heed, you people! Let the earth hear, and all that is in it, The world and all things that come forth from it.
2 For the indignation of the Lord is against all nations, And His fury against all their armies; He has utterly destroyed them, He has given them over to the slaughter.
3 Also their slain shall be thrown out; Their stench shall rise from their corpses, And the mountains shall be melted with their blood.
4 All the host of heaven shall be dissolved, And the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll; All their host shall fall down As the leaf falls from the vine, And as fruit falling from a fig tree.
5 "For My sword shall be bathed in heaven; Indeed it shall come down on Edom, And on the people of My curse, for judgment.

Again, the passage goes on. But, notice in this case that in the curse against Edom that on the fulfillment of it "the host of heaven shall be dissolved", the sky would roll up like a scroll, and the mountains would be melted with blood. What's important here is that this passage was fulfilled when the Babylonians in fact destroyed them in the invasion associated with the Judean captivity in Babylon. Images like the heavens dissolving and sky rolling up like a scroll are used to describe the dramatic importance of such a military invasion and disaster. When the Old Testament establishes such a precedent for the meaning of the imagery we should come up with a pretty good reason to change the meaning when looking at New Testament eschatology. I don't think that futurists tend to bother to do so. They typically (at least I did when I was one) simply expect to find a literal way to explain something that would look similar (such as a meteorite, etc.).

The rule should be to use the earlier precedent for understanding imagery unless it can be proven obsolete. God coming in the clouds in judgment is typically used in the Old Testament to describe him coming in the form of an invading army that he is using as a tool against nations like Edom, the Northern Kingdom, and the Judean Kingdom. If we were careful to apply the Old Testament precedent to New Testament eschatology I think it would clarify things dramatically.

Doug

[thrombomodulin]

Thank you Doug, your answer was very helpful.

[wwalkeriv]

Thank you to all who replied. I find it difficult to reconcile this passage with universalism. Here's another one, I'm struggling with: Daniel 12:2 "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt."

It sounds as if there are 2 groups of people here. The first group is going to benefit and the second group is not. These two groups are presented in contrast to each other. With that understanding going into the passage: group 1 is receiving everlasting life, therefore group 2 appears to get everlasting death. Or perhaps an everlasting life of torment?? At any rate, seems to me that you need some fancy footwork to reconcile this with universalism also. Can someone educate me as to how universalist understand this passage?

Also, I've heard it said that this may not be speaking of the end of time when God judges the world. For those that hold that view can you explain what it means when it speaks of these people who "sleep in the dust" being awakened? How does that fit If this passage is referring to 70AD?

[steve7150]

At any rate, seems to me that you need some fancy footwork to reconcile this with universalism also. Can someone educate me as to how universalist understand this passage?









To me it's the same issue about the word "eternal" and here "everlasting". Jewish holidays were supposed to be observed "forever" , but it means for the age or "age abiding."
Everlasting may be either "olam" in the hebrew or "aionios" in the greek and again you will see it as "fancy footwork" for the CU to deal with this if you consider these words to mean eternal, but i see them as age abiding or pertaining to the age.

[thrombomodulin]

What is your usual answer for how 2nd Thessalonians 1 is supposed to be fulfilled? How do you explain Paul promising relief to real people under real persecution in a historical situation that doesn't exist anymore without that promise turning into a false promise embedded in inspired scripture?

I had said "I don't have a usual answer on this passage...". I should have realized this earlier, but could not the futurist hold the opinion that both the promised "relief" and the "flaming fire" are indeed for the people who were alive in the 1st century, but still have the opinion that the relief or destruction did not occur in the 1st century? That is to say, Paul is informing the 1st century believers that they can be assured that they will receive relief, and see their enemies judged with the flaming fire of hell. This would take place at the final judgement, in a post mortem state, and more than two thousand years later. Besides the failure to utilize OT imagery, are there any other Preterist objections to this view?

[thrombomodulin]

I'm struggling with: Daniel 12:2 "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt."

One Dec 28, 2012 I asked Steve Gregg about this and one or two other passages on the radio show. The call starts 22 mins and 54 seconds into this broadcast: TNP121228H.mp3

[thrombomodulin]

Steve Gregg,

I noticed a post from Dec. 2012 on the thread "Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children", page #12, where I think you meant to say "2 Thess 1:9".

The only clear reference to eschatological destruction, for which I can see no likelihood of it being historic-temporal, is 1 Thess.1:9...

More recently, on this thread, you said in a post:

The universalist, however, is free to observe that these references to "destruction" may describe the awful manner in which these wicked come to the end of their earthly lives, without reference to their final condition after the resurrection, judgment and punishment (which might include ultimate reconciliation)

The universalist wouldn't be free to make this observation if it had no likelihood of being true. Thus, I'm inferencing that your opinion on whether 2 Thes 1:9 is eschatological has recently changed. If so, would you please let me know factors lead to a change in your opinion? If not, could you please let me know why it cannot be historic-temporal as Doug is contending?

Thanks,
Pete

[Singalphile]

Steve,

Piggybacking on thrombomodulin's post, I had a similar question earlier in this thread (here: http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... t=0#p58552) that I wonder if you can please very briefly respond to (a sentence or two max) if you have the time and are so inclined. You may have missed it. (If not, that is fine. ) In short, I was wondering if your current opinion is different than what you seem to say in your Rev. book. Thank you!