Subscribe via reader
Subscribe via Email
Follow via Twitter
2 Thessalonians 2- The Coming of Christ
May 22nd, 2007 by James GrantI grew up a dispensationalist, which meant I was taught a pre-tribulational rapture, a seven year tribulation period, then a thousand year millennium. This was hard to break out of when I was a teenager. I remember being afraid to actually tell someone that I thought the “rapture” [as it was taught] didn’t have a Biblical basis.
One of the passages that closed the door on dispensationalism was 2 Thessalonians 2. This is surprising because it is a passage used by them to argue for their position, but the text will not bear the weight of a two-fold “coming” of Christ.
Notice that Paul begins by talking about the “coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This coming is described as “our being gathered together to him.” Paul is clearly talking to Christians [he calls them brothers in the next phrase], and he is talking about when Jesus comes to gather his people.
Evidently the Thessalonians were worried about missing this great event because Paul says, “do not 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” (v. 2). They thought that they had been left behind!!!
Of course Paul tells them not to worry because they haven’t been left behind. Paul’s reason for telling them not to worry is found in verse 3: “Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed.” Paul is saying to Christians that they need not worry because they have not missed the “coming of the Lord.” Two things have to happen first: a rebellion and the revealing of the man of lawlessness. The precise nature of these two “signs” is not the point. The point is that these two things have to happen before Christians are gathered together to Jesus.
Perhaps I can paraphrase Paul this way: “I know you have heard that Jesus has come and you missed it. Don’t worry. Jesus will not come for you until two ‘signs’ take place first: rebellion and the man of lawlessness. Jesus will not come to gather you to Himself until that takes place first.” The passage doesn’t make sense without that perspective.
Let’s suppose that the first “coming of the Lord” is referring to what dispensationalists call the “rapture.” Let’s also suppose that the “day of the Lord” (v. 2) is referring to what dispensationalists call the “revelation” of Jesus [his coming after the seven year tribulation].
That doesn’t make sense because of Paul’s quick shift in language [coming of Christ/Day of the Lord]. But more importantly, it doesn’t make sense of the signs. The two signs make no sense if Christians are supposed to be taken out before these two signs take place.
Let’s have a conversation with the text:
Thessalonians: Paul. how do we know that we have not missed the coming of the Lord and our gathering together with him?
Paul: Have you seen the two signs?
Thessalonians: What signs?
Paul: The great rebellion and the revelation of the man of lawlessness.
Thessalonians: No, we have not seen that.
Paul: Then you didn’t miss it.
But let’s change that last part slightly to reflect a dispensational perspective.
Thessalonians: What signs?
Paul: The great rebellion and the revelation of the man of lawlessness.
Thessalonians: Yes, it looks that those are the signs we are seeing right now.
Paul: Well, if you are here when the two signs happen, um…well…I think…I hate to tell you…but you actually did miss the coming of the Lord. Sorry, but Christians will be taken out before those two signs appear. You really were left behind, but hang in there…Jesus will come again after these signs have been revealed.
Breaking News: If Paul is particiapting in this conversation, he must have been left behind too!!
UPDATE: During the comment thread, a few questions came up about resources. I decided to list them here.
- Gregory K. Beale, 1 & 2 Thessalonians
- Gregory K. Beale, Revelation
- Vern Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists
- Cornelils P. Venema, The Promise of the Future
- Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future
- Three Views on the Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulation
Posted in 2 Thessalonians, Second Coming | 22 Comments »
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:22 am
Hehe, the even funnier part about the second conversation – Paul shouldn’t even be there
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:54 am
James,
Great post! 2Thess 2 has made more ex-pretribers than any other Scritpural text. It completely undermines the notion of an “any moment rapture.”
Paul uses “Day of the Lord” and “Coming” as co-referential terms.
Another point, “dispensationalists call the “revelation” of Jesus [his coming after the seven year tribulation].”
That claim by the pretribber has no Scriptural warrant because the revelation will happen at the rapture (inception of the Coming),
“and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels.” 2Thess 1:7
And,
“so that you do not lack any spiritual gift as you wait for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1Cor. 1:7 (See also 1 Peter 1:13).
Your exegesis of that text lines up with the Prewrath Rapture position. I would challenge you to examine and consider that position.
In closing, your new view of that text I believe will help see the consistency between Jesus teaching on this matter and Paul’s.
Here is an article I wrote on it here.
Thanks,
Alan
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Thanks for the comments Alan. A few comments of clarification: I left Dispensationalism about 10 years ago and moved into a post-trib position, an historic premil position, then eventually a covenantal position. That being the case, I am currently amillennial [with a few preterist leanings]. I would follow closely Greg Beale’s exegesis of Thessalonians here and Revelation here. But I will read through some of your stuff, but the fundamental issues between us would probably be hermeneutical [Israel, church, old covenant, new covenant, etc.].
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:38 pm
JHG,
Thanks for your comment. Yes, I assumed that from a couple of your comments.
But your exegesis on this text is consistent with the Prewrath position. And your right, we would disagree on the Israel and Amill issue. Although, there is a new movement of some who are seeing a consistency between covenant theology and premill ery interesting arguments. At any rate…
Thanks again for your post and hope it continues to be instructive for many readers.
Alan
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:44 pm
When I became a Christian, I joined a church that taught this. Except As tried to get a grasp on the biblical text, I kept finding holes. This text was for illuminating for me as well. I didn’t have access to computers then, so I didnt even know you could have a different interpretation. When I sought others to clarify the text for me (thinking surely I was missing something) all anyone did was give the same presentation…and they seemed agravated that I would question it.
I am glad I did. I tend to lean to historic premill now, but I am totally certain. I know the Lord will return, but not twice. Just once.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
“but I am NOT totally certain”
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Actually, I believe this passage, interpreted correctly as you have done, fits with the pre-wrath rapture position.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
This is how I as PD would approach 2 Thess. 2.
Though the KJV translates the last phrase of 2:2, “that the day of Christ is at hand,” enesthken does not mean imminent. The NRSV correctly translates the phrase, “that the day of the Lord is already here.” With this in mind Thomas argues that the supplied apodosis should be “that day is not present” rather than “that day will not come.” Furthermore prwton need not indicate that the apostasy and man of lawlessness come before the Day of the Lord.
Martin notes that “its placement in the sentence slightly favors the understanding that the apostasy comes ‘first’ and then the lawless one is revealed.”
Paul is saying that people will know that the day of the Lord is present when they see, first, the apostasy and, second, the revelation of the man of lawlessness. Since the Thessalonians have not seen these things, the Day of the Lord has not occurred yet.
Thus I think the passage fits find with a pre-trib rapture position. Furthermore, it fits with the pre-trib concern for immanency. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 does not negate the proposition that the Day of the Lord includes the Tribulation (a necessary conclusion to account for immanency language in the gospels). In fact, it also supports the thesis that the parousia includes more than the simple return of Christ to earth, for if the parousia was simply the return of Christ to earth, the Thessalonians could not have been concerned about missing the event.
Sources:
Robert L. Thomas“The Place of Imminence in Recent Eschatological Systems,” in Looking into the Future, ETS Studies, ed. David W. Baker (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 210-11.
D. Michael Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians, New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1995), 232.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Thanks for the post, I also grew up dispensational, although I didn’t realize that is what it was called till college.
Are there any good resources (preferably online) that clearly lay out differences in eschatology along with plenty of Biblical references? premil, postmil, amil, pre/post trib, etc. I’ve seen the term preterist before too.
In terms of basic theology, I’m now much more in the reformed/calvinist camp than disp., but the various eschatologies have always been confusing. Especially as I’ve discovered amil is pretty common in the reformed/covenantal positions but I grew up never hearing anything positive about it.
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Jeff,
Check out the eschatology link here at Monergism.com
There is plenty of stuff here to work with and look through. I would also encourage you to become familiar with the two-age structure [already/not yet] of the New Testament.
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Brian, my comments are below the quoted sections:
“This is how I as PD would approach 2 Thess. 2.”
Your interpretation is not determined by “PD”, but rather a pretrib approach. Since a vast amount of Prewrathers are PD, it does not follow that yours is a PD interpretation.
“Though the KJV translates the last phrase of 2:2, ‘that the day of Christ is at hand,’ enesthken does not mean imminent. The NRSV correctly translates the phrase, “that the day of the Lord is already here.’ With this in mind Thomas argues that the supplied apodosis should be “that day is not present’ rather than “that day will not come.”
i. That will depend on how you view the perfect tense (e.g. aspectual). See also Warfield, Calvin, and Lightfoot on the imminent rendering. But that is not essential to the argument as anyone should argue.
ii. There is a reason why all translations render the apodosis as substantially, “that day will not come.” (hoti ean me elthe). Paul is not so much concerned here about the chronological or temporal activities as he is about the _conditions_ that will happen before the Parousia. Hence, the reason he immediately gives two conditions in this same clause: The apostasy and the man of lawlessness being revealed.
Not to mention that v.2c would indicate a temporal aspect as well, not just based on the conditions of the Parousia.
“Furthermore prwton need not indicate that the apostasy and man of lawlessness come before the Day of the Lord.”
There is no need to argue that; who argues that? The argument is whether it is giving a temporal order between the two conditions, not the conditions themselves! (as you even noted in Martin’s citation).
The salient point is that Paul is stressing the conditions of the Day of the Lord; _not_ the contemporaneous events with the Parousia.
“Paul is saying that people will know that the day of the Lord is present when they see, first, the apostasy and, second, the revelation of the man of lawlessness.”
This is classic pretrib eisegesis. (1) Given that Paul sets the conditions in v.3 that must occur before the day of the Lord. (2) and v.2c gives us a temporal indication. (3) Not to mention the 800 pound gorilla in v8 that teaches us that when Christ comes back at his Parousia, he will destroy the man of lawlessness. If the man of lawless is revealed after Christ comes back, then how can he destroy him when he comes back! Other reasons could be cited but this is sufficient.
“Thus I think the passage fits find with a pre-trib rapture position. Furthermore, it fits with the pre-trib concern for immanency [imminence].”
It is simply a desperate attempt to defend imminence and its corollary pretribulationism by 2Thess. 2.
I simply see the a priori of imminence operating in your exegesis and not the natural reading.
“2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 does not negate the proposition that the Day of the Lord includes the Tribulation”
The Antichrist’s Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord’s wrath are distinct events. The church will be persecuted by Antichrist during his Great Tribulation and those days will be cut short with the Parousia of Christ to deliver the righteous and pour out the subsequent Day of the Lord’s wrath upon the ungodly.
I respectfully challenge you to examine the Prewrath position.
Thanks,
Alan
p.s. For excellent reading on this subject see C. R. Nicholl’s monograph, _From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situation 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Society for New Testament Studies: Cambridge University Press).
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:07 pm
One other very important point that I should have mentioned:
There is a warning element as well in chapter 2. In other words, these are conditions that Paul knows the believers will see: the apostasy and the man of lawlessness because he believes _they may experience it in their lifetime_.
These two conditions according to pretribs happen during the Day of the Lord’s wrath, how can his return be imminent, and what about God’s promise that believers will be expempted from the day of the Lord’s wrath?
Not to mention the awful persecution and trial that belivers will be suffering up to the Revelation of Christ, as Paul teaches in 2Thess 1 (a text that is often overlooked).
The consistency in which Jesus teaches this truth in Matthew 24 of the apostasy and the Antichrist figure is poignant as well. It is amazing how many will create arguments to get around the natural consistent reading of Jesus and Paul:
1)persecution 2) apostasy 3) deliverance of the godly 4) Divine wrath upon the ungodly.
Thanks,
Alan
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Great post that really helps clear up a lot of the confusion surrounding the end times. I have a lot of family members who take the pretrib/premil position so its nice to better understand these issues. I find myself, like you, to lean towards a more amil understanding. Thanks again for the insights.
May 24th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Could this be about the Second Coming and not the rapture? I have saved all the links from above and will start reading. I grew up pretrib but I am reading the different views. I had not heard of Prewrath.
Thanks
Juan
May 25th, 2007 at 1:08 am
Thanks for the comment Juan. I personally believe that the “coming of the Lord/second coming” is the rapture [or what is referred to as the rapture--the saints being called up to meet Jesus in 1 Thess. 4]. In my opinion, the rapture will happen at the second coming as saints are resurrected, and we will enter the New Heavens and New Earth at that time. Just my thoughts…JHG
May 31st, 2007 at 11:14 am
I just heard Beale speak on his views of eschatology. My take on his position is that he recapitulates once too often with regard to Revelation 20!
I like his hermeneutic but I think he applies it incorrectly in Revelation 20. Suffice it to say, that leaves me premillennial, but not historical but progressive dispensational. Those who aren’t trapped by their places of service to be pre-trib in their views have often made the transition to post-trib, even in the progressive dispensatinal camp.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
June 25th, 2009 at 7:21 am
I’ve never been able to understand how people understand “Day of the Lord” in 2 Thess. 2:2 as referring to the Tribulation. That would make the following verse say the Tribulation doesn’t come until the Tribulation comes! The NIV Study Bible’s note on 1 Thess. 5:2 is most helpful on this phrase.
If interested in the origin of Dispensationalism, check out my brother’s book, “The Rapture Plot” (by Dave MacPherson). He’s spent a lifetime researching this.
June 26th, 2009 at 12:56 am
Interesting comment by Dave MacPherson’s brother Bruce. I recently ran across a stunning article by Dave on the “Powered by Christ Ministries” site with the title of “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty.” Not only does it have portraits and photos of many dispies from Irving and Darby to Ice and Jeffrey, but it is so explosive that if that article were a firecracker, it would most certainly be outlawed! Jon
July 12th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
July 18th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
December 28th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Malcolm Smith with his Book of Revelation Series of cassette tapes back in the 1970′s started the ball rolling for me to understand covenant theology and amillennialism.
I never hear anybody mention this british teacher (Who was based originally in New York and eventually Oklahoma & Texas).
He put out cassette tapes all through the 1970′s & 80′s explaining covenant theology and the christ-centered theology of the entire bible, New AND Old testament. In fact ESPECIALLY Old Testament.
Malcolm gets little mention but he was way ahead of the curve and he made more amillennial converts than any other teacher I know of, in the decades of the 70′s & 80′s.
You young kids could do yourself a great help by listening to Malcolm Smith’s tapes. It would have saved you alot of wasted reading of other books.
.