2 Thess. 1-11, help me

[Pete Richert]

Okay, to kick it off, let it be known that I believe in the rapture, but I am waffling hard. I want to just look at 2 Thessalonians 2:1-11.

"Now concerning the coming of our 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 spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the DAY OF THE LORD HAS COME."

I'll stop there. So Paul is discussing the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ AND our being gathered together to him. This must obviously be the "rapture" (either before or after the trib) since we are being gathered together. But for the rapture to be pretrib, this coming of our Lord must be different then the DAY OF THE LORD that is spoken of in verse 2. Now, how can this be the plain, literal, unbiased, reading of the text as classic Dispy's so like to claim all their interpretation. It seems clear that he is talking about the same thing, if not I would think he would give a little more warning. Anyway, to continue,

"Let no one decieve you in any way, For THAT day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first . . . man of lawlessness . . . ect". Okay, so now clearly here the Day of the Lord DOES NOT refer to a pretrib rapture but is indeed the second coming of Christ.

Now, why would they be concerned about the second coming already having happened if the first had not. Paul tells them the man of sin must be revealed first so don't worry. What he should have said is "you will already have been raptured before that happens, you fools, so don't worry". None of you will ever see the man of lawlessness much less miss the SECOND coming of Christ. Now this is an argument from silence but it seems rather important to me.

I want to paraphrase the first verse to fit with dispensational thinking (unless I am totally off base here and then you can correct me)

"Now concerning the FIRST coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our rapture with him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the SECOND coming of our Lord has already happened." (of course not, not even the first yet! Or better, why is this CONCERNING the FIRST coming at all.)

Or, you could think that the "coming our Lord Jesus Christ" in verse one does refer to the second coming and then we have

"Now concerning the SECOND coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and the rapture (at his first coming), we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the SECOND coming of our Lord has already happened."

Now it seems totally out of place that he mentions the rapture at all. He is talking about the Second coming And still, why not mention that they would have be raptured already.

Okay, gentleness with your Christian brother. Pastor Bob? Daniel David? Pastor Larry? Anyone else?

P.S. Next time we will discuss the whole theif in the night thing, the strongest thing that is holding me to a pretrib rapture. But that started to waffle just last night (help me!)

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Pete Richert:
So Paul is discussing the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ AND our being gathered together to him. This must obviously be the "rapture" (either before or after the trib) since we are being gathered together. But for the rapture to be pretrib, this coming of our Lord must be different then the DAY OF THE LORD that is spoken of in verse 2.

Why?? See how you have already read your conclusion in without due consideration to the text?

The DOL is the period of divine judgment on sin with particular respect to the nation of Israel (Isa 13; Joel 2; Amos 5:18; etc.). That is the Tribulation period. So we see that the DOL includes the Tribulation.

The plain unbiased normal reading of the text indicates that the Tribulation is in the DOL and answers all the problems.

The question that post tribbers must ask is, Why was this concerning to them if Paul had taught them posttribulationism? When someone comes and says that the trials they were enduring were because the DOL had already come, they should have expected it. As seems clear from the text, they had been taught that they would be gone when the Tribulation came and thus were troubled to "learn" that they were still there. Paul refute the nation of posttribulationism.

"Let no one decieve you in any way, For THAT day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first . . . man of lawlessness . . . ect". Okay, so now clearly here the Day of the Lord DOES NOT refer to a pretrib rapture but is indeed the second coming of Christ.

Again, realize that you have read your position into the text. Why cannot the DOL be referenced here?? If the DOL begins with the judgments (which it does) and not with the Rapture (which you have presupposed), then there is no problem. The man of sin, Antichrist, will be revealed at teh beginning of the Tribulation, and hence, at the beginning of the DOL. That does not require that the Rapture begin the DOL. There is most likely an interval between the Rapture and the DOL although the stage for Antichrist's rise is probably laid through world events that seem perfectly natural to the world.

But again, you have read your conclusion onto the text, insisting that the text must mean certain things becuase of what you believe, rather than letting teh text speak for itself.

Now, why would they be concerned about the second coming already having happened if the first had not.

The first had already come. The "Second Coming" can be a generic term to refer to all the end times or it can be a more precise term to refer to his coming to earth at the end of the Tribulation and the beginning of hte Millennium. Either way, the question I asked above is the more important one: If they had been taught that they would be there during the Tribulation, why was their faith being shaken?

Paul did not say that they would see the man of sin. He simply made a statement about why they weren't in it. There was no man of sin. There again, the paragraph I deleted here assumed that the man of sin being revealed means that they would have had to have seen it. I totally reject that because that is not what the Scriptures teach.

I want to paraphrase the first verse to fit with dispensational thinking (unless I am totally off base here and then you can correct me)

You are off base here. Paul wrote it just as a dispensationalist would expect. Your "rendering" assumes your conclusion, something that should not be assumed.

Now it seems totally out of place that he mentions the rapture at all. He is talking about the Second coming And still, why not mention that they would have be raptured already.

Again, you assume your conclusion. He does talk about the Rapture. That is what they were concerned about.

The biggest problem is that you are reading the text through your presuppositions rather than for what it says. Here is a simple breakdown.

1. Paul had taught them that they would be gone when the DOL with its judgments came.
2. They were experiencing tribulation (not the Tribulation).
3. Someone came claiming to be from Paul who taught that they were in the DOL, hence, Tribulation.
4. They were concerned, disillusioned, shaken in their faith because they did not expect to be in the Tribulation. They had been taught they would be taken out before that.

CONCLUSION:
1. If Paul taught posttribulationism, then he would have corrected them and said "You are in the DOL; there is no need to fear."
2. If Paul had taught pretribulationism, he would have said, "There is no need to fear; the DOL has not yet come."

Which did he say?? The latter.

As I have always said, the dispensationalist view is the only one that can consistently stand up in the face of rigid, consistent exegesis and synthesis. I have never seen anyone disprove that.

[ May 16, 2003, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Pete Richert]

First off, you may be right that I am reading in a presuppotion I am not aware of. But as I clearly stated in my post, I BELIEVE IN THE PRETRIB RAPTURE. If I have any bias to bring it, it is exactly that both for traditional biblical reasons and for emotional ones (don't want to be in the trib

But I keep being derailed by this passage, everytime I hit Thessolonians.

The plain unbiased normal reading of the text indicates that the Tribulation is in the DOL and answers all the problems.

What the "plain unbiased normal reading" is that a "day" is not 24 hours. Take that one to Genesis chapter 1. I think the plain unbiased reading is a day is a day. I think the "interpreted" reading keeping track of everything else the Bible says is that this might be a period longer then 7 years. And how can it be plain the the anti Christ is revealed during then DOL and not Before the DOL as clearly stated. Now I can see that it could be read both ways, but it seems to me the plain unbiased normal reading continues the this man puts himself in the temple, and we are still before the DOL. But I suppose it could be "he is revealed before the DOL, this same man (during the DOL) will put himself in the temple ...etc.

The question that post tribbers must ask is, Why was this concerning to them if Paul had taught them posttribulationism? When someone comes and says that the trials they were enduring were because the DOL had already come, they should have expected it. As seems clear from the text, they had been taught that they would be gone when the Tribulation came and thus were troubled to "learn" that they were still there. Paul refute the nation of posttribulationism.

Okay, now YOU have made a presuppostion of this text which may or may not be true, but it is a presupposition. Namely, that they are concerned because they are suffering trials and therefor think they are in the tribulation. It never says that. What it says is that they were afraid the Day of the Lord had already come. Now if you presume the DOL is the tribulation this makes sense, but let's just take a day as the plain literal day, and say the Day of the Lord is when he returns (physically, on a single day he will return). It never says they are concerned because they are suffering. Just that they are concerned. Anyway, they are concerned they have missed this second coming and Paul says, you can't miss it, the Tribulation has to happen first. the tribulation is WHEN the man of lawlessness will be revealed and put himself in the temple. And then the second coming (DOL) will happen namely Christ return to earth. This all goes back to 1 Thessalonians that while I look at it I can see we will again disagree. To me the DOL in verse 2, that is described as coming like a thief in the night, is the very Coming of Jesus just described in verse 13. But I can see you will argue that the DOL and the coming as a theif in the night are basically the same thing, since Jesus comes as a theif in the night, raptures us, and then the DOL starts for the rest of mankind.

But again, you have read your conclusion onto the text, insisting that the text must mean certain things becuase of what you believe, rather than letting teh text speak for itself.

I think such talk can be dropped. Both sides of ANY biblical debate always claim this of the other side. When I think of the text speaking for itself, I think a day is a day. when you think it speaks for itself, you see something different. All such talk therefor becomes inflamatory.

1. Paul had taught them that they would be gone when the DOL with its judgments came.
2. They were experiencing tribulation (not the Tribulation).
3. Someone came claiming to be from Paul who taught that they were in the DOL, hence, Tribulation.
4. They were concerned, disillusioned, shaken in their faith because they did not expect to be in the Tribulation. They had been taught they would be taken out before that.

1. If Paul taught posttribulationism, then he would have corrected them and said "You are in the DOL; there is no need to fear."
2. If Paul had taught pretribulationism, he would have said, "There is no need to fear; the DOL has not yet come."

1. We do not know Paul taught them that. In fact, Paul seems to be telling them the DOL happens after the man of lawlessness is revealed.
That is a presuposition.

2. Like I said before, it says nothing of them being afraid because they are suffereing persucution or tribulation. Only that the DOL has already come, or since I see it as a single day (for know, I will correct my understanding under biblical evidence), they have MISSED the DOL.

3. Not IN the DOL, but that the DOL has come.

4. Perhaps true but not clearly stated.

1. If Paul taught posttribulationism, then he would have corrected them and said "You are in the DOL; there is no need to fear."

No no no no no no no. He would not say they are in the DOL (or as you mean, the tribulation) because they are not in the tribulation. The tribulation happens at the end of time. If they were in the tribulation, the man of lawlessness would have already been revealed, and possibly sitting in the temple of God already. He would say, "don't worry, you have missid the Coming of Chirst, because the man of lawlessness has not yet been revealed (during the tribulation)."

2. If Paul had taught pretribulationism, he would have said, "There is no need to fear; the DOL has not yet come."

If he taught posttribulationism he would have said, "There is no need to fear; the DOL has not yet come because FIRST, the rebellion must come, and the man of lawlessness is revealed . . .etc.

Okay, let's go this route. I can make your intrepetation work if indeed the DOL is not day but a seven year period that includes the tribulation AND the Second coming of Christ. When I mean second coming, I mean when he physically comes to earth, on a sigle moment in time, and begins the milliunium. When I meant FIRST coming I meant the rapture, when he physically comes to earth to "gather us together with him". Since it seems clear to you that this is indeed how the plain literal unbiased intrepetation of what the DOL is, could you please explain that to me. There must be other scriptural references so that this assumption can be brought to the text. I as I said at the beginning, I still believe in the rapture, so I want to be convinced. Then I can finnally put this passage to bed.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Long post ... I will try to hit the highlights. First, let me say that there was no intent on being inflammatory. However, my comments about reading into the text stand. To establish the basic poitn of the text. They had been told that the DOL had already come and they were still in it. Their troubled state indicates that they had been told they would not be there for the DOL (whatever that is ... see below). So Paul had taught them that they would be gone before the DOL. The task now is to study the Scriptures to see what the DOL is. Once we determine that, then we are helped with this passage.

Originally posted by Pete Richert:
What the "plain unbiased normal reading" is that a "day" is not 24 hours. Take that one to Genesis chapter 1. I think the plain unbiased reading is a day is a day.[/qutoe]"Day" is always interpreted by context. When YOM is modified, the modifiers identify it. "That day" or "Day of the Lord" is a genitive construct. When YOM is unmodified (absolute state), it always means 24 hour days. That is why Genesis 1 means 24 hours and why "DOL" does not. This is a clear exegetical argument, substantiated in many places. The DOL is a genitive construct and can mean longer than 24 hours.

And how can it be plain the the anti Christ is revealed during then DOL and not Before the DOL as clearly stated.

It does say "before" and I wouldn't argue with that. But "before" does not mean "while the church is still here." If the timeline is 1) Rapture 2) Revealing 3) DOL, then there is no problem. Based on the text, that is what we should expect.

Okay, now YOU have made a presuppostion of this text which may or may not be true, but it is a presupposition.

Let me deal with this without repeating your whole paragraph. When you approach a text in which only one side of the conversation is there, you have to make some assumptions. The question is, Why are they troubled? The answer is because someone had told them they were in the DOL, and apparently they had been taught differently. We know that the DOL is a time of the outpouring of judgment and the commonly called "Tribulation" is a part of it. I don't think they were concerned because they were in trials. I think they were concerned because they were told they were in the DOL and they did not expect that. Now if they did not expect to be in teh DOL, then they must have been taught by Paul that they would not be in teh DOL. Hence, my "supposition" -- it is solidly grounded in exegesis and logic.

By limiting the DOL merely to the second coming rather than the Tribulation time, you have violated the OT usage of the description of the DOL. We must reject that explanation on an exegetical basis. The DOL does include divine judgment on sin that will come at the end times. That is called "teh Tribulation."

When I think of the text speaking for itself, I think a day is a day. when you think it speaks for itself, you see something different.

The question is not "What do I see" but rather "What did Paul say?" I realize that goes without saying. "Day" can have many different nuances, depending on its context. If I talk of Abraham Lincoln's day, I am referring to a period of time. If I talk of my birthday, I am referring to one 24 hour period. In Scripture, when "day" stands unmodified in teh OT, it is a 24 hour day (cf. Gen 1). When "day" is modified by some construct phrase (such as "day of the Lord" or "that day," etc.) the context defines what it means. In 2 Thess 2, the day is the "Day of the Lord" and it has a clear OT referent to a long period of time, rather than 24 hours. That is why I say, the exegesis supports the position that the DOL is a period of time involving divine judgment and divine blessing--hence, the Tribulation and the Millennium.

1. We do not know Paul taught them that. In fact, Paul seems to be telling them the DOL happens after the man of lawlessness is revealed. That is a presuposition.

I was setting up a situation in which the events of 2 thess 2 would make sense. The problem is that if Paul had taught them a posttribulation rapture, they would have expected the situation they find themselves in. They would not have been worried. I think the context of 1 and 2 Thess shows adequate evidence of tribulation and trial for them. There is no reason to doubt that.

Okay, let's go this route. I can make your intrepetation work if indeed the DOL is not day but a seven year period that includes the tribulation AND the Second coming of Christ.

The more I read, the more I think this is the crux of the issue. When you study the DOL, I think it has to be a period of time, as revealed in the OT. There is no way to shoe horn the OT DOL events into a 24 hour period.

Read through the prophets for the phrase "Day of the Lord" or "in that day." You will see the descriptions that will show this as a period of time. In my previous post, I gave some references that relate particularly judgment to the DOL. There is also blessing in teh DOL as the passages will show.

 

[Pete Richert]

To establish the basic poitn of the text. They had been told that the DOL had already come and they were still in it. Their troubled state indicates that they had been told they would not be there for the DOL (whatever that is ... see below). So Paul had taught them that they would be gone before the DOL. The task now is to study the Scriptures to see what the DOL is. Once we determine that, then we are helped with this passage.

Your reconstruction here assumes that the DOL is the tribulation, so that they can be "in" it and not just have had it passed (like they forgot all about the man of lawlessness in the first place, as if they forgot about the tribulation coming first in the first place etc). To assume the DOL is the second coming, they would then think they were in the millinium (if indeed, Paul had taught them about the Millinium). AMILL doesn't make a whole lot of sense here because then the world should have already come to an end. Anyway, if the DOL is one day, it is not a matter of being told they won't be there. It is a matter of simply missing Christ return. Christ himself warns not to get worried when people claim that they are He. So such a concern is valid (otherwise Christ would not have needed to warn about it). Sorry I am rambling.

Such a construction makes perfect sense if we assume that DOL is not a day, and you have correctly stated that this is the crux of my misunderstanding. I will now try to search out the OT passages you have mentioned to illuminate this. While I will try to use an concordance as you suggested can you throw me down some of the heavy hitters (do the three you listed in your first post count) so that I can get to the heart of it?

Thanks

 

[Pete Richert]

Wait, one more question. From the first sentence of your first reply, are you saying that "our gathering with him" is NOT a reference to the rapture?

 

[Pastor Chet]

The book, The pre-wrath rapture by Marvin Rosenthal will help answer your question. A good link is www.revelationcommentary.org
chet

 

[KenH]

Since you are seeking answers on this subject, here is a link that might be useful to you, Pete.

www.geocities.com/~lasttrumpet/2thess2.html

 

[Pastor Larry]

That page has some of the worst exegesis I have ever seen Ken. The stuff there is really unbeleivable in many ways. He misses so many key and easy points to defend his position. I glanced at a few of the other pages on that side and found myself even more disappointed. There are simply too many mistakes for that to be credible.

 

[KenH]

Pastor Larry, I know that nothing anyone is going to say is going to cause you to change your mind in favoring pretribulationalism. Since someone offered a website for that viewpoint I thought I would offer one for the other side.

I do not claim to be an expert in eschatology(yet!

) so how well anyone makes their points I cannot judge at this time. The reader of various websites can do that for himself. But the author of the website I mentioned appears to be very intense and well-versed in his opposition to pretribulationalism to my limited knowledge.

 

[postrib]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry on May 16, 2003 11:21 AM:
...the DOL includes the Tribulation...

Is there any verse that you feel would require that the day of the Lord begin before the 2nd coming?

I believe the day of the Lord will begin at the 2nd coming, and is the day we wait for (1 Corinthians 1:7-8), watch for (1 Thessalonians 5:2-6), and will rejoice in (2 Corinthians 1:14).

"Waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord" (1 Corinthians 1:7-8).

"Yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night... But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief... let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch" (1 Thessalonians 5:2, 4, 6).

"We are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord" (2 Corinthians 1:14).

Paul said the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night (1 Thessalonians 5:2) and the Lord said he will come as a thief (Matthew 24:43-44), and there's no 3rd coming of the Lord.

I believe the subject of 2 Peter 3:4-10 is the promise of the Lord's 2nd coming: "Where is the promise of his coming?... The Lord is not slack concerning his promise... the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night" (2 Peter 3:4, 9, 10).

Originally posted by Pastor Larry on May 16, 2003 11:21 AM:
...they had been taught that they would be gone when the Tribulation came...

Does any scripture teach that we will be gone when the tribulation comes? Doesn't Jesus say that he will come to gather us together "immediately after the tribulation" (Matthew 24:29-31), and Paul say that Jesus' coming to gather us together must "destroy" the Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:1-8)? Don't we Christians have to go through the coming tribulation (Revelation 13:7-10, 14:12-13)?

Originally posted by Pastor Larry on May 16, 2003 11:21 AM:
...and thus were troubled to "learn" that they were still there...

Some say the Thessalonians were shaken about possibly missing the rapture and being in the tribulation. But the Thessalonians wouldn't be "shaken in mind, or be troubled" (2 Thessalonians 2:2) about being in persecutions and tribulation, for they were already patiently enduring both: "We ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure" (2 Thessalonians 1:4), but they would be shaken if the 2nd coming had supposedly already happened, because where was Jesus? And if the 2nd coming had already happened, then the resurrection must have already happened as well, and where were all their departed loved ones that Paul had promised them they would see again (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18)? Those who spiritualized away the resurrection in Paul's day were destroying the faith of some (2 Timothy 2:18).

Originally posted by Pastor Larry on May 16, 2003 11:21 AM:
...Paul refute the nation of posttribulationism...

In what way?

In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, I believe Paul makes clear that the apostasy and abomination of desolation must occur before the day Jesus comes to gather us together, for Jesus' coming (parousia) to gather us together must destroy the Antichrist (verse 8). I believe Paul is referring to the same coming and gathering together as Matthew 24:29-31. I don't believe Paul taught a 3rd coming or a 2nd rapture. We Christians must go through the reign of the Antichrist (Revelation 13:7-10, 14:12-13).

Originally posted by Pastor Larry on May 16, 2003 11:21 AM:
...the judgments...

Does Revelation say the seals and trumpets of the tribulation are "judgments"? At the 5th seal, aren't the martyrs in heaven asking for God to begin his judgment on the earth (Revelation 6:10) because he hasn't yet? Will the remaining number of their "fellowservants and brethren" that must be martyred just as they were (Revelation 6:11) be killed by God's judgment? Isn't it possible that God's judgment may not begin until the 7 vials of wrath at the end of the tribulation (Revelation 15:4, Revelation 16:7), and that none of them will be directed at us Christians?

Could all of us Christians who will be in the tribulation (Revelation 6:11, 7:14, 9:4, 12:17, 13:7-10, 14:12-13, 15:2, 16:15, 18:4, 20:4) go through its wars, famines, plagues, persecutions, martyrdoms, and natural disasters, just as we Christians have always suffered, and not because God was bringing judgment against us?

Originally posted by Pastor Larry on May 16, 2003 11:21 AM:
...The 'Second Coming' can be a generic term to refer to all the end times...

Is there a scripture which says the second coming is a term for the tribulation?

Originally posted by Pastor Larry on May 16, 2003 11:21 AM:
...the paragraph I deleted here assumed that the man of sin being revealed means that they would have had to have seen it. I totally reject that because that is not what the Scriptures teach...

Note that Jesus is speaking to the same believers, the same "ye," in Matthew 24:15 (ye shall see the abomination of desolation) that he is speaking to in Matthew 24:36-44 (watch).

http://geocities.com/postrib

 

[Dr. Bob]

As a firm pre-tribber, I just want to say a gracious "Thank You" to those contributing to this good discussion.

Somehow I feel this was more in tune with the original intent of the BB as set up by the Webmaster! Kudos.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by postrib:
Is there any verse that you feel would require that the day of the Lord begin before the 2nd coming?

The OT passages show that the DOL involves judgment and then blessing. We know from the whole of Scripture that Christ returns at the end of the Tribulation. I believe we all agree on that (no matter how we consider the Tribulation). Therefore, since the Tribulation judgments are a part of the DOL according to the OT and NT, it is clear that the DOL begins before the 2nd coming.

Paul said the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night (1 Thessalonians 5:2) and the Lord said he will come as a thief (Matthew 24:43-44), and there's no 3rd coming of the Lord.

No one argues there's a 3rd coming. That is a straw man. But the "thief in the night" argumetn cannot be postrib because the post trib arguments give a time line which we can follow. The thief in teh night does not. The "peace and safety" that people are crying out in 1 Thess 5 is wholly incompatible with the Tribulation that we all agree precedes the 2nd coming. Therefore, the peace and safety is the end of the church age; then the DOL comes suddenly on those who are not ready for it.

Does any scripture teach that we will be gone when the tribulation comes? Doesn't Jesus say that he will come to gather us together "immediately after the tribulation" (Matthew 24:29-31), and Paul say that Jesus' coming to gather us together must "destroy" the Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:1-8)? Don't we Christians have to go through the coming tribulation (Revelation 13:7-10, 14:12-13)?

No. That was the cause of consternation. There will be believers in the Tribulation who are saved. But the church will be removed. There is no other way to explain teh consternation of the Thessalonians. There is no one verse that says the church will be gone, just as there is no one verse that says the church will be here. These are the theological arguments that are arrived at by correlating Scripture. It must all be put together, not just the texts that we believe fit our position.

Some say the Thessalonians were shaken about possibly missing the rapture and being in the tribulation. But the Thessalonians wouldn't be "shaken in mind, or be troubled" (2 Thessalonians 2:2) about being in persecutions and tribulation, for they were already patiently enduring both:

They were enduring tribulation, not the Tribulation. That was their consternation. They were fine in the face of trouble, but not when someone told them that the DOL had come. When Christ returns, he sets up his kingdom in power and glory. There will be no mistaking that. The Thessalonians were not worried that Christ had come to set up his kingdom. They were worried that the Tribulation had started. Had someone told them that Christ had returned, they would not have been fooled. They were eagerly awaiting that (1 Thess 1:10). That would have been no concern to them in teh least. It was being in the Tribulation that was the concern, becuase they had been taught otherwise.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, I believe Paul makes clear that the apostasy and abomination of desolation must occur before the day Jesus comes to gather us together, for Jesus' coming (parousia) to gather us together must destroy the Antichrist (verse 8). I believe Paul is referring to the same coming and gathering together as Matthew 24:29-31. I don't believe Paul taught a 3rd coming or a 2nd rapture. We Christians must go through the reign of the Antichrist (Revelation 13:7-10, 14:12-13).

You are right that the DOL will not come until then, but since the Rapture precedes those things as well that is no problem. I don't believe Paul taught a 3rd coming or a 2nd rapture. Again, that is a straw man.

Does Revelation say the seals and trumpets of the tribulation are "judgments"?

I think that is the clear context of it. It takes a lot of creativity to see it otherwise. I am simply not that creative

Could all of us Christians who will be in the tribulation (Revelation 6:11, 7:14, 9:4, 12:17, 13:7-10, 14:12-13, 15:2, 16:15, 18:4, 20:4) go through its wars, famines, plagues, persecutions, martyrdoms, and natural disasters, just as we Christians have always suffered, and not because God was bringing judgment against us?

It will not be all of "us" Christians, but it will be the believers on the earth. We have always suffered, but not in the terms that Scripture describes. That is what makes the tribulations of the Thessalonians an imposter for the Tribulation. They simply are not the same. Every time that the Bible speaks of tribulation, it should not be read as Tribulation.

Is there a scripture which says the second coming is a term for the tribulation?

There is no Scripture that says the "second Coming" is a term for anything. Check your concordance. It is a theological term, not a biblical one. It is commonly used to refer to the whole of hte end times.

Note that Jesus is speaking to the same believers, the same "ye," in Matthew 24:15 (ye shall see the abomination of desolation) that he is speaking to in Matthew 24:36-44 (watch).

Not following your reasoning here. Jesus was not speaking to the same believers that Paul was. So far as I know, Jesus was never in Thessalonica and Paul was writing to new believers some 30 years after the death of Christ. Jesus was speaking to a Jewish audience.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by postrib:
Is there any verse that you feel would require that the day of the Lord begin before the 2nd coming?

The OT passages show that the DOL involves judgment and then blessing. We know from the whole of Scripture that Christ returns at the end of the Tribulation. I believe we all agree on that (no matter how we consider the Tribulation). Therefore, since the Tribulation judgments are a part of the DOL according to the OT and NT, it is clear that the DOL begins before the 2nd coming.

Paul said the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night (1 Thessalonians 5:2) and the Lord said he will come as a thief (Matthew 24:43-44), and there's no 3rd coming of the Lord.

No one argues there's a 3rd coming. That is a straw man. But the "thief in the night" argumetn cannot be postrib because the post trib arguments give a time line which we can follow. The thief in teh night does not. The "peace and safety" that people are crying out in 1 Thess 5 is wholly incompatible with the Tribulation that we all agree precedes the 2nd coming. Therefore, the peace and safety is the end of the church age; then the DOL comes suddenly on those who are not ready for it.

Does any scripture teach that we will be gone when the tribulation comes? Doesn't Jesus say that he will come to gather us together "immediately after the tribulation" (Matthew 24:29-31), and Paul say that Jesus' coming to gather us together must "destroy" the Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:1-8)? Don't we Christians have to go through the coming tribulation (Revelation 13:7-10, 14:12-13)?

No. That was the cause of consternation. There will be believers in the Tribulation who are saved. But the church will be removed. There is no other way to explain teh consternation of the Thessalonians. There is no one verse that says the church will be gone, just as there is no one verse that says the church will be here. These are the theological arguments that are arrived at by correlating Scripture. It must all be put together, not just the texts that we believe fit our position.

Some say the Thessalonians were shaken about possibly missing the rapture and being in the tribulation. But the Thessalonians wouldn't be "shaken in mind, or be troubled" (2 Thessalonians 2:2) about being in persecutions and tribulation, for they were already patiently enduring both:

They were enduring tribulation, not the Tribulation. That was their consternation. They were fine in the face of trouble, but not when someone told them that the DOL had come. When Christ returns, he sets up his kingdom in power and glory. There will be no mistaking that. The Thessalonians were not worried that Christ had come to set up his kingdom. They were worried that the Tribulation had started. Had someone told them that Christ had returned, they would not have been fooled. They were eagerly awaiting that (1 Thess 1:10). That would have been no concern to them in teh least. It was being in the Tribulation that was the concern, becuase they had been taught otherwise.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, I believe Paul makes clear that the apostasy and abomination of desolation must occur before the day Jesus comes to gather us together, for Jesus' coming (parousia) to gather us together must destroy the Antichrist (verse 8). I believe Paul is referring to the same coming and gathering together as Matthew 24:29-31. I don't believe Paul taught a 3rd coming or a 2nd rapture. We Christians must go through the reign of the Antichrist (Revelation 13:7-10, 14:12-13).

You are right that the DOL will not come until then, but since the Rapture precedes those things as well that is no problem. I don't believe Paul taught a 3rd coming or a 2nd rapture. Again, that is a straw man.

Does Revelation say the seals and trumpets of the tribulation are "judgments"?

I think that is the clear context of it. It takes a lot of creativity to see it otherwise. I am simply not that creative

Could all of us Christians who will be in the tribulation (Revelation 6:11, 7:14, 9:4, 12:17, 13:7-10, 14:12-13, 15:2, 16:15, 18:4, 20:4) go through its wars, famines, plagues, persecutions, martyrdoms, and natural disasters, just as we Christians have always suffered, and not because God was bringing judgment against us?

It will not be all of "us" Christians, but it will be the believers on the earth. We have always suffered, but not in the terms that Scripture describes. That is what makes the tribulations of the Thessalonians an imposter for the Tribulation. They simply are not the same. Every time that the Bible speaks of tribulation, it should not be read as Tribulation.

Is there a scripture which says the second coming is a term for the tribulation?

There is no Scripture that says the "second Coming" is a term for anything. Check your concordance. It is a theological term, not a biblical one. It is commonly used to refer to the whole of hte end times.

Note that Jesus is speaking to the same believers, the same "ye," in Matthew 24:15 (ye shall see the abomination of desolation) that he is speaking to in Matthew 24:36-44 (watch).

Not following your reasoning here. Jesus was not speaking to the same believers that Paul was. So far as I know, Jesus was never in Thessalonica and Paul was writing to new believers some 30 years after the death of Christ. Jesus was speaking to a Jewish audience.

 

[postrib]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry on May 17, 2003 04:59 PM:
...the Tribulation judgments are a part of the DOL according to the OT and NT...

Again, when you say tribulation judgments, does Revelation ever say or the context ever require that the seals and trumpets of the tribulation are "judgments"? And can you specifically indicate which OT and NT scriptures say or require that God's judgments in the 7 vials of wrath at the end of the tribulation (Revelation 15:4, Revelation 16:7), which will not be directed at us Christians, must be part of the day of the Lord?

Again, I believe the day of the Lord will begin at the 2nd coming, and is the day we wait for (1 Corinthians 1:7-8), watch for (1 Thessalonians 5:2-6), and will rejoice in (2 Corinthians 1:14).

Originally posted by Pastor Larry on May 17, 2003 04:59 PM:
...No one argues there's a 3rd coming...

Isn't the rapture a coming?

"I will come again" (John 14:3).

"The coming of our Lord" (2 Thessalonians 2:1).

"The Son of man coming" (Matthew 24:30).

"The coming of the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:15).

"They that are Christ's at his coming" (1 Corinthians 15:23).

How does a pre-trib rapture not require a third coming?

Originally posted by Pastor Larry on May 17, 2003 04:59 PM:
...the "thief in the night" argumetn cannot be postrib...

I believe it can be, for note that Jesus comes on people as a thief only "if" they aren't watching: "IF therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee" (Revelation 3:3).

Paul said that if we watch for the 2nd coming it will not overtake us as a thief: "Yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night... But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief... let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch" (1 Thessalonians 5:2, 4, 6).

Note that between the 6th and 7th vials, at the very end of the tribulation, Jesus is still exhorting us to keep watching for his coming: "Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth" (Revelation 16:15).

Originally posted by Pastor Larry on May 17, 2003 04:59 PM:
...The "peace and safety" that people are crying out in 1 Thess 5 is wholly incompatible with the Tribulation...

I don't believe it is, for 1 Thessalonians 5:3 could refer to the destruction that will come upon the unsaved at the end of the tribulation and at the 2nd coming.

At the death of the two witnesses, at the end of the 42-month reign of the Antichrist, I believe the unsaved will rejoice and make merry and give gifts to one another (Revelation 11:10), thinking that now all is peace and safety, that now the Antichrist can rule unimpeded without any more plagues coming on the earth (Revelation 11:6). But little will they know that sudden destruction is about to come upon them with the 7 vials of God's wrath and Jesus' coming:

"Thy wrath is come.. that thou shouldest... destroy them which destroy the earth" (Revelation 11:18).

"Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe" (2 Thessalonians 1:9-10).

"Then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:8).

Originally posted by Pastor Larry on May 17, 2003 04:59 PM:
...the end of the church age...

While I believe the church began in Acts 2, note that the Bible doesn't refer to a "church age," but instead says that the church will continue "throughout all ages, world without end" (Ephesians 3:21). Note that we Christians who will be in the tribulation are Christians after the cross and after Pentecost (i.e. not OT) who have washed our "robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (Revelation 7:14) and have "the faith of Jesus" (Revelation 14:12) and are "in the Lord" (Revelation 14:13), so we must be in his body (Ephesians 4:4-5), which body is the church (Ephesians 1:22-23).

Originally posted by Pastor Larry on May 17, 2003 04:59 PM:
...It was being in the Tribulation that was the concern...

Again, Paul knew that the Thessalonians wouldn't be concerned about any tribulation (2 Thessalonians 1:4), but they would be shaken by the teaching that the 2nd coming had already happened, just as the faith of some was being destroyed by the teaching that the resurrection had already happened (2 Timothy 2:18).

Originally posted by Pastor Larry on May 17, 2003 04:59 PM:
...It was being in the Tribulation that was the concern, becuase they had been taught otherwise...

Note that Paul nowhere teaches anyone that they wouldn't go through the tribulation, but even makes the contrary clear, for, again, in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, he explains that the apostasy and abomination of desolation must occur before the day Jesus comes to gather us together, for Jesus' coming (parousia) to gather us together must destroy the Antichrist (verse 8).

Originally posted by Pastor Larry on May 17, 2003 04:59 PM:
...There is no Scripture that says the "second Coming"...

What is Hebrews 9:28 referring to?

Originally posted by Pastor Larry on May 17, 2003 04:59 PM:
...It is commonly used to refer to the whole of hte end times...

Can you give some common examples where "the second coming of Christ" or "the second appearing of Christ" has been used to refer to the tribulation?

Originally posted by Pastor Larry on May 17, 2003 04:59 PM:
...Jesus was speaking to a Jewish audience...

In the pre-trib view, in Matthew 24:36-44, isn't Jesus speaking about the rapture to us Christians, whether Jew or Gentile? Note again that he is speaking to the same believers, the same "ye," in Matthew 24:15 that he is speaking to in Matthew 24:42.

And note that in Matthew 24:36-44 Jesus is referring to the same "coming of the Son of man" as when he says "immediately after the tribulation of those days... they shall see the Son of man coming" (Matthew 24:29-30). Jesus isn't teaching a 3rd coming.

Note that Jesus tells them: "Ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake" (Matthew 24:9). Would non-Christians be hated for Christ's name's sake? Are there Christians outside of the church (Ephesians 4:4-5)?

Note that while Jesus described his second coming and the rapture and resurrection of believers in John 14:3, Matthew 24:29-31, and John 6:40, before the church had been formed, this in no way requires that the events he described won't happen to the church which now exists, just as his describing of salvation in John 3:16 before the church had been formed in no way requires that the salvation he described doesn't now happen to the church.