Thessalonian Comfort or Future Coming? 2 Thess. 1

[asterisktom]

Hey asterisktom,

Two problems: 1) Your assumption is false and somewhat offensive for you to go there. 2) Instead of pointing out my "weaknesses" generally - it might be better to just point out the specific OT reference you have in mind - and deal with it in the context of the NT references I have shown you. We could just give that a try.

You present something for "peer review" then are offended by the review. My "looking down my nose" is all in your own mind. Get over yourself. Its not about you.

Did you want comments or not? If you do, you don't get to then micro-manage just how others comment back to you. You hoist your flag and see who salutes.

Here's a story for you, Eagle. A man builds a house, is pretty proud of his house and wants Mr. Somebodyelse to comment on his workmanship. (Nothing wrong with that.) But Mr. Somebodyelse, instead of praising the man's work, as he expected, just pointed out, out of concern, "Son, you built your house on a swamp. It isn't going to last. Why, it's leaning already!"

"Forget that," the man replied. ""You didn't say a word about the trim of the house, or the workmanship and time I put into it!"

That is what I did here. I pointed out the swamp. Your whole scenario is tilting already. To you it is, unfortunately, "looking down the nose". To me it is the objectivity of a second person, who does have at least some experience in this.

 

[Eagle]

You present something for "peer review" then are offended by the review. My "looking down my nose" is all in your own mind. Get over yourself. Its not about you.

Did you want comments or not? If you do, you don't get to then micro-manage just how others comment back to you. You hoist your flag and see who salutes.

Here's a story for you, Eagle. A man builds a house, is pretty proud of his house and wants Mr. Somebodyelse to comment on his workmanship. (Nothing wrong with that.) But Mr. Somebodyelse, instead of praising the man's work, as he expected, just pointed out, out of concern, "Son, you built your house on a swamp. It isn't going to last. Why, it's leaning already!"

"Forget that," the man replied. ""You didn't say a word about the trim of the house, or the workmanship and time I put into it!"

That is what I did here. I pointed out the swamp. Your whole scenario is tilting already. To you it is, unfortunately, "looking down the nose". To me it is the objectivity of a second person, who does have at least some experience in this.

OK asterisktom,

Now, that we've settled that - how 'bout you actually, specifically, really, criticize, as a peer, what I have presented, with clear, specific, scriptural analysis?

You can generalize my lack of understanding in the OT, or the NT, or anything else you wish - but how 'bout addressing the issue presented, while yer at it? All these rabbit trails...NO peer review/analysis. I am ready.

 

[asterisktom]

OK asterisktom,

Now, that we've settled that - how 'bout you actually, specifically, really, criticize, as a peer, what I have presented, with clear, specific, scriptural analysis?

You can generalize my lack of understanding in the OT, or the NT, or anything else you wish - but how 'bout addressing the issue presented, while yer at it? All these rabbit trails...NO peer review/analysis. I am ready.

Unbelievable.

 

[Paul33]

OK asterisktom,

Now, that we've settled that - how 'bout you actually, specifically, really, criticize, as a peer, what I have presented, with clear, specific, scriptural analysis?

You can generalize my lack of understanding in the OT, or the NT, or anything else you wish - but how 'bout addressing the issue presented, while yer at it? All these rabbit trails...NO peer review/analysis. I am ready.

Eagle,

This has been my experience, too. I post a statement and get no specific feedback, just a rabbit trail on something else. For example, I specifically addressed the Corinthian example that was given and explained how the context determines the meaning, both in the Corinthian passage and in the Thessalonian passage. The response? Nothing.

 

[Paul33]

Quote:
Originally Posted by asterisktom

When God told Paul that "I am with you, and no one shall do you harm; for I have many people in this city." He was speaking of real, particular protection. He was speaking to a person. He was referring to a place - Corinth. It would not do for a missionary to take this promise and use it as a certain amulet of protection as he ministers to the modern people of Corinth (assuming that it exists today, though it doesn't). No, we needed to read the promise through Pauline eyes. In the same way, we need to read these Thessalonian promises through Thessalonian eyes.

Correct. The phrase "for I have many people in this city" explains and defines what Paul meant by "I am with you, and no one shall do you harm."

So also 2 Thess. 1:6-10. The sentence "God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well" is explained and defined by the sentences that follow - "This will happen when . . . He will punish those . . . They will be punished with . . . on that day . . . to be glorified in his holy people . . . This includes you.

Paul defines what he means in both the Corinthian passage and the Thessalonian passage so that there can be no doubt as to what he means in either context. The first has to do with a promise of personal protection; the second with the justice of God at the return of Christ.

 

[Paul33]

And what is the return of Christ? How is it described in Paul's letters to the Thessalonians? It is a visible, gathering of the elect to Jesus Christ when he comes again. See 1 Thess. 4:16ff, which agrees with Jesus' words in Mathew 24.

The relief that Paul is addressing in 2 Thessalonians 1:6 takes place when Christ returns visibly as explained in 1 Thess. 4:16ff. This is much more than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., an event that may or may not have brought relief to the Thessalonian church.

 

[Eagle]

And what is the return of Christ? How is it described in Paul's letters to the Thessalonians? It is a visible, gathering of the elect to Jesus Christ when he comes again. See 1 Thess. 4:16ff, which agrees with Jesus' words in Mathew 24.

The relief that Paul is addressing in 2 Thessalonians 1:6 takes place when Christ returns visibly as explained in 1 Thess. 4:16ff. This is much more than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., an event that may or may not have brought relief to the Thessalonian church.

Quite right, Paul33, and seemingly, clear and simple enough. :thumbs:

 

[Logos1]

And what is the return of Christ? How is it described in Paul's letters to the Thessalonians? It is a visible, gathering of the elect to Jesus Christ when he comes again. See 1 Thess. 4:16ff, which agrees with Jesus' words in Mathew 24.

The relief that Paul is addressing in 2 Thessalonians 1:6 takes place when Christ returns visibly as explained in 1 Thess. 4:16ff. This is much more than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., an event that may or may not have brought relief to the Thessalonian church.

There are so many, many proofs that the Thessalonians aren’t being told about a return of Christ thousands of years into the future that the only hard part is knowing where to start. For example:

• They are all dead thousands of years into the future and won’t get any relief from any such future coming no matter what happened then.

• Jesus’ parables all tell us that when he comes he doesn’t take anybody away. He comes and stays. The wedding parables—he doesn’t take the bride away but comes to the bride's location to marry. In Luke 19 when the man returned from the far country he didn’t take anyone away he stayed there and ruled.

• In different places we are told Christ will return in the lifetime of those in his audience. Ex. Mark 9:1

• The bible clearly tells us Christians will still be here after Christ’s return. Romans 13:11-14 Paul tells them to put aside darkness and walk with decency “as in the day” not in promiscuity, quarreling, jealousy, etc. Here he is telling them to act like they will do “in the day” the day being the time after Christ’s return when they will need to live righteous lives. Clearly there will be non-Christian behavior after Christ returns.

“Your understanding of the inspiration of Scripture is utterly astounding!” Mel

Thank you Mel!

 

[asterisktom]

As I have told you before, asterisktom, I totally understand and agree with what you are saying about an "earthly" reign by our Lord, but Preterism misses the boat in answer to this errant Pre-millennial view. Post-millenialism is where the answer is to be found that more properly meshes the good points of both incorrect views. The following quote is copied from a posting I had in another thread, found here: http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1550446&postcount=12 It is fairly concise, but somewhat lengthy of necessity.
....
[Here were all of your verses that didn't get quoted automatically, and which I don't have time to do just now.

My suggestion is for you to put your Bible quotes outside of the quote boxes so that they are easier to quote snippets of and respond to.]

At the end of your quotes you wrote, "Food for thought. "

Well, Eagle, I was looking at this bowl of food that you keep putting in front of me and I notice this big block of wood that I need to deal with first - because it is impossible to eat around it.

You wrote, underlining mine:

"So then, if there is a "great" tribulation to come, and there is, and if there is a millennial 'period' to occur, and there is -- then both MUST precede the 'rapture' and "the end" (1 Cor. 15:24), which are synonymous or parallel here."

Actually, two blocks of wood, the tribulation period also, but I want to especially point you to your bald assertion "if there is a millennial 'period' to occur, and there is".

You take an "if" and make it into an "is"! You assume what you haven't proven - haven't even argued for in the rest of the post. And then you expect me to discuss within that framework.

 

[asterisktom]

And what is the return of Christ? How is it described in Paul's letters to the Thessalonians? It is a visible, gathering of the elect to Jesus Christ when he comes again. See 1 Thess. 4:16ff, which agrees with Jesus' words in Mathew 24.

The relief that Paul is addressing in 2 Thessalonians 1:6 takes place when Christ returns visibly as explained in 1 Thess. 4:16ff. This is much more than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., an event that may or may not have brought relief to the Thessalonian church.

This is all suitably vague, which makes it fit for your purpose, for your futurist doctrine - but it is not in scripture. Not when you look at the actual details, as I have shown.

Christ's Parousia did certainly bring the promised relief to the Thessalonians, just like Paul promised it would. Your word "visible" is actually an eisegetical and unwarranted refinement of what is actually taught in that passage you cite.

 

[lastday]

Lastday

Paul33,
You put AsteriskTom in his place once again - outside the broad realm of truth!
Your comment on the words of Paul referring to Christ's "visibility" is great!!
Tom's charge of "vagueness and eisegesis" blatently denies His Doctrine!!!
Originally Posted by Paul33

And what is the return of Christ? How is it described in Paul's letters to the Thessalonians?
It is a visible gathering of the elect to Jesus Christ when he comes again. See 1 Thess. 4:16ff, which agrees with Jesus in Mathew 24.

This is much more than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., an event that may or may not have brought relief to the Thessalonian church.

Tom, a believer, is in some sense a very dismissive representative of the Faith!
He has become disdainful of anyone who holds to the Doctrine of Christ!!
He shows contempt for us who uphold Christ's glorified humanity!!!
Mel

 

[Paul33]

There are so many, many proofs that the Thessalonians aren’t being told about a return of Christ thousands of years into the future that the only hard part is knowing where to start. For example:

• They are all dead thousands of years into the future and won’t get any relief from any such future coming no matter what happened then.

Define relief. I have defined "relief" from the text of 2 Thess. 1:6-10, where Paul defines relief in the context of the punishment received by those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with "everlasting" destruction and "shut out" from the PRESENCE of the Lord and from the majesty of his power ON THAT DAY he comes to be glorified in his holy people and be marveled at among ALL THOSE WHO HAVE BELIEVED. This includes you . . .

Neither you nor Tom have addressed where you are getting your definition of "relief" from other than your eisegesis that "relief" must be in the lifetimes of those who received the letter from Paul. The problem is that Paul defines relief explicitly within the context of everlasting punishment and his glorification in all of his holy people, not just those at Thessalonica.

Why do you refuse Paul's definition of "relief" for your own? Is it because Paul's definition messes up your interpretation of his passage? Does not the author have the right to define his own terms, which he has done in 2 Thess. 2:7b-10?

As to the PRESENCE of the Lord, what does that look like?

2 Thess. 2:8 describes the Lord's coming as "splendor." In 2 Thess. 1:7b his coming is describes as a revealing "from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels - a day in which he is glorified in his holy people to be marveled at by "all" those who have believed. In 1 Thess. 4:16ff, the Lord HIMSELF will come down from heaven . . . and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to MEET the Lord in the air. AND SO WE SHALL BE WITH THE LORD FOREVER. Matthew 24:30-31, They will SEE the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

Paul's understanding of the coming of Christ is the same as that given by Jesus in Matthew 24. One only has to line up the passages to see that Paul agrees completely with Jesus. And Jesus said that "they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory." And this is exactly what Paul is writing about in 2 Thess. 1:6-10.

A person would have to deliberately close his eyes to not see this truth.

 

[Paul33]

to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you . . .

The promise of relief is for ALL THOSE WHO HAVE BELIEVED, not just those in the first century church of Thessalonica. The fact that Paul adds, "This includes you" demonstrates conclusively that the promise of relief is for the whole church. The phrase, "This includes you" is an aside.

 

[asterisktom]

Define relief. I have defined "relief" from the text of 2 Thess. 1:6-10,

...

A person would have to deliberately close his eyes to not see this truth.

No, Paul, you have defined relief according as you were taught to think about it.

Think about it. Your first comment is excellent. "Define relief". OK:

Forget the Bible for a second (Now watch Lastday jump on that phrase!) think of what the word actually means.

A relief picture is called in when the current picture is in a real fix. Three men on base and no outs in the bottom of the scoreless ninth inning. If he gets the side out - that is relief.

An Aspirin is called a pain reliever because, when taken, it begins to lessen the pain that one is currently feeling.

We say "What a relief! It was hot yesterday, but now the cold front came in."

When I was in the medical field I was not allowed to leave my shift until I was properly relieved. That means that I was working right until the next guy showed up and said, "I relieve you". (Or, "Sorry, I'm late!")

What do all these examples have in common? They all give a good picture of what relief is: It is the immediate change and loosening from a stressful, difficult, or in some way challenging situation. The important thing is that there is no interim period between the stress, work, whatever and the relief to follow.

The relief pitcher doesn't show up the next day. He walks right up to the mound and the other guy heads for the showers. The aspirin is given immediately after and for the pain.

What kind of doctor would this be in the following situation?

"Doctor, did you give my husband some pain relievers?"
"I didn't need to. He died!"
"Oh, what a relief!"

Now that's a silly little made-up dialog. But it is similar to the interpretation of the Thessalonian's relief.

Yes, they were relieved in that Day. But that Day was in AD 70. And the Thessalonians shortly after that were vindicated and relieved. The Jews who troubled them were no longer around, now being either dead, in chains, or lying low because of the tremendous change at this time.

 

[asterisktom]

to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you . . .

The promise of relief is for ALL THOSE WHO HAVE BELIEVED, not just those in the first century church of Thessalonica. The fact that Paul adds, "This includes you" demonstrates conclusively that the promise of relief is for the whole church. The phrase, "This includes you" is an aside.

Hmm. Read the passage again.

I'm not sure if you know what we are saying. I am not saying that there was not Empire-wide (OIKONOMIA) relief throughout the 1st century world for all Christians. After all there was persecution elsewhere too. But this does not lose sight of the fact that Paul in Thessalonians was writing specifically to them, though not without application elsewhere.

 

[asterisktom]

Paul's understanding of the coming of Christ is the same as that given by Jesus in Matthew 24.

...

A person would have to deliberately close his eyes to not see this truth.

Here is something to keep in mind, Paul.

1. You don't win points or arguments by being rude. The last comment was uncalled for.
Well, actually, I was wrong. You do win points with certain people. It has been ever thus. Who knows? Some fellow may actually tell you that you put Tom Riggle in his place.

B. Did you ever wonder why you futurists have a special liking for Mathew 24 - but nearly as great an affinity for Luke. Why?

Well, I'll tell you if you want. Its quite interesting.

 

[Paul33]

No, Paul, you have defined relief according as you were taught to think about it.

Think about it. Your first comment is excellent. "Define relief". OK:

Forget the Bible for a second (Now watch Lastday jump on that phrase!) think of what the word actually means.

A relief picture is called in when the current picture is in a real fix. Three men on base and no outs in the bottom of the scoreless ninth inning. If he gets the side out - that is relief.

An Aspirin is called a pain reliever because, when taken, it begins to lessen the pain that one is currently feeling.

We say "What a relief! It was hot yesterday, but now the cold front came in."

When I was in the medical field I was not allowed to leave my shift until I was properly relieved. That means that I was working right until the next guy showed up and said, "I relieve you". (Or, "Sorry, I'm late!")

What do all these examples have in common? They all give a good picture of what relief is: It is the immediate change and loosening from a stressful, difficult, or in some way challenging situation. The important thing is that there is no interim period between the stress, work, whatever and the relief to follow.

The relief pitcher doesn't show up the next day. He walks right up to the mound and the other guy heads for the showers. The aspirin is given immediately after and for the pain.

What kind of doctor would this be in the following situation?

"Doctor, did you give my husband some pain relievers?"
"I didn't need to. He died!"
"Oh, what a relief!"

Now that's a silly little made-up dialog. But it is similar to the interpretation of the Thessalonian's relief.

Yes, they were relieved in that Day. But that Day was in AD 70. And the Thessalonians shortly after that were vindicated and relieved. The Jews who troubled them were no longer around, now being either dead, in chains, or lying low because of the tremendous change at this time.

And you still refuse to engage the text of 2 Thess. 1:6-10.

You gave your definition of "relief," but you did not take it from the text. That is called eisegesis.

I gave my definition of "relief," solely from the text. That is called exegesis.

 

[Paul33]

Here is something to keep in mind, Paul.

1. You don't win points or arguments by being rude. The last comment was uncalled for.
Well, actually, I was wrong. You do win points with certain people. It has been ever thus. Who knows? Some fellow may actually tell you that you put Tom Riggle in his place.

B. Did you ever wonder why you futurists have a special liking for Mathew 24 - but nearly as great an affinity for Luke. Why?

Well, I'll tell you if you want. Its quite interesting.

I was not being rude. I was making a point with a play on words. You know, you would have to close your eyes, not to SEE the truth of Scripture with regard to the visible, physical return of Jesus Christ.

 

[Paul33]

Hmm. Read the passage again.

I'm not sure if you know what we are saying. I am not saying that there was not Empire-wide (OIKONOMIA) relief throughout the 1st century world for all Christians. After all there was persecution elsewhere too. But this does not lose sight of the fact that Paul in Thessalonians was writing specifically to them, though not without application elsewhere.

From the text, Tom, from the text. You read your theory into the text. Actually, you do not even deal with the text.

I am taking my interpretation from the text. I might be wrong, but at least my interpretation is based on the text. The relief that Paul speaks of is contextually bound with the everlasting punishment of those who do not know God.

What is your relief based on? Your assumption that "relief" must be immediate.

Well, this text teaches that relief comes when Christ appears in blazing fire to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at by all those who have believed. And, oh, by the way, this includes you (Thessalonians).

The relief takes place at the visible, physical, bodily return of Jesus Christ when those who do not know God are punished and Christ is glorified in his holy people.

Again, a person would have to close his eyes not to see this truth from Scripture.

 

[Logos1]

Define relief.

I though my definition of relief was intuitively obvious, but to spell it out Paul tells them they will get relief from their Jewish persecutors (we know it’s Jewish from Acts 17) when the Lord returns. Which happened in 70 AD. We agree fully that Matthew 24 aligns perfectly with this passage as do many others.

As for the coming on the clouds this is of course a reference, not to a literal appearing on a cumulus cloud, but the presence of the Lord. This is just like the cloud references to God in the O.T. (Isaiah 12:1 riding a swift cloud against Egypt).

Infusing the beauty of the apocalyptic language with such brute force literalness robs it of its depth and dimension. The Lord’s presence is more magnificent than just being limited to a single literal interpretation. Keeping it in the apocalyptic realm allows you to ponder on it, search for implication, and contemplate the broader aspects of the scripture.

For example in Matthew 24:30

Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Most people get hung up on seeing a man sized Jesus surfing the clouds in the sky above earth. Don Preston has pointed out that a word for word rendering from Greek actually reads: “And then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven”

Don continues: “Christ is in heaven enthroned at the Father’s right hand, ruling over the nations and bringing vengeance upon His enemies. The divinely ordained cataclysm of AD 70 revealed that Christ had taken the Kingdom from Israel and given it to the Church; the desolation of the Old Temple was the final sign that God had deserted it and was now dwelling in a new Temple, the Church.”

Christ’s parousia isn’t observable (Luke 17:20-21) the sign of his presence on earth while at the same time coming into his Kingdom in heaven was the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Further, we need to grasp the passing of the Old Covenant, the passing of the special relationship with the Jewish nation, and the New Covenant implications of Christ’s new Temple--the indwelling of Believers.

Apocalyptic language should help us to grasp the multiple faucets of this scripture not limit us. To force literal interpretation on it limits Jesus to being in the sky riding clouds above earth and leaves out his presence in heaven. The literal interpretation of apocalyptic language limits Jesus to one plane and misses his true glory. And, it limits our understanding of the scripture instead encouraging us to broaden our understanding of the true glory and power of God and Christ.

“Your understanding of the inspiration of Scripture is utterly astounding!” Mel

Your too kind Mel!