Let no man deceive you by any means...2 Thessalonians 2:3

[DavidPT]

I guess, I would start with audience relevance and presuppositions.

1.) First I would ask: What is the day of the Lord that Paul has in mind, which the first century church would have related to? Is it:

A.) literally every eye viewing the physical and bodily descent of Christ through the atmosphere, dead and alive believers flying into the air, and Christ setting up a literal, earthly kingdom for 1,000 years?

B.) literally every eye viewing the physical and bodily descent of Christ through the atmosphere, dead and alive believers flying into the air, and the literal heaven and earth being destroyed?

C.) The destruction of Jerusalem, the removal of the obsolete old covenant, and the gathering of the good and bad into the wedding feast?

2.) Then, secondly, I would ask: IF the first century PEOPLE IN THESSALONIA TO WHOM PAUL WAS WRITING, held to presupposition 1a, 1b, or 1c above, how could they be deceived that it already had occurred?

3.) Then I would consider the events that first must occur prior to the day of the Lord, according to Paul: i.) the apostasy and ii.) the “revealing” of the man of sin.

A.) Are these new revealed events OR is Paul further elaborating on events already revealed? Such as those found in the OD. IF the apostasy and man of sin are related to the falling away and false Christs/prophets arising and misleading THEN audience relevance dictates that 2 Thessalonians 2 should be understood in light of the OD.

Matthew 24:10 10At that time many will fall away and will betray and hate one another, 11and many false prophets will arise and mislead many.

B.) Does anything in the grammar suggest the timing of the man of sin?
Yes, the man of sin’s “revealing” was being restrained in the first century according to 2 Thessalonians 2:6. The man of sin was presently existing (present tense verb) in the first century by the works of Satan according to 2 Thessalonians 2:9.

C.) Do any other gospels and epistles claim a “falling away” associated with the “end times”? Yes, John states “they left us” in association with the coming of the antichrists, and that being evidence as how they knew it was the last hour.

There could be more than just those choices you submitted. BTW, I quoted your entire post, not just part of it, so, I don't know why all of it isn't showing up?

If the day of the Lord involves all 7 vials like I tend to think, that means to me that not all of the day of the Lord involves His physical presence, as in bodily seen by everyone.

For example.

Revelation 16:10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,
11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.


Verse 11 indicates that they repented not of their deeds. It seems unreasonable to even mention this fact unless repenting is least an option. And the fact it is apparently an option here, regardless that they don't repent, I see this making zero sense that this would be meaning after Christ has literally bodily returned to the planet, meaning when everyone on the planet can literally see Him and know that He is here.

And if this is involving the day of the Lord, and for the life of me, I can't see how it couldn't be, that means that the day of the Lord involves more than just a single 24 hour day(though some interpreters insist it only involves a single 24 hour day or less), and that not all of the day of the Lord involves His physical bodily presence. If anyone can undeniably prove, regardless when they think the day of the Lord is meaning, that vial 5, for instance, that this is not meaning during the day of the Lord, this would then make my arguments here moot, in that case. Or if they can undeniably prove, that after Christ bodily returns, repenting is still an option, this would debunk that I'm arguing that some of the day of the Lord, assuming vial 5 occurs during it, that Christ is not bodily present at the time.

Or if someone can undeniably prove that the day of the Lord only involves one single 24 hour day or less, which would then mean the vials of wrath can't fit, in that case, since they obviously require more than a single day to fulfill them. If anyone wants to argue with that logic, just compare vial 4 to vial 5, as if both those events can happen at the same time, getting scorched via the blazing sun while there is total darkness at the time.

 

[DavidPT]

2.) Then, secondly, I would ask: IF the first century PEOPLE IN THESSALONIA TO WHOM PAUL WAS WRITING, held to presupposition 1a, 1b, or 1c above, how could they be deceived that it already had occurred?

3.) Then I would consider the events that first must occur prior to the day of the Lord, according to Paul: i.) the apostasy and ii.) the “revealing” of the man of sin.

A.) Are these new revealed events OR is Paul further elaborating on events already revealed? Such as those found in the OD. IF the apostasy and man of sin are related to the falling away and false Christs/prophets arising and misleading THEN audience relevance dictates that 2 Thessalonians 2 should be understood in light of the OD.

Matthew 24:10 10At that time many will fall away and will betray and hate one another, 11and many false prophets will arise and mislead many.

B.) Does anything in the grammar suggest the timing of the man of sin?
Yes, the man of sin’s “revealing” was being restrained in the first century according to 2 Thessalonians 2:6. The man of sin was presently existing (present tense verb) in the first century by the works of Satan according to 2 Thessalonians 2:9.

C.) Do any other gospels and epistles claim a “falling away” associated with the “end times”? Yes, John states “they left us” in association with the coming of the antichrists, and that being evidence as how they knew it was the last hour.

For right now this is too much for me to try and address. You raise several interesting points worthy of consideration, and that I would like to try and address them, except I wouldn't know where to start. I guess I need more time to consider what you wrote before I attempt to try and address them further.

And it happened to me once again, not everything that I quoted is showing up. Don't know what I'm doing wrong here?

 

[claninja]

There could be more than just those choices you submitted.

Agreed. I tried just to put in the big 3: Amil, Premil, and Pret for simplicity sake.

BTW, I quoted your entire post, not just part of it, so, I don't know why all of it isn't showing up?

If the day of the Lord involves all 7 vials like I tend to think, that means to me that not all of the day of the Lord involves His physical presence, as in bodily seen by everyone.

For example.

Revelation 16:10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,
11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.


Verse 11 indicates that they repented not of their deeds. It seems unreasonable to even mention this fact unless repenting is least an option. And the fact it is apparently an option here, regardless that they don't repent, I see this making zero sense that this would be meaning after Christ has literally bodily returned to the planet, meaning when everyone on the planet can literally see Him and know that He is here.

And if this is involving the day of the Lord, and for the life of me, I can't see how it couldn't be, that means that the day of the Lord involves more than just a single 24 hour day(though some interpreters insist it only involves a single 24 hour day or less), and that not all of the day of the Lord involves His physical bodily presence. If anyone can undeniably prove, regardless when they think the day of the Lord is meaning, that vial 5, for instance, that this is not meaning during the day of the Lord, this would then make my arguments here moot, in that case. Or if they can undeniably prove, that after Christ bodily returns, repenting is still an option, this would debunk that I'm arguing that some of the day of the Lord, assuming vial 5 occurs during it, that Christ is not bodily present at the time.
Or if someone can undeniably prove that the day of the Lord only involves one single 24 hour day or less, which would then mean the vials of wrath can't fit, in that case, since they obviously require more than a single day to fulfill them. If anyone wants to argue with that logic, just compare vial 4 to vial 5, as if both those events can happen at the same time, getting scorched via the blazing sun while there is total darkness at the time.

I think we can simplify the “day of the Lord” when we stick with the context of 2 Thessalonians

It involves the “coming of Christ” and the “gathering of believers” according to 2 Thessalonians 2:1. It also involves the destruction of the man of sin (2 Thessalonians 2:8), and the wrath of God on those who had been persecuting the Thessalonians (2 Thessalonians 1:9-10).

 

[keras]

Or if someone can undeniably prove that the day of the Lord only involves one single 24 hour day or less, which would then mean the vials of wrath can't fit, in that case, since they obviously require more than a single day to fulfill them. If anyone wants to argue with that logic, just compare vial 4 to vial 5, as if both those events can happen at the same time, getting scorched via the blazing sun while there is total darkness at the time.

The great and terrible Day of the Lord's fiery wrath will be a single day event;
Isaiah 9:14 Therefore in one day, the Lord will cut off head and tail, palm frond and reed. [Israel's leaders and the lowly people, Zephaniah 1:1-16]
Zephaniah 3:9 On a single day, I shall wipe away the guilt of this land, [All of the holy Land]
Isaiah 29:5b-6 Suddenly, in an instant, punishment will come from the Lord........[Another description of the Sixth Seal]
Revelation 18:8 That is why disasters will strike 'babylon' in a single day, she will perish in flames.....[Fire from the sun; Isaiah 30:25-30]

The Great Tribulation against those who have taken the 'mark of the beast', will take place over all of the final 3 1/2 years.

 

[claninja]

For right now this is too much for me to try and address. You raise several interesting points worthy of consideration, and that I would like to try and address them, except I wouldn't know where to start. I guess I need more time to consider what you wrote before I attempt to try and address them further.

And it happened to me once again, not everything that I quoted is showing up. Don't know what I'm doing wrong here?

A lot of what I wrote you can probably ignore, as it was just my thought process and musings for working through 2 Thessalonians 2.

The main points were #1 and #2.

Simply put:

1.) How could those living in Thessalonia be deceived that the day of the lord already happened, if the day of the Lord involves the coming of Christ to set up an earthly kingdom for 1,000 years, where he reigns

2.) How could those living in Thessalonia be deceived that the day of the Lord already happened, if the day of the Lord involves the coming of Christ and the destruction of the literal heaven and earth (Amil).

3.) How could those living in Thessalonia be deceived that the day of the Lord already happened, if the day of the Lord involved the destruction of Jerusalem?

1 of the above 3 seems plausible (number 3). 1 and 2 don’t seem plausible imho.

 

[keras]

I think we can simplify the “day of the Lord” when we stick with the context of 2 Thessalonians

It involves the “coming of Christ” and the “gathering of believers” according to 2 Thessalonians 2:1. It also involves the destruction of the man of sin (2 Thessalonians 2:8), and the wrath of God on those who had been persecuting the Thessalonians (2 Thessalonians 1:9-10).

Paul is simply saying that the desecration of the Temple must take place BEFORE Jesus Returns.
Not at the same time at all.

 

[keras]

2 Thessalonians 2:8
And 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: Yes He will be visible.! This passage is clearly stated the ones you have quoted are not.
Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. Yes He will be visible!

Your references all refer to the glorious Return, NOT to the terrible Day of the Lord's wrath.
Why can't you see the difference?

 

[Postvieww]

Your references all refer to the glorious Return, NOT to the terrible Day of the Lord's wrath.
Why can't you see the difference?

I do see the difference between how Christ deals with the wicked and the saints. I just do not agree with how you divide the scriptures.

 

[keras]

I do see the difference between how Christ deals with the wicked and the saints. I just do not agree with how you divide the scriptures.

The scriptures are well and truly divided.
Revelation 6:12-17; the Lords Day of wrath, is years before Revelation 19:11 - the glorious Return.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

A lot of what I wrote you can probably ignore, as it was just my thought process and musings for working through 2 Thessalonians 2.

The main points were #1 and #2.

Simply put:

1.) How could those living in Thessalonia be deceived that the day of the lord already happened, if the day of the Lord involves the coming of Christ to set up an earthly kingdom for 1,000 years, where he reigns

I, of course, am not a Premil, but I don't think this question really does anything to disprove Premil. The key thing to note here is the idea of them being deceived. That means Paul was warning them about being deceived into thinking that the day of the Lord was something that it's not. How else could they have thought that it had already come?

I initially thought this was a great question, but then I realized that you are (seemingly) assuming they would have had the correct understanding of what the day of the Lord entailed. But, that would not be the case if they were deceived, right? So, they could have thought that the day of the Lord had already happened or was in the process of happening if they didn't have an accurate understanding of what it entailed because of being deceived.

2.) How could those living in Thessalonia be deceived that the day of the Lord already happened, if the day of the Lord involves the coming of Christ and the destruction of the literal heaven and earth (Amil).

Again, we're talking about them being deceived. They could have been deceived into believing that the day of the Lord did not entail the coming of Christ and destruction of the literal heaven and earth.

If they had the correct understanding of the day of the Lord, then you would have a point here and with your first question, but we're talking about them being deceived. So, if they were deceived into thinking that the day of the Lord had already come then that doesn't give the impression that they would have the correct understanding of what the day of the Lord entails.

3.) How could those living in Thessalonia be deceived that the day of the Lord already happened, if the day of the Lord involved the destruction of Jerusalem?

1 of the above 3 seems plausible (number 3). 1 and 2 don’t seem plausible imho.

How is 3 plausible? The letter was written before 70 AD, so how could they have been deceived into believing that Jerusalem had already been destroyed? I know they didn't have TV, radio or the Internet (or even newspapers) back then, but it seems rather implausible that they could have been deceived into thinking that Jerusalem had been destroyed. What would even be the point of someone trying to deceive them into believing that?

Another thing well worth pointing out here is that Paul was talking about being deceived in regards to the coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him. He no doubt was referring to the same event that he wrote about in 1 Thess 4:14-17. When have believers ever been caught up to Christ "in the air" before? That clearly has not yet happened. So, that has to be taken into account when interpreting 2 Thess 2. It definitely has nothing to do with what happened in 70 AD.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Your references all refer to the glorious Return, NOT to the terrible Day of the Lord's wrath.
Why can't you see the difference?

There is no difference. The terrible day of His wrath will occur when He returns to gather His people to Himself and destroy all unbelievers, as taught in many passages such as Matthew 24:35-39, 2 Thess 1:7-10, 2 Peter 3:10-13 and Revelation 19:11-21.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The scriptures are well and truly divided.
Revelation 6:12-17; the Lords Day of wrath, is years before Revelation 19:11 - the glorious Return.

Wrong. You're not recognizing the recapitulations or parallels within the book.

Revelation 6:12 I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, 13 and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind. 14 The heavens receded like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. 15 Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16 They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17 For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can withstand it?”

This indicates that the wrath of the Lamb will already be at hand at this point.

If the following does not describe the wrath of the Lamb, I don't know what does.

Revelation 19:11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: king of kings and lord of lords. 17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”

How can Revelation 19 be describing something years after Revelation 6:12-17 when it talks about His wrath being at hand at the sixth seal already? There is no indication that there would still be things happening for years after that. That is completely implausible.

 

[claninja]

I, of course, am not a Premil, but I don't think this question really does anything to disprove Premil. The key thing to note here is the idea of them being deceived. That means Paul was warning them about being deceived into thinking that the day of the Lord was something that it's not. How else could they have thought that it had already come?

I initially thought this was a great question, but then I realized that you are (seemingly) assuming they would have had the correct understanding of what the day of the Lord entailed. But, that would not be the case if they were deceived, right? So, they could have thought that the day of the Lord had already happened or was in the process of happening if they didn't have an accurate understanding of what it entailed because of being deceived.


Again, we're talking about them being deceived. They could have been deceived into believing that the day of the Lord did not entail the coming of Christ and destruction of the literal heaven and earth.

If they had the correct understanding of the day of the Lord, then you would have a point here and with your first question, but we're talking about them being deceived. So, if they were deceived into thinking that the day of the Lord had already come then that doesn't give the impression that they would have the correct understanding of what the day of the Lord entails.


How is 3 plausible? The letter was written before 70 AD, so how could they have been deceived into believing that Jerusalem had already been destroyed? I know they didn't have TV, radio or the Internet (or even newspapers) back then, but it seems rather implausible that they could have been deceived into thinking that Jerusalem had been destroyed. What would even be the point of someone trying to deceive them into believing that?

Another thing well worth pointing out here is that Paul was talking about being deceived in regards to the coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him. He no doubt was referring to the same event that he wrote about in 1 Thess 4:14-17. When have believers ever been caught up to Christ "in the air" before? That clearly has not yet happened. So, that has to be taken into account when interpreting 2 Thess 2. It definitely has nothing to do with what happened in 70 AD.

I would disagree, as Paul NEVER corrects the Thessalonians on what the Day of the Lord is in 2 Thessalonians 2. He provides events that must first occur before the day of the Lord BUT does not provide a correction to what the Day of the Lord is.

If you can show me where in 2 Thessalonians, that Thessalonians didn’t understand that the day of the Lord involved the “coming of Christ” or “gathering of believers”, then I would willing to take another look at your argument. Otherwise my argument still stands: if the Thessalonians did understand the day of the Lord involved the coming of Christ and gathering to him, how could they be deceived if they also understood that this also meant:

1.) Christ physically and bodily and literally descending through the atmosphere for literally every eye to see, dead and alive believers flying into the air, and Christ setting up an earthly 1,000 year reign.

OR

2.) Christ physically and bodily and literally descending through the atmosphere for literally every eye to see, dead and alive believers flying into the air, and the literal heaven and earth being destroyed.

(Edit: maybe one could argue they simply didn’t YET know about points 1 or 2?)

I simply believe the possibility of the Thessalonians being deceived that the destruction of Jerusalem and gathering of the good and bad into the wedding feast had already occurred Is more plausible than being possibly deceived that the events of the literal heaven and earth being destroyed or Christ setting up an earthly kingdom for 1,000 years had already occurred.

 

[Postvieww]

I simply believe the possibility of the Thessalonians being deceived that the destruction of Jerusalem and gathering of the good and bad into the wedding feast had already occurred Is more plausible than being possibly deceived that the events of the literal heaven and earth being destroyed or Christ setting up an earthly kingdom for 1,000 years had already occurred.

1 and 2 Thessalonians was written between about 49 and 51 AD Revelation was written about 90 AD. The Thessalonians would not have clear revelation on the wedding feast or the 1000 year reign. I am not even sure the wedding feast is properly understood today.

 

[Postvieww]

Wrong. You're not recognizing the recapitulations or parallels within the book.

AMEN !!!!!!!!!!

 

[Postvieww]

The scriptures are well and truly divided.
Revelation 6:12-17; the Lords Day of wrath, is years before Revelation 19:11 - the glorious Return.

The coming of the Lord is clearly stated or alluded to in Revelation 6, 11, 14, and 19. He is only returning one time yet in our future.

 

[claninja]

1 and 2 Thessalonians was written between about 49 and 51 AD Revelation was written about 90 AD. The Thessalonians would not have clear revelation on the wedding feast or the 1000 year reign. I am not even sure the wedding feast is properly understood today.

And I did take that into consideration in post 73.

However this argument also has its own issues:

1.) is the book of revelation completely new information that the apostles were unaware of?

2.) is the book of revelation simply symbolic, recapitulating language for the Olivet Discourse.

If 1, then yes, it’s possible that they just didn’t know yet. Additionally, we would then know Paul couldn’t be correcting them on what the Day of the Lord is because not even he would have know yet due to John not having yet received the revelation (IF written post 70ad).

If 2, then it doesn’t really matter if they were unaware of the vials, seal, 1,000 year reign etc…as these were only symbolic visions of what they already knew would occur according to the the gospel, and the olivet discourse in regards to Christ’s coming and their gathering to Him. As Paul didn’t correct their understanding of the day of the Lord but the only the timing, it’s stands to further support that “this generation not passing away till all these events have occurred” is what the Thessalonians had expected and how they could possibly be deceived

 

[Postvieww]

1.) is the book of revelation completely new information that the apostles were unaware of?

A lot of it was. It was more detail of some things they were aware of such a the return of Christ. If it had all been know to the apostles it wouldn't have been a revelation to John.

 

[Postvieww]

we would then know Paul couldn’t be correcting them on what the Day of the Lord is because not even he would have know yet due to John not having yet received the revelation

It is not possible to know what Paul knew we only knew what he wrote.

2 Corinthians 12:4
How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakablewords, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

 

[DavidPT]

we would then know Paul couldn’t be correcting them on what the Day of the Lord is because

With something like this in mind, the more I think about it, though I'm not being dogmatic here, maybe in general he was correcting them in advance, in the event they might apply some things he had previously written to them about, to the here and now, and not that they were necessarily already doing that.

Notice in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 that is says this---That ye be not soon shaken in mind. 'soon' being the keyword. Had he said this instead--That ye be not shaken in mind---would that mean the same thing as saying---That ye be not soon shaken in mind?