|
|
Post by Matthew on Aug 25, 2014 13:59:53 GMT
Hello everyone, I am new to the forum. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. I have a question.
I have heard both sides of the debate with regard to the correct interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2, but something just seems off to me with the way a pre-tribulation interpretation looks at that passage.
My question is: if the Thessalonians were to receive relief from their persecutions at what the pre-tribulation interpretation calls the 2nd coming in chapter 1, then how can they be gathered together unto Him In chapter 2 verse 1 by a rapture 7 years earlier?
This seems impossible to me. Either a person is raptured before the tribulation (2:1) or is present to receive relief at the 2nd coming (1:7) but never both. This is a logical contradiction. Even Paul said that He would be present (and our being gathered) and even receive relief too.
This puts him in 2 places at the same time under a pre-tribulation interpretation. How can this be? Isn't 1:7 and 2:1 the same thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin on Aug 26, 2014 0:21:45 GMT
Hey  Welcome to RaptureForum, first of all - nice to have you with us! Now... I think your premise is incorrect on this one. Let me explain why. You've begun with the assumption that 2 Thessalonians 1:7 is a Rapture passage. It isn't. That verse (I'll start a little earlier for context) states: There is a series of events and circumstances listed here. First, Paul is talking about the 'tribulation' that the saints in Thessalonica are enduring at the time of his writing. The time period we're talking about here is 50-51AD, and the Church in Thessalonica was being persecuted by those who stood against the gospel. The tribulation he discusses in these (quoted) verses is not The Great Tribulation, nor the Day of the Lord (which, if you remember 1 Thessalonians 4, the people of Thessalonica felt they were already *in* because of the persecution they were enduring). Second, Paul is talking about God's desire to repay the current sufferings of the Saints with righteous justice "when He is revealed from Heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God." This reference (verse 7) is a very clear statement of God's purpose, not in the Rapture, but in the Second Coming. The Rapture is the 'Harpazo', God 'snatching away' believers so that they are not caught up in His wrath (not that we should avoid persecution or tribulation (these things have come, and will come again), but so that we are not subject to God's judgement, as we are His in Christ). Following the Rapture, we have the Seven-Year period known loosely as 'The Tribulation', and perhaps more correctly as "Daniel's 70th Week". Following THAT period, we have the Second Coming. It is at this time that God will "put all nations under His (Christ's) feet" (1 Corinthians 15:27, Hebrews 10:13, Psalm 110:1, Matthew 22:44 and many others). At that time, Christ will come not in mercy, but in judgment upon the Nations. Isaiah talks about this at length, particularly in isaiah 63: No doubt you can see the parallel between these verses and those from 2 Thessalonians 1, "when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." This, then, is not the Rapture, but the 'Day of the Lord' (the latter half of Daniel's 70th Week). This leads in to 2 Thessalonians 2, in which Daniel reminds the Thessalonians that "that Day will not come unless the apostasia comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition..." What Paul is saying here is that, while the Thessalonians are enduring Tribulation, they are not in Daniel's 70th Week. Scripture makes clear that the Day of the Lord does not occur until the one we commonly call Antichrist (an unfortunate name, really, the aforementioned 'son of perdition' is probably more useful) violates a covenant made with Israel by performing the 'Abomination that causes desolation' in the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. So, hopefully that answers your question. Neither 1:7 nor 2:1 refer to the Rapture. Both refer to the Tribulation. |
|
|
|
Post by morningstar on Aug 26, 2014 1:43:59 GMT
Excellent explanation Benjamin and very clear. I am going to put my 2 cents worth here also. First I'd like to Welcome you msged2007 to our Forum, so glad you can join us. I can see where this can be confusing to some. But we have to start off by understanding that the Bible does not contradict itself, so therefore the contradiction has to be with man himself. We first look at the clear passages of Scripture for they shed light on the more vague passages. There are two separate Coming of the Lord passages to understand. I normally don't get into a treatise as to why I have a Pre-Trib view and I certainly won't get into a debate on this issue, been there done that and it always ends up being a futile discourse anyway. So for what it's worth here are my thoughts, even though I think Benjamin s explanation may be a lot clearer to you than mine. 1 Thessalonians: Christ returns for His Church and meets them in the air. (End of the Church Dispensation of Grace..Rapture of the Church) 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 (NKJV)
The Comfort of Christ’s Coming13 But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.
15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.
Zedchariah 14: Christ returns and sets foot on the Mount of Olives.
Zechariah 14:3-4 (NKJV)
3 Then the Lord will go forth
And fight against those nations,
As He fights in the day of battle.
4 And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives,
Which faces Jerusalem on the east.
And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two,
From east to west,
Making a very large valley;
Half of the mountain shall move toward the north
And half of it toward the south
The Rapture cannot happen at the end of the Tribulation for at that time the Lord will Judge and separate the Sheep (Remaining believers of the tribulation) from the Goats (remaining unbelievers of the tribulation) Matthew 25: 31-46.....the Sheep will enter the Millennial Kingdom, and the unbelievers will be cast into Hades until the Great White Throne Judgement at the end of the Millennium. At the Rapture we will have our new Translated bodies and if this happened at the end of the tribulation then there will be no mortals to inhabit the Kingdom in which there will be pro-creation as stated in Isaiah . There will be a resurrection at the end of the 7 year tribulation of the Tribulation Saints
( those who were martyred during that time). There are many passages that show the difference, so my suggestion is to Pray to the Lord for a better understanding and to give you the Wisdom and Knowledge of understanding His Word and His Truth. God Bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Aug 26, 2014 18:36:03 GMT
Hello Benjamin and Morningstar, thank you for responding to my post. It is good to be here.
I read both of your responses and I think you might be misunderstanding what I am asking, and they were well presented by the way, thank you. I am starting in 1 Thessalonians 1:1, without bringing in any other ideas, on a clean slate per say, and letting the Apostle Paul develop his teaching. I do agree that we should consider and include the teachings from the other Apostles and Prophets too, in order to build a doctrine, but only after we are clear on what those individual teachings are, and you have to take them one at a time. Including the teachings of others is step 2; what I am doing here is step 1.
Now, my complaint here is that, since the scriptures were handed down to us through the medium of language, then the ideas communicated in the scriptures must adhere to the rules of language, because that is the medium they are in. All this means is that we have to do our homework to come to the correct meaning. We have to know stuff like: Who was the author? Who was the audience? What was going on at the time? and so forth, and I am sure that you guys will all agree here. But that's not all, for we must also know what the author is talking about. This means the author gets to define the terms, not us.
With that in mind, re-read 2 Thessalonians 1 without importing "Jesus 2nd coming, or Armageddon" and what do you get? You will be hard pressed to get something other than Paul praying for grace for the Thessalonians; being thankful for their faithfulness; encouraging them in their suffering; and offering comfort that they (and him) would receive relief (from their persecutions)when the Lord is revealed from Heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
This is Paul's teaching in chapter 1. It is plain as day. Now, I ask: If Paul was expecting himself and the Thessalonians to get relief when the Lord returns as described above, why does the pre-tribulation doctrine teach something else? I don't think you can deny that this is exactly what Paul is teaching in this passage, nor does Paul define this as Armaggedon, so I don't think objecting on those grounds will get you anywhere. In order to stay true to the texts, one must admit that Paul himself was looking forward to this coming, and that he instructed the Thessalonians to do the same.
Furthermore, quoting scripture from outside this letter cannot make a contradiction inside this letter true. It has to be dealt with from within; we are not dealing with doctrine issues yet; we are dealing with what Paul HIMSELF actually taught, and since Paul includes himself and the Thessalonians in this coming from the start in chapter 1, they cannot also be in another place at the same time (this is where the rules of language and logic come in)In other words: chapter 1 verse 7 and chapter 2 verse 1 MUST be the same event, specifically because of the language that Paul used. He said that both he, and the Thessalonians, would be there in chapter 1 (they have to be to receive relief from their persecutions)and that both he, and the Thessalonians, would be there in chapter 2 (the coming of the Lord and OUR gathering together unto Him) It is impossible for these two references to be different events.
And Benjamin, brother, you got out of this first contradiction when you said that both 1:7 and 2:1 are the same thing, but you stepped right into another contradiction when you said that this is not the rapture. Paul himself was expecting relief at THIS coming, and as far as I know, we go when he goes, so pointing to something else (falling away, restrainer, etc..) inside 2 Thessalonians and calling THAT a rapture before this one won't work either, unless you are going to exclude the Apostle Paul. So, to state my case clearly: I am not building a doctrine; I am merely looking at what the Apostle Paul taught, and because he said (and told the Thessalonians) that both he, and them, would receive relief from their persecutions at this specific coming, on what grounds do others say we go before they do? I am trying to show you that the rules of logic and language will not allow a pre-tribulational interpretation of the Thessalonians letters. Paul cannot be in 2 places at the same time. The same holds for 1 Thessalonians 4 and 5; the resurrection/rapture MUST happen on the day of the Lord, at least at the beginning if the day of the Lord is longer than 24 hours, because both Paul, and the Thessalonians are there both times.
Brothers, go and test this. See if that, when you let Paul define the terms and adhere to the rules of logic and language, if you don't come to the same conclusions. In 1 Thessalonians 4, who is Paul talking to? and does he include himself? Now, go to chapter 5, who is Paul talking to? and does he include himself? "WE who are alive and remain" (chapter 4) "so let US not sleep as other do" and "WE are of the day" (chapter 5) How can he be in two places at the same time? Obviously, the day of the Lord will not catch someone who is watching (us) off guard, but will catch someone who isn't watching (unbelievers) by surprise. Brothers, we have to be there for the threat of being caught off guard to even be real.
Now, since these are corrections of logical contradictions in the way the language inside the Thessalonians letters is being used, can you show me from inside the Thessalonian letters how I could be wrong? I look forward to more discussion on this matter, but please remember that this is an internal Thessalonian problem, so offering references from other sources is irrelevant at this point, for we are attempting to answer the question of "what did PAUL say?" God bless, and have a good day.
|
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Aug 26, 2014 19:05:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Aug 26, 2014 21:07:50 GMT
Jack Kelley says: The 2nd coming will be witnessed by everyone (Matt. 24:30), but the rapture is an instantaneous disappearance (1 Cor. 15:51-52) that happens without warning.
Paul said: 7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted [d]and to us as well [e]when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with [f]His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
I'll stick with Paul.
Jack Kelly says: By most accounts Paul stayed in Thessalonica for only about 3 weeks and during that time he founded a Church and taught them the doctrines of salvation and sanctification, the Trinity, the nature of man, the assurance of pardon, and the Day of the Lord. He continued teaching them after he left with his first letter, written from Corinth in 51 AD, in which he introduced the doctrine of the rapture (1 Thes. 4:16-17).
Why didn't he include chapter 5? He's got the same contradiction I mentioned in my 2nd post.
Jack Kelly says, speaking of 2 Thessalonians 2: Notice that right from the beginning Paul separated the coming of the Lord from our being gathered to Him. That’s because they’re two different events. We can’t tell their relative timing from this, but we can tell they’re not the same thing.
Here is the contradiction again. I need to talk to him too
I read brother Jack's explanation of the Thessalonian letters, and he does a good job at articulating the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine, but he is dead wrong about this. He has the same contradictions I covered in my previous posts. He is saying the same thing you guys are saying, and the contradictions are staring me in the face. Contradictions are necessarily false. Unless you can show me from the text where Paul put himself in ONLY a pre-tribulation coming, then I'm sorry, Paul was not pre-tribulational. Chapter 1 of 2 Thessalonians refutes Jack Kelly.
........and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire.........(Paul was not looking for a secret rapture)
|
|
|
|
Post by peaceinthestorm on Aug 27, 2014 0:10:47 GMT
Hi Matthew. Just a quick question. Is Paul the author of Thessalonians or is it the inspired Word of God? If it is the inspired Word of God pinned though Paul, then why is it not OK to use the whole of scripture to come to an understanding of what is said. If you tried to get all of your understanding of scripture through those books pinned by Moses, for example, then would you come to the conclusion that salvation is through works and that one must use animal sacrifices?
|
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Aug 27, 2014 0:56:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin on Aug 27, 2014 1:40:05 GMT
By restricting yourself to a single book, you are likewise restricting your understanding of God's Word. We're commanded in Scripture to take "the whole counsel of God" (acts 20:27), and to "rightly divide the Word of Truth" (2 Timothy 2:15). I'd suggest to you that there are portions of Scripture that you simply cannot understand or interpret correctly without the broader context of God's whole counsel. Let's take the book of Revelation, for example. In that book, there are hundreds of symbolic images, all of which are present in the Old Testament, but few of which are actively explained within Revelation itself. The four hoursemen, the lampstands, the olive branches... these things are all identified in Zechariah, and without the knowledge of that context you won't come to the right conclusions about what Revelation is discussing.
Now, with that said...
Let's look at this "rest" you're talking about.
You're suggesting that Paul is claiming that the rest comes with this 'coming' that he is describing in 2 Thessalonians 1.
I agree!
...but I'd still argue that Paul is describing the 2nd Coming.
How does that make sense?
...because Paul is talking about rest in a specific (and Biblical) context. He's talking about a rest from conflict, and from persecution - a rest in which God Himself will deal with the nations of this world, and rule them with a rod of iron.
Let's look briefly at where 'rest' is discussed elsewhere in Scripture. If we look at Hebrews 3 and 4 (and I'll quote some of that in a moment), we see that this idea of God providing rest for His children was specifically tied to the promise of the land. The Hebrews were promised rest in the promised land.
This, however, never happened, because the Israelites failed to recognise Jesus Christ at His first coming.
Paul says "there remains, then, a promise of entering His rest" - even now, after the rejection of Christ.
Now, most would look at this reference in a vague, allegorical sense - that we have 'rest in Christ'. Well, that's true, but I think Paul is talking about something significantly more specific than that: the establishment of the Millennial Kingdom of Christ, in literal Israel, for a thousand years.
As you can see here, "rest" is not just relaxation, it's not just freedom from persecution - it's a promise made by God, tied to a specific place (Israel), at a specific time (when God reigns as King). This is what John talks about in Revelation 21-22. Rest!
Jesus Christ will establish that which Joshua failed to do; He will come, "with all his saints", and establish a literal Kingdom here on earth, ruling and reigning from Mount Zion, from Jerusalem.
...so, as you can see, 'rest' is not some vague reference to freedom from persecution, but a very specific reference to a very specific place, time and state. It is not the Rapture (as that is not 'rest'; rather, it is the Wedding Supper of the Lamb), but something that takes place even after that. 'Rest' is achieved not through the removal of the Church (quite the opposite!), but through the reign of Jesus Christ as King; and after that, eternity.
So, the picture is logically and Scripturally consistent, whether you choose to agree with it or not. I'm not suggesting you're in the wrong in terms of your views on the Rapture (that's for you to decide, and it's not a salvation issue, so ultimately we're both safe in 'waiting to find out', each holding to our own conviction) - what I am suggesting is that it's false to argue that the Rapture is illogical or non-Biblical. It's absolutely justifiable Biblically.
First, "we shall be caught up to meet with the Lord in the air" (1 Thessalonians 4:16), and then "The Lord my God shall come... and all his saints with Him" (Zechariah 14:5). These are not the same events, and do not occur within the same time frame. The Rapture occurs before Antichrist is revealed (as seen in this very passage, 2 Thesslonians 2:3), the Day of the Lord commences at that point, and lasts 3.5 years.
So, to recap:
You say "either a person is raptured before the Tribulation (2:1), or is present to receive relief (the word in the text is 'rest' here) at the 2nd Coming, but never both."
Actually, it's absolutely both. Paul will be there at the Rapture, as "the dead in Christ will rise first", and at the 2nd Coming, as "the Lord my God shall come... and all His saints with Him." Jesus Christ will then establish the Kingdom, ushering in a period of unprecedented 'rest' for His saints.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Aug 27, 2014 21:11:45 GMT
Hi Matthew. Just a quick question. Is Paul the author of Thessalonians or is it the inspired Word of God? If it is the inspired Word of God pinned though Paul, then why is it not OK to use the whole of scripture to come to an understanding of what is said. If you tried to get all of your understanding of scripture through those books pinned by Moses, for example, then would you come to the conclusion that salvation is through works and that one must use animal sacrifices? Hello Peaceinthestorm. Thank you for you comment. The Holy Spirit is the Author who wrote through multiple men in multiple time periods and circumstances. This is why the bible is so very unique. It is God's word. But because of the way God chose to write it, the rules of interpretation are so very much more precise and restrictive, and it is these very rules that I am building my case on. Doctrines are built from multiple teachings of multiple people who all spoke about the same topic, and every teaching factors in, but no one teaching has the power to overturn another's, and no outside teaching can make an internal contradiction true. You guys keep trying to pull me back out of 2 Thessalonians when the contradiction is internal. That won't work. I am not talking on the doctrine level; I am talking about what Paul taught, and no one can understand what Paul taught by pointing to Daniel; You must look at Paul's own writings No other scripture in the whole bible has the power to make a contradiction INSIDE 2 Thessalonians true. IT MUST BE DEALT WITH FROM WITHIN. And I don't think you guys are getting me on this point so I'll give and example. Consider 3 books; Book #1 says there is only 1 man and he is wearing a white and black shirt. Book #2 goes into great detail about the white part of the shirt, and book #3 goes into great detail about the black part of the shirt. Now, if someone were to read books 2 and 3, wouldn't they be temped to think that because these shirts are so very different, that there is no way they could be the same shirt? I mean, look at it! book 2 says nothing about the black part, and book 3 says nothing about the white part. One would be crazy to suggest these are the same shirt. Ahhh, but not so fast. Neither book 2 nor book 3 have the power to overcome book 1, and book 1 says there is only 1 shirt. And this is what I am talking about. In 2 Thessalonians 1, one of the earliest members of the church (the Apostle Paul) said that he was expecting to receive relief from his own persecutions at what you call the second coming. How can this be if there is a pre-trib rapture? And please don't deny that he said it, it is right there in verse 7. How could Paul expect to receive anything when you say he wouldn't have been here for seven years? A person cannot be in two places at once. And I am not building a doctrine out of a single verse, I am using a single verse to show you that your view contains a contradiction. I build my own case like this: In 1 Thessalonians 4 and 5, Paul said that the resurrection/rapture happens on the day of the Lord and that it comes on believer and unbeliever at the same time. For believer, it is a day of redemption through the resurrection/rapture, and for unbeliever it is a day of destruction through the wrath of God. Both will be there when the Day of the Lord begins; it is right there in the texts. So 2 Thessalonians 1:7 is not Armageddon; it is the day of the Lord. Look at the Parallels from Paul himself: (1Thessalonians 5 and 2 Thessalonians 1) these are the same, and what do we see there? believers receiving relief (just like the first letter) and unbelievers being destroyed (just like the first letter) Paul said the same thing in both letters: The day of the Lord comes on believers and unbelievers at the same time. Believers are saved (resurrection/rapture); Unbelievers are destroyed (wrath of God) But here come you guys saying "NO, NO, you misunderstood! 1 Thessalonians 4 and 5 are different things, and 2 Thessalonians 1 and 2 are different things! What you don't realize is that by interpreting the Thessalonian letters the way you do, you are butchering Paul's own internal teaching. And here is the contradiction:Paul and the Thessalonians are in both places at both times. They are in 1 Thessalonians 4 AND 5; They are in 2 Thessalonians 1 AND 2; Therefore, it is impossible for these to be different events separated by 7 years when the first event should remove them from the planet. Either they go in a pre-trib rapture, or they stay and can receive relief at the second coming, but not both! Your interpretation is a contradiction. And both Joel and Peter both said the sun and moon would go dark first; before the day of the Lord, which is at the sixth seal. How do you guys not see this? |
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Aug 27, 2014 21:22:23 GMT
Shiloh, Who? do you mean Jack Kelly? He as a forum on here? Where? I would love to talk to him.
|
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Aug 27, 2014 21:24:12 GMT
My dear brother in Christ, I am hoping you are not here to cause division or argue with our pre-Trib stance. I don't believe that's your goal but when the Second Coming happens, that is strictly speaking of the Second Coming and not the Rapture. We must be like the Bereans, whom Paul commended for searching the Scriptures "to see if these things are true". |
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Aug 27, 2014 21:42:10 GMT
Jack Kelley. His site is gracethrufaith.com/ You can sign up as a member and he'll answer your questions. There's a lot of Q&A's on there too. He has weekly commentaries and studies on his site too. It's a very good site. I think you'd like it. I do. |
|
|
|
Post by morningstar on Aug 27, 2014 22:47:25 GMT
As I have mentioned before, to me the Pre-trib view is not debatable, but the best way to explain my belief and I think all our members will agree for this is a Pre-Trib forum is best explained by
Jack kinsella of the Omega Letter. I will post it in it's entirety. And with that said, all I can say is "I will see you in the air"..God Bless.
Why I Believe in a Pre-Trib Rapture
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor
I received an email from a reader who asked me to explain how I arrived at my doctrinal conclusion that the Bible supports a pre-trib Rapture of the Church. It isn't the kind of thing that can be adequately explained in something as limited as a web column, but I will try and hit some of the points I found most convincing to me.
The question that spawned this column went as follows; "Dear Jack: I'm still trying to find a place in the Bible to convince me the Rapture will happen at the beginning of the Tribulation--which I feel we are already in due to the scary things all over the place. I respect your ideas and, if you have it, would like for you to give me that one little piece of information from the Bible to cause me to believe in a preTribulation Rapture." - Paula
What began as my reply rapidly expanded into the column you are reading.
I begin with a link to an article that I think contains some necessary background and lays out some of the groundwork. 'Daniel's Seventieth Week'
As far as a specific verse that points to a pre-trib rapture, I don't know if I could, or that I'd advise you to trust me if I did.
One verse standing alone can be used to prove anything. Seen it done too many times to doubt it. I would be leery of any doctrine that doesn't find support across the whole body of Scripture.
I believe that a pre-Trib rapture has less dissonance with the overall Scripture than do the other views; however, I don't think the timing of the Rapture has eternal consequences among the members Body of Christ.
We're saved by grace through faith in the shed Blood of Christ as full payment for sin, not by faith in the timing of His return.
Paul said in his discussion of the Rapture in 1 Thessalonians "wherefore comfort one another with these words" (4:18)-- not 'challenge or contend with one another over these words.'
Therefore, while I teach the doctrine of a pre-Tribulation Rapture because I believe that it is the correct doctrine, it is in the spirit of extending a measure of comfort that I do so.
That said, it isn't that the Rapture occurs at the beginning of the Tribulation -- it occurs before the Tribulation begins -- a different prospect altogether. The Rapture is a secret, signless, event that could have happened at any time from the days of the Apostles until tomorrow.
The Tribulation takes place at some time after the Rapture. It could be a moment later, a day later, a week later, ten years later.
The two events are unconnected, apart from the fact the first signals the end of the Church Age and the second signals the resumption and conclusion of the Age of the Law - the 'Time of Jacob's Trouble.'
It's just that the Rapture happens at some point before those judgements can begin.
Where's The Holy Spirit?
2nd Thessalonians 2:7 tells us that "the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way."
The word rendered 'let' in the KJV was the correct translation for English as used in King James' day.
In Old English usage common in 1611, to 'let' was to 'restrain', the precise opposite of how the word would be used in contemporary English.
So, He Who restrains will continue to restrain [evil] until He is taken out of the way, Paul writes, "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:"
Note first that the Restrainer is the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit is God, obviously He will not be taken from the earth. Where God isn't, nothing is.
Second, note the ministry of the Holy Spirit. "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;" . . . the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. . .[John 14:16, 14:26]
Clearly, the ministry of the Holy Spirit is absent during the time of the Tribulation, since that ministry is what withholds or restrains unrestricted evil now.
In any case, Jesus sent the Comforter to the Church to abide with us forever. Scripture teaches that each Christian is personally indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?" [1 Corinthians 6:19]
Logically, then, if the Church goes through the Tribulation, but the ministry of the Holy Spirit must be withdrawn before "that Wicked is revealed", then either that withdrawal is part of a general evacuation, or else the promise of a Comforter must be revised.
Something along the lines of, "I will send you a Comforter, but just when you need Him most, during the worst time of tribulation to ever come upon humanity, when men will cry out for the rocks to fall on them rather than live another moment, well, at that time, the Comforter will be recalled. You can face the greatest spiritual assault to ever come against the earth on your own."
Who Was Jesus Talking To?
"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" [Matt 24:3]
What follows is called the Olivet Discourse in which Jesus outlines the events that will precede His coming 'at the end of the world' says the KJV -- not the 'end of the age', as some Bible versions render it.
Note carefully His audience. His reply is addressed to the Jews, not to the Church. He spoke of Tribulation events from the perspective of those who will go through it. The events described are all described from the perspective of observers geographically located in and around Jerusalem.
It wasn't the Church that asked Jesus 'what will be the sign of Thy coming and the end of the world?"
It was His disciples [all of whom were Jews] who asked the question. The Church had not yet been born at Pentecost. Jesus had not yet been rejected and crucified. Jesus was not risen, and the Comforter had not yet come.
The description of the last days contained in the Olivet Discourse is consistent with the details Jesus gave John when He described the Tribulation as John recorded in the Book of the Revelation.
Note also that Jesus addresses the Church in the first three Chapters of the Book of Revelation. It is to the Church that He makes this promise, "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth." Rev 3:10
And a Talking Trumpet
In Chapter 4, verse one, John writes, "After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter."
An open door in heaven and a talking trumpet. Hmmm.
"In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." (1 Corinthians 15:52)
"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:" 1 Thessalonians 4:16
John is called to heaven by a trumpet saying 'Come up hither' so he could watch what takes place next. Paul uses the same imagery to describe the Rapture.
And what takes place next from the heavenly side of the spectator's box is the beginning of the Tribulation.
From there on in, there is no mention of the Church on earth again for the remainder of the Book -- until Jesus returns at the end.
Now, I know that there will be those who will parse every word, come up with verses to contradict the verses I've cited, and that for every argument, somebody will have a counter argument.
In every case in which I've ever written on the topic, I've gotten a flood of emails from people calling me a false prophet or a deceiver and demanding I immediately adapt to their view.
I know of no Scripture that makes believing in a pre-Trib Rapture a requirement of salvation. One can be saved and not believe in any kind of Rapture at all.
So let me say this. I'm not demanding that anyone adapt themselves to my view.
This column is called "Why I Believe In A Pre-Trib Rapture" and not, "Why You Should Believe What I Do".
Neither is this intended to be an exhaustive exegesis of Scripture, or even the most profound of theological evidences. I barely scratch the surface what Systematic Theology details about pretribulationism.
These are just what were the high points for me. They fit with the whole body of Scripture when understood from a pre-Trib perspective, and require endless explanation and allegorical interpretation to make them fit any other view.
I've heard endless assaults on both Dispensationalism and Premillennialism, it's ancestry, its parentage (or lack thereof), and I've been drawn into what are, in the end, pointless and usually heated debates on the subject.
The Scriptures say, "Prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21
To me, that includes the doctrine of a pre Tribulation Rapture.
Link to Article
Fair Use for Discussion Purposes Only.
|
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin on Aug 27, 2014 22:49:17 GMT
And both Joel and Peter both said the sun and moon would go dark first; before the day of the Lord, which is at the sixth seal. How do you guys not see this? ...that's not at all contradictory. The 'Day of the Lord' is not the Rapture. No pre-trib person claims that it is. The 'Day of the Lord' is explicitly in reference to the latter half of the Tribulation. The sixth seal comes in the FIRST half of the Tribulation. Perfectly logically consistent. |
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Aug 28, 2014 3:18:25 GMT
Thank you Shiloh, I will look for Jack Kelly's forum tonight.
But if I may, I don't understand this:
My dear brother in Christ, I am hoping you are not here to cause division or argue with our pre-Trib stance. I don't believe that's your goal but when the Second Coming happens, that is strictly speaking of the Second Coming and not the Rapture. We must be like the Bereans, whom Paul commended for searching the Scriptures "to see if these things are true".
Why would you think this? Isn't a reasonable disputation about matters of fact the way to come to understand truth? I mean, I could be wrong about the way I am reading the scriptures, but couldn't you too? I thought Iron sharpens Iron? What are your checks and balances against deception if you disallow others from disagreeing with you?
No, I am not trying to cause division among brothers, but that seems beside the point because I too am a brother in Christ and we appear already divided. So I do not know what that statement gets you. As far as questions, yes I do have some, and even some I've never heard asked, and what better place to when you have questions about the pre-tribulation doctrine than what appears to be one of the only sites that allows those questions? I read the forum rules ahead of time and thought it was ok to ask them, am I wrong?
Benjamin, thank you for your answer about rest, and it was a well thought out one, but I wasn't confused about what kind of rest Paul was talking about, only WHEN he expected to receive it. I have no doubt that you are right about what he meant by rest, but your finishing statement is a contradiction about WHEN. Don't think of a "generic" brother in Christ receiving this "rest" at what you are calling the 2nd coming (2 Thessalonians 1:7), but Paul himself! In other words: By the language that Paul used (and to us as well) Paul himself expected to receive this rest at THIS coming (1:7) There is simply no other way to interpret this without having a contradiction. Either Paul himself is on the earth and capable of receiving this rest at THIS coming (1:7) or not, but not both!
You guys say that the church (which we, and Paul, is a part of) goes in a pre-tribulational rapture, but you also say that 2 Thessalonians 1:7 is the 2nd coming. There is only one problem: Paul said he would be here to receive relief at 1:7 (read verse 7, to us as well) Paul can't be in 2 places at once! I am not saying that this (1:7) is Armageddon, or the seventh trumpet, or the sixth seal, or anything else, YOU guys are, and there is no way that Paul could go in a pre-trib rapture (like you guys claim) and be here to receive anything at the 2nd coming (which you guys say 1:7 is) This is a contradiction! You guys don't see this? Please tell me you see this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin on Aug 28, 2014 3:23:53 GMT
Matthew -
as I mentioned in my last post, Paul is absolutely expecting rest at "this" coming, because "this" coming is the Second Coming, not the Rapture. 2 Thessalonians 1:7 is about the Second Coming.
Paul will be there to receive that rest, as will we all, because Christ comes WITH His saints...
so yes, we all will absolutely be in the Rapture, AND at the Second Coming... because once the Rapture occurs, we will "be with the Lord forever" (1 Thessalonians 4:18). This includes returning to earth with Him after the seven-year Tribulation, and reigning with Him on earth for a thousand years as per Revelation 21-22.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Aug 28, 2014 4:08:09 GMT
Benjamin,
You said: No pre-trib person says that the Day of the Lord is the Rapture. I agree with you. I did not mean that this is a pre-trib claim that seems contradictory to me. What I meant is that, by the language that he used, the Apostle Paul himself said it was.
In 1 Thessalonians 4, Paul talked about the rapture and resurrection of believers when the Lord returns. He said "we who are alive and remain" and was including himself in that group. Now, whether or not he lived to see it is irrelevant, because we all know what he said, and I don't think any of you have a problem with Paul himself being a member of this group (because you use this as a reference to the rapture of the church, which Paul is a part of) and I agree.
But now look at chapter 5. Paul starts by talking about the day of the Lord, which you guys place somewhere near the end of the tribulation period, right? What language does Paul use? WE....he uses WE! Paul himself expected to see this day come! Paul said "so then let US not sleep as others do, but let US be alert and sober" and "WE are not children of darkness, but WE are children of light" Paul himself is including himself in the group that could possibly be overtaken by this day like a thief if they were not watching! This is precisely why we are told to watch! Because this day is coming on all! Why the warning if it isn't at least possible to be found not watching?
So, given the way you interpret "the Day of the Lord" and given the language that Paul used, where does he have to be in order to be overtaken by this day at all (watching or not)? He has to be on earth when the day of the Lord happens! Anything else is a contradiction! This is why we MUST take 1 Thessalonians 4 AND 5 together, because Paul's own language demands it, and when we do, we get: The resurrection/rapture happens on the day of the Lord and it comes on both believer and unbeliever at the same time. It is a day of redemption for believers (who are watching, through the resurrection/rapture) and a day of destruction for unbelievers (who are not watching, through the wrath of God) There is simply no other way to take this without ending up with a contradiction. Chapter 4 and chapter 5 MUST be the same thing, because Paul spoke as if he, and the Thessalonians, would be there both times.
I am not pushing mid-trib, pre-wrath, or post-trib. I am merely looking at the Thessalonian texts. And this is what it says. Make of it what you will, but whatever you make of it, a contradiction cannot be true, and if your view contains one, it's time to go back to the drawing board. I am a brother in Jesus, saved by grace through faith, and I am telling you that the way you have explained this passage to me cannot possible be true. And quoting other scriptures is not going to fix this. It is an internal language problem. If Paul said that the Thessalonians were to watch for the Day of the Lord so as not to be overtaken by it like a thief, then guess what we are to be watching for? The Lord to return on the day of the Lord just as 2 Thessalonians 1 says. Have I made my case yet? I am going to talk to Jack Kelly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Aug 28, 2014 4:11:20 GMT
Benjamin, I just saw your last post.
Why would Paul need rest at the 2nd coming? Rest in context is rest from persecution. Didn't you say he would already have been in Heaven for 7 years? This is what doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Aug 28, 2014 4:27:25 GMT
Morningstar, thank you for your response.
But this:
Logically, then, if the Church goes through the Tribulation, but the ministry of the Holy Spirit must be withdrawn before "that Wicked is revealed", then either that withdrawal is part of a general evacuation, or else the promise of a Comforter must be revised.
does not follow. There are more ways to remove the restraining aspects of the Holy Spirit working through the body of Christ, one of which is a great falling away from that body, which is exactly what is prophesied. The body of Christ doesn't need to be removed in order to not be effective at restraining evil anymore, it just needs to get a whole lot smaller.
Bad reasoning like this leads to bad conclusions. We must be each other's checks and balances and test everything, and this doesn't hold up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Aug 28, 2014 4:47:25 GMT
Morningstar:
And this:
It wasn't the Church that asked Jesus 'what will be the sign of Thy coming and the end of the world?"
It was His disciples [all of whom were Jews] who asked the question. The Church had not yet been born at Pentecost. Jesus had not yet been rejected and crucified. Jesus was not risen, and the Comforter had not yet come.
Also is contradictory. Who was Jesus talking to in John 14 when He said "You believe in God, believe also in Me. In my Father's house are many mansions.....?" or who did Jesus institute the Lord's supper with?
You cannot use this as a rapture reference (not that you did, but many do) AND disqualify Matthew 24 for this reason at the same time. It is self refuting.
I am not looking for you to agree with everything I believe; what would the world be if we are all the same? I am looking instead for logical consistency in a doctrine, and this ain't it.
My brothers, I wish we could sit down and talk about our differences, and be each other's guard rails so none of us run into the ditch, but I fear that if I keep going, you guys will be upset with me. I have seen it too many times. So I will openly state that you guys have the freedom to ask anything of me without fear of me loosing my cool. I actually need that to help me think about what I believe and why I believe it. As I stated before, I believe it to be the checks and balances against being overtaken by self deception. Now I ask, do I have the same freedom with you? I am not attacking your character; You are my brothers. I am merely testing an idea. May I continue?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkis Maximus on Aug 28, 2014 6:09:01 GMT
I hope this spirited discussion continues, as I'm learning quite a bit from reading it.
|
|
|
|
Post by shiloh on Aug 28, 2014 6:32:07 GMT
LOL! Lurkis Maximus! I love that name! Very brilliant.
Personally, I'm done with this thread but some may continue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin on Aug 28, 2014 8:14:26 GMT
Benjamin, You said: No pre-trib person says that the Day of the Lord is the Rapture. I agree with you. I did not mean that this is a pre-trib claim that seems contradictory to me. What I meant is that, by the language that he used, the Apostle Paul himself said it was. In 1 Thessalonians 4, Paul talked about the rapture and resurrection of believers when the Lord returns. He said "we who are alive and remain" and was including himself in that group. Now, whether or not he lived to see it is irrelevant, because we all know what he said, and I don't think any of you have a problem with Paul himself being a member of this group (because you use this as a reference to the rapture of the church, which Paul is a part of) and I agree. Okay. There's a lot to go through here, so I'm going to have to take it step by step. First, nowhere in 1 Thessalonians 4 does Paul talk about the 'Day of the Lord'. What he does talk about is the Rapture; and that, in fairly clear terms. What you're proposing (that the Rapture takes place at the end of the 'Day of the Lord' (and correct me if I'm wrong on that)) has a whole host of contradictions and issues all of its own - not the least of which is the fact that there are two very different scenarios painted in Scripture which are not congruent. This image runs through just a few of the discontinuities between the two events:  Fair questions, so let's look at that context. Paul does absolutely say that the Thessalonians should watch, but what's the context there? It's not in the context of watching for the Day of the Lord as such - it's actually a bit more specific than that. Paul says "sudden destruction comes upon them... and they shall not escape." "BUT YOU... are not in darkness, that this day should overtake YOU as a thief." What Paul is demonstrating is a contrast: those upon whom destruction comes, and those who are "sons of the light". He goes on: "for God did not appoint us to wrath" (as opposed to "them", verse 3), "but to obtain salvation". This is the contrast: the world, who will be overtaken by Tribulation; and the Church, which won't. Importantly, Paul links the reason that the Church won't endure Tribulation here to a single, key distinction between "us" and "them". We are "sons of the light"; that is, we are hidden in Christ (this also blows apart the argument from those who claim that only those who are watching for the Rapture will be taken - the criteria is Christ). Everything that comes after these verses (about watchfulness, about being sober, and so on) is in that context - the context that, because we are saved in Christ, our attitude and approach as we see the Day nearing should and will be very different from that of the world, who "shall not escape". Paul isn't warning the Thessalonians that they could be overtaken if they don't watch; He's informing them that they WON'T be overtaken, because we (there's that "WE") are in Christ, and are not appointed to wrath. Again, you've got this backwards - Paul specifically says that they will NOT be overtaken... yet you seem to keep suggesting that he (and the Thessalonians) will. I agree wholeheartedly that 1 Thessalonians 4 and 5 should be taken together, but there is nothing within those chapters that is inconsistent with a pre-tribulation rapture. Quite the opposite. |
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin on Aug 28, 2014 8:19:55 GMT
My brothers, I wish we could sit down and talk about our differences, and be each other's guard rails so none of us run into the ditch, but I fear that if I keep going, you guys will be upset with me. I have seen it too many times. So I will openly state that you guys have the freedom to ask anything of me without fear of me loosing my cool. I actually need that to help me think about what I believe and why I believe it. As I stated before, I believe it to be the checks and balances against being overtaken by self deception. Now I ask, do I have the same freedom with you? I am not attacking your character; You are my brothers. I am merely testing an idea. May I continue? Now, Part 2: This site was born because I desired a place online where I could discuss Biblical things with believers. You've read the rules here. The most important rule of all is this: Bible. Only. Nothing in any of your posts so far suggests that you've broken that rule. Quite the opposite. There will be some people here who won't want to engage in 'spirited debate', and there are probably some here who have come to RaptureForum to get away from that on other sites. My feeling toward these things really has two angles: 1) As long as it's Biblical, it's positive. If you want to disagree with me, I'm completely okay with it - but the only way you, or anyone else, will ever convince me, or even interest me in a conversation, is to do it Biblically. 2) Spirited debate is fine (as you say, iron sharpens iron), but some won't like or enjoy it... and we need to respect the fact that this isn't their thing, too. Some people might pop in and out of a thread like this and contribute where they feel they can or should, some might hang around, and others might just flee at the sight of it. All of those options are okay. So... provided that this conversation continues (as it has thus far) in a respectful, Biblical manner, we will have no issue whatsoever. On this topic, as with many others, there are good Biblical scholars, and people who genuinely love the Lord, on both sides of the 'argument'. Ultimately that's fine - and when one of us is proven correct, if and when it's me, I reserve the right to point at you and laugh.  |
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Aug 28, 2014 19:32:41 GMT
My brothers, I wish we could sit down and talk about our differences, and be each other's guard rails so none of us run into the ditch, but I fear that if I keep going, you guys will be upset with me. I have seen it too many times. So I will openly state that you guys have the freedom to ask anything of me without fear of me loosing my cool. I actually need that to help me think about what I believe and why I believe it. As I stated before, I believe it to be the checks and balances against being overtaken by self deception. Now I ask, do I have the same freedom with you? I am not attacking your character; You are my brothers. I am merely testing an idea. May I continue? Now, Part 2: This site was born because I desired a place online where I could discuss Biblical things with believers. You've read the rules here. The most important rule of all is this: Bible. Only. Nothing in any of your posts so far suggests that you've broken that rule. Quite the opposite. There will be some people here who won't want to engage in 'spirited debate', and there are probably some here who have come to RaptureForum to get away from that on other sites. My feeling toward these things really has two angles: 1) As long as it's Biblical, it's positive. If you want to disagree with me, I'm completely okay with it - but the only way you, or anyone else, will ever convince me, or even interest me in a conversation, is to do it Biblically. 2) Spirited debate is fine (as you say, iron sharpens iron), but some won't like or enjoy it... and we need to respect the fact that this isn't their thing, too. Some people might pop in and out of a thread like this and contribute where they feel they can or should, some might hang around, and others might just flee at the sight of it. All of those options are okay. So... provided that this conversation continues (as it has thus far) in a respectful, Biblical manner, we will have no issue whatsoever. On this topic, as with many others, there are good Biblical scholars, and people who genuinely love the Lord, on both sides of the 'argument'. Ultimately that's fine - and when one of us is proven correct, if and when it's me, I reserve the right to point at you and laugh. Lol, Thank you Benjamin, for giving me permission to continue. I will honor your rules. |
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Aug 29, 2014 3:29:32 GMT
Benjamin, thank you once again for a very detailed response on 1 Thessalonians 5, but I think you are doing something that you don't realize.
You say that nowhere in 1 Thessalonians 4 does Paul mention the day of the Lord, to which I agree, IF you take that passage in isolation. I don't understand why you don't include 1 Thessalonians 5 with it. By the language that Paul used, both he and the Thessalonians would be there both times. He instructed them to watch SO THAT the day of the Lord would not overtake them like a thief; catch them by surprise; etc.... but it is obvious from the language that Paul used, such as WE and YOU, that he and the Thessalonians would go into the day of the Lord (if the Lord returned in their life times) which is why he warned them to watch and be prepared. It is the unbeliever that will be caught by surprise; the believer will know it is coming but will go into it nonetheless. I simply cannot see how, by the language, you can interpret chapter 4 as one thing (a pre-trib rapture) and chapter 5 as another (the second coming, day of the Lord, etc....) especially separated by 7 years! IF Paul and the Thessalonians are there both times, which they clearly are (by the use of US and WE) then these 2 events CANNOT be interpreted as a pre-trib rapture and events that happen on the earth later. Either you go or you stay but not both. This is the same point I was making about 2 Thessalonians 1 and 2. In 2 Thessalonians 1, what coming was Paul waiting for? Just go read and see!
Also, in an earlier post, you switched two terms that I don't think you realized you switched. While you were talking about 1 Thessalonians 5, you said that Paul was making the contrast in order to show that the church would not go into the tribulation, here is your quote:
This is the contrast: the world, who will be overtaken by Tribulation; and the Church, which won't.
but the tribulation was never mentioned in that passage; the day of the Lord was. So here you are defining "the Day of the Lord" as "the whole tribulation (including the beginning)"
But in another post, you said:
Scripture makes clear that the Day of the Lord does not occur until the one we commonly call Antichrist (an unfortunate name, really, the aforementioned 'son of perdition' is probably more useful) violates a covenant made with Israel by performing the 'Abomination that causes desolation' in the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.
And:
This, then, is not the Rapture, but the 'Day of the Lord' (the latter half of Daniel's 70th Week).
You are using the term "the day of the Lord" in an equivocal way, meaning that you have multiple definitions and are using those definitions interchangeably. This is an error brother. Where scripture plainly says the day of the Lord won't happen until the sun and moon go dark, you say it happens in the latter half of Daniel's 70th week, but in 1 Thessalonians 5, you say it begins with the first seal and is another name for the tribulation. Well, it can't be both.
Why not just go with scripture and say that yes, Paul and the Thessalonians were watching for that day (1 Thessalonians 5); and that THAT day happens after the sun and moon go dark (Acts 2:20)? But since both Paul and the Thessalonians were watching for THAT day, what does that say for the church, which they are apart of? The example above is what I am talking about when I say consistency in a doctrine. I mean without error. Equivocation and contradiction are error.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Aug 29, 2014 3:57:33 GMT
Benjamin, you said:
What you're proposing (that the Rapture takes place at the end of the 'Day of the Lord' (and correct me if I'm wrong on that))
No, not what I am proposing. I am proposing that, upon a plain reading of 1 Thessalonians 4 AND 5, Paul said that the resurrection/rapture happens on the day of the Lord and that THAT DAY comes on believer and unbeliever at the same time. It has 2 different outcomes for the 2 different groups. FOR BELIEVERS, WHO ARE WATCHING, it is a day of redemption through the resurrection/rapture. FOR UNBELIEVERS, WHO ARE NOT WATCHING, it is a day of destruction through the wrath of God.
This is an EXACT parallel of 2 Thessalonians 1. 2 Thessalonians 1 IS NOT Armageddon; the seventh bowl; etc......but is the day of the Lord (sometime after the sixth seal; sun and moon go dark (Acts 2:20) In 2 Thessalonians 1, you have BOTH believers and unbelievers, just like 1 Thessalonians 5. The Lord comes as described, and then you have the same 2 outcomes: Believers (including Paul and the Thessalonians; the church) receives rest from their persecutions (resurrection/rapture) and unbelievers get destruction, just like 1 Thessalonians 5. Same author, same audience, same story.
The only issue with this is that it puts the resurrection/rapture sometime after the sixth seal, but any other reading contradicts the language. Paul was incredibly detailed here; in 2 Thessalonians 1:7 he said that HE would receive rest from persecution at THIS coming.
He has to be on earth to be under persecution in order to receive rest from it, and he has to be on earth after at least some of the seals to receive this kind of rest at THIS coming. By including himself in receiving rest from persecution at THIS coming, Paul was unbelievably clear on WHERE he expected to be and WHEN he expected to be delivered, and I am sorry, this is not how you guys describe a pre-tribulation rapture. You actually call this Armageddon.
And this is my point with the pre-trib interpretation. It is a logical contradiction. Paul cannot be in a pre-trib rapture (like you guys interpret 2 Thessalonians 2) AND receive relief from persecution (has to be on earth) at the 2nd coming (like you guys interpret 2 Thessalonians 1) This is impossible. Either you stay or you go, but not both.
|
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin on Aug 29, 2014 8:08:59 GMT
Ooooookay.
Lots to cover again.
I think, ultimately, that this is where you and I disagree, fundamentally.
You say:
...but I don't think that Paul's language does suggest that, in any way, shape or form.
In fact, I'd suggest that Paul's language says precisly the opposite - and not only that, but Scripture bears out the latter view, but not the former.
I believe I've already substantiated that view sufficiently that a recap here will be distinctly unhelpful; suffice to say that when Paul says "you, brothers, are not in darkness that this day should overtake you...", that's precisely what he means: not that they should be vigilant and look for Tribulation, but that they should be vigilant because the nearness of That Day (there's that phrase again) is indicative of the closeness of the Lord's return.
This is why, if you look all through the gospels, you see the continuity of the call for vigilance, not primarily in the context of Tribulation, but in the context of the relationship between the Bride and the Bridegroom. We're to look for Christ - not for the Tribulation. Warnings about the Tribulation itself are expressed not to the Church, but to the Jewish people (e.g. "therefore, when you see the abomination that causes desolation standing in the Holy Place..."), who are given specific instruction to flee Jerusalem at that time.
What you need to understand is that Israel and the Church have two very different, very distinct destinies, and each is revealed in Scripture. The purpose and intent of the Tribulation is not for the purification of the Church, but for the chastisement of the world and the purification of Israel. This is why it's so prominent in Old Testament prophecy. Zechariah, for example, is full of allusions to God's impending purification of His Chosen People, Israel, in those last days.
Moving on.
As you discuss my use of the term "the day of the Lord", I would take that reference to be explicitly in regards to the latter half of the Tribulation. You've mentioned that you think I "say it begins with the first seal and is another name for the Tribulation". That's not my suggestion at all. The Day of the Lord is the latter 3.5 years of the entire Tribulation period. Your suggestion that Paul and the Thessalonians were looking forward to it is evidently false. It's not that they were looking forward to that day (in a positive sense), but that the Thessalonians were afraid that it had ALREADY HAPPENED, and that they had been left behind in the Rapture. The Thessalonians genuinely thought that the Tribulation had commenced - and, more than that, that "the day of the Lord had already come" (2 Thessalonians 2:2).
You've repeatedly stated that the Thessalonians were looking forward (in a positive sense) to the Day of the Lord, as the Day of their redemption and resurrection.
That's just not the case at all. They were TERRIFIED. They thought that everything they'd been taught was wrong (which is why Paul stresses what he taught them in the past, 2 Thessalonians 2:5), and that they'd plunged headlong into Tribulation.
Once again, you've said: "Paul cannot be in a pre-trib rapture (like you guys interpret 2 Thessalonians 2) AND receive relief from persecution (has to be on earth) at the 2nd coming (like you guys interpret 2 Thessalonians 1) This is impossible. Either you stay or you go, but not both."
...and yet, as I've shown you, there are two distinct events:
1) The Rapture
2) The Second Coming
...and Paul will absolutely be at both - first, as he is "caught up to meet with the Lord in the air", and second, when "The Lord... coming with all His saints", returns at the end of the Tribulation.
Paul, and every other believer, will be present at BOTH events - and these are quite clearly two distinct events, whose descriptions vary so markedly as to be demonstrably different, and not at all the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Aug 29, 2014 20:12:49 GMT
Benjamin, I agree that this is going to be the area that each of us are not going to give on, so I will reply to your last post and will leave it be after that.
First, you didn't quote the whole verse
4 But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake you......... like a thief,
Not including "like a thief" when you quoted this verse carries the idea of not being overtaken at all, but when you include "like a thief" it carries the idea of not being overtaken by surprise; by shock; unaware; without knowing; etc. The whole verse, in context, does not mean that the Thessalonians would not go into this day, but that they would not be surprised; shocked; unaware; caught off guard by it. Why? Because they are watching for it! It is right there in the texts. There is no other way to take this and reconcile it with the rest of the Thessalonian texts, which you have to do BEFORE you go comparing other texts. Want to know which interpretation is correct? It is the one that has no internal contradictions as well as no external contradictions. You are bringing in external aspects of a doctrine and are allowing those aspects to define these terms, and these definitions are causing internal contradictions.
Let me straight out ask you: WHEN is the day of the Lord? and WHAT is the definition of the day of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 5? If you stick to your definition in your last post, which is "the latter half of Daniel's 70th week" (which I tend to somewhat agree with) then how do you keep Paul and the Thessalonians in 1 Thess. 5 out of seals 1 - 5? Be careful. Don't contradict yourself. You already said the day of the Lord is the latter half.......
|
|
