How the Pre-Trib Rapture Became Popular in the Modern Church
- Thread starter Aaron56
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
That's false teaching on their part and yeah garbage teaching is always free...no should pay any real attention to those disasters of posts. They even look like pure nonsense the way they highlight and bold and computer code whole thing into an unreadable failure. That should tell most people the content of post is going to be equally as nonsensical and biblically incorrect.
2 Thessalonians 2:3 μή τις ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατήσῃ κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ ἡ [G646 = ἀποστασία] πρῶτον καὶ ἀποκαλυφθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας
KJV Translation Count — Total: 2x
The KJV translates Strong's G646 in the following manner: to forsake (with G575) (1x), falling away (1x).
KJV Translation Count — Total: 2x
The KJV translates Strong's G646 in the following manner: to forsake (with G575) (1x), falling away (1x).
Yes I totally agree the translators really blew it there. This term is only used twice ln all of the NT.....and it has nothing whatsoever to do with apostasy.
You see, in Acts 21:21, departing from Moses, far from being "apostasy", is actually a POSITIVE and the right thing to do! What do you think Paul was doing when he was preaching in the synagogues? He was encouraging the Jews everywhere to depart from Moses and come to Christ for salvation. The entire book of Hebrews is exhortation to Jews to depart from Moses and come to Christ for salvation.
You see, in Acts 21:21, departing from Moses, far from being "apostasy", is actually a POSITIVE and the right thing to do! What do you think Paul was doing when he was preaching in the synagogues? He was encouraging the Jews everywhere to depart from Moses and come to Christ for salvation. The entire book of Hebrews is exhortation to Jews to depart from Moses and come to Christ for salvation.
Yes I totally agree the translators really blew it there. This term is only used twice ln all of the NT.....and it has nothing whatsoever to do with apostasy.
You see, in Acts 21:21, departing from Moses, far from being "apostasy", is actually a POSITIVE and the right thing to do! What do you think Paul was doing when he was preaching in the synagogues? He was encouraging the Jews everywhere to depart from Moses and come to Christ for salvation. The entire book of Hebrews is exhortation to Jews to depart from Moses and come to Christ for salvation.
You see, in Acts 21:21, departing from Moses, far from being "apostasy", is actually a POSITIVE and the right thing to do! What do you think Paul was doing when he was preaching in the synagogues? He was encouraging the Jews everywhere to depart from Moses and come to Christ for salvation. The entire book of Hebrews is exhortation to Jews to depart from Moses and come to Christ for salvation.
And that is the only contextual touchstone that we possess!
What in the world is wrong with y'all? No spiritual eyes to see with?
Yes I totally agree the translators really blew it there. This term is only used twice ln all of the NT.....and it has nothing whatsoever to do with apostasy.
You see, in Acts 21:21, departing from Moses, far from being "apostasy", is actually a POSITIVE and the right thing to do! What do you think Paul was doing when he was preaching in the synagogues? He was encouraging the Jews everywhere to depart from Moses and come to Christ for salvation. The entire book of Hebrews is exhortation to Jews to depart from Moses and come to Christ for salvation.
You see, in Acts 21:21, departing from Moses, far from being "apostasy", is actually a POSITIVE and the right thing to do! What do you think Paul was doing when he was preaching in the synagogues? He was encouraging the Jews everywhere to depart from Moses and come to Christ for salvation. The entire book of Hebrews is exhortation to Jews to depart from Moses and come to Christ for salvation.
I guess that we would be in disagreement here. Though departing from the law of Moses and turning to Christ and the new covenant of salvation by grace through faith is correct, that is not what Acts 21:21 is focused on. We must focus in on the meaning of the word apostasia itself, which is used in regards to departing from the teaching of Moses or in our case, departing or turning away from our faith in Christ. Below is the definition of apostasia, as well as the other translated words used to describe it:
Strong's Concordance
apostasia: defection, revolt
Original Word: ἀποστασία, ας, ἡPart of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: apostasia
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-os-tas-ee'-ah)
Definition: defection, revolt
Usage: defection, apostasy, revolt.
HELPS Word-studies
646 apostasía (from 868 /aphístēmi, "leave, depart," which is derived from 575 /apó, "away from" and 2476 /histémi, "stand") – properly, departure (implying desertion); apostasy – literally, "a leaving, from a previous standing."
The reason why I bring this up, is because we have those who try to make the translated word 'departure' as referring to departing up to meet the Lord in the air. However the word cannot be used in that way.
For many, the problem lies in not recognizing the words " the coming of our Lord and our being gathered to Him" in verse 1, vs "The Day of the Lord" mentioned in verse 2 and as "that day" in verse 3.
"The coming of our Lord and our being gathered to Him" is obviously speaking of the gathering of the church. Where "The Day of the Lord" is in reference to God's coming wrath, which follows the gathering of the church.
There were false teachers in Thessalonica proclaiming that The Day of the Lord, the time of God's wrath had already come. So they wrote to Paul who knew his teaching regarding the gathering of believers and the wrath to follow, basically saying to Paul, "Hey Paul, there are people here saying that the Day of the Lord has already come, so how come we haven't been caught up to the Lord according to your teaching. The Thessalonian's were concerned that because they hadn't been caught up, that they had entered into the Day of the Lord, the time of God's wrath. Paul then comforts them, saying that "The Day of the Lord" will not come until the apostasy takes place and the man of lawlessness is revealed, which had not taken place and still has not taken place.
I get what you're saying believe me. But I think it's an error to say that departing from the faith is a concern in either of the instances where this term is being used.
In fact the framework of the 2Thes 2:1-10 is built around some party leaving, some entity departing, BEFORE someone/something is revealed/initiates (vv. 3 and 7). I see nothing about spiritual rebellion among the faithful Thessalonians here. In fact Paul has no concerns about Thessalonians' spiritual condition.......quite the contrary he is only and always COMMMENDING them for their true legitimate faithful believing. They seem to be standouts among the gentiles in that regard.
I truly and honestly think that the translators blew it in this particular case. It is inconceivable to say that departure from obsolete Mosaic Judaism (Acts 21:21) is anything but the right thing to do. How can it be....it is an essential aspect of the gospel message to the Jews! We can both agree that it is a return TO mosaic Judaism that is the apostasy which Paul so passionately rails against in Galatians 3.
I have to tell you I am firmly (very firmly) in the camp of "the departure" being intentionally used to indicate the RAPTURE. This same rapture the Thessalonians already knew about and understood to be true from Paul's earlier ORAL teaching to them. Which is why Paul referred to it AGAIN by codifying "the departure" in 2Thes 2:3, into a written manuscript. Which is perfectly understandable because Paul was writing 2Thes 2:1-10 for the express purpose of reinforcing his earlier teachings on the matter!
In fact the framework of the 2Thes 2:1-10 is built around some party leaving, some entity departing, BEFORE someone/something is revealed/initiates (vv. 3 and 7). I see nothing about spiritual rebellion among the faithful Thessalonians here. In fact Paul has no concerns about Thessalonians' spiritual condition.......quite the contrary he is only and always COMMMENDING them for their true legitimate faithful believing. They seem to be standouts among the gentiles in that regard.
I truly and honestly think that the translators blew it in this particular case. It is inconceivable to say that departure from obsolete Mosaic Judaism (Acts 21:21) is anything but the right thing to do. How can it be....it is an essential aspect of the gospel message to the Jews! We can both agree that it is a return TO mosaic Judaism that is the apostasy which Paul so passionately rails against in Galatians 3.
I have to tell you I am firmly (very firmly) in the camp of "the departure" being intentionally used to indicate the RAPTURE. This same rapture the Thessalonians already knew about and understood to be true from Paul's earlier ORAL teaching to them. Which is why Paul referred to it AGAIN by codifying "the departure" in 2Thes 2:3, into a written manuscript. Which is perfectly understandable because Paul was writing 2Thes 2:1-10 for the express purpose of reinforcing his earlier teachings on the matter!
I get what you're saying believe me. But I think it's an error to say that departing from the faith is a concern in either of the instances where this term is being used.
In fact the framework of the 2Thes 2:1-10 is built around some party leaving, some entity departing, BEFORE someone/something is revealed/initiates (vv. 3 and 7). I see nothing about spiritual rebellion among the faithful Thessalonians here. In fact Paul has no concerns about Thessalonians' spiritual condition.......quite the contrary he is only and always COMMMENDING them for their true legitimate faithful believing. They seem to be standouts among the gentiles in that regard.
I truly and honestly think that the translators blew it in this particular case. It is inconceivable to say that departure from obsolete Mosaic Judaism (Acts 21:21) is anything but the right thing to do. How can it be....it is an essential aspect of the gospel message to the Jews! We can both agree that it is a return TO mosaic Judaism that is the apostasy which Paul so passionately rails against in Galatians 3.
I have to tell you I am firmly (very firmly) in the camp of "the departure" being intentionally used to indicate the RAPTURE. This same rapture the Thessalonians already knew about and understood to be true from Paul's earlier ORAL teaching to them. Which is why Paul referred to it AGAIN by codifying "the departure" in 2Thes 2:3, into a written manuscript. Which is perfectly understandable because Paul was writing 2Thes 2:1-10 for the express purpose of reinforcing his earlier teachings on the matter!
In fact the framework of the 2Thes 2:1-10 is built around some party leaving, some entity departing, BEFORE someone/something is revealed/initiates (vv. 3 and 7). I see nothing about spiritual rebellion among the faithful Thessalonians here. In fact Paul has no concerns about Thessalonians' spiritual condition.......quite the contrary he is only and always COMMMENDING them for their true legitimate faithful believing. They seem to be standouts among the gentiles in that regard.
I truly and honestly think that the translators blew it in this particular case. It is inconceivable to say that departure from obsolete Mosaic Judaism (Acts 21:21) is anything but the right thing to do. How can it be....it is an essential aspect of the gospel message to the Jews! We can both agree that it is a return TO mosaic Judaism that is the apostasy which Paul so passionately rails against in Galatians 3.
I have to tell you I am firmly (very firmly) in the camp of "the departure" being intentionally used to indicate the RAPTURE. This same rapture the Thessalonians already knew about and understood to be true from Paul's earlier ORAL teaching to them. Which is why Paul referred to it AGAIN by codifying "the departure" in 2Thes 2:3, into a written manuscript. Which is perfectly understandable because Paul was writing 2Thes 2:1-10 for the express purpose of reinforcing his earlier teachings on the matter!
"Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to Him, we ask you, brothers, 2not to be easily disconcerted or alarmed by any spirit or message or letter seeming to be from us, alleging that the Day of the Lord has already come. 3Let no one deceive you in any way, for it will not come until the departure occurs and the man of lawlessness—the son of destruction—is revealed."
That would mean that the words "now concerning the coming of our Lord and our being gathered to Him" would be referring to the 'departure' in verse 3. So If I was to paraphrase, the scripture would be saying the following:
Now concerning the departure, that day will not come until the departure takes place.... Or
Now concerning the coming of our Lord and our being gathered to Him, that day will not take place until the coming of our Lord and our being being gathered to Him takes place.
However, Paul is mentioning to closely linked events:
1). The coming of our Lord and our being gathered to Him
2). The Day of the Lord, the time of God's wrath
The gathering of the church takes place first, with the proof of the Day of the Lord, the time of God's wrath, being the apostasy and the revealing of the man of lawlessness, which takes place after the gathering.
That said, believers in the church will not be on the earth to see the man of lawlessness.
But we obviously disagree on this and only time will tell.
I enjoy all of your fellowship and respect all of your input in contending for the truth.
Thanks buddy. You are always warmly received.....
As for you post: Actually.....the point you make reinforces my case. Paul is making a parallel statement, adding the sequential element "FIRST" to verse 3.
Verse 1:
Now, brethren, concerning the [coming of our Lord Jesus Christ "DOTL" ] and [our gathering together to Him "RAPTURE"], we ask you
Verse 3:
.......for that Day will not come unless ["he apostasia" "RAPTURE" ] comes FIRST, and [the man of sin is revealed "DOTL"], the son of perdition
As for you post: Actually.....the point you make reinforces my case. Paul is making a parallel statement, adding the sequential element "FIRST" to verse 3.
Verse 1:
Now, brethren, concerning the [coming of our Lord Jesus Christ "DOTL" ] and [our gathering together to Him "RAPTURE"], we ask you
Verse 3:
.......for that Day will not come unless ["he apostasia" "RAPTURE" ] comes FIRST, and [the man of sin is revealed "DOTL"], the son of perdition
No. What you are doing is completely eliminating the thing that VERSE 2 is speaking about: Paul telling about the FALSE CLAIM "[purporting] THAT the day of the Lord IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE [i.e. that the TRIB HAS ARRIVED and we're IN IT and EXPERIENCING IT--PERFECT INDICATIVE]"
But the TRIB was in fact NOT PRESENT. And Paul goes on to explain WHY (in v.3),
"3 that day [the TRIB YRS FROM verse 2's false claim saying it "IS ALREADY HERE - perfect indicative"] will not be present if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE [i.e. Rapture / "OUR episynagoges UNTO HIM" from VERSE 1] *FIRST* and [distinctly] the man of sin be revealed..."
(WHEN he is revealed, THAT is when "the DOTL" will ALSO INDEED "BE PRESENT," aka the 7-YR TRIBULATION PERIOD aspect OF "the DOTL," being referenced IN VERSE 2! In the FALSE CLAIM. Don't SKIP BACK OVER and PAST "verse 2's Subject" when ascertaining WHAT v.3a's "that day" is referencing! [which IS THE "TRIB"--EARTHLY-LOCATED "DOTL" TIME-PERIOD!--NOT referencing "OUR episynagoges UNTO HIM"... that's what v.3b is referencing, NOT v.3a!])
IOW, Paul is providing the definite SEQUENCE between the two Subjects: "OUR episynagoges UNTO HIM" in relation to "the [earthly-located] DOTL [time period, commencing with the TRIB YEARS, all 7 of them!]"
ONE ITEM comes "FIRST" *before* the OTHER ITEM (per the false claim OF VERSE 2!) can truthfully said to "BE PRESENT" (existing and unfolding upon the earth over the course of SOME TIME [7-yrs]).
You are not putting that sentence together properly (according to what is written in the text), but rather taking the IDEAS of this text and smooshing them together [eliminating v.2's Subject], thus coming up with an inaccurate "sentence" (and not according to what it is we are ACTUALLY pointing out about what verse 3 is speaking about, esp v.3a [which is v.2's Subject!! The TRIB!!]).
But the TRIB was in fact NOT PRESENT. And Paul goes on to explain WHY (in v.3),
"3 that day [the TRIB YRS FROM verse 2's false claim saying it "IS ALREADY HERE - perfect indicative"] will not be present if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE [i.e. Rapture / "OUR episynagoges UNTO HIM" from VERSE 1] *FIRST* and [distinctly] the man of sin be revealed..."
(WHEN he is revealed, THAT is when "the DOTL" will ALSO INDEED "BE PRESENT," aka the 7-YR TRIBULATION PERIOD aspect OF "the DOTL," being referenced IN VERSE 2! In the FALSE CLAIM. Don't SKIP BACK OVER and PAST "verse 2's Subject" when ascertaining WHAT v.3a's "that day" is referencing! [which IS THE "TRIB"--EARTHLY-LOCATED "DOTL" TIME-PERIOD!--NOT referencing "OUR episynagoges UNTO HIM"... that's what v.3b is referencing, NOT v.3a!])
IOW, Paul is providing the definite SEQUENCE between the two Subjects: "OUR episynagoges UNTO HIM" in relation to "the [earthly-located] DOTL [time period, commencing with the TRIB YEARS, all 7 of them!]"
ONE ITEM comes "FIRST" *before* the OTHER ITEM (per the false claim OF VERSE 2!) can truthfully said to "BE PRESENT" (existing and unfolding upon the earth over the course of SOME TIME [7-yrs]).
You are not putting that sentence together properly (according to what is written in the text), but rather taking the IDEAS of this text and smooshing them together [eliminating v.2's Subject], thus coming up with an inaccurate "sentence" (and not according to what it is we are ACTUALLY pointing out about what verse 3 is speaking about, esp v.3a [which is v.2's Subject!! The TRIB!!]).
-
1
- Show all
You are still tampering with the verse to make it say something it does not say.
This is the correct understanding and meraning of verse:
"3 that day [the second coming FROM verse 2's false claim saying it "IS ALREADY HERE - perfect indicative"] will not be present if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE FROM THE CHRISTIAN FAITH [i.e. Apostasy / "OUR episynagoges UNTO THE ANTICHRIST" from VERSE 1] *FIRST* and [distinctly] the man of sin be revealed..."
This is based on the unquestionable FACT that apostasia means a fal;ling away or departure from the faith or truth. In this case it's leaving the Christian faith for the false God, the Antichrist.
You are teaching falsely concerning this verse and anything related to the false doctrine of pretrib.
YOU are not putting that sentence together properly.
This is the correct understanding and meraning of verse:
"3 that day [the second coming FROM verse 2's false claim saying it "IS ALREADY HERE - perfect indicative"] will not be present if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE FROM THE CHRISTIAN FAITH [i.e. Apostasy / "OUR episynagoges UNTO THE ANTICHRIST" from VERSE 1] *FIRST* and [distinctly] the man of sin be revealed..."
This is based on the unquestionable FACT that apostasia means a fal;ling away or departure from the faith or truth. In this case it's leaving the Christian faith for the false God, the Antichrist.
You are teaching falsely concerning this verse and anything related to the false doctrine of pretrib.
YOU are not putting that sentence together properly.
-
1
- Show all
NO.
Verse 2 (the false claim [and thus v.3a]) is NOT SAYING "the SECOND COMING is present / is already here [perfect indicative]"
It's saying "THE DAY OF THE LORD" is... and we know that ARRIVES at "SEAL #1" because of what Paul had already stated in his first epistle to them, in 1Th5:2-3, about its ARRIVAL being "exactly like" the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" that COMES UPON a woman... Jesus spoke of that very thing in His Olivet Discourse, where "the BEGINNING of birth PANGS [PLURAL]" are EQUIVALENT the "SEALS" of Rev6 at the START of the 7 yrs! (not referencing the END of those 7 yrs!)
So this is one of the biggest misunderstandings of this text: that the "false claim" from verse 2 had anything whatsoever to do with "Christ's RETURN / SECOND COMING" is already here / is present [perfect indicative]... which is NOT AT ALL (the Subject of) what Paul informs that the claim STATES (per verse 2!!)
Verse 2 (the false claim [and thus v.3a]) is NOT SAYING "the SECOND COMING is present / is already here [perfect indicative]"
It's saying "THE DAY OF THE LORD" is... and we know that ARRIVES at "SEAL #1" because of what Paul had already stated in his first epistle to them, in 1Th5:2-3, about its ARRIVAL being "exactly like" the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" that COMES UPON a woman... Jesus spoke of that very thing in His Olivet Discourse, where "the BEGINNING of birth PANGS [PLURAL]" are EQUIVALENT the "SEALS" of Rev6 at the START of the 7 yrs! (not referencing the END of those 7 yrs!)
So this is one of the biggest misunderstandings of this text: that the "false claim" from verse 2 had anything whatsoever to do with "Christ's RETURN / SECOND COMING" is already here / is present [perfect indicative]... which is NOT AT ALL (the Subject of) what Paul informs that the claim STATES (per verse 2!!)
-
1
- Show all
Yes, it is saying that. The day of the Lord is the second coming.
Paul says the second coming cannot happen until Apostasy and revealing of man of sin take place and those two things are events of the great trib so Paul is teaching a post-trib rapture/gathering here.
Wrong. You have EVERYTHING about this passage wrong.
Here is proper exegesis:
2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (also known as the second coming) , and by our gathering together unto him, (reference to the Rapture)
There is a reference to the second coming and the Rapture! That's the subject! PAY ATTENTION!
2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
A second second coming reference!
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
That is the Antichrist! Claiming to be God causes the Apostasy or departing from the Christian faith and that takes place withing the great Tribulation. Paul teaches that the second coming and Rapture will NOT happen until the Apostasy and revealing of the man of sin happens plus he mentions that this man of sin will show himself as God and we know that happening during the great tribulation.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
2Th 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:
The context is regarding the timing of the return of Christ. That cannot happen until two important things occur.
1. The falling away/Apostasy
2. and the revealing of the Antichrist
Obviously it is the man of sin's appearance which causes the falling away because they fall away from Christ to him, the AC or false christ.
Paul says the second coming cannot happen until Apostasy and revealing of man of sin take place and those two things are events of the great trib so Paul is teaching a post-trib rapture/gathering here.
Wrong. You have EVERYTHING about this passage wrong.
Here is proper exegesis:
2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (also known as the second coming) , and by our gathering together unto him, (reference to the Rapture)
There is a reference to the second coming and the Rapture! That's the subject! PAY ATTENTION!
2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
A second second coming reference!
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
That is the Antichrist! Claiming to be God causes the Apostasy or departing from the Christian faith and that takes place withing the great Tribulation. Paul teaches that the second coming and Rapture will NOT happen until the Apostasy and revealing of the man of sin happens plus he mentions that this man of sin will show himself as God and we know that happening during the great tribulation.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
2Th 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:
The context is regarding the timing of the return of Christ. That cannot happen until two important things occur.
1. The falling away/Apostasy
2. and the revealing of the Antichrist
Obviously it is the man of sin's appearance which causes the falling away because they fall away from Christ to him, the AC or false christ.
-
1
- Show all
No it isn't.
"The day of the Lord" ALSO INVOLVES "His Second Coming to the earth" (AS WELL as the entire earthly MK age--1000 yrs),
...but it does not "ARRIVE" at the moment of His Second Coming to the earth... it will have ALREADY BEEN existing and unfolding upon the earth FOR SEVEN YEARS, PRIOR TO that point!
This is because "the day of the Lord" consists of BOTH "a period of time of JUDGMENTs unfolding [over time] AND a period of time of BLESSINGs unfolding [over time]"... (<--ALL OF THAT *IS* "the Day of the Lord"... it ARRIVES with the period of "JUDGMENTs unfolding"<--this was what the FALSE CLAIM was purporting "IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE [PERFECT INDICATIVE]"... which was a PERFECTLY REASONABLE thing for the Thessalonians to be [wrongly] convinced WAS TRUE, because of their PRESENT and ONGOING, VERY NEGATIVE "persecutionS and tribulationS" they were ONGOINGLY EXPERIENCING, per 1:4 ("which YE ENDURE").
They were not being persuaded [per the false claim v.2] of something which had ZERO EVIDENCE anywhere in view.
For us to believe the false claim had to do with "Christ's RETURN / SECOND COMING" (that it "IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE [PERFECT INDICATIVE" per the false claim v.2), one would have to completely misunderstand HOW/the manner in which (Paul had already said) "the Day of the Lord ARRIVES," and to fail to connect WHAT PAUL said about it (1Th5:1-3) to that which JESUS HIMSELF HAD TAUGHT ABOUT the very "SAME THING" (Matt24:4 / Mk13:5 "G5100 - tis - 'A CERTAIN ONE' ['a certain one' bringing deception]" (and the PANGS which FOLLOW ON from THAT INITIAL ONE)... ALL WELL-BEFORE Christ Himself "RETURNS" in Rev19!! (in fact, commencing "7 YEARS" PRIOR TO that point!! At SEAL #1 !!)
"The day of the Lord" ALSO INVOLVES "His Second Coming to the earth" (AS WELL as the entire earthly MK age--1000 yrs),
...but it does not "ARRIVE" at the moment of His Second Coming to the earth... it will have ALREADY BEEN existing and unfolding upon the earth FOR SEVEN YEARS, PRIOR TO that point!
This is because "the day of the Lord" consists of BOTH "a period of time of JUDGMENTs unfolding [over time] AND a period of time of BLESSINGs unfolding [over time]"... (<--ALL OF THAT *IS* "the Day of the Lord"... it ARRIVES with the period of "JUDGMENTs unfolding"<--this was what the FALSE CLAIM was purporting "IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE [PERFECT INDICATIVE]"... which was a PERFECTLY REASONABLE thing for the Thessalonians to be [wrongly] convinced WAS TRUE, because of their PRESENT and ONGOING, VERY NEGATIVE "persecutionS and tribulationS" they were ONGOINGLY EXPERIENCING, per 1:4 ("which YE ENDURE").
They were not being persuaded [per the false claim v.2] of something which had ZERO EVIDENCE anywhere in view.
For us to believe the false claim had to do with "Christ's RETURN / SECOND COMING" (that it "IS PRESENT / IS ALREADY HERE [PERFECT INDICATIVE" per the false claim v.2), one would have to completely misunderstand HOW/the manner in which (Paul had already said) "the Day of the Lord ARRIVES," and to fail to connect WHAT PAUL said about it (1Th5:1-3) to that which JESUS HIMSELF HAD TAUGHT ABOUT the very "SAME THING" (Matt24:4 / Mk13:5 "G5100 - tis - 'A CERTAIN ONE' ['a certain one' bringing deception]" (and the PANGS which FOLLOW ON from THAT INITIAL ONE)... ALL WELL-BEFORE Christ Himself "RETURNS" in Rev19!! (in fact, commencing "7 YEARS" PRIOR TO that point!! At SEAL #1 !!)
-
1
- Show all
You are the one changing "the day of the Lord is present / is already here [perfect indicative]" in the false claim of v.2, to INSTEAD be saying "His Second Coming" (IT DOES NOT STATE THIS!)
Conflating these two ideas is at root of the entire mis-interpreting of what it is that Paul is actually conveying here (or, at least ONE of the FEW root issues ppl commonly mix up, with this text)
Conflating these two ideas is at root of the entire mis-interpreting of what it is that Paul is actually conveying here (or, at least ONE of the FEW root issues ppl commonly mix up, with this text)
-
1
- Show all
V.3 illustrated:
...(you are here - X)..... l--D--O--T--L----JUDGMENTs--UNFOLDING--(7 yrs total)--l--BLESSINGs (Christ's RETURN to the earth)-------->
[Green line is "ARROW UP" (our Rapture); Red text is "the DOTL" earthly-time-period (7-yr TRIB aspect, WITH its "man of sin"/ JUDGMENTs); Purple line is "ARROW DOWN" / Christ's Second Coming to the earth Rev19 FOR the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom age (1000 yrs) / BLESSINGs]
"3 that day [from v.2 !] will not be present if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE *FIRST* [from v.1 !] and the man of sin be revealed..."
...(you are here - X)..... l--D--O--T--L----JUDGMENTs--UNFOLDING--(7 yrs total)--l--BLESSINGs (Christ's RETURN to the earth)-------->
[Green line is "ARROW UP" (our Rapture); Red text is "the DOTL" earthly-time-period (7-yr TRIB aspect, WITH its "man of sin"/ JUDGMENTs); Purple line is "ARROW DOWN" / Christ's Second Coming to the earth Rev19 FOR the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom age (1000 yrs) / BLESSINGs]
"3 that day [from v.2 !] will not be present if not shall have come THE DEPARTURE *FIRST* [from v.1 !] and the man of sin be revealed..."
-
1
- Show all
