50 Reasons For a Pretribulational Rapture By Dr. John F. Walvoord

[OldSage]

In this case, the claim was being made that Christ had actually come for his Church--not that it had strictly become "imminent." The context is what determines how the word is being used. It is not that the Day of the Lord was claimed to have come and to continue up until the present. Rather, it was the *belief* that it had come, and it was the *belief* that continues up until the present.

These people believed that Christ had come--not that it was continuing. That is what DW is saying, and that is not correct. And I know that because of the crystal clear context! Paul introduced the subject by identifying, clearly, what the context was. And it was the literal 24 hour day of Christ's return for his Church. No mistake about that!

This is known to be the "last day" of the age, as indicated by Jesus in the Gospels, when the Church will experience resurrection. And the 1st Resurrection is identified in Rev 20 as being *at* the destruction of the Antichrist, and not before. And since it is called the *1st* resurrection, the Rapture, with its resurrection, could not have already taken place.

That's what Paul was saying, that our victory over the world will not be completed until *after* the reign of Antichrist, when Christ comes to defeat him and to establish his Kingdom on earth.

I doubt very much that it means 'has come' or else Paul would be going absolutely bananas from the outset of the letter.
The KJV seems correct - 'is at hand'

 

[ewq1938]

I can't read your posts.

--"[Jesus praying to the Father] I ask that You should keep them [the ones sitting there in His presence] from the evil / the evil one" [...is not exactly the same thing (or CONTEXT) as saying...]

--"[Because you have kept...(a certain "word")]... I also will [future tense] keep you from..."... "from" what? "from the evil / the evil one"?? as in the other CONTEXT?


NO... from a specific, future, LIMITED "TIME PERIOD" ["from the hour of the trial that is sure/certain [mello] to COME UPON..."]

 

[randyk]

For 1800 years the Christian Church has viewed that it is wrong to claim some kind of realization of Christ's Kingdom before the proper time, ie before Christ physically arrives. Various movements have claimed to be eschatological movements of a realized Kingdom in which they will somehow impose God's Kingdom upon the world.

There is a false sense of "imminency" or a false sense of "urgency" in claiming that the Kingdom has already come, in some twisted spiritual sense. Or it may even be claimed that it is in the process of coming, ie imminent, inciting radical preparation and separation from all present concerns.

At any rate, Jesus warned against "False Christs" and "False Prophets," which cover all of these things. Whether you want to say that the Day of the Lord is not the actual Coming of Christ, but only some kind of close proximate presence of his Coming or imminent, it is still false to claim any kind of actual eschatological manifestation on earth until Christ himself comes.

Clearly, Paul was talking, in 2 Thes 2 about the nature of the proximity of Christ's coming for the Church, and not about some era defined as the "day of the Lord." Paul made that perfectly clear in vs. 1!

Pretribulationism is completely built on this constant sense of urgency, as if the Kingdom is already in the process of coming, or hovering overhead, ready to pounce on us at any moment. This is the kind of thing Paul was warning against.

We should we at peace, knowing that a day has been fixed for Christ's return, and that we have a job to do in the meantime, testifying to the world about that day. And we should be prepared to face obstacles until Christ himself returns to remove those obstacles. We should not grow lazy in being watchful for these things. Until Christ returns, there will be obstacles and distractions. Stay alert!

 

[randyk]

I doubt very much that it means 'has come' or else Paul would be going absolutely bananas from the outset of the letter.
The KJV seems correct - 'is at hand'

There is an alternative rendering, indicating that this Christian cult was teaching that the Day of the Lord had come without Christ himself appearing. I just doubt that because Paul had established, from the outset, that this subject was about the actual Coming of Christ for the Church, and not about establishing an itinerary of prophetic events for some extended "Day of the Lord."

I do think it's highly likely that this cult group was not admitting that Christ had actually physically come, because that could easily have been disproven. They likely claimed that the Spirit of Christ had come to them in some kind of eschatological sense so that they could demonstrate the Kingdom of Christ was being realized in them.

I think it's good that we don't know exactly what this cultic group believed, because in not identifying it all similar groups will be covered under this subject. Paul was concerned to stop any claimed eschatological imminency, or immanency. Whether it was in process of being realized, or actually here, the day of the Coming of Christ for his Church should not be taught as such.

Kingdom theocracy cannot be fully established until Christ returns to set up his Kingdom. Until that time, the Church must defer to some suffering. We are not to become zealots, using our spirituality as a kind of carnal weapon against the world. True spirituality defers to the will of the Lord, which in this age is submission to suffering at times.

 

[OldSage]

There is an alternative rendering, indicating that this Christian cult was teaching that the Day of the Lord had come without Christ himself appearing. I just doubt that because Paul had established, from the outset, that this subject was about the actual Coming of Christ for the Church, and not about establishing an itinerary of prophetic events for some extended "Day of the Lord."

I do think it's highly likely that this cult group was not admitting that Christ had actually physically come, because that could easily have been disproven. They likely claimed that the Spirit of Christ had come to them in some kind of eschatological sense so that they could demonstrate the Kingdom of Christ was being realized in them.

I think it's good that we don't know exactly what this cultic group believed, because in not identifying it all similar groups will be covered under this subject. Paul was concerned to stop any claimed eschatological imminency, or immanency. Whether it was in process of being realized, or actually here, the day of the Coming of Christ for his Church should not be taught as such.

Kingdom theocracy cannot be fully established until Christ returns to set up his Kingdom. Until that time, the Church must defer to some suffering. We are not to become zealots, using our spirituality as a kind of carnal weapon against the world. True spirituality defers to the will of the Lord, which in this age is submission to suffering at times.

It's not impossible, but I think Paul really is talking about the Temple, its destruction, and what this all means for the Church.
In that frame of reference, he needs to clarify that the Lord's 'coming', (so to speak), to destroy Jerusalem is not to be confused with "The Lord's Coming".

 

[randyk]

It's not impossible, but I think Paul really is talking about the Temple, its destruction, and what this all means for the Church.
In that frame of reference, he needs to clarify that the Lord's 'coming', (so to speak), to destroy Jerusalem is not to be confused with "The Lord's Coming".

Well, to me that is a bit different, though I see your point. It's as if people are claiming the Preterist position that Christ sort of "came" in the 70 AD event.

I actually believe that, however. Christ comes, in a non-eschatological sense, every time he brings a judgment of some kind. That is how it is depicted to the 7 churches in the book of Revelation. The Lord "comes" to visit judgment upon them when they don't obey, in a non-eschatological sense. See Rev 2.5,16.

But yes, it would be wrong, even in my view, to view that Christ is somehow "coming" in the eschatological sense in 70 AD, when the temple was destroyed. This was a pre-Kingdom judgment upon Israel, and only set the stage for an age-long punishment of the Jewish People in the Diaspora.

Further judgments, both upon Israel, and upon the nations of the world, remain in this world, up to and including the very end of the age. We should never think that Christ is not visiting judgments in the present age, even though they are not eschatological. Jesus is judging the world and all individuals *every day!*

So what we're talking about is the claim, by some group, that Jesus is coming or has come in them in some mystical way. Jesus referred to these as "false Christs." And if Jesus said they would come, he was not being non-sensical. There were people who claimed that somehow Christ had come *in them!*

So that's what I believe about 2 Thes 2. There was this cultic Christian group claiming that somehow the Kingdom had already arrived in them. Perhaps they were not claiming that Jesus physically returned. Perhaps they ignored the message that he is coming back *physically.*

But the point is, this group claimed that somehow Jesus *had already returned* in them and in their movement. This is what makes for a Christian cult, and we need to be on guard against them. And we also need to guard against a false sense of imminency, designed to stir people up in false expectation that Christ is returning on a specific day.

Pretribulationists have notably done this at times. For example, Chuck Smith, of the Calvary Chapels, apparently claimed that Christ was returning in the early 80s, encouraging his followers to sell their belongings. This kind of thing Paul would have forbade!

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

My apologies for cutting my last post short... I had typed up something further in that post, but all of that content was "timed out" (I didn't get the wider part of my further paragraphs re-entered IN TIME, so lost it all... i.e. it didn't post with it)

The "false claim" was that the *coming of Christ for his Church* had already come. This was incorrect, according to Paul, because Antichrist's coming must precede the coming of Christ!

By this word "precede," are you essentially referring to the word "first" in verse 3?

I ask this especially because I had noticed, in one of your first posts in this thread, that you had quoted verse 3 as saying something like, the apostasy and the man of sin [/antichrist] must be revealed FIRST," which I've been pointing out that the text in v.3 does not state that these TWO items BOTH are "FIRST," but only ONE of these items is said to be "FIRST".

I'm not sure where else you are deriving your term "must PRECEDE" other than this sequence-type word "FIRST". Is that accurate to say, of your view?

 

[OldSage]

Well, to me that is a bit different, though I see your point. It's as if people are claiming the Preterist position that Christ sort of "came" in the 70 AD event.

I actually believe that, however. Christ comes, in a non-eschatological sense, every time he brings a judgment of some kind. That is how it is depicted to the 7 churches in the book of Revelation. The Lord "comes" to visit judgment upon them when they don't obey, in a non-eschatological sense. See Rev 2.5,16.

But yes, it would be wrong, even in my view, to view that Christ is somehow "coming" in the eschatological sense in 70 AD, when the temple was destroyed. This was a pre-Kingdom judgment upon Israel, and only set the stage for an age-long punishment of the Jewish People in the Diaspora.

Further judgments, both upon Israel, and upon the nations of the world, remain in this world, up to and including the very end of the age. We should never think that Christ is not visiting judgments in the present age, even though they are not eschatological. Jesus is judging the world and all individuals *every day!*

So what we're talking about is the claim, by some group, that Jesus is coming or has come in them in some mystical way. Jesus referred to these as "false Christs." And if Jesus said they would come, he was not being non-sensical. There were people who claimed that somehow Christ had come *in them!*

So that's what I believe about 2 Thes 2. There was this cultic Christian group claiming that somehow the Kingdom had already arrived in them. Perhaps they were not claiming that Jesus physically returned. Perhaps they ignored the message that he is coming back *physically.*

But the point is, this group claimed that somehow Jesus *had already returned* in them and in their movement. This is what makes for a Christian cult, and we need to be on guard against them. And we also need to guard against a false sense of imminency, designed to stir people up in false expectation that Christ is returning on a specific day.

Pretribulationists have notably done this at times. For example, Chuck Smith, of the Calvary Chapels, apparently claimed that Christ was returning in the early 80s, encouraging his followers to sell their belongings. This kind of thing Paul would have forbade!

Well, to me that is a bit different, though I see your point. It's as if people are claiming the Preterist position that Christ sort of "came" in the 70 AD event.

I actually believe that, however. Christ comes, in a non-eschatological sense, every time he brings a judgment of some kind. That is how it is depicted to the 7 churches in the book of Revelation. The Lord "comes" to visit judgment upon them when they don't obey, in a non-eschatological sense. See Rev 2.5,16.

But yes, it would be wrong, even in my view, to view that Christ is somehow "coming" in the eschatological sense in 70 AD, when the temple was destroyed. This was a pre-Kingdom judgment upon Israel, and only set the stage for an age-long punishment of the Jewish People in the Diaspora.

Further judgments, both upon Israel, and upon the nations of the world, remain in this world, up to and including the very end of the age. We should never think that Christ is not visiting judgments in the present age, even though they are not eschatological. Jesus is judging the world and all individuals *every day!*

So what we're talking about is the claim, by some group, that Jesus is coming or has come in them in some mystical way. Jesus referred to these as "false Christs." And if Jesus said they would come, he was not being non-sensical. There were people who claimed that somehow Christ had come *in them!*

So that's what I believe about 2 Thes 2. There was this cultic Christian group claiming that somehow the Kingdom had already arrived in them. Perhaps they were not claiming that Jesus physically returned. Perhaps they ignored the message that he is coming back *physically.*

But the point is, this group claimed that somehow Jesus *had already returned* in them and in their movement. This is what makes for a Christian cult, and we need to be on guard against them. And we also need to guard against a false sense of imminency, designed to stir people up in false expectation that Christ is returning on a specific day.

Pretribulationists have notably done this at times. For example, Chuck Smith, of the Calvary Chapels, apparently claimed that Christ was returning in the early 80s, encouraging his followers to sell their belongings. This kind of thing Paul would have forbade!

But if the heresy was that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was the Lord's Second Coming, why wouldn't Paul
explicitly put that idea to bed.

Anyhow - given that he had already taught and written to Thessalonika, such an idea seems really untenable

1 Thessalonians 4 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.16 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:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

.E. 'Do not be tricked into thinking that the Day of the Lord, which entails his coming and our gathering to him, is imminent.'

That underlined word ^ is not how the "PERFECT INDICATIVE" form of that word translates out to, though... and that is the point I keep trying to drive home.



epistolēs
ἐπιστολῆς ,
letter
N-GFS

5613 [e]
hōs
ὡς
as if
Adv

1223 [e]
di’
δι’
by
Prep

1473 [e]
hēmōn
ἡμῶν ,
us
PPro-G1P

5613 [e]
hōs
ὡς
as
Adv

3754 [e]
hoti
ὅτι
that
Conj

1764 [e]
enestēken
ἐνέστηκεν
is present
V-RIA-3S [the "R" here referring to the "PERFECT TENSE" and the letter "I" here referring to the "INDICATIVE"--so that the "PERFECT INDICATIVE" form of this word, used here, translates out to "IS ALREADY HERE / IS PRESENT"--THIS is the false claim Paul is informing them about in Verse 2--In this tense, it does NOT translate out to "IS NEAR / IS IMMINENT / IS SOON TO TAKE PLACE / IS AT HAND" or anything along those lines]

3588 [e]
hē
ἡ
the
Art-NFS

2250 [e]
hēmera
ἡμέρα
day
N-NFS

3588 [e]
tou
τοῦ
of the
Art-GMS

2962 [e]
Kyriou
Κυρίου .
Lord
N-GMS

.E. 'Do not be tricked into thinking that the Day of the Lord, which entails his coming and our gathering to him, is imminent.'

[DOTL] which entails the specific period of time LEADING UP TO His return to the earth, AND His return, AND the 1000-yr reign of Him...

 

[OldSage]

That underlined word ^ is not how the "PERFECT INDICATIVE" form of that word translates out to, though... and that is the point I keep trying to drive home.



epistolēs
ἐπιστολῆς ,
letter
N-GFS

5613 [e]
hōs
ὡς
as if
Adv

1223 [e]
di’
δι’
by
Prep

1473 [e]
hēmōn
ἡμῶν ,
us
PPro-G1P

5613 [e]
hōs
ὡς
as
Adv

3754 [e]
hoti
ὅτι
that
Conj

1764 [e]
enestēken
ἐνέστηκεν
is present
V-RIA-3S [the "R" here referring to the "PERFECT TENSE" and the letter "I" here referring to the "INDICATIVE"--so that the "PERFECT INDICATIVE" form of this word, used here, translates out to "IS ALREADY HERE / IS PRESENT"--THIS is the false claim Paul is informing them about in Verse 2--In this tense, it does NOT translate out to "IS NEAR / IS IMMINENT / IS SOON TO TAKE PLACE / IS AT HAND" or anything along those lines]

3588 [e]
hē
ἡ
the
Art-NFS

2250 [e]
hēmera
ἡμέρα
day
N-NFS

3588 [e]
tou
τοῦ
of the
Art-GMS

2962 [e]
Kyriou
Κυρίου .
Lord
N-GMS

Firstly - this is the last time I read your posts, unless you make them fit for human consumption.
They are obscenely ugly and illegible. Quite grotesque and totally unbecoming.

You are contradicting the massed ranks of Greek scholars of the KJV, as well as Robertson and Lightfoot, amongst others, so I was expecting a really well-researched, well-supported case.

-------------------

But even just restricting ourselves as you do to Strongs, your position is very feeble.

The meanings given for Enistemi are:

• to be upon, impend, threaten
• close at hand

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

The meanings given for Enistemi are:

• to be upon, impend, threaten
• close at hand

...but not in the "PERFECT INDICATIVE," see...




____________

[p.s. ... I realize nowadays on forums, people do not use the supplied features for emphasis, voice inflection, and so forth, as was the mainstream method back in the early days of forum communications, which back then was for purposes of greater clarity and very common then... my apologies... I try my best...]

 

[OldSage]

...but not in the "PERFECT INDICATIVE," see...




____________

[p.s. ... I realize nowadays on forums, people do not use the supplied features for emphasis, voice inflection, and so forth, as was the mainstream method back in the early days of forum communications, which back then was for purposes of greater clarity and very common then... my apologies... I try my best...]

[I do understand "Perfect Indicative" btw]

Okay. Good point! (thinking now ...)

 

[OldSage]

Ok. The problem is really illusory, and only exists if you disconnect the previous chapter.

Actually your input is brilliant TDW because here Paul has given a "pre-crime" rebuttal to Preterism.

Awesome - I'd never caught it before.

And yes, it works perfectly in the perfect tense.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Dr. George E. Ladd wrote a book titled, "The Blessed Hope." And he chose this title because it absolutely disproves that the coming and the appearing are two different events.

Titus 2.13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Since you mention Dr. George E. Ladd, I thought I'd place this video link here (video by Dr. David Hocking) because Hocking mentions a quote by Ladd, as part of Hocking's message here about the wording of Revelation 5:9 (said by the "24 elders") and the manuscript evidence available on Revelation 5:

...approx. 9-min vid of David Hocking on the text of Revelation 5, especially v.9... and the manuscript evidence showing this:

--"Of the 24 manuscripts available on Revelation 5... 23 of them have verse 9 saying "US" ['hast redeemed US'], whereas the other [1] manuscript leaves it blank/untranslated" (somewhere around the 3:30-min mark);

--within the first few mins of the video, Hocking tells what George Eldon Ladd says, "in his book," about Rev5:9 and what the "24 elders" are saying there, where Hocking quotes from Ladd's book (I assume from Ladd's book, not his commentary): Ladd on verse 9 - "If in fact it is 'us,' then that group is speaking about their own redemption, and must refer to the church"



Then there's this...

George Eldon Ladd, in his book A Commentary on the Revelation of John, says:

"This is very important for determining the identity of the elders. If the King James Version is right, the elders are identified with the redeemed, [...]"




____________

... and then another point by a different author (M. Svigel, I think??):

"34 Mounce, Revelation, 121, takes the third person plural in Revelation 5:9-10 as proof that the twenty-four elders are not the Church, since the saints would not sing about others if they meant themselves. However, the object of worship is God, and the singing of praises to God with the objects of his mercies in the third person is not unheard of in ancient hymnody (cf. Ps 112; 114; 127)."



____________

... another point made by others is, though v.5 DOES say "US," that even if v.9 says "THEM" (there's actually variants on *this* verse), it could still be reasonably explained by the concept of "antiphonal singing,"... especially as we do see more voices ADDED the further down in the passage we read.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

... another point made by others is, though v.5 DOES say "US," that even if v.9 says "THEM" (there's actually variants on *this* verse), it could still be reasonably explained by the concept of "antiphonal singing,"... especially as we do see more voices ADDED the further down in the passage we read.

EDIT to CORRECT:

should read... "... another point made by others is, though v.9 DOES say "US," that even if v.10 says "THEM" (there's actually variants on *this* verse), it could still be reasonably explained by the concept of "antiphonal singing,"... especially as we do see more voices ADDED the further down in the passage we read."

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

TheDivineWatermark said:
Paul, in these 3 verses, is telling how the one Subject (v.1's) fits in relation, time-/sequence-wise, to the other Subject (v.2's false claim "that the day of the Lord is already here [perfect indicative]" i.e. the "JUDGMENTs" aspect [unfolding upon the earth over a duration of time] that "the DOTL's ARRIVAL" and "IN THE NIGHT" section consists of...).

Actually Paul *is* in fact saying that these errant brothers thought the Rapture had already occurred, or at least that Christ had come to them. The Kingdom they claimed was in their cult movement, and they were somehow the Kingdom's judges and victors. Sounds a bit like Dominion Theology?

Okay... (re: v.2) are you saying "these errant brothers" were claiming that "Christ had come to them" LITERALLY/PHYSICALLY... or do you mean they were claiming that "Christ had come to them" in some kind of vision-like way, or in some kind of "spiritual experience"-type way, therefore same goes for the "rapture" they claimed had also already occurred (according to your viewpoint) but not in any kind of "literal / physical" way, only in one of these other ways?




On another note, I am unsure of why I am not permitted to reach back anywhere outside of the immediate context in order to ascertain the meaning of the phrase that false conveyors could purport ('that the day of the Lord is already here'), and what all that phrase "the DOTL" entails... but that it is perfectly fine for you to do so regarding the other phrases in the context (like "man of sin" which isn't even identical to other texts... tho we agree they speak of the same person)... especially when one of the so-called "rules of interpretation" is to "first look at the way an author [in Scripture] uses the same phrase elsewhere in THEIR own writings, before going outside of that author's use of a word to see how *other* authors [in Scripture] have used that same word..." but when I point out what Paul had said regarding this phrase in just as near-ago as his first letter to these same people, I'm scolded for reaching "outside of the CONTEXT"... but no one else has any problem with their *own* doing of the same with the word in v.3 "apostasia" when they reach over to Acts 21:21 and come back to inject "FROM THE FAITH" into this word that actually means "departure"... iow, the word itself does not mean "a departure FROM MOSES" here in 2Th2.


Anyway... I'm just rambling now... just some things that seem *off* to me...





[I personally CONNECT Joel 2:31's "moon into blood, BEFORE the GREAT..." (before "THE GREAT" aspect OF the DOTL, not before it in its ENTIRETY) with Rev6:12's "moon became as blood" at the 6th Seal, in the "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" time period, aka early in the 7-yr trib]

 

[OldSage]

You are going in circles TDW.

A synopsis of Paul's statements:

1) The Church is suffering at the hands of Jerusalem
2) This is a good thing as it means when God (in the future) judges Jerusalem it will be seen to be a righteous judgment
3) This judgment is the revelation of Jesus
4) The consequence of the judgment is that the saints, the Church, will now be the glory of God, as the glory will have departed the temple and Christ has been vindicated (prophecy fulfilled)
5) Paul exhorts the church at Thesslonika to attain the Glory - i.e. to remain faithful until the Temple is destroyed

Then Paul says:

2 As to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.

I.E. Once you have lived through the destruction of the Temple, the revelation of the
Lord Jesus from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels, don't confuse this event with the Lord's Coming.

 

[FreeGrace2]

@FreeGrace2 , [saying] "I don't need Joel to understand Paul in v.1-3."

I'm sure Paul wasn't counting on people reading Joel to understand his own writings.

Well, you should at least understand what PAUL HIMSELF had already said about the v.2 phrase "the day of the Lord" when he wrote about that very thing in his first epistle

Oh, and what was that? Care to share?

not terribly long before this... which you clearly do not grasp, and completely ignore, in order to go with the "made up" definition of it, that renders the point in vv.1-3 a slaughtered-and-massacred-word-salad. lol

How come you only make judgments about others supposed errors/misunderstandings, but NEVER just explain what you are referring to?

What did Paul say in the first letter that sheds so much light on 2:1-3? Care to share?

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
OK, to be clear, you think the 7 year Trib HAS ALREADY STARTED? Where do you get that?

No.

Paul is saying, don't believe the FALSE CLAIM of anyone saying such a thing.

Paul was concerned about the rapture, as you have noted in v.1. So your opinion that Paul now changes subjects from the rapture to the Trib doesn't make sense.

And then he explains WHY.

Really? Where does he explain why he suddenly changes the subject from the rapture to the Trib?

Your views on v.1-3 are very confused.

It almost seems as if you really DON'T WANT THE FACTS because you mind has already been made up.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I was referring to your continual flip-flopping on that definition, way more than once[!]

Hm. So, how many times have I supposedly "flip-flopped" on the DotL?

...and the point that v.2 is actually talking about...

What do you think the point of v.2 is "actually talking about"?

...that's when you "very recently" decided it meant one thing rather than the other, that you had also touted in a number of not-long-ago posts [Post #1157, for just ONE example]. I myself have not "recently" swapped out one definition for another, on this point... so, no... what I just said about that, in the above quote, doesn't describe me as you suggest.

Until this thread, I hadn't thought much about the DotL. So what? The more I do think about it, there is NO REASON to believe it begins with the Tribulation. Jesus is still in heaven (Acts 3:21).

It is WHEN Jesus returns at the Second Advent that the DotL begins. It makes no sense to think otherwise.