End Time Events

[john316yes]

I know Steve is a Preterist, but as a Preterist how do you explain 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 ?


"Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, ...
Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

Heres what Ive been pondering about this verse:

1) in Context, when Paul write abouts the Coming of the Lord and our being gathering together to him, to me, indicates the second coming of Jesus.
2) With that in mind, he then sets up the qualifications indicating the Second Coming of Jesus our Savior.
3.) The Falling Away
4) The man of Lawlessness is revealed.
5) Later, we see that this man who is guided or empowered by Satan himself, does the following.
6) He exalts himself, proclaims himself to be God, with power, signs and false wonders. He deceives the world.
7) He is destroyed by the breath of Jesus and the splendor of his coming.

So the question is to Steve is does he believe this has already happened?

[jarrod]

john316yes

here is an old radio archive with someone who i believe is asking the same question:

http://media.theos.org/AudioDoctrine/me ... %20sin.mp3

[dwilkins]

2Th 2:1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers,
2Th 2:2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
2Th 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.
2Th 2:5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?



To summarize Steve's position, the man of sin rose when Rome fell, so the man of sin is the institution of the Papacy (it's not one person, but anyone holding that office). Following the Reformers, this is essentially the approach of the Historicists. This wouldn't have begun until about the 400'sAD. His point is that Christ can come after these events, but they don't demand a coming immediately after the initiation of them. I am confused about how this advice would have meant anything at all to the people who received Paul's letter. The question is, should the epistles written in the first century have been understandable and relevant to their target audience?

Doug

[steve]

It is possible for a prediction to be understandable to an audience without it being fulfilled in their time (e.g., God's prediction to Abraham about his descendants conquering Canaan, which was 400 years off—Gen.15:13-16).

Paul's words would be very applicable as a corrective to those who thought the day of the Lord was at hand—which was the purpose of the passage.

[john316yes]

Steve your answer is not convincing. Your answer is wiggly. How do you explain the verse when Paul says, ""Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him"

The key word is "Our being gathered together to him."

1) I would cross reference that verse with the verse 1 Thessalonians 4:17 which states, "After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air."

2) Caught up together with them in the clouds would be the same as in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 ,"Our being gathered together to him."

3) Again the qualifications for this day would be the fulfilment of following

4) The falling Away or The rebellion

5) The man of Lawlessness is revealed who works power, signs, false wonders

6) God send the world a strong delusion

7) Jesus defeats him the power of his coming and the breath of his mouth.

I would say Christians should look out for the qualifications to know whether we are close to meeting Jesus in the air. Im not convinced that Paul was referring to 70 ad here, It would be out of context to believe that. You really have to strain hard to make it say that.

[steve]

Steve your answer is not convincing. Your answer is wiggly. How do you explain the verse when Paul says, ""Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him"

The key word is "Our being gathered together to him."

1) I would cross reference that verse with the verse 1 Thessalonians 4:17 which states, "After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air."

2) Caught up together with them in the clouds would be the same as in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 ,"Our being gathered together to him."

On these points, we appear to be in full agreement. How is that "wiggly"?

3) Again the qualifications for this day would be the fulfilment of following

4) The falling Away or The rebellion

5) The man of Lawlessness is revealed who works power, signs, false wonders

6) God send the world a strong delusion

7) Jesus defeats him the power of his coming and the breath of his mouth.

I also believe all of this. Anyone who has listened to my teaching on these books and these subjects would be aware of this.

I would say Christians should look out for the qualifications to know whether we are close to meeting Jesus in the air. Im not convinced that Paul was referring to 70 ad here, It would be out of context to believe that. You really have to strain hard to make it say that.

My point is that these prerequisites to the Lord's coming may have occurred in the time since Paul wrote these things. I don't believe that they pertain to AD 70 either (I think that would probably be dwilkins' position). I believe that the prerequisites Paul listed may have occurred—possibly long ago now—so that none of them would now remain to be fulfilled before the coming of Christ. I am not certain, and, in that respect, my answer may be "wiggly." However, I don't think it is wiggly in the sense that you meant it (though I am actually not sure in what sense you meant it).

[dwilkins]

I don't see how telling people to look out for something that won't happen for at least another 300 years has any relevance to them.

And, yes, I'd say that these things happened in association with the Jewish war starting in 66AD.

But, I'm curious about one point that you mentioned at about the 15:00 mark in the recording linked above. You said that you thought (I think the recording was in 2007) that all of Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled in the sacking of Jerusalem in 70AD. Is this still your position? Does that mean that the prophecies associated with a future Second Coming cannot be found in the Old Testament?

Doug

[john316yes]

As a Christian, I'm looking for those qualifications as mentioned in Paul's letter to the Thessalonians. Because we will not be gathered together to Christ unless these happen. I would say as many commentators say, all these things are mysterious because the lack of details, but what we cant say as that they already happened. Any other Idea would out of context.

1) The falling away
2) The man of Lawlessness
3) Jesus victory over him by the Splendor of his coming and the breath of his mouth.

[steve]

dwilkins wrote:

I don't see how telling people to look out for something that won't happen for at least another 300 years has any relevance to them.

I am inclined to agree with you on this statement. However, I do not agree with you that Paul told any of his readers to be looking for the events he listed. It was not his purpose, in that context, to talk about the things they might expect in their near future, but to tell them that certain things had not yet happened, and that the second coming would not occur until they had. I don't think it was any part of Paul's interest to speculate about what things might come about in the near future.

But, I'm curious about one point that you mentioned at about the 15:00 mark in the recording linked above. You said that you thought (I think the recording was in 2007) that all of Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled in the sacking of Jerusalem in 70AD. Is this still your position?

Not exactly. My statement was imprecise. I believe that every prophecy in the Old Testament predicts events or processes that occurred or began prior to AD 70. Thus, the little stone of Daniel 2:44 struck prior to AD 70, but its growth into a mountainto fill the earth is a process that continues until this day. Likewise, the career of the "little horn" of Daniel may fall beyond AD 70, but it is recorded as the outcome of a series of events that began in 586 BC. The coming of the Lion, the bear, the leopard, the ten-headed beast, and the little horn, in my opinion, are viewed as an unbroken sequence—the latter part of which extends beyond AD 70. There are many prophecies in Isaiah, and the other prophets, which predict the career of the church in the present age, which was innaugurated prior to AD 70, but continues seamlessly into the present and beyond.

Does that mean that the prophecies associated with a future Second Coming cannot be found in the Old Testament?

I think this is a correct statement of the case.

[steve]

john316yes,

You are assuming (as I once did) that the career of the man of lawlessness is brief, and occurs only a few months or years before Jesus comes to destroy him. This is not stated by Paul. If the man of lawlessness were to be seen as an institution, extending through hundreds of years of history, then the rise of that institution may well have occurred in our ancient history, and yet it may remain around until Jesus returns to destroy it.