People that deny the pre-Tribulation Rapture of the saints sometimes use 2 Thessalonians 2:3 to argue for their position. Let us examine this verse in its context:
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 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. 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; 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. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 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: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Opponents of the Biblical doctrine of the pretribulational, premillenial Rapture of the saints may argue that “the day of Christ” cannot be “at hand,” that is, it cannot be about to take place, until there “come a falling away first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” That is, the Antichrist has to be revealed before the Rapture can take place, according to this argument.
However, this argument against the pre-trib Rapture is clearly invalid. The phrase translated “the day of Christ is at hand” in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 comes from the Greek hoti enestēken hē hēmera tou Christou. The word enestēken comes from the Greek enistēmi, meaning “to be present”; the sense in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 is that “the day of the Lord has come” (BDAG). Some at Thessalonica thought that they were already standing in the time of the Day of Christ; they thought they were already in the Tribulation period, and so they were doing things like no longer going to work at their lawful employments. Paul explains that if they were already standing within the Day of Christ, if they were already present in the Tribulation, then they would see the Antichrist ruling the world, as he is the one who takes power immediately after the Rapture (Revelation 6:1-2). No Antichrist ruling the world? Then they were not in the Tribulation, argues Paul.
The other texts in the New Testament with the verb enistēmi verify this interpretation:
Rom. 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
1Cor. 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
1Cor. 7:26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
Gal. 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
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. [“the day of Christ is present.”]
2Tim. 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come [Greek future tense: “perilous times shall be present in the future.”]
Heb. 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
While in English we use the phrase “at hand” in a variety of ways, the Greek word in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 and its uses elsewhere in the New Testament demonstrate that Paul was warning that if one was actually in the Tribulation period, he would already see the Antichrist in power. Paul was not saying that the Antichrist would arise and then the Day of Christ would start at some point afterwards. Indeed, in the following context, Paul identifies the Holy Spirit as the Restrainer who is holding back the Antichrist until He is taken out of the way (2 Thessalonians 2:6-7). Notice that the Holy Spirit is referred to with a neuter (KJV, “what” withholdeth, to katechon) in 2:6 and a masculine (KJV, “he” who now letteth/restraineth,” ho katechōn) in 2:7. The neuter is used because pneuma, “Spirit / breath / wind,” is grammatically neuter word in Greek (as are all words ending in –ma), but because the Holy Spirit is a Person, He is referred to with a masculine form in 2 Thessalonians 2:7. When will the Spirit be taken away? When the saints are taken away in the Rapture–and then the Antichrist, no longer restrained, will be revealed.
Thus, in context, 2 Thessalonians 2 supports a pre-Trib Rapture, and nothing at all in 2 Thessalonians indicates that the Antichrist must start ruling before the Rapture can take place.
Many other passages support the pre-Tribulation Rapture of the saints, and refute a mid-Tribulation or post-Tribulation error, including passages such as 1 Thessalonians 4, which have been discussed in other articles on this blog.
–TDR
I find it interesting that your argument rests on what you make “at hand” to mean and also on what you assume the Thessalonians were thinking. I also believe that you misrepresent the “day of Christ.” Scripturally, the day of Christ is the day of rejoicing for Christ’s people while the day of the Lord is the day of doom for the wicked. Many other passages clearly show that the “day of Christ” coincides with the rapture and rewards.
Your argument, which is also David Cloud’s argument, actually makes “the day of Christ” “the day of the Lord.” I don’t, like you, believe that the day of the Lord includes the tribulation, but what is interesting is that in making the day of Christ the day of the Lord, you are actually following the modern Bible versions.
Also, I’ve noticed that those who are pre-trib use “the Lord is at hand” to prove imminence. That is, because it is at hand it could happen at any moment, but in this instance you say it means it is already here. Seems rather selective to me.
“At hand” certainly does not HAVE to mean “present,” and in fact, in this instance, it is obvious that it does not. For a long time while I was pre-trib I really struggled trying to force this passage into the pre-trib position because it doesn’t fit the pre-trib. I’m sorry that you’ve been deceived that “the day of Christ SHALL come before the falling away and the man of sin is revealed.”
As far as the Holy Spirit being the restrainer, even if that is true (I’m not entirely sure on who the restrainer is), notice that he is removed to allow the wicked to be revealed, which takes place at the abomination of desolation. So then the rapture would have to be mid-trib if you believe the removal of the restrainer is the rapture of the saints.
Hello, David! Thanks for reading the post.
Unfortunately, your comment contains many problems.
1.) It is ironic that you say that I am following modern Bible versions in equating the day of Christ and the day of the Lord, when exactly the opposite is the case. The textual variant in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 that results in the Nestle-Aland Textus Rejectus reading “day of the Lord” instead of “day of Christ” is what allows critical text proponents like Pentecost in his Things to Come to argue that the Day of Christ and Day of the Lord are different. In the Textus Receptus and the KJV the Day of Christ and Day of the Lord are the same–which is reasonable since Jesus is the Lord Jehovah, and Paul regularly identifies Christ as the “Lord.”
2.) This post is not about proving a pre-Trib Rapture. It is about demonstrating that an anti-pre-Trib “proof text” which, at least in my experience, I have found anti-pre-Trib people attempt to use quite commonly, proves exactly nothing against a pre-Trib Rapture, and, as with so many other attacks on the Biblical pre-Trib truth, requires taking Scripture out of context.
3.) It is very obvious that they Day of Christ, at least here in 2 Thessalonians 2, is not a joyful time. The Thessalonians were afraid that they were in it, and when it is present the Antichrist is in power. Since the Day of Christ/LORD encompasses both eschatological judgment and reward, we should not be surprised that passages mention both in relation to both terms, but 2 Thessalonians 2 is a singularly bad place for you to argue that the Day of Christ is about rejoicing.
4.) The English “at hand” can mean a lot of things. If my cell phone is at hand it means it is in my presence, perhaps actually in my hand. The English “at hand” can also mean “about to come but not present yet,” which is what anti-pre-Trib people assume–at least in my experience almost always without even attempting any proof. But Paul did not write to the Thessalonians in English. The Holy Ghost, through Paul, wrote the Greek word enistēmi, which means “to be present.” Let’s say that the idea of 2 Thessalonians 2:2 is “at hand” in the sense of “is present.” Do you agree that this would be the end of 2 Thessalonians 2:2 as an anti-pre-Trib proof-text? Does enistemi mean “is present” in all of the other texts where it appears in the New Testament?
5.) The Antichrist, that wicked one-world ruler, is not revealed at the middle of the Tribulation. He comes on the scene in the first seal judgment in Revelation 6. The fact that the Holy Spirit is removed and right afterwards the Antichrist takes power shows that if the Antichrist is around one is in the Day of the Lord Christ–Paul’s point in 2 Thessalonians 2.
So, David, I am glad to report that if you struggled to fit this passage into the pre-Trib position you do not need to struggle anymore–it fits perfectly. You can start to joyfully look for the coming of Christ at any moment instead of enduring the fear and dread of looking for the Antichrist instead of for the resurrected and ascended Lord Jehovah.
I will respond to your points in order.
1. If you go through the New Testament and look at the two phrases “day of Christ” and “day of the Lord” the “day of Christ is always the day to which Christians were looking, while the day of the Lord is always the day of judgment. I believe they are simultaneous, with one being the joyful coming of our Messiah and King while the other represents the day of doom for the lost. So my point is that “day of Christ” is consistently a good thing to God’s people. Of course Christ is the Lord, but these are terms that have meanings given to them throughout the New Testament. If Paul meant to talk about the time of judgment that is to be feared he would have used “day of the Lord” as he did in 1 Thessalonians 5.
2. The reason anti pre-trib people use this passage is because it clearly shows that there are two things that must come before the day of Christ. I don’t think it is a proof text. In fact, not one passage clearly shows Christ coming back before the tribulation, while many clearly say that he comes after. So it is pre-trib that finds itself on non-textual grounds to prove itself while the post-trib rapture has many clear supporting passages. I challenge you to, as I have done, look at every passage concerning the coming of Christ. You will find that they fit into one of two categories: clearly post-trib or cannot be determined by the context. Not one is clearly pre-trib by the context. I challenge you to show one passage that clearly places Christ’s coming before the tribulation.
3. Where does 2 Thessalonians say that they were afraid they were in the day of Christ or were afraid of the day of Christ coming? When you use the word “in” you’re implying that the day of Christ is an extended time period rather than the day when Christ comes back. The text doesn’t say that. Again, not one passage in the Bible shows the eschatological “day of the Lord” or “day of Christ” to be extended time periods (like seven years). So you’re adding “in the day of Christ” to the text when it doesn’t say that. If the day of Christ is Christ’s second coming then they couldn’t have been afraid they were “in” it.
4. Obviously you know more about Greek than I do so I’m coming from a place of inferiority in regards to that. However, when I looked up the word in Strong’s the first definition is “to place on hand, impend.” Impend means “about to happen.” Also, the same Greek word is used in Timothy and translated “shall come.” So it seems that there is a very good argument that it means that they believed the day of Christ was “about to come.” Maybe the reason those who aren’t pre-trib don’t try to attempt to prove that at hand means at hand is because they just assume it means what it says. By the way, when I hear “at hand” it doesn’t sound to me like “is present.” As to your questions. First, I don’t agree with the premise that the day of Christ means the tribulation period and I don’t think you have Scripture on your side to back that up. Next, it appears that in 2 Timothy 3:1 it does not mean “is present” but “shall come” so I’ll say no.
5. Jesus said “When ye see the abomination of desolation spoken of in Daniel the prophet.” Paul says, “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.” Both of these put the revelation of antichrist at the abomination of desolation. So you can say what you said, but you’re going against what Jesus and Paul taught.
As to your final paragraph. I don’t appreciate your implications. Jesus taught in Matthew 24 that His coming would be preceded by certain things as when one sees the leaves on a fig tree they know summer is nigh. Yet, in that very context speaking about a post-tribulation coming after the antichrist He told his disciples to watch for His coming. I am looking for Christ’s return and I do not fear or dread the coming of the antichrist because I know what Jesus will do to the antichrist when He comes back.
By the way, Peter didn’t believe that Jesus could come back at any moment. Nor could Jesus have come back before the temple was destroyed or before Paul was taken to Rome as prophesied by Agabus. Looking expectantly for Christ’s return does not require believing that His return is imminent. Proof of that is Titus 2:13, looking for His glorious appearing! Amen! I am looking for Christ’s glorious appearing when He comes to destroy the antichrist and all the proud.
I know it’s hard to admit when we’re wrong, but you are wrong and the sooner you admit it the sooner you can stop deceiving people to believe that the day of Christ will come before the falling away and the revelation of the antichrist, which Paul explicitly said we shouldn’t be deceived into believing by any means.
I’ll add one thought after doing a little more study. I may be wrong about the day of Christ and day of the Lord distinction. It may very well be that the day of Christ refers to both the blessed hope and glorious appearing as well as the coming of Christ in flaming fire taking vengeance. That said, to consider the context of 2 Thessalonians 2 and determining what the day of Christ refers to, just look at 2 Thessalonians 1. “That day” is the day when the Lord Jesus comes in flaming fire to take venageance on the wicked and to be glorified in them that believe. Would you agree that day does not include the tribulation period but happens at the conclusion of Daniel’s 70th week? If so, and if that is what Paul is referring to as the day of Christ in chapter two. Would you also say that it would be impossible for the Thessalonians to think they were in that day if that was their understanding of the day of Christ?
As I have written in previous emails that I can teach a “pre-tribulation” 3.5 years or 7 years. Both have their problems and you found one for the 7 year tribulation in 2 Thessalonians 2. Verse 1 of that chapter 2 is speaking about the rapture, and “the day of Christ” (v2). Then v3 states “that day shall not come” followed by the order of events that say the son of perdition will be revealed.
But, I have a bigger issue with post-millennialism.
1> Confusing the distinctions between the church and Israel. The dispensations are very clear in reading the OT, especially the prophets. To mix in the church causes great confusion.
2> Confusing the ministry of Jesus Christ to Israel. If you do not make distinctions there (Matthew 6, Matthew 15:24 [house of Israel used 152 times in reference to Israel]) and the difference between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God
3> How can the rapture occur at the end of the tribulation and have time for the bride to be prepared for her coming back at the time of the 2nd advent.
4> How do the OT prophecies given to Israel both bad and finally good come to pass at the same time the church is present?
5> Does the arguments that Paul teaches in Romans 10-11 come to pass? Does “all Israel shall be saved” coincide with the church? If you think so, then you must explain Romans 11:27, {… when I (the Lord, not the preaching of the gospel) shall take away their sins)
6> Are the 144,000 from the 12 tribes preaching the same gospel as the church?
7> What is the “Everlasting gospel” that the angel brings down? How can that be the same gospel as the church preaches? It is not, therefore it would contradict Galatians 1:6-10.
I have many more questions I can add, but it is really #7 that proves that the church cannot be here at that time.
This is why I have never spent time looking into what most false churches, including some Baptists teach, a “replacement” theology of post-millennialism. Most of them like Chuck Baldwin exalt a godless nation like this believing it “can be turned around” back into the nation that Christians will rise from and “bring in the kingdom”.
They are talking about the wrong kingdom, for the body of Christ exists in almost every nation on the earth, but only in “remnant” form.
Tom
PS: Brother David- What I have come to know about some Baptist that teach this is that they believe in righteous, holy living of a saved man and that the true church must go through a cleansing of the wrath of God (destroy the false brethren) in order to prepare the spotless bride of Christ.
That part of the teaching is good, but putting the church at the end of the tribulation is bad.
Tom
Dear David,
I commend you for being willing to consider that you are wrong about the Day of Christ and of the Lord being different. Let me point out:
1.) Anyone who wants to say they are different has the burden of proof, since Christ is the Lord.
2.) Both the Hebrew and Greek words for “day” can be used for extended periods of time, as well as for a 24 hour period from sunrise to sunset. Note, for example, definition #4 in the standard Greek lexicon on the word “day” in “day of Christ”:
4. an extended period, time (like יוֹם, but not unknown among the Greeks: Soph., Aj. 131; 623; Eur., Ion 720; Aristot., Rhet. 2, 13, 1389b, 33f; PAmh 30, 43 [II BC] ἡμέρας αἰτοῦσα=‘she asked for time’, or ‘a respite’)
a. in sg. ἐν τ. ἡμέρᾳ τ. πονηρᾷ when the times are evil (unless the ref. is to the final judgment) Eph 6:13. ἐν ἡμ. σωτηρίας of the salutary time that has come for Christians 2 Cor 6:2 (Is 49:8). Of the time of the rescue fr. Egypt ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπιλαβομένου μου τ. χειρὸς αὐτῶν at the time when I took them by the hand Hb 8:9 (Jer 38:32; on the constr. cp. Bar 2:28 and B-D-F §423, 5; Rob. 514). ἐν ἐκείνῃ τ. ἡμέρᾳ at that time Mk 2:20b; J 14:20; 16:23, 26. τ. ἡμέραν τ. ἐμήν my time (era) 8:56. ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ αὐτοῦ ἡμέρᾳ in his (Abraham’s) last days GJs 1:3.
b. chiefly in the pl. αἱ ἡμέραι of time of life or activity, w. gen. of pers. (1 Km 17:12 A; 2 Km 21:1; 3 Km 10:21; Esth 1:1s; Sir 46:7; 47:1; ἡμέραι αὐτοῦ En 12:2; ἡμέραι ἃς ἦτε 102:5 and oft.) ἐν ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου Mt 2:1; Lk 1:5; Νῶε 17:26a; 1 Pt 3:20; Ἠλίου Lk 4:25. ἐν ταῖς ἡμ. τοῦ υἱοῦ τ. ἀνθρώπου 17:26b; cp. Mt 23:30. ἀπὸ τ. ἡμερῶν Ἰωάννου Mt 11:12. ἕως τ. ἡμερῶν Δαυίδ Ac 7:45; cp. 13:41 (Hab 1:5). W. gen. of thing ἡμέραι ἐκδικήσεως time of vengeance Lk 21:22; τ. ἀπογραφῆς Ac 5:37; cp. Rv 10:7; 11:6. ἐν τ. ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ in the time of his appearance in the flesh Hb 5:7.—ἡμέραι πονηραί corrupt times Eph 5:16; cp. B 2:1; 8:6. ἡμ. ἀγαθαί happy times (Artem. 4, 8) 1 Pt 3:10 (Ps 33:13). ἀφ̓ ἡμερῶν ἀρχαίων Ac 15:7; αἱ πρότερον ἡμ. Hb 10:32. πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας all the time, always Mt 28:20 (cp. Dt 4:40; 5:29; PsSol 14:4). νῦν τ. ἡμέραις at the present time Hs 9, 20, 4. ἐν (ταῖς) ἐσχάταις ἡμ. Ac 2:17; 2 Ti 3:1; Js 5:3; B 4:9; D 16:3. ἐπ̓ ἐσχάτου τ. ἡμερῶν τούτων Hb 1:2; cp. 2 Pt 3:3; GJs 7:2. ἐν τ. ἡμέραις ἐκείναις at that time Mt 3:1; 24:19, 38; Mk 1:9; Lk 2:1; 4:2b; 5:35b. ἐν τ. ἡμ. ταύταις at this time Lk 1:39; 6:12; Ac 1:15. εἰς ταύτας τ. ἡμέρας w. respect to our time (opp. πάλαι) Hs 9, 26, 6. πρὸ τούτων τ. ἡμερῶν before this (time) Ac 5:36; 21:38; πρὸς ὀλίγας ἡμ. for a short time Hb 12:10; ἐλεύσονται ἡμ. there will come a time: w. ὅταν foll. Mt 9:15; Mk 2:20a; Lk 5:35a; w. ὅτε foll. Lk 17:22 (Just., D. 40, 2). ἥξουσιν ἡμέραι ἐπί σε καί a time is coming upon you when Lk 19:43. ἡμ. ἔρχονται καί Hb 8:8 (Jer 38:31). ἐλεύσονται ἡμ. ἐν αἷς Lk 21:6; 23:29.—Esp. of time of life πάσαις τ. ἡμέραις ἡμῶν for our entire lives Lk 1:75. πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς αὐτοῦ all his life GJs 4:1 (cp. En 103:5; TestJob 46:9). μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν μήτε ζωῆς τέλος ἔχων without either beginning or end of life Hb 7:3. προβεβηκὼς ἐν ταῖς ἡμ. advanced in years Lk 1:7, 18; cp. 2:36 (s. Gen 18:11; 24:1; Josh 13:1; 23:1; 3 Km 1:1; προβαίνω 2).—B. 991. DELG s.v. ἦμαρ. EDNT. M-M. TW. Sv.
3.) It did not require some kind of deep study of Greek to find out that the phrase translated “at hand” is translated something like “is present” everywhere else it appears in the NT. You could verify what I said is true by doing a Strong’s number search for that Greek in 2 Thess 2:3. It is perfectly clear that the idea of 2 Thess 2:3 is that they were not in the period called the Day of Christ because the Antichrist was not yet in power.
4.) If you study the Day of the LORD texts in the OT it is very clear that it is not just a 24 hour period, but an extended period of time that is in view.
5.) I suppose you can say that you are not afraid if you are looking for the Antichrist to torture you instead of looking to Christ to catch you up to heaven, but it is not rocket science to say that looking for torture from the Antichrist is not joyful, but fearful.
6.) 2 Thess 1:10 does not say “day of Christ,” just “in that day,” so I would not build too much on that. Furthermore, looking at 2 Thess 1:6ff the “day” could well be a period longer than 24 hours, but could encompass the “tribulation” (1:6). However, I think this text is not specific enough to answer the question or to hold the weight you seem to be placing on it.
7.) Please keep in mind that Strong’s Concordance is a Concordance, not a Greek lexicon. It is great as a Concordance. As a lexicon it is very limited in value because its entries are very brief. Here is the much longer definition of enistemi (“at hand” in 2 Thess 2:3) in BDAG:
ἐνίστημι 2 aor. ἐνέστην, ptc. ἐνστάς; pf. ἐνέστηκα, ptc. ἐνεστηκώς and ἐνεστώς; mid. fut. ἐνστήσομαι (Eur., Hdt.+; also Just., D. 142, 2 ‘begin, enter upon’; pf. ptc.: Tat. 26, 1; Ath. 27, 2). In our lit. only intr. and esp. in ref. to circumstances prevailing or impending, with contextual stress on the temporal feature of someth. taking place in a sequence.
1. to take place as an event, be here, be at hand, arrive, come. 2 Ti 3:1; in past tenses be present, have come ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου the day of the Lord has come 2 Th 2:2 (cp. Phlegon: 257 fgm. 36, 6 Jac, ἐνστάσης τῆς ἡμέρας τοῦ γάμου=when the wedding day came; PGM 13, 364 ὅταν ἐνστῇ ἡ ἡμέρα; Jos., Ant. 12, 175 ἐνστάσης τῆς ἡμέρας=when the day came; s. Goodsp., Probs. 179f; but BWarfield, Exp. 3d ser., 4, 1886, 37 and AOepke, TW II, 540 favor mng. 2).
2. to be present as condition or thing at the time of speaking, be now, happen now ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐνεστηκώς (Polyb. 1, 60, 9; 21, 3, 3; Jos., Ant. 16, 162; pap) the present time Hb 9:9; cp. 1 Cl 55:1. ὁ αἰὼν ὁ ἐνεστώς the present age Gal 1:4. ἡ ἐνεστῶσα ἀνάγκη the present or current distress 1 Cor 7:26 (so REB; NRSV mg.; for a difft. view s. 3 below). ἐνεστώς fairly oft. in contrast to μέλλων (Sext. Emp., Adv. Math. 2, 193; Philo, Plant. 114; Tat. 26, 1; Ath. 27, 2) ἡ ἐ. χάρις IEph 11:1. ἐνεστῶτα, μέλλοντα Ro 8:38; 1 Cor 3:22; B 1:7; 4:1; 5:3; 17:2.—EBurton, Gal. ICC, 432f.
3. to be about to occur, w. connotation of threatening, be imminent, be impending (Hdt.; Polyb. 3, 97, 1 ‘press hard’; PGM 13, 1049; LXX; Jos., Ant. 4, 209) ἡ ἐ. ἀνάγκη the impending distress 1 Cor 7:26 (‘impending crisis’ NRSV); B 17:2 (but for both of these s. 2; for 2 Ti 3:1 s. 1).—DELG s.v. ἵστημι. M-M. TW.
Most importantly, you can clearly see from the word usage that I provided in the post itself that the sense of the word is “be present.”
Thanks; I may not respond again, but if you want to say something else, go right ahead.
Brother Ross,
If you would respond to two things.
1) since the first definition in bdag is also “impending,” and even includes “imminent,” would it not be possible that Paul meant “that the day of Christ is impending or imminent”?
2) Does the grammar of verse 3 not show that those two things (falling away and revelation of antichrist) had to come before the day of Christ comes? Meaning that there would be the day of Christ comes after those things, not that they are necessary to prove one is in the day of Christ or that they happen in the day of Christ. It seems to me Paul is saying the day of Christ COMES after them, not that it begins with them.
And so we’re clear, I wouldn’t say that the day of the Lord and day of Christ are necessarily 24 hour periods. Just that it does not include the seven year tribulation but follows it. Based on the fact that Joel teaches the day of the Lord follows the sun and moon are darkened.
Also but not essential for response from you. Your point about the fear of torture has one major problem in its implication that believing a post-trib rapture requires an ungodly fear of persecution from antichrist. The Bible promises persecution to all who live ungodly so whether it’s from the antichrist or not, anyone who believes the Bible would have that “fear.” The Bible never differentiates persecution from antichrist as exceeding that which would be experienced by anyone else. I don’t think being beheaded would be worse than, for instance, being fed to lions. To imply that there would be greater fear of death during antichrist than those who lived under Nero would’ve had seems to be a logical fallacy to me. So I think you are just wrong on that point.
I’d like to make one more point about 2 Thessalonians from a post-trib perspective with respect to exegesis of the passage that I think is a problem for trying to make it pre-trib. If you read 2 Thessalonians without a pre-trib presupposition (for instance, David Cloud says 2 Thess 2 can’t be post-trib because Paul taught pre-trib in 1 Thessalonians) then there is one more strong point for the post-trib position.
I chapter 1 Christ COMES in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, which is post-trib. In chapter 2:8 Christ destroys the antichrist with the brightness of His COMING. In chapter 2:1 the church of the Thessalonians would be gathered at the COMING of the Lord Jesus Christ. Pre-trib has to say that Paul used the same word to speak of two different comings without giving any exegetical reason for it being true unless you have a pre-trib presupposition. Otherwise, it looks like Paul taught that the following takes place at Jesus’ coming:
1 He takes vengeance on them that know not God
2 He is glorified in them that believe (including the Thessalonians NT church believers)
3 His NT saints are gathered to Him
4 He destroys the antichrist
Just another post-trib challenge for the 2 Thessalonians is pre-trib position.
David,
I mistakenly said that you taught post-millennialism. My questions still apply if you teach a post-tribulation rapture.
I just want to be clear. Is this what you teach (Taken from https://www.ibelieve.com/faith/different-views-of-the-rapturepost-tribulation.html)?
“Overall, most post-tribulationists believe the church has replaced Israel, which would affect why they view the church as having to go through the seven-year tribulation. The seven-year tribulation is mainly focused on bringing back Israel to God, though Gentiles will be saved too. However, God’s main focus is to bring His chosen nation of Israel back to Him. Since most post-tribulationists view the church as replacing Israel as God’s chosen people, it explains why they view that the church has to endure this dark period of eschatology.”
Tom
Tom
Dear David,
I am going to briefly respond to your two questions, and then I think I am done here.
Your question #1:
1) since the first definition in bdag is also “impending,” and even includes “imminent,” would it not be possible that Paul meant “that the day of Christ is impending or imminent”?
Please note that in definition #1 BDAG states:
in past tenses be present, have come ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου the day of the Lord has come 2 Th 2:2
The verb is in the past tense in Greek. So even definition #1 indicates it is “be present,” which, again, you can see by simply looking at all the other uses of the word. To say it means “at hand” in the sense of “it is not yet here, but it is coming soon” is to reject all the other uses in the NT as well as the standard Greek lexicon.
Your question #2:
2) Does the grammar of verse 3 not show that those two things (falling away and revelation of antichrist) had to come before the day of Christ comes?
No, Paul is saying that if the day were present, then the Antichrist would be going around and the falling away would have happened. These are the very first things that happen after the Rapture (Revelation 6:1ff).
Thanks for wanting to take Scripture seriously. May the Lord bless you as you study His Word, and may you return to the Biblical, pre-Trib Rapture position.
KKV1611 wrote:
“No, Paul is saying that if the day were present, then the Antichrist would be going around and the falling away would have happened. These are the very first things that happen after the Rapture (Revelation 6:1ff).”
The Bible is very clear in the English text. The apostasy of v3 is before the rapture (v1). Do you believe the King James Bible as written or something else?
Tom.
Brother Ross,
I don’t want this to appear as me trying to have the last word since you said you were finished, but I would like to respond to this post and our discussion once more.
You ended your last comment with “may you return to the Biblical, pre-trib Rapture position.” I don’t believe the pre-trib Rapture is Biblical and your responses to my question and exegetical reasoning have not moved me away from that position at all.
I think that your approach to 2 Thessalonians 2, as well as other passages clearly shows that you have a pre-supposition that there must be a pre-trib rapture and when the Bible says something different you have to re-interpret it to say something different. I think the points that I made from this passage are very strong in favor of a post-trib rapture at the coming of Christ as He expressed it in Matthew 24. I don’t’ think you proved or gave a better argument on the following items:
1. That the Thessalonians believed they were “in” the day of Christ, which you claim is Daniel’s 70th week.
2. That the phrase “is at hand” means “is present.”
3. That the day of Christ is not the day when Christ comes in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God.
4. That the grammar of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 does not clearly, by using the word FIRST, teach that the falling away and revelation of the man of sin must PRECEDE the day of Christ.
5. That there is one verse that gives exegetical proof that Christ will come back before He said He would come back, but that non pre-trib people use this as a “proof text” while the rest of the Bible shows a pre-trib rapture.
6. That the use of the word “comes” and “coming” in 2 Thessalonians 1 and 2 is volatile to speak of the second coming and rapture interchangeably without any exegetical evidence.
I don’t necessarily believe that you will convince me of your statement that the pre-trib is Biblical, but to do so I would need much better answers than what you gave for these 6 points. And this is only from this passage. I have many other Biblical, exegetical reasons not to believe in the pre-trib rapture which I’ve never seen addressed by the pre-trib. The pre-trib approach always seems to be pre-suppositional rather than exegetical. I know you would be concerned with that approach for other doctrines, why not this one?
I do thank you for taking the time you did and hope you will not think evil of me for not being convinced by the information and arguments you gave. I understand you have exhausted your patience with me on this issue and I respect that. May the Lord bless you as you study His Word, and may you come to see the Biblical, post-trib rapture as taught by Paul, Christ, and the other apostles.