How Is This Possible?
By Don K. Preston
It
is so very easy to read certain Bible passages for years and never fully
realize what they are saying. I am certain that most of us have experienced
both the frustration and the joy of suddenly discovering some of those hidden
nuggets that had lain exposed, yet hidden, for so long. Sometimes we discover
statements which disturb our preconceived ideas and challenge us to rethink
long held views. Such is the case with II Thessalonians 2:1-2.
"Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to Him, that you may not be quickly
shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a
letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come."
[New American Standard]
A
similar passage is found in II Timothy 2:16-18.
What is so challenging about these verses? Please ask yourself the
following question: If the day of the Lord is, as you and I have always been
taught, a time ending, universe destroying event, how in the world could the
Thessalonians ever have been convinced, as they obviously were, that the day of
the Lord had ALREADY COME? All they had to do when any one would suggest such
an idea was say "Look around! The earth is still here. Time marches on.
Obviously, the day of the Lord has not come!" The same could be said of
the passage in II Timothy. If the resurrection is when all the physical graves
are opened, when Jesus bodily, visibly descends on a cloud with the audible
sound of a trumpet: how could any one convince those at
[Lest it be argued the Thessalonians did not yet believe the day of the
Lord to be past, but were only in danger of being thus deceived, we observe
this does not materially affect what we will here argue. The point is, Paul did not challenge the teaching concerning the nature
of the day. He only challenged the chronology.]
Could it just be that our concept of the day of the Lord is incorrect?
Could it be we have misunderstood the nature, as well as the time, of the
Parousia? Our purpose in this little treatise is to examine some of the issues
behind the Thessalonian text and challenge some prevailing concepts.
Normal Interpretations
A
good summary of modern views of the Thessalonian problem can be stated in the
following way. The church at Thessalonica had mistakenly begun to believe that
the coming of Jesus was IMMINENT. Therefore, Paul had to write to correct the
problem. This he does in II Thessalonians by telling of events which had to
transpire before Jesus could come.
There are some key questions that must be asked to help delineate the
issues.
1.
Did the Thessalonians believe the day of the Lord IMMINENT or did they believe
it had ALREADY COME?
2.
If, in fact, the Thessalonians did believe the Parousia to be imminent where
did they get that idea, from Paul or others?
A
Question of Translation
The question of whether the Thessalonicans believed the Parousia to be
imminent or present centers around the word "enistemi" or rather the
perfect active indicative form, "enesteken" as found in II
Thessalonians 2:2.
We
would hastily confess that we are certainly not in any form a Greek scholar.
However, we are able to read the lexicons and compare the Bible versions and
Greek commentaries to best determine not only the consensus of opinion there,
but to study the context of the scripture. In the case of "enistemi"
there seems to be no great difficulty in determining what should be the proper
translation.
We
shall present the evidence in the following order: What do the translations say?; What do the lexicons say?; What do the Greek commentators
say?
The Translations
The following is a comparison of how various translations render II
Thessalonians 2:2. For brevity we will note only whether they render the verse
as "present" or "imminent."
1.
KJV--is at hand.
2.
ASV--is just at hand.
3.
New KJV--as though ...had come.
4.
RSV--has come
5.
NASB--has come
6.
New English Bible--is already here
7.
NIV--has already come
8.
Amplified--has [already] arrived and is here
9.
Living New Testament--has already begun
10. McCord's New Testament Translation--has come
11. Williams--is already here
12. Beck--has already come
13. Good News For Modern Man--has come
14. Lamsa--at hand
15.
16.
17. Today's English Version--has come
18. Twentieth Century NT--is come
19. Emphasized NT,
20. Goodspeed--had already come
There are other translations available but these provide a good
representation of the field.
It
is obvious that the majority of translations render the verse to read the day
of the Lord had already come. You will note the KJV, the ASV, and the Lamsa are
the only ones to differ. It is noteworthy also that the Lamsa version is taken
from the Aramaic and not the Greek. Thus, the KJV and the ASV are the only
Greek translations to prefer the "imminent" sense of the verse. We
turn now to consider the lexical evidence.
The Lexicons
The lexical evidence for the definition of enestemi is almost as overwhelming
as that of the translations.
1.
Thayer's, pg 216, - "to be upon, impend, threaten:
II Thess.2:2." Note: We would cite his admission that "many would
adopt the meaning of "present" in II Thessalonians...."
2.
Analytical Greek Lexicon, pg 140 - "to be at hand, impend, to be present,
Romans
3.
Vines Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol.II, pg. 191,-
"In 2 Thess. 2:2 the verb enistemi, to be present ... is wrongly
translated "is at hand": the RV correctly renders it, "is [now]
present...."
4.
Baur, [Arndt and Gingrich], pg 266 - "1. in past
tenses to be present ... II Thess. 2:2."
5.
Kittel's Theological Dictionary, vol II, pg 543-- "In the perfect it means
"to have entered" and therefore "to be present."
The evidence from the lexicons then, is the same as from the versions.
The meaning of enistemi is "present." While there
are some that do render it as imminent, ie. Thayer's, they acknowledge
this is not the majority view. Others, the Analytical for instance, seem a
little ambiguous but nonetheless cite "present" as the meaning and
list II Thessalonians as reference. We turn now to consider what the
commentators have to say.
The Greek Commentators
Of
making of books there is no end said the preacher. And when it comes to
commentaries there is an inexhaustible number one could examine. It would be
impossible to list all the sources but we can list some of the more reputable
ones; [and for information sake we wish to state that the following sources
were chosen at random. These are not hand picked commentaries chosen because
this scribe happened to agree with what they say.]
Among the commentators who accept the "just at hand" rendering without
comment about the Greek of the text are McGarvey Pendleton, J. W. Shepherd,
Henry, Clark, Coffman. All of these accept the KJV or ASV rendering without
question.
When it comes to the commentators who comment on the Greek in our text
however, there is very little disagreement among them.
1.
Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, [JFB], Commentary on the Whole Bible, Zondervan,
1977, pg. 1343- "is immediately imminent, lit., 'is present;' is instantly
coming." They comment that while Paul always taught the Parousia was
imminent, what he denies here is that it was so imminent they could neglect
everyday responsibilities. He admits the Greek is usually used of actual
presence and cites Chrysostom.
2.
A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures of the New Testament, Vol. 4, Broadman, 1931, pg.
48- Robertson renders it "as present" but then insists that here
since it is "intransitive in this tense to stand in or at or near. So
"is imminent" [Lightfoot]."
3.
John Eadie, Greek Text Commentaries, Baker Books, 1979, p. 259ff--Eadie has one
of the fullest discussions of the word. Says, "The true
meaning of the word is not "at hand, but "is come," or "is
present." Excellent source material.
4.
William Barclay, Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, The
Daily Study Bible Series, Westminster Press, 1975, pg. 211-212-Barclay
translates it as "is here."
5.
Pulpit Commentary, Vol 21 Eerdmans, 1977, pg. 24 says it means "literally
is present," although they confess they find it "difficult to conceive
how the Thessalonians could think that the day of the Lord was actually
present. We cannot imagine that they thought that Christ had already come for
judgment." We shall have more to say on this later.
6.
Leon Morris, The New International Commentary On The
New Testament, [NICNT], Eerdmans, 1979, pg. 216- "The verb does not really
mean 'to be at hand,' but rather "to be present." He also cites Frame
and Lillie, as well as Bicknell who insists "is now present" as
"the only possible translation of the Greek." He does list Warfield
as dissenting.
7.
A Translators Handbook on Paul's Letters to the Thessalonians, Ellingworth and
Nida, United Bible Societies, 1976, pg. 160- "In place of has come, a few
translators [Knox, following the Latin, cf. KJV] have "is close at
hand." The Greek verb can have this meaning in other tenses and in other
contexts. In past tenses, however, it means "has arrived." They list
Rigaux who says the translation as "imminent" is "a commentary
having no linguistic basis."
8.
F.F.Bruce, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 45, p. 165, Word Incorporated,
Dallas, Texas, 1982, In his translation he renders it as "present."
In his commentary he says, "It cannot be seriously disputed that 'is
present' is the natural sense of enesteken." He says there is,
"considerable support for the sense of imminence," but admits
enesteken "will not bear" this. It is clear Bruce is troubled by the
significance of this for he says "...it cannot be supposed that the Thessalonians ..could have been misled ...that the events of
I Thessalonians had taken place."
9.
Robertson Nicoll, The Expositors Greek Testament, Vol. 4, Eerdmans, pg. 47--
"were already present."
10. Alford's Greek Testament, Vol. III, Baker, 1980, pg. 289- "...
is present [not, 'is at hand,' ...six times in the NT and always in the sense
of being present...."
We
could multiply these quotes. Other noted scholars and commentators who examine
the Greek and conclude enestemi means present and not at hand are, The
Interpreters Bible, Lenski, Cook, Wycliffe, Hendrikson, Conybeare and Howson,
and others.
See For Your Self
It
does not take a great scholar to discover how enestemi is used in the New
Testament. The Englishman's Greek Concordance lists six occurrences of the word.
We give them here.
1.
Romans
2.
I Corinthians 3:22 things present [enestemi] and things to come.
3.
I Corinthians 7:26 "...it is good for the present [enestemi]
distress..."
4.
Galatians 1:4 - "this present [enestemi] evil world."
5.
II Timothy 3:1- "...perilous times shall come." This time enestemi is
in the future tense. See number 7 under commentators above.
6.
Hebrews 9:9 "... for the time then present...."
Is
it not abundantly clear that the normal meaning of enestemi is present?
An Objection-An Observation
It
may be rejoined that while there is a consensus as to the natural meaning of
the word, there are some very impressive scholars who defend the imminent sense
in II Thessalonians. Men such as Robertson, Lightfoot, Warfield, Macknight, and
Vincent all prefer imminent and they are noted scholars to be sure. But while
these men have chosen to refuse the normal rendering of the word their reasons
are not tenable. They have, we believe, taken the only possible course to avoid
a tremendous theological dilemma which they did not wish to address.
Their reasons for insisting on the sense of imminence can be seen in the
quotes from the Pulpit Commentary and F. F. Bruce, numbers 5 and 8 above. These
commentators believe in a time ending, cosmos destroying, earth burning
Parousia and ASSUME the Thessalonicans did as well. Now if that be true it
would be impossible for those brethren to believe that day had already come.
Their eyes and senses would more than adequately disprove that nonsensical
idea. Is it possible these commentators and their a priori assumptions are
erroneous?
Misconceptions
About Misconceptions
It
is normally taught that the Thessalonians believed the Parousia was imminent
and so Paul, who did not believe or teach that error, had to write to correct
this misconception. To help us better understand that this is a mistaken view
we must see if indeed Paul taught Jesus' coming was imminent.
Paul and The Parousia
Commentators often say that early in his ministry Paul taught Jesus'
return was imminent. But, we are told, as time passed and the anticipated event
did not transpire Paul began to omit any mention of the Parousia in his
writings because of his disappointment. Such claims are simply untrue.
The letter to the Thessalonicans is one of his early works and in I
Thessalonians 4:13ff Paul indicates a belief in the possibility he would be
alive, along with the Thessalonicans, when Jesus returned. It is often
maintained his language is simply editorial. But Paul's use of "we"
in Thessalonians is always contemporary and personal.
The letter to the Corinthians, [54-55, A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures, pg.
65] contains numerous references to Paul's convictions of an imminent return.
In 1:4-8 he says the Corinthians had miraculous gifts and would continue to
have them until the end, the day of Christ. In 7:29ff he emphatically declares
"... the time is short..."; "...the fashion of this world is
passing away." In
The book of Romans, [spring of 57, A.T. Robertson, pg. 320], certainly
contains evidence Paul believed in the imminent return of Jesus. In chapter
13:11ff he declared "...the day is at hand." In chapter
It
is true Paul does not mention the Parousia at great length in some of his
letters. Galatians has but one somewhat vague reference, 5:5. Ephesians
mentions the world, or age to come,
But the claim of some that Paul did not believe in an imminent return
while in prison is not true at all. He wrote the brethren at
While some seek to mitigate the obvious reference to the epiphany by such
statements as "...Paul did say the Lord was 'at hand.' That does not say,
however, the "coming of the Lord was at hand." Jerry Moffitt, Denton
Lectureship Book, Editor Dub McClish, Valid Publications, 1988, pg.248. Such
statements completely overlook the context for in 3:20ff the apostle speaks of
the return and then in chapter four bases his exhortations on that event, which
he then declares as imminent.
[It would be interesting to know if Moffitt believes the statement,
"The kingdom of heaven is at hand," Mark 1:15,
really meant "the COMING of the kingdom is at hand"!]
Additional proof the apostle believed in an imminent return is found in I
Timothy 6:14. [I Timothy, circa 65, Robertson, pg 559.]
Here Paul instructs Timothy to "...keep this commandment without spot,
blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ's appearing." It should be carefully
observed that Paul did not say to keep the commandments until he [Timothy]
died. He told him to keep the commandment until the appearing of Jesus.
If the Pauline authorship of Hebrews be granted the contention that
Paul did not teach or hold to the imminent return of Jesus late in his life can
hardly be true. The book virtually breathes an air of expectancy. From
the expectation of "the world to come" 2:5f; the exhortations for the
Hebrew Christians to hold fast "to the end," 3:6,14; 6:11: his
reference to the Old Law which was even then "growing old and is ready to
vanish away, 8:13; to his promise of the second coming of the Lord in 9:28 and
his emphatic declaration "For yet a very little while, he who is coming
will come, and will not delay," 10:37
The reader can see that not only did Paul teach that Jesus' return was to
occur in his generation, but he held this view as a conviction and doctrine. He
believed this early in his ministry and at the end of his life. His only
uncertainty was whether he would live to see it. He was not uncertain as to its
imminence.
A word here about whether we today should believe the Parousia to
be imminent because Paul did. In other words, if Paul believed it was
imminent we should too. The problem is, PAUL, BY INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
SAID THE RETURN WAS IMMINENT. HE WAS NOT JUST EXPRESSING A HOPE! HE WAS
EMPHATICALLY DECLARING AN INSPIRED TRUTH. IF HE WAS WRONG HE WAS NOT INSPIRED!
There is, therefore, a vast difference between someone today who says the day
of the Lord is at hand and when Paul said it. Paul was inspired. No one today
fits that description!
Since Paul obviously did teach the Parousia was near, consider what sort
of problem this presents if it is maintained that in II Thessalonians he denied
it to be so. Here he is an inspired apostle who teaches on the one hand the
Parousia is imminent. But when some of the brethren take his message to heart
and in fact get carried away, he retracts his teaching and says "Now wait
a minute brethren, I never said the coming was at hand!"
One possible solution to the dilemma would be to suggest he taught two
comings, one imminent, the return to judge
When one carefully studies the II Thessalonian text he does not find any
indication that Paul was now teaching a protracted Parousia. On the contrary,
the indications are very strong that it was, from their perspective, imminent.
The apostle said two things must happen before Jesus' return; the
apostasy, and the revealing of the man of sin. We will not take the space to
develop whether the apostasy was about to break out but refer the reader to the
books of II Timothy 3, Jude, II Peter, Colossians. What Paul, in about 51- 52,
said would happen did happen; in his generation!
A word here about the Parousia and signs. It is commonly,
and vociferously, maintained that there will be absolutely no signs of Jesus'
final coming. Commentators are quite adamant in this. See Boatman, The End
Time, College Press, 1980, pg. 133f. Also Roy Deaver tract, Premillennialism:
Matthew Chapters 24 and 25 Do Not Teach It! , 1977,
available from the Getwell Church of Christ, 1511 Getwell Road, Memphis, Tenn.
38111; Marcellus Kik, Eschatology of Victory, pg. 162ff. Wayne Jackson,
"Christian Courier," Vol. XVI, No. 7, Nov. 1980, emphatically
declares: "There are absolutely no biblical signs to indicate when the end
of time will occur."
But this position is patently untenable in view of II Thessalonians 2.
Paul says prior to the epiphany of the day of God THERE WOULD BE TWO SIGNS!
There would be the apostasy, and the manifestation of the man of sin. Now, how
can it be denied that these would constitute obvious signs? Since Paul clearly
says the man of sin would be destroyed by the coming of the Son of Man it is
patent that the coming would be in the lifetime of the man of sin. The
appearance of the man of sin, then, would constitute an undeniable proof that
the generation of the Parousia had arrived. But it means more than this to the
traditional view of the Parousia.
If
it is the case there will be absolutely no signs of the final coming of Jesus,
Jackson, Deaver, Boatman, et.al.; and if it is the case that in II
Thessalonians 2 Paul gives two signs, or events, which must occur prior to the
coming of the Lord; then it must be true that the coming of the Lord discussed
by Paul in II Thessalonians 2 cannot be the final coming of the Lord for which
there would be no signs. It is clear Paul does give two events which must
transpire prior to the coming which he discusses. Therefore, the coming
discussed by Paul in II Thessalonians cannot be the final coming of the Lord.
Please consider this in view of I Timothy 4:1ff and the coming of false
teachers which would be known by their distinctive doctrines; II Timothy 3:1ff
and the coming of perilous times typified by certain ungodly men; II Timothy
4:1ff and false teachers; II Peter 2:1ff and the antinomians; II Peter 3 and
the appearance of scoffers; Jude and the rebellious ones of whom Peter wrote;
and other texts which foretold of the coming of certain events or people which
were to appear just prior to the Parousia. All of these texts mention things
which could and would be discerned by the brethren. Since these events were to
occur prior to the Day of the Lord, in the "last days" just before
the coming, any who saw these signs would be able without doubt to know the
time for the Parousia was near. They could know without question they were
living in the target generation. Since all these events would constitute
nothing less than SIGNS; and since, we are told, there would/will be absolutely
NO SIGNS of Jesus' final coming, it is undeniable that
none of the above cited texts can in any way be applied to our future and any
final coming of the Lord!]
And what of the man of sin? Please note that the one
restraining him, [and for purposes of chronology it is not necessary to know
who this is; it is sufficient to know he was alive and doing his restraining
work when Paul wrote], was then very much alive.
Now since Paul tells us the man of sin was alive in his day, ["the
spirit of lawlessness is already at work"], and since he was to be
manifested, work his evil, and be destroyed by the coming of Jesus; does it not
necessarily follow the Parousia was to be in that generation? We are confirmed
in our belief that the man of sin was alive then by Paul's twice affirmed
statement to the effect that the restrainer was at that very time holding him
back, vs 6-7. Now the restrainer was alive and the one he was restraining was
alive. But the one being restrained was going to be revealed. He would
perpetrate his evil and reach awesome heights of power. But at the zenith of
his dark work Jesus would be revealed from heaven and destroy that evil one. See
L. Boettner, The Millennium, Presbyterian Press, 1975, pg. 211ff; on the man of
sin as Paul's contemporary.
Given the contemporary nature of the man of sin and the Thessalonians, is
it not inescapable that Jesus was to return in that generation? Thus, Paul in
II Thessalonians 2:2 was not denying the imminence of the Parousia. He in fact
confirmed it. What he did deny was that it had already occurred.
Some would contend that even if the proper translation of our text does
indicate the Thessalonicans were believing the day of
the Lord had come it does not mean Paul actually taught the day was imminent.
He was still denying the day had come. But this does not help. Could Paul not
believe the day was at hand while not believing the day had already come? Our
children, when December arrives, know that Christmas is near; but they also
know that until the 25th day it has not come! Paul could have therefore, as we
have sought to demonstrate above, still taught the coming of the Lord was at
hand while having to teach the Thessalonicans it had not yet come.
Now given the inescapable fact that Paul did teach the imminence of the
coming of the Lord; and given the Old Covenant view of the day of the Lord it
is conceivable how some could be persuaded the day had already come. The
apostle said it was imminent; the day was to be a time of judgment on
Correcting Misconceptions
We
turn now to consider some further vital issues at stake in the II Thessalonians
text. We pose some questions to help guide the discussion.
1.
How could it be possible for the Thessalonicans to believe the day of the Lord
had already come?
2.
If the Thessalonicans had a misconception about the day of the Lord, what was
the nature of their error?
3.
What does all this mean for us?
How Is This Possible?
You and I were [probably] raised with the concept that the day of the
Lord would/will be an awesome event. The physical heavens would be on fire as
Jesus descends on a cloud. The heart rending sound of the trumpet resounds
throughout all creation and the physical bodies of those long dead arise as the
ground is violently thrown back. All creation is engulfed in fire and the
elements are dissolved. The earth is destroyed as well as the universe with the
planets and stars. Judgment is set, time ends and eternity begins. [Even if you
were raised as a Premillennialist your concept of the coming of the Lord would
prevent you from believing it had already occurred. The same difficulties are
present in the Thessalonican text; for the amillenialist and the
Premillennialist.]
Given this view of the day of the Lord, HOW IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE
THESSALONIANS TO BELIEVE THAT DAY HAD ALREADY COME??? As we noted earlier in
this work, if the Thessalonians had the same concept of the day of the Lord
which you and I have been taught there is simply no way in this world any one
could convince them it had already happened. The very idea is laughable!
There is only one possible
way to convince those brethren the day of the Lord had already come; change
their concept about the nature of the day of the Lord. You must convince them
the Parousia was not a time ending, universe destroying, physical
event.
You might teach them the Old Covenant idea of the day of the Lord wherein
God acted by means of armies or nature to judge His enemies. See Isaiah 13:6,
24,34; Micah 1; Zephaniah 1; Obadiah verse 15; Joel
1-2; Ezekiel 7-10. In this case you would show these acts were called the day
of the Lord. You would also point out that God was said to come, even said to
come on the clouds, Isaiah 19. You could even demonstrate how David described
his deliverance from his enemies in terms which sound as if the physical
universe was destroyed, and Jehovah came down from heaven, II Samuel 22. In all
these passages and more you could show how the Bible uses the term day of the
Lord, not to refer to some future time and cosmos ending catastrophe, but to
simply speak of Gods' actions in figurative ways.
It
is interesting to observe that at least some recognize the possibility that in
the first century a "silent and invisible," Parousia was being
propounded. Moffitt, op cit. "Silent and invisible" does not
accurately describe the situation but at least recognizes there was no need for
a physical return of Jesus in the clouds. To describe the Old Covenant day of
the Lord and His coming in the clouds, Isaiah 19, Psalms 18, when he destroyed
His enemies by invaders, as silent and invisible is erroneous. The day of the
Lord was tumultuous, frightening, and awesome. But God did not visibly appear.
That it is entirely plausible the OT concept of the day of the Lord could
be the same as what Paul taught, compare the language of Isaiah 66:15ff and
that in II Thessalonians 1:6ff. They both speak of the coming of the Lord in
judgment, the end of an old world, the gathering of the saints, etc. We believe
both passages speak of the same event and time. This is significant since, as
we shall see, it was not the Thessalonicans' concept of the nature of the day
of the Lord which Paul corrected, but their chronology. They got their ideas of
the nature of that day from Paul and the Old Covenant. They got their
chronological error from others.
Further, you could demonstrate how Jesus emphatically declared he would
return in that generation to destroy
With such a concept of the nature of the day of the Lord, when you saw
civil wars, threats of invasion, [cf. Matthew 24:5ff]; famine, [cf Acts 12];
earthquake, [Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius]; and other natural disasters, you
might very well think the Lord's coming had happened.
As
a matter of fact there were two specific events which had happened in
That there should be no misunderstanding as to what we are proposing in
this little paper we wish to state that it is our conviction that the day of
the Lord as taught by Paul and all the inspired apostles was nothing less than
the return of Jesus in AD 70. He returned and destroyed the OldWorld of
Judaism; the temple; the genealogies; the priesthood; the sacrifices; the law;
at the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem. We believe this is
precisely what our Lord meant when he promised to return in judgment in the
lifetime of his disciples, Matthew 16:27-28.
What's The Problem?
Since the only way the Thessalonicans could be convinced the Parousia had
already occurred was to believe in the Old Covenant concept of the day of the
Lord; if this was not the proper view Paul should have corrected their error.
What errors did Paul in fact seek to correct? How did he go about correcting
the Thessalonican misconceptions? When we determine exactly what it was Paul
sought to correct we will know better the view of the Thessalonians. Did Paul
seek to change the Thessalonian's concept of the nature of the Parousia? The
answer is an emphatic NO!
There are in fact, only two passages in the two Thessalonican epistles in
which Paul addresses their error. The first is I Thessalonians 4:13-18. In
these verses Paul certainly does not try to alter their views on the nature of
the Parousia; only the order of it. The brethren were concerned that their
loved ones who died prior to Jesus' return would miss out on the accompanying
blessings. The apostle reassures them no such thing would happen. The dead in
Christ would arise first, then "we which are alive and remain shall be
caught up together with him."
There is no rebuke for believing in a distorted concept of the return.
There is simply reassurance given over fears for deceased loved ones and
instruction concerning the chronological order of the events accompanying the
epiphany. There is not one single word about any mistaken views as to the
nature of the day of the Lord.
The second text in which Paul addresses mistaken ideas about the day of
Christ is II Thessalonians 2:2. But once again there is no word about error
concerning the nature of that day. Their error was believing
it had already come; not some misconception as to what it was like!
We have now answered the first two of our three questions. That leaves
only the third. And we answer it by giving an overall summary of what we have
sought to discover and establish in this little treatise.
Summary and Conclusion
We
have, we believe, firmly established as irrefutable the proper definition of
enestemi. It means "has come." This true, it follows the
Thessalonicans believed, or were about to believe, the day of the Lord had
come.
We have shown that had Paul written to say the day of the Lord was not
imminent he would have been guilty of self contradiction. He did teach, in
other epistles and in this book, the Parousia was imminent.
The only way the
Thessalonicans could believe the Parousia had already occurred was for them to
have believed it to be something different than a time-ending, universe destroying,
event. Had they believed in the Old Covenant concept of the coming of the Lord
they could have believed it had already occurred.
If they believed in
something other than the time ending cosmos destroying concept they either got
their convictions from Paul or some one else. To be sure, there were false
teachers trying to convince the Thessalonians of erroneous doctrines, II
Thessalonians 2:1-2. But their error was in saying the day had ALREADY COME.
Their error was the same as those in II Timothy 2:17-18 who taught the
resurrection had already come.
Paul did not seek to
correct any error on the part of the Thessalonians as to the nature of the day
of the Lord. He sought only to reassure them as to their loved ones condition
when the day came, and to tell them the day had not yet come.
Since Paul did not correct
the Thessalonican's view as to the nature of the day of the Lord we conclude
THEIR CONCEPT OF THAT DAY WAS CORRECT! Had their perception of that day been in
error and Paul not corrected them, HE would have been culpable.
Since it is evident the
Thessalonican's view of the day of the Lord could not have been that of a time
ending event, and since Paul did not correct their view, they must have been correct.
If the Thessalonican's view
of the Parousia was correct, and since they did not believe it to be an earth
destroying event, then the modern view, ostensibly based upon the book of
Thessalonians, that the day of the Lord is a time ending event is not the same
as the Thessalonicans.
Since the Thessalonican
perception of the epiphany was correct, we conclude that the modern doctrine of
the coming of the Lord as a time ending, universe destroying event, is
erroneous. Since the Thessalonican concept of the day of the Lord was the Old
Covenant concept, and since their concept was CORRECT then it follows that the
day of the Lord for which they were looking was not the end of time but was
instead a time when God would judge his people. This was done in 70 AD when God
destroyed the Jewish capital of
The position set forth in
this treatise is controversial to under state the case. We were not raised
holding this concept. The questions raised by the text
of II Thessalonians, and a host of other passages, are issues which have
demanded reexamination of traditionally held views. [I was raised in the amillenial
tradition of eschatology.]
Honest students cannot
ignore Biblical language. For too long we have ignored or rationalized the
language of imminence and other problems in scriptures. We have simply ignored
or failed to see problems such as those posed by the Thessalonican situation.
This writer urges the reader of this tract to be open minded enough to honestly
consider the issues and questions we have raised. That may be uncomfortable to
be sure. But the pursuit of truth has its own distinctive rewards. If we are
going to claim to be seekers of truth we are going to have to honestly confront
these issues.
We have also written a
couple of other things on the "last things." We have a small booklet
on the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 and a larger work on II Peter 3. In both of these
works we set forth the Biblical evidence for believing that the traditional
concept of the day of the Lord is incorrect; and that what the inspired writers
had in mind was the end of the Jewish World and the beginning of the Messianic
World. Both of these works are available from me at the address given below.
A Synopsis on Don Preston's "How Is This
Possible?"
Terry Siverd
A valuable
contribution to the study of Biblical last things has been made by Don Preston
with the recent publication of a sixteen-page booklet focusing primarily on the
words of the Apostle Paul recorded in the text of II Thess.2:12. In addition to
his many responsibilities in working with the church in
How Is This
Possible? asserts, with Biblical documentation, that
the Apostle Paul clearly anticipated the imminent return of Christ.
The title of
The conclusion of
We recommend Don's
booklet as one that will stimulate your thinking. It's a good introduction to
the analysis of some problematic passages that stem from a distorted concept of
end-time things.
As of 10-24-04