Who is Paul discussing in 2 Thessalonians 2?

[covenantee]

John wrote of a singular individual he called antichrist, so did Paul (man of sin) etc. Most ppl speak of this person as the AC but there are many names.

John identified the singular antichrist as hearsay ("ye have heard"), and corrected the misunderstanding by his explanation of many antichrists.

John rejected the hearsay of a singular antichrist.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

John wrote of a singular individual he called antichrist

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1 John 2:22 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

1 John 4:3 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

All who deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh and that Jesus is the Christ are antichrists and have the spirit of antichrist and many antichrists were already in the world in John's time. He never mentions an individual Antichrist.

 

[claninja]

Okay, but it's all speculation, which was my point... part of it anyway.


Okay, but we cannot know their "assumptions." Therefore... <smile> ...continuing to go back and forth about it is... well, frivolous, really.

Grace and peace to you.

I disagree. The Thessalonians’ understanding of the Day of the Lord is directly relevant to interpreting Paul’s response. We can often infer a person’s assumptions from the way they react to a claim or correction. In this case, Paul is addressing the possibility that the Thessalonians had been persuaded that the Day of the Lord had already come. His response, therefore, provides insight into how they understood that event.

Of course, Paul’s correction does not tell us everything the Thessalonians believed about eschatology. But it does tell us that their conception of the Day of the Lord was such that they could plausibly be troubled by reports that it had already occurred. Ignoring their underlying assumptions risks missing an important piece of the interpretive context.

So asking why they were concerned is not a non sequitur. Their concern, and Paul’s response to it, are part of the evidence we must consider when determining what the Day of the Lord meant to them.

 

[claninja]

So?


Neither does 2 Peter.

Compare these passages...

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away. 36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

2 Peter 3:6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?

Both passages compare the destruction that will occur on the day of Christ's second coming to the destruction that occurred with the flood in Noah's day. Both passages associate the passing away of the heavens and the earth with the day of Christ's second coming. Both passages indicate that Christ's second coming will come unexpectedly. There is nothing in 2 Peter that contradicts the OD.


So?


You have no reason to have any issue with the eschatology of 2 Peter 3, either. A vast majority of Christians don't.


Neither does 2 Peter.

If Matthew’s eschatological framework places the coming of the Son of Man in close connection with the destruction of the Temple (Matthew 24:30), and within the lifetime of that generation (Matthew 24:34), then a later text like 2 Peter—generally dated 80–120 AD and explicitly addressing concerns about the perceived delay of the parousia, reflects a development in how that expectation was being reinterpreted in the post-70 period. in other words, 2 peter 3 reflects “pushing the goal posts back” contrary to Matthew 24:4-34.

If Matthew’s eschatological framework places the coming of the Son of Man in close connection with the destruction of the Temple (Matthew 24:30), and within the lifetime of that generation (Matthew 24:34), then a text like Hebrews, typically dated 60–90 AD, reflects an expectation of the imminence of final fulfillment consistent with early Christian eschatological urgency within their generation. In otherwords, Hebrew does not push the goal posts back.

 

[PinSeeker]

I disagree.

Okay, fine. <smile>

The Thessalonians’ understanding of the Day of the Lord is directly relevant to interpreting Paul’s response.

As Christians, claninja, they believed in Jesus and that He was going to return... or that he already had returned and they had missed it, which some had apparently been telling them and they were concerned that it was true.

Paul is addressing the possibility that the Thessalonians had been persuaded that the Day of the Lord had already come.

RIght, which is what I said. Great! We agree, right? <smile>

.Paul’s correction... does tell us that their conception of the Day of the Lord was such that they could plausibly be troubled by reports that it had already occurred.

Sure, they knew He was coming back. Just like we do. <smile>

Ignoring their underlying assumptions risks missing an important piece of the interpretive context.

Nobody's ignoring anything.

So asking why they were concerned is not a non sequitur.

This is not what I said was non sequitur. Quoting myself from post 333, I said, "Your whole 'global catastrophe' notion is... misconceived, I guess... really non sequitur." The 'why' is... what you and I have just said, here, that they had received "reports that it had already occurred." False teaching, or just people saying troubling things and thus causing some level of anxiety. They were concerned that He had already returned and that they had missed it. And so... we can take the same comfort in Paul's words to the Thessalonians that they did. Regardless of what any of our ideas... and there are many, obviously <chuckles> ...of what His return will actually look like, what will actually happen.

Their concern, and Paul’s response to it, are part of the evidence we must consider when determining what the Day of the Lord meant to them.

<sigh> The chief concern of the Thessalonians, as revealed in Paul’s letters, was their faith and steadfastness in the face of persecution and uncertainty. And this is how we can hear what they heard... how we can know Paul's exhortation and reassurance is meant just as much for us today ~ just as prescient and relevant to us today ~ as it was to them then. And part of that was that He would ~ and to us that He will ~ return, and we will not "miss it," and we will then be with Him in person forever.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

If Matthew’s eschatological framework places the coming of the Son of Man in close connection with the destruction of the Temple (Matthew 24:30), and within the lifetime of that generation (Matthew 24:34), then a later text like 2 Peter—generally dated 80–120 AD and explicitly addressing concerns about the perceived delay of the parousia, reflects a development in how that expectation was being reinterpreted in the post-70 period. in other words, 2 peter 3 reflects “pushing the goal posts back” contrary to Matthew 24:4-34.

Why do you stop at Matthew 24 verse 34 there? It's not reasonable to think that the coming of the Son of Man that is referenced several times after verse 34 is speaking of some other coming of the Son of Man than is referenced in Matthew 24:30.

Can you explain to me why you didn't address what I said about the similarities between Matthew 24:35-39 and 2 Peter 3:6-12?

And, regarding 2 Peter, can you explain to me why you would find any of it to be useful for teaching when you believe that 2 Peter 3 contradicts other scripture?

 

[claninja]

This is not what I said was non sequitur. Quoting myself from post 333, I said, "Your whole 'global catastrophe' notion is... misconceived, I guess... really non sequitur." The 'why' is... what you and I have just said, here, that they had received "reports that it had already occurred." False teaching, or just people saying troubling things and thus causing some level of anxiety. They were concerned that He had already returned and that they had missed it. And so... we can take the same comfort in Paul's words to the Thessalonians that they did. Regardless of what any of our ideas... and there are many, obviously <chuckles> ...of what His return will actually look like, what will actually happen.

I understand your point that the Thessalonians were troubled because they had received reports that the Day of the Lord had already come. My point is that the nature of the event they believed had occurred is directly relevant to understanding why such reports would be persuasive in the first place.

If Paul taught the Day of the Lord as a universally obvious, world-transforming event, then the claim that it had already happened would be self-refuting. The Thessalonians could simply look around and know it had not occurred. Paul’s response would be, “You can see it hasn’t happened.”

Instead, Paul argues that certain identifiable events must occur first (2 Thess. 2:3-4). That suggests the deception was plausible enough to require theological correction, not merely common-sense observation.

So my reference to a “global catastrophe” is not a non sequitur. It relates directly to the plausibility of the false report. The more publicly obvious the Day of the Lord is assumed to be, the less believable the claim that it had already happened. Conversely, if the Thessalonians could genuinely fear they had missed it, that raises legitimate questions about how they understood the event Paul had previously taught them about.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I understand your point that the Thessalonians were troubled because they had received reports that the Day of the Lord had already come. My point is that the nature of the event they believed had occurred is directly relevant to understanding why such reports would be persuasive in the first place.

If Paul taught the Day of the Lord as a universally obvious, world-transforming event, then the claim that it had already happened would be self-refuting. The Thessalonians could simply look around and know it had not occurred. Paul’s response would be, “You can see it hasn’t happened.”

Instead, Paul argues that certain identifiable events must occur first (2 Thess. 2:3-4). That suggests the deception was plausible enough to require theological correction, not merely common-sense observation.

So my reference to a “global catastrophe” is not a non sequitur. It relates directly to the plausibility of the false report. The more publicly obvious the Day of the Lord is assumed to be, the less believable the claim that it had already happened. Conversely, if the Thessalonians could genuinely fear they had missed it, that raises legitimate questions about how they understood the event Paul had previously taught them about.

As I've said, there could have been more falsehood contained in the report than just the lie that the day of the Lord had already come. Why you won't allow for that possibility is beyond me.

But, since you don't accept 2 Peter 3:10-12 as legitimate scripture that can help us understand what will happen on the day of the Lord that will come as a thief in the night, I would assume you accept the book of Luke as being legitimate scripture. Here is what it says in Luke about the day of the Lord, which is the day of the Lord Jesus Christ's second coming when we will be gathered to Him (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2).

Luke 21:25 “And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; 26 men’s hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near.”

Like 2 Peter 3:10-12, this describes the coming of Christ as a global event. It talks about "things which are coming on the earth" that cause fear in the hearts of unbelievers. After that passage is when Jesus says what is recorded in Matthew 24:32-34 and Mark 13:28-31 as well.

Luke 21:29 Then He spoke to them a parable: “Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. 30 When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near. 31 So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. 32 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

So, Jesus has established at this point that His coming will affect people all around the earth and that "heaven and earth will pass away" at that time. He was clearly referring to His second coming as being a global event and not a local event like what happened in 70 AD. When you continue reading that is confirmed even further.

Look at what Jesus said immediately after saying that fearful things were going to come on the earth and that heaven and earth would pass away.

Luke 21:34 “But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly. 35 For it will come as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth. 36 Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man.”

See how He is talking about the day coming unexpectedly and how He says to pray to be counted worthy to escape the things that will come to pass on that day? That shows that He was talking about the day of the Lord that will come unexpectedly as a thief in the night, as Paul also wrote about. And He said that "it will come as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth.". This shows that Paul was talking about a global event in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:3. Using scripture (Luke 21:25-36) to interpret scripture (1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:3), we can conclude that only believers will be counted worthy to escape the unexpected destruction that will come upon "the face of the whole earth" when Jesus comes unexpectedly as a thief in the night while unbelievers "shall not escape" it (1 Thess 5:2-3).

And 2 Peter 3:10-12 confirms that it will be a global event as well. So, with all of this in mind, it has to be the case that the false report not only indicated that the day of the Lord had already come or had already started, but it must have also either misrepresented the scope (global) of the day of the Lord or the suddenness of it.

 

[claninja]

Why do you stop at Matthew 24 verse 34 there? It's not reasonable to think that the coming of the Son of Man that is referenced several times after verse 34 is speaking of some other coming of the Son of Man than is referenced in Matthew 24:30.

Because the antecedents to “all these things”, in Matthew 24:34, are found in vs 4-34.

Can you explain to me why you didn't address what I said about the similarities between Matthew 24:35-39 and 2 Peter 3:6-12?

Because I was addressing Hebrews versus 2 Peter as it relates to the expectancy of the son of man coming on the clouds. Hebrews says “soon and without delay”, while 2 Peter alludes to a delayed parousia.

The similarities between 2 Peter 3 and Matthew 24, were kind of irrelevant to that point.

To that point, I don’t disagree that they are similar. However, these similarities don’t address that Jesus had certain events occurring “immediately after the tribulation of those days” and “before this generation passes away”.

And, regarding 2 Peter, can you explain to me why you would find any of it to be useful for teaching when you believe that 2 Peter 3 contradicts other scripture?

2 peter is useful for looking at how church at the time (likely 80-120ad) was attempting to justify a delayed parousia.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Because the antecedents to “all these things”, in Matthew 24:34, are found in vs 4-34.

Okay, but that doesn't really address my point at all. Why would you think that the coming of the Son of Man Jesus mentioned after that is not the same coming of the Son of man He mentioned in Matthew 24:30?

Because I was addressing Hebrews versus 2 Peter as it relates to the expectancy of the son of man coming on the clouds. Hebrews says “soon and without delay”, while 2 Peter alludes to a delayed parousia.

The similarities between 2 Peter 3 and Matthew 24, were kind of irrelevant to that point.

They are relevant to the point I'm making about the day of the Lord being a global event. It's clear to me that any time I make a point that you don't know how to address, you just dismiss it. You're not able to go off of your preterist script that you have prepared for the arguments you normally see. I'm presenting arguments that you apparently haven't considered before and you're coming across as if you're trying to find any way you can to avoid addressing them.

To that point, I don’t disagree that they are similar. However, these similarities don’t address that Jesus had certain events occurring “immediately after the tribulation of those days” and “before this generation passes away”.

You need to consider that your understanding of those things could be mistaken because it causes contradictions with other scriptures.

2 peter is useful for looking at how church at the time (likely 80-120ad) was attempting to justify a delayed parousia.

Say what now? Why would you take anything in 2 Peter to be accurate in any way, shape or form, including how the church was thinking at the time, when you think that 2 Peter 3:10-12 contradicts other scripture about the day of the Lord? If I believed that, I'd scrap the entire book entirely and not give it any credibility whatsoever and treat the whole thing as pure fiction.

 

[PinSeeker]

My point is that the nature of the event they believed had occurred is directly relevant to understanding why such reports would be persuasive in the first place.

Yes, I understand, but why do you not think it possible that some had just told them it had already happened and they were just confused and/or distressed?

If Paul taught the Day of the Lord as a universally obvious, world-transforming event, then the claim that it had already happened would be self-refuting.
The Thessalonians could simply look around and know it had not occurred. Paul’s response would be, “You can see it hasn’t happened.” Instead, Paul argues that certain identifiable events must occur first (2 Thess. 2:3-4). That suggests the deception was plausible enough to require theological correction, not merely common-sense observation.

So my reference to a “global catastrophe” is not a non sequitur. It relates directly to the plausibility of the false report. The more publicly obvious the Day of the Lord is assumed to be, the less believable the claim that it had already happened. Conversely, if the Thessalonians could genuinely fear they had missed it, that raises legitimate questions about how they understood the event Paul had previously taught them about.

Okay. I understand. <smile> I think, claninja, you're over-thinking all of this. As I said above, the chief concern of the Thessalonians, as revealed in Paul’s letters, was their faith and steadfastness in the face of persecution and uncertainty. And this is how we can hear what they heard... how we can know Paul's exhortation and reassurance is meant just as much for us today ~ just as prescient and relevant to us today ~ as it was to them then. And part of that was that He would ~ and to us that He will ~ return, and we will not "miss it," and we will then be with Him in person forever. But... okay. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[claninja]

As I've said, there could have been more falsehood contained in the report than just the lie that the day of the Lord had already come. Why you won't allow for that possibility is beyond me.

But, since you don't accept 2 Peter 3:10-12 as legitimate scripture that can help us understand what will happen on the day of the Lord that will come as a thief in the night, I would assume you accept the book of Luke as being legitimate scripture. Here is what it says in Luke about the day of the Lord, which is the day of the Lord Jesus Christ's second coming when we will be gathered to Him (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2).

Luke 21:25 “And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; 26 men’s hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near.”

Like 2 Peter 3:10-12, this describes the coming of Christ as a global event. It talks about "things which are coming on the earth" that cause fear in the hearts of unbelievers. After that passage is when Jesus says what is recorded in Matthew 24:32-34 and Mark 13:28-31 as well.

Luke 21:29 Then He spoke to them a parable: “Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. 30 When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near. 31 So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. 32 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

So, Jesus has established at this point that His coming will affect people all around the earth and that "heaven and earth will pass away" at that time. He was clearly referring to His second coming as being a global event and not a local event like what happened in 70 AD. When you continue reading that is confirmed even further.

Look at what Jesus said immediately after saying that fearful things were going to come on the earth and that heaven and earth would pass away.

Luke 21:34 “But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly. 35 For it will come as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth. 36 Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man.”

See how He is talking about the day coming unexpectedly and how He says to pray to be counted worthy to escape the things that will come to pass on that day? That shows that He was talking about the day of the Lord that will come unexpectedly as a thief in the night, as Paul also wrote about. And He said that "it will come as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth.". This shows that Paul was talking about a global event in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:3. Using scripture (Luke 21:25-36) to interpret scripture (1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:3), we can conclude that only believers will be counted worthy to escape the unexpected destruction that will come upon "the face of the whole earth" when Jesus comes unexpectedly as a thief in the night while unbelievers "shall not escape" it (1 Thess 5:2-3).

And 2 Peter 3:10-12 confirms that it will be a global event as well. So, with all of this in mind, it has to be the case that the false report not only indicated that the day of the Lord had already come or had already started, but it must have also either misrepresented the scope (global) of the day of the Lord or the suddenness of it.

Using BDAG and Thayer, γῆ in 2 Peter 3:10 is classified as “the earth as opposed to the heavens,” indicating a cosmic heaven–earth contrast. In Luke 21:35, however, BDAG classifies γῆ as “the inhabited earth, the abode of men and animals,” which refers to the human inhabited realm rather than the earth defined in contrast to heaven. This lexical distinction shows that Luke 21 does not require a strictly global (planet-wide) sense of “earth.”

Likewise, Luke 21:26 uses οἰκουμένη, defined as the “inhabited world,” which in NT usage commonly refers to the human inhabited world and does not inherently demand a modern global scope.

Therefore, the claim that Luke 21’s “earth/world” language must be global is not lexically true.

With that in mind, if the words for land/earth, from the OD, were understood in the narrow sense, and NOT global, it would make sense that Thessalonians could be deceived it already occurred.

Finally, Paul does not address a misunderstanding of the nature of the day of the Lord in 2 Thessalonians 2.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Using BDAG and Thayer, γῆ in 2 Peter 3:10 is classified as “the earth as opposed to the heavens,” indicating a cosmic heaven–earth contrast. In Luke 21:35, however, BDAG classifies γῆ as “the inhabited earth, the abode of men and animals,” which refers to the human inhabited realm rather than the earth defined in contrast to heaven. This lexical distinction shows that Luke 21 does not require a strictly global (planet-wide) sense of “earth.”

Likewise, Luke 21:26 uses οἰκουμένη, defined as the “inhabited world,” which in NT usage commonly refers to the human inhabited world and does not inherently demand a modern global scope.

How can the inhabited world not have a global scope? There are people living all over the world. What exactly do you think Jesus was talking about in Luke 21:25-36? Why do you think He said "heaven and earth will pass away" (Luke 21:33) in direct relation to what He was talking about, which were things related to the second coming of Christ, if heaven and earth passing away is not related in any way to the second coming of Christ?

Do you think the following two passages are not directly related?

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. 36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. 34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. 35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. 36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

If you do believe these two passages are directly related, then do you claim that Matthew 24:35-39 relates to what happened in 70 AD? I don't think you do, right? You only believe that Matthew 24:1-34 relates to 70 AD, if I understand you correctly. So, if you agree that Luke 21:33-36 relates to Matthew 24:35-39, then what do you think Luke 21:33-36 is about? Do you believe it has been fulfilled yet or will be fulfilled in the future? Do you not think that Luke 21:33-36 relates directly to Luke 21:25-28? If you do, then how could Luke 21:25-28 relate to what happened in 70 AD?

With that in mind, if the words for land/earth, from the OD, were understood in the narrow sense, and NOT global, it would make sense that Thessalonians could be deceived it already occurred.

Wait a minute here. Were the Thessalonians not living in "the inhabited world"? Of course they were. So, how could they be deceived about destruction going on throughout the inhabited world when it wasn't going on where they lived?

Finally, Paul does not address a misunderstanding of the nature of the day of the Lord in 2 Thessalonians 2.

Not specifically, but should we expect that he would have addressed literally everything that was false within the false report that was going around? Remember, Paul had already discussed these things with them in person. Do you think that he didn't discuss things related to the situation with them in person beyond what he wrote in 2 Thessalonians 2? I'm sure he did. For example, I'm sure that they knew exactly who He restrains was because he likely explained that to them in person, yet he does not explain who it is in his letter (it wouldn't have been necessary to do that if he already told them in person).

 

[claninja]

Okay, but that doesn't really address my point at all. Why would you think that the coming of the Son of Man Jesus mentioned after that is not the same coming of the Son of man He mentioned in Matthew 24:30?

I’m sticking with events that are concretely listed as antecedents to “all these things” in Matthew 24:34. That doesn’t mean I believe other mentions post vs 34 are or are not related to vs 34.

Again my eschatological framework is built on the grammatical, contextual, and lexical basis that there is no evidence of a delayed parousia post Jesus’ generation within vs4-34. I interpret other eschatological passages through this lens.

They are relevant to the point I'm making about the day of the Lord being a global event. It's clear to me that any time I make a point that you don't know how to address, you just dismiss it. You're not able to go off of your preterist script that you have prepared for the arguments you normally see. I'm presenting arguments that you apparently haven't considered before and you're coming across as if you're trying to find any way you can to avoid addressing them.

What? You made a point about Hebrews being disputed like 2 peter. You seemingly made the point — why would I reject 2 peter, but accept Hebrews. I was addressing that.

Now you’re splintering the argument into more sub arguments, which were not relevant to your first argument. Similarities between 2 peter 3 and Matthew 24 do not address differences in the expectancy of the parousia between Hebrews, 2 peter 3, and Matthew 24.

2 Peter 3 addressing a delayed parousia and interpreting the heavens and earth being destroyed as a literal, doesn’t address the fact that Matthew 24 associates the coming of Christ “immediately after the desolation of the temple” and as happening before “this generation” passes away.

Like I said, my eschatological framework is based Matthew 24:4-34 being fulfilled within Jesus’ generation, as there is no grammatical, lexical, or contextual evidence of a delayed parousia beyond Jesus generation in those versus. I view all other eschatological passages through that lens. 2 peter 3 does not dictate how i interpret Matthew 24, but the other way around.

You need to consider that your understanding of those things could be mistaken because it causes contradictions with other scriptures.

Then provide a convincing argument, grammatically, lexically, and contextually for a delayed parousia within Matthew 24:4-34. Otherwise, you are just telling me I’m wrong based on your own framework.

ay what now? Why would you take anything in 2 Peter to be accurate in any way, shape or form, including how the church was thinking at the time, when you think that 2 Peter 3:10-12 contradicts other scripture about the day of the Lord? If I believed that, I'd scrap the entire book entirely and not give it any credibility whatsoever and treat the whole thing as pure fiction.

I disagree.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I’m sticking with events that are concretely listed as antecedents to “all these things” in Matthew 24:34. That doesn’t mean I believe other mentions post vs 34 are or are not related to vs 34.

Again my eschatological framework is built on the grammatical, contextual, and lexical basis that there is no evidence of a delayed parousia post Jesus’ generation within vs4-34. I interpret other eschatological passages through this lens.

Your eschatological framework should include Matthew 24:35-25:46. And all of Mark 13 and Luke 21, also.

What? You made a point about Hebrews being disputed like 2 peter. You seemingly made the point — why would I reject 2 peter, but accept Hebrews. I was addressing that.

My point had nothing to do with the timing of Christ's return, but rather with not knowing the author of the books. Despite not knowing for certain who the author of Hebrews is, you still accept it. You seem to not accept 2 Peter as legitimate at least partly because we don't know for sure if Peter was the author. Is that not the case? If not, then why even bring that up in a discussion about whether it is legitimate scripture or not?

Now you’re splintering the argument into more sub arguments, which were not relevant to your first argument.

You didn't understand the argument in the first place. Again, it had nothing to do with the timing of Christ's return.

Similarities between 2 peter 3 and Matthew 24 do not address differences in the expectancy of the parousia between Hebrews, 2 peter 3, and Matthew 24.

Sure they do. Why not? This is all related to the timing of the coming of the Son of Man, which is referenced in Matthew 24:30. If you say that occurred in 70 AD, then why wouldn't you say the same about all the references to the coming of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:35-25:46?

2 Peter 3 addressing a delayed parousia and interpreting the heavens and earth being destroyed as a literal, doesn’t address the fact that Matthew 24 associates the coming of Christ “immediately after the desolation of the temple” and as happening before “this generation” passes away.

You can't just ignore that Matthew 24 associates the coming of Christ with heaven and earth passing away and with all unbelievers being killed just as occurred with the flood in Noah's day, just as Peter does in 2 Peter 3.

Like I said, my eschatological framework is based Matthew 24:4-34 being fulfilled within Jesus’ generation, as there is no grammatical, lexical, or contextual evidence of a delayed parousia beyond Jesus generation in those versus. I view all other eschatological passages through that lens.

I believe that is a very poor approach. You should not try to interpret Matthew 24:4-34 in isolation from Matthew 24:35-25:46 and the rest of scripture. By doing that, you cause parts of Matthew 24:4-34 to contradict Matthew 24:35-25:46.

2 peter 3 does not dictate how i interpret Matthew 24, but the other way around.

Why do you not allow what is written in Matthew 24:35-39 to help you understand what 2 Peter 3 is about?

Then provide a convincing argument, grammatically, lexically, and contextually for a delayed parousia within Matthew 24:4-34. Otherwise, you are just telling me I’m wrong based on your own framework.

I'm not going to adopt your poor approach to interpreting scripture. I'm not going to try to interpret that passage in isolation. That is not an acceptable approach to interpreting scripture.

I disagree.

Why do you disagree? How do you determine what is true and what isn't in 2 Peter when you believe that 2 Peter 3 is all false? Why would you think that anything written in 2 Peter 1 or 2 Peter 2 is true when you don't accept anything written in 2 Peter 3 as being true?

 

[PinSeeker]

Now... what was that that... well, somebody... <smile> ...was saying about pointless discussions/quarrels...?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

 

[claninja]

How can the inhabited world not have a global scope? There are people living all over the world. What exactly do you think Jesus was talking about in Luke 21:25-36?

You seem to be importing a modern day geographical understanding to the word.

I agree with other theologians and scholars, the language in these passages is similar to the language in Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc..in regards to the fall kingdoms and nations.

It's always about what's lexically true to you rather than about what is actually true. If you can find a technical or lexical way out of something, that's what you do. You don't want to know the truth, you want to find any way you can to get around it.

I’m not trying to “get around” the text—I’m trying to read it the way words are actually used in the language Luke wrote in. Every interpretation depends on a grammatical, lexical, and contextual meaning; otherwise we just import modern assumptions into ancient terms.

Wait a minute here. Were the Thessalonians not living in "the inhabited world"? Of course they were. So, how could they be deceived about destruction going on in the inhabited world when it wasn't going on where they lived?

Your argument wrongly assumes “inhabited world” means uniform, locally visible impact everywhere. But that’s not necessarily how the word works lexically.

For example, Acts 11:28 mentions a “world-wide” event (the famine). This doesn’t mean every single person and geographical region, in the Roman Empire, literally experienced famine. In fact the historical records we have don’t mention a famine in very single geographical area of the Roman Empire.

Therefore, Thessalonian awareness of a world wide crisis does not require that they were personally witnessing it in their own city. Information, rumors, and reports about disturbances in other regions of the empire would be sufficient to create alarm without local visibility of identical conditions.

Not specifically, but should we expect that he would have addressed literally everything that was false within the false report that was going around? Remember, Paul had already discussed these things with them in person. Do you think that he didn't discuss things related to the situation with them in person beyond what he wrote in 2 Thessalonians 2? I'm sure he did. For example, I'm sure that they knew exactly who He restrains was because he likely explained that to them in person, yet he does not explain who it is in his letter (it wouldn't have been necessary to do that if he already told them in person).

I would expect the simplest, most obvious and logical explanation if the nature was in fact misunderstood. I wouldn’t expect Paul to completely leave out correcting the nature of it, it the nature of it was the part that was misunderstood. That doesn’t make any sense.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You seem to be importing a modern day geographical understanding to the word.

So, what is your understanding of "the inhabited world" then?

I agree with other theologians and scholars, the language in these passages is similar to the language in Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc..in regards to the fall kingdoms and nations.

Can you try to be more specific? What does this mean in relation to what we're talking about?

I’m not trying to “get around” the text—I’m trying to read it the way words are actually used in the language Luke wrote in. Every interpretation depends on a grammatical, lexical, and contextual meaning; otherwise we just import modern assumptions into ancient terms.

I removed that comment from my post well before you responded to it, so I guess you started replying well before you posted the reply? But, I realized that was a bit harsh, so I had removed the comment. It does come across that way to me, but I have no way of proving that you are doing that, of course.

Your argument wrongly assumes “inhabited world” means uniform, locally visible impact everywhere. But that’s not necessarily how the word works lexically.

Is "lexically" your favorite word?

For example, Acts 11:28 mentions a “world-wide” event (the famine). This doesn’t mean every single person and geographical region, in the Roman Empire, literally experienced famine. In fact the historical records we have don’t mention a famine in very single geographical area of the Roman Empire.

There's no historical documents saying otherwise, either, so this is an argument from silence. It shouldn't be surprising that we might not have documentation of everything that happened way back then.

Therefore, Thessalonian awareness of a world wide crisis does not require that they were personally witnessing it in their own city. Information, rumors, and reports about disturbances in other regions of the empire would be sufficient to create alarm without local visibility of identical conditions.

Think about what you're doing here. Remember what we've been talking about here. You are apparently trying to convince me that the following verse is only referring to isolated parts of the Roman empire.

Luke 21:35 For it will come as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth.

I'm not buying what you're selling. Do you believe the above verse is fulfilled or not? If so, how and when was it fulfilled? If not, what do you think it's referring to exactly and how do you think it will be fulfilled.

I would expect the simplest, most obvious and logical explanation if the nature was in fact misunderstood. I wouldn’t expect Paul to completely leave out correcting the nature of it, it the nature of it was the part that was misunderstood. That doesn’t make any sense.

It really doesn't matter what you would expect because your expectations are based on doctrinal bias. It's not unreasonable that he would want to illustrate that the idea was so absurd that making such a claim that the day had already come even before the things that he said would happen before that day makes it even more absurd.