Who is Paul discussing in 2 Thessalonians 2?

Earburner · Sunday at 4:46 PM

CTK said:
I agree that lawlessness, in the broadest sense, began in Eden. Sin entered the world through rebellion against God. But I do not think that is what Paul is specifically identifying in 2 Thessalonians 2.

Paul is not giving a general theology of sin from Genesis to Revelation. He is answering a specific question about the timing of the day of the Lord. The Thessalonians were troubled, and Paul says that day cannot come until certain identifiable events occur first.

That means Paul’s “mystery of lawlessness” is more specific than the general fact that all people sin. He says this mystery was already at work in his day, was being restrained at that time, would later be revealed in the lawless one, and would finally be destroyed by Christ at His coming.

If lawlessness here simply means all sin from Eden onward, then Paul’s sequence becomes difficult to follow. What does it mean that the Fall is restraining lawlessness? How is the Fall later taken out of the way? And how would that explain Paul saying the Thessalonians already knew what was restraining?

Paul’s language points to something more specific: a hidden lawless principle already operating in the first century, restrained from full manifestation, later revealed in a definable power, and continuing until Christ destroys it.

So while Eden explains the origin of sin generally, it does not identify the particular prophetic lawlessness Paul is describing in 2 Thessalonians 2.

When Paul described all unsaved men as being "the natural man", he was speaking of everyone who is born of flesh only, but are not born again by the Holy Spirit.
I perceive and believe that we must steer away from interpreting the words: "that man of sin", as being understood only in the singular, but rather to be in the plural. Therefore, ALL the unsaved are lawless, and are collectively "that man of sin".

Another case for viewing the words "that man of sin" should be in the plural, is to understand that Judas Iscariot was not the ONLY "son of perdition", as Jesus did call him to be so. However, we do see that the Holy Spirit called another to also be "the son of perdition". 2 Thes. 2:3.
Scripturally, since there appears to be more than one "son of perdition" that are being revealed, we can safely conclude that the words: "that man of sin" is pointing it out that ALL unsaved people are "that man of sin, the son of perdition".

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

2 Thes. 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away [from faith] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

CTK · Sunday at 5:43 PM

Earburner said:
When Paul described all unsaved men as being "the natural man", he was speaking of everyone who is born of flesh only, but are not born again by the Holy Spirit.
I perceive and believe that we must steer away from interpreting the words "that man of sin" as being understood only in the singular, but rather to be in the plural. Therefore ALL the unsaved are lawless, and are collectively "that man of sin".

Another case for viewing the words "that man of sin" should be in the plural, is to understand that Judas Iscariot was not the ONLY "son of perdition", as Jesus did call him to be. However, we do see that the Holy Spirit called another to also be "the son of perdition".
Scripturally, since there appears to be more than one "son of perdition" that are being revealed, we can safely conclude that the words: "that man of sin" is pointing it out that ALL unsaved people are "that man of sin, the son of perdition".

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

2 Thes. 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away [from faith] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

The phrase “son of perdition” can describe someone marked for destruction, but the surrounding context determines who is being identified. Judas was one historical traitor. The “man of sin” is a prophetic lawless power/personage revealed after the falling away. The shared phrase does not make them identical, nor does it make the phrase universal for all unbelievers.

Paul says this “man of sin”:

is revealed after the falling away,
opposes and exalts himself,
sits in the temple of God,
presents himself as having divine status,
is connected to the mystery of lawlessness already working,
continues until destroyed by Christ’s coming.

These do not represent a description of every unbeliever collectively. Unbelievers already existed in Paul’s day. So if “man of sin” means all unsaved people, then there was nothing future to be revealed.

Everything above and related to this “prophetic” (therefore, he comes after Daniel’s time and could not include those before him), must take place AFTER THE CROSS, AFTER JESUS SETS UP HIS EARTHLY KINGDOM, ARRIVES (comes out) FROM THE FOURTH KINGDOM, COMES TO FULL POWER AFTER THE RESTRAINER (pagan Rome) IS REMOVED, AND CONTINUES UNTIL THE END. One can read the characteristics of this little horn in Daniel 7, 8, 11, and in Revelation.

God has given us this detailed algorithm that allows us to identify THE ONLY ONE LAWLESS ONE DURING our history - NOT AT THE END OF OUR HISTORY.

Earburner · Sunday at 7:09 PM

CTK said:
The phrase “son of perdition” can describe someone marked for destruction, but the surrounding context determines who is being identified. Judas was one historical traitor. The “man of sin” is a prophetic lawless power/personage revealed after the falling away. The shared phrase does not make them identical, nor does it make the phrase universal for all unbelievers.

Paul says this “man of sin”:

is revealed after the falling away,

opposes and exalts himself,

sits in the temple of God,

presents himself as having divine status,

is connected to the mystery of lawlessness already working,

continues until destroyed by Christ’s coming.

These do not represent a description of every unbeliever collectively. Unbelievers already existed in Paul’s day. So if “man of sin” means all unsaved people, then there was nothing future to be revealed.

Everything above and related to this “prophetic” (therefore, he comes after Daniel’s time and could not include those before him), must take place AFTER THE CROSS, AFTER JESUS SETS UP HIS EARTHLY KINGDOM, ARRIVES (comes out) FROM THE FOURTH KINGDOM, COMES TO FULL POWER AFTER THE RESTRAINER (pagan Rome) IS REMOVED, AND CONTINUES UNTIL THE END. One can read the characteristics of this little horn in Daniel 7, 8, 11, and in Revelation.

God has given us this detailed algorithm that allows us to identify THE ONLY ONE LAWLESS ONE DURING our history - NOT AT THE END OF OUR HISTORY.

I suppose, for more clarity in interpretation, of whether "that man of sin, the son of perdition" will be in the singular or plural, it's necessary that we fully understand when and how there shall be a falling away....and from what?
I perceive that the implementation of the mark of the Beast will be the main driver and cause of apostasy (from faith in Jesus) on a global scale.

Edit:
We have NOW entered into the 6th angel, Rev. 9:13-21.
The Mark of the beast will be implemented soon after the event of 1/3 of men are killed off in ONE day..
The key scripture to note is that during that time No more people repented (none). Rev. 9:21. All became LAWLESS, ...unwilling to repent towards God.
No more repentance by anyone means that the Holy Spirit (the restrainer) will have no reason any longer to convict men of sin, or to contend with them to have faith in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins.

Earburner · Sunday at 7:26 PM

From your post #402:
"Paul says this “man of sin”:

is revealed after the falling away,
opposes and exalts himself,
sits in the temple of God,
presents himself as having divine status,
is connected to the mystery of lawlessness already working,
continues until destroyed by Christ’s coming."

> So why can't all the above be applied to the many unsaved, as being in the plural?
Did you know that every unsaved person's mortal body, while alive, is the potential temple of God?
2 Cor. 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

Therefore, the unsaved SIT in the temple of God, unaware that their potential bodies/temples, for the Glory of God, are VOID of God 100%.

CTK · Sunday at 9:12 PM

Earburner said:
From your post #402:
"Paul says this “man of sin”:

is revealed after the falling away,
opposes and exalts himself,
sits in the temple of God,
presents himself as having divine status,
is connected to the mystery of lawlessness already working,
continues until destroyed by Christ’s coming."

> So why can't all the above be applied to the many unsaved, as being in the plural?
Did you know that every unsaved person's mortal body, while alive, is the potential temple of God?
2 Cor. 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

The unsaved sit in the temple of God, unaware that their bodies/temples are void of God 100%.

I would respectfully request that you might return to the initial post #1 that provides markers under both A and B. Also, I believe these questions above have been addressed in detail. Please take a look at some of the responses within this 20 page topic. Again, I attempted to identify all the markers in the first post that you can use to help identify this individual... you can apply each of them to your personal interpretation to see if it meets every one of them.... thanks.

PeterAndroz · Sunday at 9:35 PM

CTK said:
The phrase “son of perdition” can describe someone marked for destruction, but the surrounding context determines who is being identified. Judas was one historical traitor. The “man of sin” is a prophetic lawless power/personage revealed after the falling away. The shared phrase does not make them identical, nor does it make the phrase universal for all unbelievers.

Paul says this “man of sin”:

is revealed after the falling away,

opposes and exalts himself,

sits in the temple of God,

presents himself as having divine status,

is connected to the mystery of lawlessness already working,

continues until destroyed by Christ’s coming.

These do not represent a description of every unbeliever collectively. Unbelievers already existed in Paul’s day. So if “man of sin” means all unsaved people, then there was nothing future to be revealed.

Everything above and related to this “prophetic” (therefore, he comes after Daniel’s time and could not include those before him), must take place AFTER THE CROSS, AFTER JESUS SETS UP HIS EARTHLY KINGDOM, ARRIVES (comes out) FROM THE FOURTH KINGDOM, COMES TO FULL POWER AFTER THE RESTRAINER (pagan Rome) IS REMOVED, AND CONTINUES UNTIL THE END. One can read the characteristics of this little horn in Daniel 7, 8, 11, and in Revelation.

God has given us this detailed algorithm that allows us to identify THE ONLY ONE LAWLESS ONE DURING our history - NOT AT THE END OF OUR HISTORY.

Do you believe there will be Eph 4:30(sealed believers) in the 2 Thess 2:3 period ?

CTK · Sunday at 11:13 PM

PeterAndroz said:
Do you believe there will be Eph 4:30(sealed believers) in the 2 Thess 2:3 period ?

Here is part of a narrative found within my commentary on the Book of Daniel. I believe it speaks to this issue, and hope it might bring some thought to this topic - thanks.

Paul asks, “Has God rejected His people?” and answers, “Certainly not.” I agree completely. God has not rejected Israel. His promises have not failed. His calling has not been erased. The Jewish people are not discarded by God.

But we must let Paul finish his own argument.

In Romans 11, Paul does not say every ethnic Israelite is automatically saved. He does not say unbelieving Israel remains in covenant blessing apart from Messiah. He does not say a future political state is automatically the chosen nation of God regardless of faith. Paul’s explanation is the remnant. He says, “At this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace” (Romans 11:5). That means God has preserved believing Israel. Paul himself was proof of that, which is why he immediately says, “For I also am an Israelite.”

So no, God has not rejected Israel. But Paul also says Israel experienced a partial hardening. Some branches were broken off because of unbelief, and Gentiles were grafted in by faith. That means covenant standing is not based on ethnicity alone, nor on political nationality, but on faith in the Messiah. This is why Paul warns Gentile believers not to boast against the natural branches. The church has not replaced Israel in a proud, arrogant way. Gentiles are grafted into Israel’s covenant promises through Christ. There is one olive tree, not two separate ways of salvation.

At the same time, Paul also says the broken natural branches can be grafted in again if they do not continue in unbelief. That is the hope of Romans 11. Israel is not finally rejected. God will yet show mercy. Blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and then God will turn again to His people.

So the issue is not whether God still loves Israel. He does. The issue is whether modern Israel, as a political nation, is automatically God’s chosen covenant people while rejecting Jesus Christ. Paul does not teach that. The apostles do not teach that. Jesus Himself said, “No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

There is no salvation outside Christ — not for Gentiles, not for Jews, not for anyone.

So Israel has not been rejected. Israel has been partially hardened, exactly as Paul says. I believe God still has a covenant purpose for Israel. I believe Jewish people remain beloved for the sake of the fathers. I believe God’s gifts and calling are irrevocable. But I also believe that Israel’s restoration must come through Messiah, not around Him. That is not replacement theology. That is Romans 11.

And this is where Daniel, Romans, and Revelation come together.

Paul says blindness in part has happened to Israel “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (Romans 11:25). That means Israel’s present blindness is not permanent. It has a boundary. It has an “until.” When the times of the Gentiles have reached their appointed completion, God will again turn His covenant attention toward His people. And we are not far from that time.

This is also connected to the 144,000 in Revelation. The 144,000 do not represent a random literal number, nor as a replacement of Israel by Gentiles, but a prophetic symbol of restored Israel — twelve times twelve times one thousand — the fullness of God’s covenant people awakened, sealed, and prepared for final witness. In that sense, the 144,000 represent Israel brought back to the Messiah, not by political power, not by national pride, and not by human achievement, but by the mercy and intervention of God.

Paul himself becomes the pattern. He was an Israelite. He was zealous for God, yet blind to the Messiah. He persecuted the followers of Jesus, believing he was serving God. But on the road to Damascus, Christ revealed Himself to Paul, and the blindness was removed. From that moment, Paul became one of the greatest witnesses to the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. Something similar will happen corporately for Israel at the end - in is connected in Daniel, Paul's writings and Revelation.

When the times of the Gentiles are complete, God will remove the blindness from His people. He will give them, in effect, a Damascus experience. They will see the One whom they pierced. They will recognize Jesus as their Messiah. Their mourning will turn into witness. Their former blindness will become burning testimony. This also fits Daniel’s prophetic structure. The seventy weeks were fulfilled by Messiah. He accomplished the work of Daniel 9:24. He confirmed the covenant, brought sacrifice and offering to their true fulfillment, and opened salvation to the world. But Israel, as a people, did not complete its covenant response to Him at that time. The gospel then went out to the Gentiles, and the long period of Gentile witness and Gentile dominance began.

But that period does not last forever.

Revelation shows a final witness. It speaks of those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. It speaks of a sealed people. It speaks of a final proclamation before the end. It speaks of the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus standing before the world. That is the connection to the restored 144,000 with the final 3.5 years of witness. This is not a second way of salvation. It is not Israel saved apart from Christ. It is Israel finally awakened to Christ, sealed by God, and sent out to proclaim the very Messiah they once rejected.

For those final 3.5 years, they will go into the world preaching the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus. Just as Paul, after his Damascus experience, became a witness to the Gentiles, restored Israel will become a final witness to the world. Their message will not be Judaism without Christ. It will be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob revealed fully in His Messiah, Jesus. Can you possibly imagine how today's Christianity will receive this? The world will hear just how corrupt the Word of God and the Testimony of jesus has become since the time of the apostles. This will not be a quiet and save time - it will indeed be the tribulation.

So when I say modern Israel is not automatically God’s chosen covenant nation apart from Christ, I am not saying God is finished with Israel. I am saying the opposite. God is not finished with Israel. But His purpose for Israel is not fulfilled in unbelief. It is fulfilled when Israel comes to Messiah.

Romans says they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. Daniel shows God’s covenant timetable. Revelation shows a sealed people bearing final witness. Together, they point to the same truth: Israel’s restoration comes through Jesus Christ.

So Israel has not been rejected.

Israel has been partially blinded.

Israel has been preserved.

Israel will be shown mercy.

Israel will be grafted in again.

And when God removes that blindness, the very people so long separated from their Messiah will become a final witness to the world that Jesus is Lord, the Lamb of God, the Son of David, and the promised Messiah of Israel.

PeterAndroz · Sunday at 11:53 PM

CTK said:
Here is part of a narrative found within my commentary on the Book of Daniel. I believe it speaks to this issue, and hope it might bring some thought to this topic - thanks.

Paul asks, “Has God rejected His people?” and answers, “Certainly not.” I agree completely. God has not rejected Israel. His promises have not failed. His calling has not been erased. The Jewish people are not discarded by God.

But we must let Paul finish his own argument.

In Romans 11, Paul does not say every ethnic Israelite is automatically saved. He does not say unbelieving Israel remains in covenant blessing apart from Messiah. He does not say a future political state is automatically the chosen nation of God regardless of faith. Paul’s explanation is the remnant. He says, “At this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace” (Romans 11:5). That means God has preserved believing Israel. Paul himself was proof of that, which is why he immediately says, “For I also am an Israelite.”

So no, God has not rejected Israel. But Paul also says Israel experienced a partial hardening. Some branches were broken off because of unbelief, and Gentiles were grafted in by faith. That means covenant standing is not based on ethnicity alone, nor on political nationality, but on faith in the Messiah. This is why Paul warns Gentile believers not to boast against the natural branches. The church has not replaced Israel in a proud, arrogant way. Gentiles are grafted into Israel’s covenant promises through Christ. There is one olive tree, not two separate ways of salvation.

At the same time, Paul also says the broken natural branches can be grafted in again if they do not continue in unbelief. That is the hope of Romans 11. Israel is not finally rejected. God will yet show mercy. Blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and then God will turn again to His people.

So the issue is not whether God still loves Israel. He does. The issue is whether modern Israel, as a political nation, is automatically God’s chosen covenant people while rejecting Jesus Christ. Paul does not teach that. The apostles do not teach that. Jesus Himself said, “No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

There is no salvation outside Christ — not for Gentiles, not for Jews, not for anyone.

So Israel has not been rejected. Israel has been partially hardened, exactly as Paul says. I believe God still has a covenant purpose for Israel. I believe Jewish people remain beloved for the sake of the fathers. I believe God’s gifts and calling are irrevocable. But I also believe that Israel’s restoration must come through Messiah, not around Him. That is not replacement theology. That is Romans 11.

And this is where Daniel, Romans, and Revelation come together.

Paul says blindness in part has happened to Israel “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (Romans 11:25). That means Israel’s present blindness is not permanent. It has a boundary. It has an “until.” When the times of the Gentiles have reached their appointed completion, God will again turn His covenant attention toward His people. And we are not far from that time.

This is also connected to the 144,000 in Revelation. The 144,000 do not represent a random literal number, nor as a replacement of Israel by Gentiles, but a prophetic symbol of restored Israel — twelve times twelve times one thousand — the fullness of God’s covenant people awakened, sealed, and prepared for final witness. In that sense, the 144,000 represent Israel brought back to the Messiah, not by political power, not by national pride, and not by human achievement, but by the mercy and intervention of God.

Paul himself becomes the pattern. He was an Israelite. He was zealous for God, yet blind to the Messiah. He persecuted the followers of Jesus, believing he was serving God. But on the road to Damascus, Christ revealed Himself to Paul, and the blindness was removed. From that moment, Paul became one of the greatest witnesses to the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. Something similar will happen corporately for Israel at the end - in is connected in Daniel, Paul's writings and Revelation.

When the times of the Gentiles are complete, God will remove the blindness from His people. He will give them, in effect, a Damascus experience. They will see the One whom they pierced. They will recognize Jesus as their Messiah. Their mourning will turn into witness. Their former blindness will become burning testimony. This also fits Daniel’s prophetic structure. The seventy weeks were fulfilled by Messiah. He accomplished the work of Daniel 9:24. He confirmed the covenant, brought sacrifice and offering to their true fulfillment, and opened salvation to the world. But Israel, as a people, did not complete its covenant response to Him at that time. The gospel then went out to the Gentiles, and the long period of Gentile witness and Gentile dominance began.

But that period does not last forever.

Revelation shows a final witness. It speaks of those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. It speaks of a sealed people. It speaks of a final proclamation before the end. It speaks of the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus standing before the world. That is the connection to the restored 144,000 with the final 3.5 years of witness. This is not a second way of salvation. It is not Israel saved apart from Christ. It is Israel finally awakened to Christ, sealed by God, and sent out to proclaim the very Messiah they once rejected.

For those final 3.5 years, they will go into the world preaching the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus. Just as Paul, after his Damascus experience, became a witness to the Gentiles, restored Israel will become a final witness to the world. Their message will not be Judaism without Christ. It will be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob revealed fully in His Messiah, Jesus. Can you possibly imagine how today's Christianity will receive this? The world will hear just how corrupt the Word of God and the Testimony of jesus has become since the time of the apostles. This will not be a quiet and save time - it will indeed be the tribulation.

So when I say modern Israel is not automatically God’s chosen covenant nation apart from Christ, I am not saying God is finished with Israel. I am saying the opposite. God is not finished with Israel. But His purpose for Israel is not fulfilled in unbelief. It is fulfilled when Israel comes to Messiah.

Romans says they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. Daniel shows God’s covenant timetable. Revelation shows a sealed people bearing final witness. Together, they point to the same truth: Israel’s restoration comes through Jesus Christ.

So Israel has not been rejected.

Israel has been partially blinded.

Israel has been preserved.

Israel will be shown mercy.

Israel will be grafted in again.

And when God removes that blindness, the very people so long separated from their Messiah will become a final witness to the world that Jesus is Lord, the Lamb of God, the Son of David, and the promised Messiah of Israel.

Hey CT there are a lot of valid points in what you write yet regarding Paul where do you believe Daniel or any of the OT even the Gospels speak of the "mystery" that Christ revealed to Paul ?

Paul's "Mystery" - doctrine.org

Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the secrets of God (1 Corinthians 4.1). Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of…

doctrine.org

Conclusion
The risen, ascended, glorified Lord revealed a vast amount of new information to Paul. Paul referred to these revelations as “secrets.” God had revealed none of these things to the prophets. Jesus had not revealed these truths in His earthly ministry or to the Twelve. From Paul alone do we learn the truths of Christianity: about Christ’s work of our salvation, our sanctification, our rescue from a Christ-rejecting world, and our destiny. Holding to Pauline truths has always been a hard-fought battle.............................................

CTK · 2026-06-15T00:13:10-0500

PeterAndroz said:
Hey CT there are a lot of valid points in what you write yet regarding Paul where do you believe Daniel or any of the OT even the Gospels speak of the "mystery" that Christ revealed to Paul ?

Paul's "Mystery" - doctrine.org

Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the secrets of God (1 Corinthians 4.1). Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of…

doctrine.org

Conclusion
The risen, ascended, glorified Lord revealed a vast amount of new information to Paul. Paul referred to these revelations as “secrets.” God had revealed none of these things to the prophets. Jesus had not revealed these truths in His earthly ministry or to the Twelve. From Paul alone do we learn the truths of Christianity: about Christ’s work of our salvation, our sanctification, our rescue from a Christ-rejecting world, and our destiny. Holding to Pauline truths has always been a hard-fought battle.............................................

Great question Peter.....When Paul speaks of the “mystery” revealed to him, I do not understand him to mean that the Old Testament said nothing about it at all. Rather, the mystery was present in seed form, shadow, promise, and prophecy — but it was not fully revealed in its completed form until after Christ.

Paul defines the mystery very clearly in Ephesians 3:6:

“That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel.”

So the mystery is not simply that Gentiles would be blessed. The Old Testament already said that. The mystery is that Gentiles would become fellow heirs in the same body, through Christ, without becoming Jews under the old covenant system.

That was the part not fully understood before.

The Old Testament certainly pointed toward it. God told Abraham, “In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:3). Isaiah said the Servant would be “a light to the Gentiles” (Isaiah 49:6). Isaiah also spoke of foreigners joining themselves to the Lord (Isaiah 56:6–7). Daniel saw a kingdom given to the Son of Man in which “all peoples, nations, and languages” would serve Him (Daniel 7:14). Daniel 2 shows the Stone becoming a mountain that fills the whole earth.

So the Gentile inclusion was not invented by Paul. It was always in God’s plan.

The Gospels also point to it. Jesus said many would come from east and west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom (Matthew 8:11). He spoke of “other sheep” not of that fold who would become one flock under one Shepherd (John 10:16). After the resurrection, He commanded that repentance and remission of sins be preached in His name to all nations (Luke 24:47). And in the Great Commission, He sent the apostles to make disciples of all nations.

So the mystery was not a contradiction of Daniel, the prophets, or the Gospels. It was the fuller revelation of what those Scriptures had already been pointing toward. Paul himself says this in Romans 16:25–26. He says the mystery was “kept secret since the world began,” but is “now made manifest,” and “by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations.” That is the balance. It was hidden, yet it was also contained in the prophetic Scriptures. The mystery was hidden in the sense that its full form was not yet revealed. But it was not hidden in the sense that it had no Old Testament foundation.

Daniel, Isaiah, Genesis, the Psalms, and the Gospels all anticipated the nations coming under Messiah. What Paul was given to explain more fully was how that would happen: Jew and Gentile joined together in Christ, in one body, through one gospel, by one Spirit, without the Gentiles being placed under the old covenant national structure of Israel. So yes, Paul received special revelation from Christ. But that revelation did not create a new religion or contradict the prophets. It unveiled the mystery that had been in God’s plan from the beginning.

FYI, if you or any other would like to receive a free copy of my commentary on the Book of Daniel please send me a private message with a mailing address. This is NOT another commentary on Daniel - this truly unpacks the 12 chapters, and obviously, will include supporting narratives like the one above. Daniel must connect with the Tanakh and the NT writings. Thanks.

PeterAndroz · 2026-06-15T01:11:17-0500

CTK said:
Great question Peter.....When Paul speaks of the “mystery” revealed to him, I do not understand him to mean that the Old Testament said nothing about it at all. Rather, the mystery was present in seed form, shadow, promise, and prophecy — but it was not fully revealed in its completed form until after Christ.

Paul defines the mystery very clearly in Ephesians 3:6:

“That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel.”

So the mystery is not simply that Gentiles would be blessed. The Old Testament already said that. The mystery is that Gentiles would become fellow heirs in the same body, through Christ, without becoming Jews under the old covenant system.

That was the part not fully understood before.

The Old Testament certainly pointed toward it. God told Abraham, “In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:3). Isaiah said the Servant would be “a light to the Gentiles” (Isaiah 49:6). Isaiah also spoke of foreigners joining themselves to the Lord (Isaiah 56:6–7). Daniel saw a kingdom given to the Son of Man in which “all peoples, nations, and languages” would serve Him (Daniel 7:14). Daniel 2 shows the Stone becoming a mountain that fills the whole earth.

So the Gentile inclusion was not invented by Paul. It was always in God’s plan.

The Gospels also point to it. Jesus said many would come from east and west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom (Matthew 8:11). He spoke of “other sheep” not of that fold who would become one flock under one Shepherd (John 10:16). After the resurrection, He commanded that repentance and remission of sins be preached in His name to all nations (Luke 24:47). And in the Great Commission, He sent the apostles to make disciples of all nations.

So the mystery was not a contradiction of Daniel, the prophets, or the Gospels. It was the fuller revelation of what those Scriptures had already been pointing toward. Paul himself says this in Romans 16:25–26. He says the mystery was “kept secret since the world began,” but is “now made manifest,” and “by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations.” That is the balance. It was hidden, yet it was also contained in the prophetic Scriptures. The mystery was hidden in the sense that its full form was not yet revealed. But it was not hidden in the sense that it had no Old Testament foundation.

Daniel, Isaiah, Genesis, the Psalms, and the Gospels all anticipated the nations coming under Messiah. What Paul was given to explain more fully was how that would happen: Jew and Gentile joined together in Christ, in one body, through one gospel, by one Spirit, without the Gentiles being placed under the old covenant national structure of Israel. So yes, Paul received special revelation from Christ. But that revelation did not create a new religion or contradict the prophets. It unveiled the mystery that had been in God’s plan from the beginning.

FYI, if you or any other would like to receive a free copy of my commentary on the Book of Daniel please send me a private message with a mailing address. This is NOT another commentary on Daniel - this truly unpacks the 12 chapters, and obviously, will include supporting narratives like the one above. Daniel must connect with the Tanakh and the NT writings. Thanks.

""""So the Gentile inclusion was not invented by Paul. It was always in God’s plan.
What do you understand was kept secret since the world began, revealed to Paul, not the OT prophets and not the 12 until Eph 3:5
....
Rom 16:25 :-
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
Eph 3:3
How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery
Eph 3:5
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

CTK · 2026-06-15T01:46:32-0500

PeterAndroz said:
""""So the Gentile inclusion was not invented by Paul. It was always in God’s plan.
What do you understand was kept secret since the world began, revealed to Paul, not the OT prophets and not the 12 until Eph 3:5
....
Rom 16:25 :-
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
Eph 3:3
How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery
Eph 3:5
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

I understand what you are suggesting, but I do not believe Paul is teaching a mystery disconnected from Daniel, the prophets, or the words of Christ. Paul does say the mystery was kept secret and made known to him by revelation. But Paul also says in Romans 16:26 that this same mystery is now made manifest “by the prophetic Scriptures.” That means the mystery cannot be something completely unrelated to the Old Testament. It was hidden there, but not fully unveiled until after Christ.

The key is to let Paul define the mystery. In Ephesians 3:6, Paul says the mystery is “that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel.”

So the mystery was not simply that Gentiles would be blessed. The Old Testament already revealed that. God told Abraham that all families of the earth would be blessed through his seed. Isaiah said the Servant would be a light to the Gentiles. Daniel saw the Son of Man receiving a kingdom in which all peoples, nations, and languages would serve Him.

The mystery was the form this would take after the cross: believing Jews and believing Gentiles joined together in one body through Christ, with the dividing wall broken down, and Gentiles made fellow heirs without becoming Jews under the old covenant system.
That was not fully understood before the cross. It was not made known in former ages “as” it was now revealed by the Spirit. But it was not a different gospel, a different God, or a different redemptive plan.

Paul’s revelation did not contradict Daniel or the prophets. It unveiled what they had been pointing toward. This is why Paul could preach Christ from the Scriptures. This is why he reasoned from Moses and the prophets. This is why he could say his gospel was according to the revelation of the mystery and yet also say that mystery is now made known by the prophetic Scriptures.

The mystery was hidden, not absent. It was concealed in promise, prophecy, and shadow, but revealed in fullness after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. Can you possibly imagine anyone during the OT time thinking that their God would go to the cross to save both Gentiles and Jews? How could their God be killed and .... sacrifice Himself? Even today, most Jews do not accept that Jesus was God and died and was resurrected.....

PeterAndroz · 2026-06-15T02:33:50-0500

CTK said:
I understand what you are suggesting, but I do not believe Paul is teaching a mystery disconnected from Daniel, the prophets, or the words of Christ. Paul does say the mystery was kept secret and made known to him by revelation. But Paul also says in Romans 16:26 that this same mystery is now made manifest “by the prophetic Scriptures.” That means the mystery cannot be something completely unrelated to the Old Testament. It was hidden there, but not fully unveiled until after Christ.

The key is to let Paul define the mystery. In Ephesians 3:6, Paul says the mystery is “that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel.”

So the mystery was not simply that Gentiles would be blessed. The Old Testament already revealed that. God told Abraham that all families of the earth would be blessed through his seed. Isaiah said the Servant would be a light to the Gentiles. Daniel saw the Son of Man receiving a kingdom in which all peoples, nations, and languages would serve Him.

The mystery was the form this would take after the cross: believing Jews and believing Gentiles joined together in one body through Christ, with the dividing wall broken down, and Gentiles made fellow heirs without becoming Jews under the old covenant system.
That was not fully understood before the cross. It was not made known in former ages “as” it was now revealed by the Spirit. But it was not a different gospel, a different God, or a different redemptive plan.

Paul’s revelation did not contradict Daniel or the prophets. It unveiled what they had been pointing toward. This is why Paul could preach Christ from the Scriptures. This is why he reasoned from Moses and the prophets. This is why he could say his gospel was according to the revelation of the mystery and yet also say that mystery is now made known by the prophetic Scriptures.

Paul's "Mystery" - doctrine.org

Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the secrets of God (1 Corinthians 4.1). Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of…

doctrine.org

The mystery was hidden, not absent. It was concealed in promise, prophecy, and shadow, but revealed in fullness after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. Can you possibly imagine anyone during the OT time thinking that their God would go to the cross to save both Gentiles and Jews? How could their God be killed and .... sacrifice Himself? Even today, most Jews do not accept that Jesus was God and died and was resurrected.....

""""Paul’s revelation did not contradict Daniel or the prophets
""""The mystery was hidden, not absent. It was concealed in promise,
Which was first revealed to Paul as an addition, something the OT prophets and the 12 (until Eph 3:5) were unaware of.
Rom 16:25....which was kept secret since the world began,
Eph 3:5.........Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men,
...................... as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
..

Paul's "Mystery" - doctrine.org

Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the secrets of God (1 Corinthians 4.1). Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of…

doctrine.org

Earburner · 2026-06-15T07:19:46-0500

CTK said:
I would respectfully request that you might return to the initial post #1 that provides markers under both A and B. Also, I believe these questions above have been addressed in detail. Please take a look at some of the responses within this 20 page topic. Again, I attempted to identify all the markers in the first post that you can use to help identify this individual... you can apply each of them to your personal interpretation to see if it meets every one of them.... thanks.

If you noticed, I had already agreed with your presentation, which is from the linear perspective of how OUR human minds work.

However, because the thoughts of God's Holy Spirit are much higher than our thoughts (Isa. 55:8-9), by the mind of Christ within me (His Holy Spirit), I do avail myself to learn to hear His thoughts of how He thinks, in conjunction with His written words (KJV).

When one is Born again by the Holy Spirit, "the Mind of Christ" literally comes along side our mind within us.
Therefore, for those who will hear His Mind within them, He teaches all to understand that the words of God are NOT linear thinking (chronological), but rather they are three dimensional (3D), speaking in the past, present and future, all at the same time, of which is the realm of His Eternity.

I STRONGLY URGE all Born again Christians to acknowledge the truth of Isa. 55:8-9, and then read, study and digest all of 1 Cor. ch. 2.

So then, for all that I had said in post #404, I cannot confine myself to chronological thinking with my own mind ONLY!
I must also utilize the Eternal mind of Christ within me.

Spiritual Israelite · 2026-06-15T09:04:11-0500

Earburner said:
When Paul described all unsaved men as being "the natural man", he was speaking of everyone who is born of flesh only, but are not born again by the Holy Spirit.
I perceive and believe that we must steer away from interpreting the words: "that man of sin", as being understood only in the singular, but rather to be in the plural. Therefore, ALL the unsaved are lawless, and are collectively "that man of sin".

That's a good point. The reference to "the natural man" is obviously not referring to an individual man. That's my understanding of "the man of sin", also. Good catch.

The man of sin is also referred to as "that wicked" in 2 Thess 2:8. Again, that does not have to refer to an individual man. Look at this...

1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Paul refers to "that wicked person" here, but is not talking about any particular individual person, but anyone who is "a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner".

Earburner said:
Another case for viewing the words "that man of sin" should be in the plural, is to understand that Judas Iscariot was not the ONLY "son of perdition", as Jesus did call him to be so. However, we do see that the Holy Spirit called another to also be "the son of perdition". 2 Thes. 2:3.
Scripturally, since there appears to be more than one "son of perdition" that are being revealed, we can safely conclude that the words: "that man of sin" is pointing it out that ALL unsaved people are "that man of sin, the son of perdition".

John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

2 Thes. 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away [from faith] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Right. Good point. This can be compared to how John said there wasn't just one antichrist, but many. The appearance of a future individual Antichrist/man of sin is just not what scripture teaches.

claninja · 2026-06-15T16:12:56-0500

Spiritual Israelite said:
I've been telling you over and over again why I don't buy what you're selling and you still have to ask me? I'm not saying those words don't have multiple definitions. What I have been telling you repeatedly is that I don't buy your understanding of Matthew 24:4-34 because you have decided to give those verses far more weight than the rest of the Olivet Discourse, which I believe is unfounded and a bad approach. I've already told you this multiple times.

Matthew 5:18 refers to the literal heaven and earth just as Matthew 24:35 does. If you read Matthew 24:35-39 what Jesus was talking about was in relation to physical destruction that will occur at His second coming. He compared it directly to the flood of Noah's day that killed all unbelievers. So, with all unbelievers being killed at His second coming, that supports the idea that He was saying the literal earth will pass away at that time.

No, it does not. Tell me how what happened around 66-70 AD is comparable to the flood of Noah's day that killed all unbelievers and tell me how what happened in 66-70 was a day or hour that no one knew about beforehand?

LOL!

The same comparison in scope is made in 2 Peter 3:6-7, but, of course, you conveniently disregard that as being legitimate scripture.

It's not just about sudden destruction, it's about complete destruction. How many unbelievers survived the flood? None. And Jesus specifically pointed that out and immediately followed that up by saying "That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.". That is not how it was in 70 AD. Not all unbelievers were destroyed in Judea or in Jerusalem.

What? You can use a parallel passage to help see context. I truly can't understand the way you look at the Olivet Discourse. You're cherry picking. It's ridiculous.

You understand that Matthew 24-25, Mark 13 and Luke 21 are all accounts of the Olivet Discourse. Why can't I look at all 3 to piece things together? It's very clear that Matthew 24:35-39 is a parallel passage to Luke 21:33-36, so why shouldn't we look at both together for a full understanding of what Jesus was talking about?

So what? Goodness sakes. Do you not think that Jesus said what is recorded in both Matthew 24:35-39 and Luke 21:33-36 right after talking about this generation passing away? Do you think those two passages don't have the same timing? They clearly do.

Did you forget that you already said this? But, it does have to do with geographical scope and, again, that is confirmed in 2 Peter 3:6-7 as well.

What you are missing here is that Jesus was comparing the scope of destruction at His second coming to the flood of Noah's day, just like Peter did in 2 Peter 3:6-7 and He was indicating the TYPE of destruction by comparing it to what happened in Sodom, which was by FIRE, as can be seen in 2 Peter 3:7,10-12. No wonder you want to dismiss 2 Peter 3. It proves your understanding of Matthew 24 wrong.

I agree that Matthew, Mark, and Luke should be read together. What I disagree with is using a parallel account to replace the immediate context of the passage being interpreted. The first question should always be: What does Luke mean in Luke? Then Matthew can be brought in as supporting evidence, but not as a substitute for Luke’s own context.

Likewise, when Matthew is being interpreted, the question is: What does Matthew mean in Matthew? Not: how do similarities with 2 Peter determine what Matthew means, which then determines what Luke means. That becomes a chain of inference that bypasses the immediate context of each text and leads to a convoluted interpretive method rather than proper hermeneutics.

Using 2 Peter 3 to establish the meaning of Matthew 24:37-42, and then using that interpretation to establish the meaning of Luke 21:35-36, is not exegesis of Luke. It is a theological construct imposed upon Luke. Sound hermeneutics begins with the immediate context of each passage before appealing to parallel texts and theological synthesis.

1.) The antecedent of “all these things” in Luke 21:35 is the series of events Jesus has just described. Grammatically, the phrase naturally points back to the preceding discourse unless the text provides a clear limitation. I do not see such a limitation in the passage. Contextually, this would include the events surrounding the flight from Judea and the distress Jesus has been describing.

If this is not the case, what grammatical feature excludes those preceding events from the scope of “all these things”?

2.) The primary purpose of the Noah comparison in Matthew 24:37-42 is stated in the context itself. The conclusion is found in verse 42: “Therefore stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.” The emphasis is on unexpectedness and watchfulness. For that reason, I disagree that the primary purpose of the comparison is to establish a global geographical scope. Jesus is comparing the suddenness of the event and the lack of awareness among those affected.

vs 42 is the theological statement about the purpose of the Noah comparison. Where is there a theological statement explaining its about global geographical scope or scope of destruction?

3.) Luke 21 contains a similar exhortation to “stay awake,” but it does not contain the Noah comparison. Instead, the Noah comparison appears in Luke 17, where Luke also includes the example of Lot. Both illustrations serve the same point: judgment arrives suddenly and catches people unprepared. This strengthens my argument that the purpose of the Noah comparison is to emphasize unexpectedness and vigilance rather than to establish a particular geographical scope.

Spiritual Israelite said:
Maybe not explicitly, but it's implied. In 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 he refers generally to those who are in spiritual darkness without indicating that he's only talking about people in spiritual darkness in certain locations and he said that "sudden destruction" will come upon them from which "they shall not escape". Since he referred to those in spiritual darkness in general, it can be implied that he was talking about all who are in spiritual darkness, just like it can be implied that when he was talking about who was in spiritual light, he was talking about all believers since all believers are in the spiritual light. He did not limit the scope of who he was talking about there. And then there is this passage, which I believe clearly refers to the same event as 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:3 and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3.

2 Thessalonians 1:7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.

This indicates that on the day of the Lord's coming, He will "in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ". Notice he does not limit this to only certain unbelievers, but refers generally to "those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ". There's no reason to think that he wasn't referring all unbelievers there. The reference to "flaming fire" again indicates the way in which Jesus will destroy His enemies when He comes. By fire. Just as is indicated in Luke 17:26-30 and 2 Peter 3:7,10-12.

Also, look at verse 10 above. How can you explain what is described there as having happened in 70 AD? How was Jesus glorified in His saints and admired among all those who believe in 70 AD? Paul did not specify that he was talking about only certain believers there. He referred generally to "His saints" and "all those who believe".

Global destruction by Paul is Implied by your framework, nothing more. Paul no where mentions global destruction.

2 Thessalonians 1:6-7 actually implies that the Thessalonians would receive relief from persecution at Christ’s coming. So they haven’t yet received relief from persecution yet?

Additionally, how many times have I said 2 peter 3 is likely written post 70ad by an unknown author and is about addressing a delayed parousia? I don’t think it likely applies to 70ad, but was written decades later attempting to address why the author of 2 peter 3 believed it delayed.

claninja · 2026-06-15T17:26:53-0500

Spiritual Israelite said:
Please learn how to communicate. Take a class on it or something. You strongly implied that the basis for giving less weight to Matthew 24:35-25:46 than Matthew 24:4-34 was because it was mostly parables. What do you think I'm supposed to take away from that?

I never said I gave them less weight for simply being parables. I can’t help that you make illogical connections.

The parables in Matthew 24:36–25:46 shift from the disciples’ questions at the beginning of the chapter to exhortations about how believers should live while waiting. They emphasize themes such as vigilance because “you do not know the day or the hour,” faithful stewardship where “to everyone who has, more will be given,” and compassionate obedience: “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.”

By contrast, Matthew 24:1–34 directly addresses the disciples’ questions: “When will these things be?” and “What will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?” This section is concerned with the timing and signs of the events Jesus describes, including the statement, “this generation will not pass away until all these things occur.” Matthew 24:36–25:46, on the other hand, shifts to parables that emphasize readiness and accountability in light of the uncertainty of the exact day or hour.

Accordingly, I give greater interpretive weight to Matthew 24:1–34 in constructing my eschatological framework, since it directly engages the temporal and sign-related questions of the disciples (“this generation will not pass away until all these things occur”). The parables, by contrast, are more determinative for exhortation and ethical response than for establishing the eschatological timeline.

We were talking about eschatological framework, hence why said I gave more weight to vs 4-34.

Spiritual Israelite said:
Why? Why not look at the entire Olivet Discourse as one unit rather than dividing it up like this and giving more weight to Matthew 24:4-34 than the rest? I don't believe that makes any sense.

See above answer.

Spiritual Israelite said:
Do you believe in a future day of judgment when all people will appear before Jesus to give an account of themselves, as Paul writes about in Romans 14:10-12 and that is alluded to in Acts 17:31 as well?

Yes

Spiritual Israelite said:
Also, I had asked you what scripture do you believe refers to the future bodily second coming of Jesus Christ? Can you please answer that question?

I think the NT primarily refers to the coming associated with the destruction of the temple. I have no scriptures to provide about a future to that bodily coming.

Spiritual Israelite · 2026-06-15T17:47:08-0500

claninja said:
I agree that Matthew, Mark, and Luke should be read together. What I disagree with is using a parallel account to replace the immediate context of the passage being interpreted.

I don't do that. There is no replacing of the immediate context, but there is no reason not to look at the other accounts for helping to understand the context, if necessary.

claninja said:
The first question should always be: What does Luke mean in Luke? Then Matthew can be brought in as supporting evidence, but not as a substitute for Luke’s own context.

Sure, we can try to figure that out the best we can first, but if that is not clear, then we can look at Matthew and Mark to help try to clear up what Jesus was saying there by looking at the parallel verses.

claninja said:
Likewise, when Matthew is being interpreted, the question is: What does Matthew mean in Matthew? Not: how do similarities with 2 Peter determine what Matthew means, which then determines what Luke means.

Similar to how we can use the Mark and Luke accounts to help understand the Matthew account, we can also use 2 Peter 3. If your interpretation of Matthew 24 doesn't match what is written in 2 Peter, the solution isn't to just entirely dismiss 2 Peter. The solution is to put more effort into finding a way to reconcile both of them so that they don't contradict each other. It's clear that Matthew 24:35-39 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 don't contradict each other and instead support each other.

claninja said:
That becomes a chain of inference that bypasses the immediate context of each text and leads to a convoluted interpretive method rather than proper hermeneutics.

Thankfully, you don't decide for everyone what is proper hermeneutics. I reject some of your understanding of proper hermeneutics. Interpreting scriptures in isolation from the rest of scripture and dismissing a text just because you can't figure out how to make it fit with our doctrine is not proper hermeneutics.

claninja said:
Using 2 Peter 3 to establish the meaning of Matthew 24:37-42,

That's not what I do. Unlike yourself, I don't give more weight to one passage than another. Those have equal weight and support each other.

claninja said:
and then using that interpretation to establish the meaning of Luke 21:35-36, is not exegesis of Luke.

It's exegesis of scripture in general. Why should we not allow scripture to interpret scripture and why should we not make the effort to make sure that our interpretation of one passage doesn't contradict any other in scripture?

claninja said:
It is a theological construct imposed upon Luke.

It's a theological construct that ensures our interpretation of Luke 21 doesn't contradict any other scripture. My framework is the entire Bible, giving equal weight to every verse in the Bible. That is the best approach to take if you care about avoiding contradictions.

claninja said:
Sound hermeneutics begins with the immediate context of each passage before appealing to parallel texts and theological synthesis.

Sure, but sometimes the immediate context isn't clear, so you shouldn't assume that you can always determine the immediate context.

claninja said:
1.) The antecedent of “all these things” in Luke 21:35 is the series of events Jesus has just described. Grammatically, the phrase naturally points back to the preceding discourse unless the text provides a clear limitation.

I assume you mean "all these things" referenced in Luke 21:36. No, what you're saying is not true. It's not referring back to literally everything that Jesus said would happen previous to that. Whatever "all these things" refer to in Luke 21:36, they refer to things that happen on the day of redemption when Jesus comes unexpectedly with power and great glory and not the things that happen to indicate that day is near. Read the following carefully...

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.” 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. 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.”

I color coded this so that you can see which text relates to what. The blue text relates to the things that would indicate that Christ's coming is near and those things happen before the actual day of His second coming right up until that day. The parts in red refer to either His second coming itself or things that will happen on the day of His second coming.

So, what we can gather from what Jesus said here is that the following will take place before and leading up to the day of Christ's second coming:

signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars;
on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring;
men’s hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth

The following will take place on the actual day of His second coming:

Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
The redemption of believers.
The coming of the kingdom of God.
This generation passes away.
Heaven and earth pass away.
That day comes unexpectedly as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth.
Believers escape all those things that will happen on that day (not all the things that happen before and leading up to that day as pre-tribs believe).

It makes no sense to think that Jesus was talking about escaping the things that would lead up to His second coming. Why would He say that? The snare that comes upon all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth happens on "that day" of His coming, not before that day. So, it only makes sense that He would tell His people to pray to escape being caught in the snare that will come unexpectedly upon "all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth." on "that day" that Jesus comes and this generation and heaven and earth pass away.

claninja said:
I do not see such a limitation in the passage. Contextually, this would include the events surrounding the flight from Judea and the distress Jesus has been describing.

No, it does not. See above.

claninja said:
If this is not the case, what grammatical feature excludes those preceding events from the scope of “all these things”?

See above.

Spiritual Israelite · 2026-06-15T17:47:52-0500

claninja said:
2.) The primary purpose of the Noah comparison in Matthew 24:37-42 is stated in the context itself. The conclusion is found in verse 42: “Therefore stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.” The emphasis is on unexpectedness and watchfulness. For that reason, I disagree that the primary purpose of the comparison is to establish a global geographical scope. Jesus is comparing the suddenness of the event and the lack of awareness among those affected.

You make His mention that all unbelievers were destroyed in the flood meaningless and pointless. As if Him pointing that out had no relation to what will happen when He comes again. I completely disagree with that. He mentioned that detail for a reason.

claninja said:
vs 42 is the theological statement about the purpose of the Noah comparison. Where is there a theological statement explaining its about global geographical scope or scope of destruction?

3.) Luke 21 contains a similar exhortation to “stay awake,” but it does not contain the Noah comparison. Instead, the Noah comparison appears in Luke 17, where Luke also includes the example of Lot. Both illustrations serve the same point: judgment arrives suddenly and catches people unprepared. This strengthens my argument that the purpose of the Noah comparison is to emphasize unexpectedness and vigilance rather than to establish a particular geographical scope.

He mentions that all unbelievers were destroyed in relation to Sodom, also. He didn't point out that detail for no reason.

claninja said:
Global destruction by Paul is Implied by your framework, nothing more. Paul no where mentions global destruction.

That's what I said. It's implied and not stated explicitly. But other passages about the same event confirm that it's referring to global destruction, as I've shown.

claninja said:
2 Thessalonians 1:6-7 actually implies that the Thessalonians would receive relief from persecution at Christ’s coming. So they haven’t yet received relief from persecution yet?

You always isolate verses and miss the context because of it. Keep reading from there. What does it say Jesus will do when He is revealed from heaven? Take vengeance on unbelievers. It does not say the first century Thessalonian believers would receive relief from persecution at Christ's second coming, it says that they would be avenged. Similar to what we see the souls of the dead in Christ talking about here...

Revelation 6::9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.

Can you see here that it talks about the souls of physically dead unbelievers asking how long it would be until they were avenged? In 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 it says nothing about them being avenged while they were still alive. Their vengeance will come when Jesus returns in the future to take vengeance on all unbelievers, fulfilling the vengeance promised to the souls of the dead in Christ referenced above along with vengeance for "their brethren, who would be killed as they were".

claninja said:
Additionally, how many times have I said 2 peter 3 is likely written post 70ad by an unknown author and is about addressing a delayed parousia?

So what?

claninja said:
I don’t think it likely applies to 70ad, but was written decades later attempting to address why the author of 2 peter 3 believed it delayed.

How is this a reason to just dismiss it and claim that it's not legitimate scripture? Again, 2 Peter 3:10-12 lines up very well with Matthew 24:35-39.

Spiritual Israelite · 2026-06-15T18:11:27-0500

claninja said:
I never said I gave them less weight for simply being parables. I can’t help that you make illogical connections.

What was your reason for pointing out that they are parables then? Since you agree that parables can be used for doctrine, the fact that they are parables is irrelevant to what we're talking about.

claninja said:
The parables in Matthew 24:36–25:46 shift from the disciples’ questions at the beginning of the chapter to exhortations about how believers should live while waiting.

That passage gives details relating to Christ's second coming that simply do not support your understanding of Matthew 24:4-34.

claninja said:
They emphasize themes such as vigilance because “you do not know the day or the hour,” faithful stewardship where “to everyone who has, more will be given,” and compassionate obedience: “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.”

Let's talk about this. In what sense do you think that people did not know the day or hour of what happened in 70 AD until it actually happened? What day or hour do you think Jesus was referring to exactly? The day that the Roman armies actually started destroying the city? Jesus said the city would be surrounded by armies before its destruction and desolation occurred (Luke 21:20-24). It seems that it would not have caught anyone by complete surprise once it actually happened since there was such an obvious sign right there before their eyes that the destruction of Jerusalem was about to occur. There was nothing unexpected about it at that point. But, the comparisons to Noah's day (and to Lot's day in Luke 17) suggest that what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 24:36 related to a destruction event that would take unbelievers completely by surprise once it happened just as was the case with the flood in Noah's day and the fire that come down on Sodom in Lot's day. That's not how what happened in 70 AD can be described.

claninja said:
By contrast, Matthew 24:1–34 directly addresses the disciples’ questions: “When will these things be?” and “What will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?” This section is concerned with the timing and signs of the events Jesus describes, including the statement, “this generation will not pass away until all these things occur.” Matthew 24:36–25:46, on the other hand, shifts to parables that emphasize readiness and accountability in light of the uncertainty of the exact day or hour.

Accordingly, I give greater interpretive weight to Matthew 24:1–34 in constructing my eschatological framework, since it directly engages the temporal and sign-related questions of the disciples (“this generation will not pass away until all these things occur”). The parables, by contrast, are more determinative for exhortation and ethical response than for establishing the eschatological timeline.

We were talking about eschatological framework, hence why said I gave more weight to vs 4-34.

Again, it's a mistake to give more weight to verses 4 to 34 because the rest of the discourse gives a great deal of insight into what will actually happen when the coming of the Son of Man occurs, none of which occurred in 70 AD.

claninja said:
Yes

I think the NT primarily refers to the coming associated with the destruction of the temple. I have no scriptures to provide about a future to that bodily coming.

So, you believe in a future judgment day where all people will appear before Jesus to be judged and give an account of themselves, but you are not aware of any scripture that refers to His future bodily coming. Not even Acts 1:9-11? Do you believe that Jesus will come bodily in the future? What is your understanding of this verse...

Titus 2:11 11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, 12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ

This is not something you're looking forward to?

Earburner · 2026-06-16T14:40:10-0500

CTK said:
Here is part of a narrative found within my commentary on the Book of Daniel. I believe it speaks to this issue, and hope it might bring some thought to this topic - thanks.

Paul asks, “Has God rejected His people?” and answers, “Certainly not.” I agree completely. God has not rejected Israel. His promises have not failed. His calling has not been erased. The Jewish people are not discarded by God.

But we must let Paul finish his own argument.

In Romans 11, Paul does not say every ethnic Israelite is automatically saved. He does not say unbelieving Israel remains in covenant blessing apart from Messiah. He does not say a future political state is automatically the chosen nation of God regardless of faith. Paul’s explanation is the remnant. He says, “At this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace” (Romans 11:5). That means God has preserved believing Israel. Paul himself was proof of that, which is why he immediately says, “For I also am an Israelite.”

So no, God has not rejected Israel. But Paul also says Israel experienced a partial hardening. Some branches were broken off because of unbelief, and Gentiles were grafted in by faith. That means covenant standing is not based on ethnicity alone, nor on political nationality, but on faith in the Messiah. This is why Paul warns Gentile believers not to boast against the natural branches. The church has not replaced Israel in a proud, arrogant way. Gentiles are grafted into Israel’s covenant promises through Christ. There is one olive tree, not two separate ways of salvation.

At the same time, Paul also says the broken natural branches can be grafted in again if they do not continue in unbelief. That is the hope of Romans 11. Israel is not finally rejected. God will yet show mercy. Blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and then God will turn again to His people.

So the issue is not whether God still loves Israel. He does. The issue is whether modern Israel, as a political nation, is automatically God’s chosen covenant people while rejecting Jesus Christ. Paul does not teach that. The apostles do not teach that. Jesus Himself said, “No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

There is no salvation outside Christ — not for Gentiles, not for Jews, not for anyone.

So Israel has not been rejected. Israel has been partially hardened, exactly as Paul says. I believe God still has a covenant purpose for Israel. I believe Jewish people remain beloved for the sake of the fathers. I believe God’s gifts and calling are irrevocable. But I also believe that Israel’s restoration must come through Messiah, not around Him. That is not replacement theology. That is Romans 11.

And this is where Daniel, Romans, and Revelation come together.

Paul says blindness in part has happened to Israel “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (Romans 11:25). That means Israel’s present blindness is not permanent. It has a boundary. It has an “until.” When the times of the Gentiles have reached their appointed completion, God will again turn His covenant attention toward His people. And we are not far from that time.

This is also connected to the 144,000 in Revelation. The 144,000 do not represent a random literal number, nor as a replacement of Israel by Gentiles, but a prophetic symbol of restored Israel — twelve times twelve times one thousand — the fullness of God’s covenant people awakened, sealed, and prepared for final witness. In that sense, the 144,000 represent Israel brought back to the Messiah, not by political power, not by national pride, and not by human achievement, but by the mercy and intervention of God.

Paul himself becomes the pattern. He was an Israelite. He was zealous for God, yet blind to the Messiah. He persecuted the followers of Jesus, believing he was serving God. But on the road to Damascus, Christ revealed Himself to Paul, and the blindness was removed. From that moment, Paul became one of the greatest witnesses to the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. Something similar will happen corporately for Israel at the end - in is connected in Daniel, Paul's writings and Revelation.

When the times of the Gentiles are complete, God will remove the blindness from His people. He will give them, in effect, a Damascus experience. They will see the One whom they pierced. They will recognize Jesus as their Messiah. Their mourning will turn into witness. Their former blindness will become burning testimony. This also fits Daniel’s prophetic structure. The seventy weeks were fulfilled by Messiah. He accomplished the work of Daniel 9:24. He confirmed the covenant, brought sacrifice and offering to their true fulfillment, and opened salvation to the world. But Israel, as a people, did not complete its covenant response to Him at that time. The gospel then went out to the Gentiles, and the long period of Gentile witness and Gentile dominance began.

But that period does not last forever.

Revelation shows a final witness. It speaks of those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. It speaks of a sealed people. It speaks of a final proclamation before the end. It speaks of the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus standing before the world. That is the connection to the restored 144,000 with the final 3.5 years of witness. This is not a second way of salvation. It is not Israel saved apart from Christ. It is Israel finally awakened to Christ, sealed by God, and sent out to proclaim the very Messiah they once rejected.

For those final 3.5 years, they will go into the world preaching the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus. Just as Paul, after his Damascus experience, became a witness to the Gentiles, restored Israel will become a final witness to the world. Their message will not be Judaism without Christ. It will be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob revealed fully in His Messiah, Jesus. Can you possibly imagine how today's Christianity will receive this? The world will hear just how corrupt the Word of God and the Testimony of jesus has become since the time of the apostles. This will not be a quiet and save time - it will indeed be the tribulation.

So when I say modern Israel is not automatically God’s chosen covenant nation apart from Christ, I am not saying God is finished with Israel. I am saying the opposite. God is not finished with Israel. But His purpose for Israel is not fulfilled in unbelief. It is fulfilled when Israel comes to Messiah.

Romans says they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. Daniel shows God’s covenant timetable. Revelation shows a sealed people bearing final witness. Together, they point to the same truth: Israel’s restoration comes through Jesus Christ.

So Israel has not been rejected.

Israel has been partially blinded.

Israel has been preserved.

Israel will be shown mercy.

Israel will be grafted in again.

And when God removes that blindness, the very people so long separated from their Messiah will become a final witness to the world that Jesus is Lord, the Lamb of God, the Son of David, and the promised Messiah of Israel.

Since the first appearance of Jesus, the kingdom of God was taken away from Israel, BUT it was then GIVEN to ALL who are born again into a NEW creature.
They are NEITHER Jews OR Gentiles, but rather A NEWLY CREATED NATION.

So then, ever since PENTECOST, it's NO LONGER about Israel as a nation or any Gentile nation, but rather the NEW nation of Born again Saints.

Mat. 21:43
Therefore say I unto you [the nation Israel], The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a [different] nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Who is Paul discussing in 2 Thessalonians 2?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads