Who is Paul discussing in 2 Thessalonians 2?

[Spiritual Israelite]

Canonization is a decision about inclusion, not a proof that earlier disputes were incorrect or irrelevant.



You are partially correct.

In the Olivet Discourse, according to Matthew, Jesus’ statement that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” most naturally refers to his contemporaries, contextually, grammatically, and lexically. I treat this as a primary contextual anchor for interpreting New Testament eschatology. As a result, I read later epistolary references to the “coming of the Lord” in light of this framework and evaluate whether they are consistent with an imminent, first-century generation OR whether they reflect a development of delayed expectation in the early church. In other words, do the epistles push the goal posts backwards, and why?

My assessment of 2 Peter is anchored in the above framework.

Specifically, I ask whether its depiction of a delayed parousia and the dissolution of the fundamental elements of physical reality stands in conflict with Jesus’ statement in the Olivet Discourse in Gospel of Matthew that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”

Is 2 peter 3 addressing a pre 70ad delay parousia or a post 70ad delayed parousia? That’s the question my framework is attempting to address.




Your comparison between 2 Peter 3 and 1 Thessalonians 5 does not directly engage my framework. The issue is not whether both passages affirm suddenness in the “day of the Lord,” but whether they are addressing the same eschatological expectancy - within their generation or delayed?

1 Thessalonians 5 describes the sudden and unexpected character of the day itself, without framing it as a delayed or deferred expectation relative to a generation-bound promise made in Matthew 24. By contrast, 2 Peter 3 explicitly responds to a perceived delay in the parousia and reorients expectation around that delay.




Lexical similarity isn’t resolving my point. For example, revelation 18:24 is lexically similar to Matthew 23:35, but you have said in the past that don’t believe they are the same, right? 1 Corinthians 10:11 is lexically similar to Matthew 24:3, but you have said in the past they are not the same. So I don’t think this, selectively picking which similarities are the same or not, is the best argument.

My point on the dating of 2 peter:
If, in Gospel of Matthew, the coming of the Son of Man is placed “immediately after the tribulation of those days,” then on what basis does 2 Peter already frame the parousia in terms of delay, if the tribulation and associated events had not yet transpired within that sequence?





I see 2 Peter no different than Enoch, jubilee, shepherd of Hermes, etc…

I don't wish to continue this particular discussion. I think it's just sad that you have decided to dismiss 2 Peter just because of doctrinal bias (I know you will disagree with that being the reason, but that's how I see it).

I’ll start my basic premise, and see if we can find common ground first. Would you disagree with this premise:

Paul is not correcting a belief in an imminent OR delayed parousia, nor is he engaging in abstract speculation about the mechanics of resurrection, ie “how the dead are raised”. Instead He is addressing a concern: whether believers who have died will “miss” the parousia of Christ. His answer is that the dead in Christ will be raised first, and therefore will in fact precede the living in participation in the coming of the Lord.

No, I agree with that premise if you're just saying that Paul wanted to address their concern that the dead in Christ might miss the parousia of Christ.

I have one question for clarification, though. You said "the dead in Christ will be raised first, and therefore will in fact precede the living in participation in the coming of the Lord.". What do you mean by that exactly? Do you agree that Paul indicated that after Jesus descends from heaven, the dead in Christ would first be resurrected and would then be caught up together at that time with those who are alive and remain to meet the Lord in the air?

 

[claninja]

I don't wish to continue this particular discussion. I think it's just sad that you have decided to dismiss 2 Peter just because of doctrinal bias (I know you will disagree with that being the reason, but that's how I see it).

We all negotiate with the text in order to try to reconcile a certain framework. I am just as guilty of that as you.

No, I agree with that premise if you're just saying that Paul wanted to address their concern that the dead in Christ might miss the parousia of Christ.

I have one question for clarification, though. You said "the dead in Christ will be raised first, and therefore will in fact precede the living in participation in the coming of the Lord.". What do you mean by that exactly? Do you agree that Paul indicated that after Jesus descends from heaven, the dead in Christ would first be resurrected and would then be caught up together at that time with those who are alive and remain to meet the Lord in the air?

Yea, I think so. I think the most natural reading, grammatically and lexically, is that the dead would first be resurrected and then both the resurrected dead and remaining living would be caught up together in the clouds. That seems to be what Paul was saying, in order to comfort those who were concerned about the dead missing the parousia.

 

[claninja]

This seems to be the problem, @claninja... Paul is not "correcting" anything, but rather alleviating fears, specifically regarding those among them who had died... and any of them who might die before Christ's return... would be excluded from Christ's return and the final salvation that He will bring. In other words, that they would "miss out" and remain dead forever. The Thessalonians lacked detailed knowledge about what happens to Christians who die, because Paul did not have the opportunity to complete his teaching there (1 Thessalonians 3:10) on account of being forced to leave (1 Thessalonians 2:15, 17; Acts 17:1-10). Consequently, as I said, the Thessalonians did not have the understanding to cope with the recent deaths of some community members, and so they responded with a sort of bewildered hopelessness. This was why Paul was saying what he was saying to them, to allay that hopelessness... and to reassure them that when Christ returns, all of us will have eternal life and be together with Him forever. Yeah, I'm not sure how you get the idea of Paul "correct(ing) a deception that a global cosmic event already happened..." I mean sure, in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 he writes, "Let no one deceive you in any way," but there was no active deception but rather false teaching, in particular the false belief of annihilation, which many hold to still today.

Grace and peace to you.

I think you might be conflating 2 passages? 1 Thessalonians 4 addresses the concern about the dead missing the parousia. 2 Thessalonians 2 addresses concern that the day of the Lord already happened.

 

[claninja]

I'll just say this, claninja. We know that God ~ the Holy Spirit ~ is the real Author of Scripture... or should, anyway (2 Timothy 3:16:17); He is. And I would say that His work did not end there but is still ongoing; He upholds, sustains, and protects the integrity of God's Word even today. Peter, writing about "the living and abiding word of God" and quotes Isaiah in 1 Peter 1:24-25, saying, '“All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass... (t)he grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever.'" So, just regarding 2 Peter... and there may be other parts of Scripture you might think the same way about... I say, even regarding canonization, the Holy Spirit has been at work in this way throughout the generations and is still at work today, and always will be. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

2 peter has a long history of being considered “Antilegomena”. Even modern Christian scholars question Petrine authorship. I’ve read several articles by non- preterist, Christian theologians, who don’t think it was written by Peter. So while it may contain helpful teachings, I wouldn’t build an eschatological framework on it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

We all negotiate with the text in order to try to reconcile a certain framework. I am just as guilty of that as you.

I think dismissing 2 Peter when a vast majority of Christians accept it as legitimate scripture takes that to an extreme. Actually, dismissing the text altogether is quite different than negotiating with the text.

Yea, I think so. I think the most natural reading, grammatically and lexically, is that the dead would first be resurrected and then both the resurrected dead and remaining living would be caught up together in the clouds. That seems to be what Paul was saying, in order to comfort those who were concerned about the dead missing the parousia.

Okay. So, do you believe that has happened yet?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

2 peter has a long history of being considered “Antilegomena”. Even modern Christian scholars question Petrine authorship. I’ve read several articles by non- preterist, Christian theologians, who don’t think it was written by Peter. So while it may contain helpful teachings, I wouldn’t build an eschatological framework on it.

Many of those same people do not question its legitimacy as scripture, though. You can't just ignore that. Do you believe there's anything written in 2 Peter that contradicts any other scripture? We don't know for sure who the author of Hebrews is, either, right? But, I would assume that you accept that as legitimate scripture?

 

[claninja]

I think dismissing 2 Peter when a vast majority of Christians accept it as legitimate scripture takes that to an extreme. Actually, that's quite different than negotiating with the text.

The majority of scholarship, agrees it likely was written post 70 ad and not by Peter.

Okay. So, do you believe that has happened yet?

Depends - 1.) was Paul talking about out the same event in Matthew 24? 2.) what is the nature of the resurrection.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The majority of scholarship, agrees it likely was written post 70 ad and not by Peter.

You are being evasive. I said nothing about the date it was written and nothing about whether or not it was written by Peter. I said that a vast majority of Christians except it as legitimate scripture. And that's regardless of when it was written and whether or not it was written by Peter. So, for you to just dismiss it entirely in terms of not accepting it as legitimate scripture when a vast majority of Christians do accept it as legitimate scripture is not a case of negotiating with the text on your part. You are just dismissing it altogether and not negotiating the text at all.

Depends - 1.) was Paul talking about out the same event in Matthew 24? 2.) what is the nature of the resurrection.

And what are your current thoughts relating to each of those questions?

My answer to the first question is yes. Jesus referred to His parousia in relation to the gathering of the elect and what Paul described is a gathering of the elect to meet Jesus in the air at His parousia. It's clear to me that they were referring to the same event.

My answer to the second question is that it's talking about a bodily resurrection since the dead in Christ are not dead in any sense except bodily. And, based on what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthans 15, it will be a bodily resurrection unto bodily immortality.

 

[PinSeeker]

I think you might be conflating 2 passages? 1 Thessalonians 4 addresses the concern about the dead missing the parousia. 2 Thessalonians 2 addresses concern that the day of the Lord already happened.

Well, I agree on 1 Thessalonians 4, but 2 Thessalonians 2 not so much. I think you are misunderstanding Paul regarding the latter.

2 peter has a long history of being considered “Antilegomena”. Even modern Christian scholars question Petrine authorship.

Considered by some, yes. And... "scholars"... <chuckles> Yeah, there are all kinds of, um, smart folks out there... <smile>

I’ve read several articles by non- preterist, Christian theologians, who don’t think it was written by Peter. So while it may contain helpful teachings, I wouldn’t build an eschatological framework on it.

There are parts of it that are useful, for sure, but... misused by many, and that's very prevalent even on this board. And for sure, I would agree that we shouldn't "build an eschatological framework on it." Peter says a few things that have eschatalogical implications, and are useful in that way, but can easily be... misunderstood.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[claninja]

Many of those same people do not question its legitimacy as scripture, though. You can't just ignore that. We don't know for sure who the author of Hebrews is, either, right? But, I would assume that you accept that as legitimate scripture?

Scholarly consensus has Hebrews written pre 70ad, additionally, it’s eschatology doesn’t disagree with the fulfillment of Matthew 24:4-34.

 

[claninja]

You are being evasive. I said nothing about the date it was written and nothing about whether or not it was written by Peter. I said that a vast majority of Christians except it as legitimate scripture. And that's regardless of when it was written and whether or not it was written by Peter. So, for you to just dismiss it entirely in terms of not accepting it as legitimate scripture when a vast majority of Christians do accept it as legitimate scripture is not a case of negotiating with the text on your part. You are just dismissing it altogether and not negotiating the text at all.

I accept it as profitable for teaching, due to the counsel’s vote to include it. But I don’t build my eschatological foundation on it, due to its historical dispute, absence from muratorian fragment, modern scholarly consensus that it was written post 70ad and not by Peter, and its eschatological expectation contradicts 1 Peter and Matthew 24.

And what are your current thoughts relating to each of those questions?

My answer to the first question is yes. Jesus referred to His parousia in relation to the gathering of the elect and what Paul described is a gathering of the elect to meet Jesus in the air at His parousia. It's clear to me that they were referring to the same event.

My answer to the second question is that it's talking about a bodily resurrection since the dead in Christ are not dead in any sense except bodily. And, based on what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthans 15, it will be a bodily resurrection unto bodily immortality.

If Paul was talking about the events of Matthew 24:4-34, then yes, it would be fulfilled, which requires a negotiation of what Paul meant on the nature of the resurrection, this would lead to a discussion on 2 Corinthians 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, as to the nature.

If Paul was not talking about Matthew 24:3-4, then I need to negotiate what event he was talking about. Potentially Matthew 25 - sheep/goats

 

[claninja]

Thessalonians 2 not so much. I think you are misunderstanding Paul regarding the latter.

Interesting, so you don’t think Paul was addressing a potential concern that the day of the Lord had already occurred?

 

[PinSeeker]

Interesting, so you don’t think Paul was addressing a potential concern that the day of the Lord had already occurred?

No, I do, but why they were concerned about that is the question. Your whole "global catastrophe" notion is... misconceived, I guess... really non sequitur. Many, if not all, in the Thessalonian church had accepted the strange claim that "the day of the Lord has come." For what reason we do not know; perhaps they had spiritualized the concept of the day of the Lord (but Paul's argument seems incongruent with this), or perhaps they thought that tribulation was part of the day of the Lord and that it had begun. The latter seems very possible, as the Thessalonians were undergoing persecution (2 Thessalonians 1:4), which may have exacerbated their confusion about the end. In any case, Paul was reassuring them that it had not yet come. This whole argument between you and SI is... well, overblown, really... much ado about nothing. <smile> Which is not surprising, but by all means carry on if you must... <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Scholarly consensus has Hebrews written pre 70ad, additionally, it’s eschatology doesn’t disagree with the fulfillment of Matthew 24:4-34.

Are you even trying to see my point? Please read what I say more carefully. My point has nothing to do with the timing of the writing of the book of Hebrews, but rather that you accept it as legitimate scripture that can be used for doctrine despite not knowing for sure who the author is. So, why can't that be the case for 2 Peter, also?

 

[grafted branch]

I accept it as profitable for teaching, due to the counsel’s vote to include it. But I don’t build my eschatological foundation on it, due to its historical dispute, absence from muratorian fragment, modern scholarly consensus that it was written post 70ad and not by Peter, and its eschatological expectation contradicts 1 Peter and Matthew 24.

What’s interesting to me is that some people on this forum will argue that many of the early church fathers had a consensus about a particular eschatological view. But you are pointing out that the early church fathers also had to contend with what writings should or shouldn’t be considered as God breathed.

So if someone appeals to a particular early church father as holding a certain eschatological position, they should also be willing to accept the position that same church father had when certain writings were questioned as God breathed.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I accept it as profitable for teaching, due to the counsel’s vote to include it. But I don’t build my eschatological foundation on it, due to its historical dispute, absence from muratorian fragment, modern scholarly consensus that it was written post 70ad and not by Peter, and its eschatological expectation contradicts 1 Peter and Matthew 24.

This makes no sense to me at all. If I believed that a book contained false teaching, as you believe 2 Peter does (you believe 2 Peter 3:10-12 contradicts other scripture), then I would absolutely not accept it as profitable for teaching. Which verses within 2 Peter do you deem to be profitable for teaching exactly? Obviously, not 2 Peter 3:10-12.

If Paul was talking about the events of Matthew 24:4-34, then yes, it would be fulfilled, which requires a negotiation of what Paul meant on the nature of the resurrection, this would lead to a discussion on 2 Corinthians 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, as to the nature.

If Paul was not talking about Matthew 24:3-4, then I need to negotiate what event he was talking about. Potentially Matthew 25 - sheep/goats

How long have you been studying these things at this point? Do you think you'll ever make a decision about what you believe 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:3 is about? As for Matthew 25:31-46, that refers to Jesus's second coming with His angels. Same event described in Matthew 24:30-31. Why would you see Matthew 25:31-46 as being a different event than Matthew 24:30-31?

 

[claninja]

No, I do, but why they were concerned about that is the question. Your whole "global catastrophe" notion is... misconceived, I guess... really non sequitur. Many, if not all, in the Thessalonian church had accepted the strange claim that "the day of the Lord has come." For what reason we do not know; perhaps they had spiritualized the concept of the day of the Lord (but Paul's argument seems incongruent with this), or perhaps they thought that tribulation was part of the day of the Lord and that it had begun. The latter seems very possible, as the Thessalonians were undergoing persecution (2 Thessalonians 1:4), which may have exacerbated their confusion about the end. In any case, Paul was reassuring them that it had not yet come. This whole argument between you and SI is... well, overblown, really... much ado about nothing. <smile> Which is not surprising, but by all means carry on if you must... <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

I would disagree that it’s a non sequitur. The Thessalonians’ understanding of the nature of the Day of the Lord is directly relevant to understanding why Paul felt the need to address the deception that it had already occurred. If we’re trying to understand Paul’s argument, then asking why they believed the Day had come is not a diversion from the discussion—it’s part of the discussion. Their assumptions about the Day of the Lord help explain both their confusion and Paul’s response to it.

 

[PinSeeker]

...asking why they believed the Day had come is not a diversion from the discussion—it’s part of the discussion...

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

Their assumptions about the Day of the Lord help explain both their confusion and Paul’s response to it.

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.

 

[claninja]

Are you even trying to see my point? Please read what I say more carefully. My point has nothing to do with the timing of the writing of the book of Hebrews, but rather that you accept it as legitimate scripture that can be used for doctrine despite not knowing for sure who the author is. So, why can't that be the case for 2 Peter, also?

And you are not understanding me - Hebrews’ doesn’t claim to be written by an apostle, it’s eschatology doesn’t go contradict Matthew 24, and scholarly consensus does not place its date beyond Jesus generation. That’s why I have no issue with the eschatology of Hebrews.

Regardless of its disputed status in early church, it doesn’t contradict the OD.

 

[claninja]

What’s interesting to me is that some people on this forum will argue that many of the early church fathers had a consensus about a particular eschatological view. But you are pointing out that the early church fathers also had to contend with what writings should or shouldn’t be considered as God breathed.

So if someone appeals to a particular early church father as holding a certain eschatological position, they should also be willing to accept the position that same church father had when certain writings were questioned as God breathed.

It’s all a negotiation. We have a framework, and we do the best we can to fit all the pieces together.