Who is Paul discussing in 2 Thessalonians 2?

[covenantee]

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

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

John rejected the hearsay of a singular antichrist.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

John wrote of a singular individual he called antichrist

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

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

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

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

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

 

[claninja]

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


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

Grace and peace to you.

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

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

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

 

[claninja]

So?


Neither does 2 Peter.

Compare these passages...

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

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

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


So?


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


Neither does 2 Peter.

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

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

 

[PinSeeker]

I disagree.

Okay, fine. <smile>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody's ignoring anything.

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

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

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

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

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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

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

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

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