Who is Paul discussing in 2 Thessalonians 2?

[covenantee]

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

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

John rejected the hearsay of a singular antichrist.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

John wrote of a singular individual he called antichrist

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

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

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

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

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

 

[claninja]

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


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

Grace and peace to you.

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

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

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

 

[claninja]

So?


Neither does 2 Peter.

Compare these passages...

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

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

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


So?


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


Neither does 2 Peter.

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

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

 

[PinSeeker]

I disagree.

Okay, fine. <smile>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody's ignoring anything.

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

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

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

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

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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

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

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

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

 

[claninja]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[claninja]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[PinSeeker]

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

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

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

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

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

Grace and peace to you.