Monday 28th November

[moonkat]

1 Thessalonians; 2 Thessalonians


any thoughts?

[imported__neil]

I couldn't restrain myself from going back to this one.

Quite focussed on the return of Jesus, these chapters ? all but 2 Thess 3 mention it.

Can there be much doubt as to the identity of the restrainer in 2 Thess 2:6-8? I think it is the Holy Spirit, as he indwells and empowers the church. Seems like the NKJV translators too thought it was the Spirit, as in v. 7 they use the capitalisation "He" with reference to him.

This restrainer is preventing the "man of lawlessness" from appearing, which I suppose an angel could handle (Michael?), but more than this, he's restraining the mysterious power of lawlessness, which sounds to me like the power of sin in the world in general. God lights every conscience, but more particularly the Holy Spirit through the church (when truly representing Christ) has been a force for democracy, justice, and the founding of the world's best hospitals, universities and charitable institutions. Evil would be more widespread and developed without the gospel and this restraining work.

None of this proves that the Holy Spirit is the restrainer, but supposing this to be the case, shouldn't the church be taken out of the way before the lawless one is revealed (vv. 7-8), along with the Spirit, because he abides with us forever (John 14:16)?

I think the pre-trib rapture view is not provable or explicit in scripture, but not inconsistent with it either, though a good argument to the contrary will sway me. (Does the NT tell us to watch for, wait for and expect at any time Christ, or anti-Christ?) The important thing is not when Jesus comes, but that he comes.

Incidentally, the rebellion (Greek apostasia) which comes first, mentioned in 2 Thess 2:3, some Greek scholars say can mean not only a departure from faith, but also a departure from a physical location. That may be grasping at straws.

Neil

[imported__neil]

I retract my last sentence. The argument (here) is better than I thought.

Neil

[imported__neil]

Hi all,

You could get the impression, from the above weak arguments, [img]redface.gif[/img] that I was a pre-tribulationist. I was ? but no more!

I think the position largely depends on (1), the idea of a radical distinction between Israel and the church, and (2), a faulty "any moment" understanding of the imminency of Christ's coming. I now believe the first to be an error of dispensationalism, (remedied by Rom 11:11-24; 15:27; Eph 2:11-22; 3:6) - there is a continuity in the people of God, not more than one people of God - and secondly, that imminency will pertain only after the fulfillment of certain signs (Mat 24:32-33). Disabused of these notions, the natural read of the various passages in which Christ comes is that they portray different aspects of a single post-tribulational event, in accordance with historic premillennialism. Moreover, I now see much positive Biblical support for this view, (e.g. 2 Thes 1:7). Am I wrong?

Just had to set the record straight. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Neil