>Paul S. Dixon Fri, Nov 14, 1997 11:52 AM responds:
>>If we take ENESTHKEN hH hMERA TOU KURIOU as "the day of the Lord has
>>come," then it would seem the Thessalonians thought they had missed the
>>Lord's return. If that suggests they thought they were then in the
>>tribulation period, then they were wrong, as Paul goes on to explain.
>>
>>Before the day of the Lord comes the apostasy must come first and the
man
>>of lawlessness be revealed (2:3-4). These are both tribulational
events.
>>Since these had not transpired, then neither could the day of the Lord
>>have arrived, or be "at hand." Furthermore, if they had thought the
>>order of events was as you say, then they were wrong on that count, as
>>well.
>On what basis do you equate the day of the Lord with the day of His
>appearing? Without using the 'w' word about a brother where the
>doctrine at issue is not a cardinal one, I don't find that this text
>necessitates a mid- or post- tribulation rapture. A post- or a-
>millenialist would note that
>this text doesn't even mention a rapture. The comment following
>'Furthermore' is not support by the immediate context, but draws
>heavily upon dubious inferences from other eschatological passages.
If you reread what I said above, you will fail to find any mention of the
terms you allege. You ask, "On what basis do you equate the day of the
Lord with the day of His appearing?" I do so on the basis of v. 1, hUPER
THS PAROUSIAS TOU KURIOU hHMWN IHSOU CRISTOU KAI hHMWN EPISUNAGWGHS EP'
AUTON. From the way Paul argues in the following verses it would seem
Paul sees no difference in the time between: 1) the coming or arrival of
the day of the Lord, and 2) our gathering together unto Him. Indeed, his
argument would seem to evaporate or make no sense, if there were some
unspecified amount of time between the two. Rather, the clause, hWS
hOTI ENESTHKEN hH hHMERA TOU KURIOU, makes good sense only if the
arrival of the day includes the gathering together of the saints.
No, I have drawn from Mt 24:15 ff only to illustrate that this
interpretation of 2 Thess 2 is totally consistent with and is perhaps
even based upon the teaching of Christ as found in Matthew's account.
Can the parallel be denied?
By the way, what do you mean by the "w" word? That's a new one to me.
Does it mean "weird?" Also, if you wish to pursue this further, I'd be
happy to do so, but let's do it privately (and be thoughtful of others).
Paul Dixon