According to some non-pretribulationists, Paul’s Thessalonians Epistles are a Pretribulation Nightmare.
Some time around 2007 when I first began studying the different rapture timing theories, I came across a website promoting a non-pretrib view. It listed a number of problems for pretribulationism. One of these stated that:
Pre-Tribulation Theory has no clear Biblical basis of support, but in distinct contrast it does have problem passages which are ignored instead of explained, such as II Thess 2:1-8.
In contradiction to that criticism, a proponent of the same view produced an eight minute video asserting that 2 Thess 2 is a nightmare for pretribulationists. Chris White claims he’s “heard many pretrib sermons and read many commentaries,” and “almost none of them are the same.”
So we might ask: do pretribbers ignore the texts or do they scramble for explanations? How can an eight minute video possibly debunk one view of a set of heavily debated Thessalonians verses? Are these critics really being objective?
An entire two minutes of the video is devoted to addressing what White acknowledges to be a minority pretrib view of the apostasia (2 Thess 2:3). He cites pretribulationist Paul Feinberg who disagrees with it, but fails to interact with Feinberg’s arguments for pretribulationism in 2 Thess 2. This leaves White with a balance of six minutes to show why pretribulationism has a problem with these verses. He claims Paul tells the Thessalonians that they can’t have missed the rapture because two events must occur first – the apostasy and the revelation of the Antichrist at the Abomination of Desolation. Yet Paul is specifically addressing the Day of the Lord in v 3, not the rapture. The Thessalonians thought they were in the Day of the Lord because of the persecution they were experiencing.
As John MacArthur notes:
…look carefully at the context of 2 Thessalonians 2. The Thessalonian Christians had been confused and upset by some false teachers (possibly people pretending to speak for the apostle) who were teaching that the persecutions and sufferings they were currently experiencing were the very judgments associated with the day of the Lord…so when Paul says, “that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition” (2 Thess 2:3) – he is talking about the day of the Lord and its apocalyptic judgment, not the rapture.
White presumes the rapture and the Day of the Lord are “logically inseparable.” Prewrathers tie Matt 24:31 in with 2 Thess 2:1-2 as a synergistic event. The video asserts Paul is referring to Matthew’s Olivet Discourse in detail. Thus Matt 24:31 is the rapture which he connects to 2 Thess 2:1-2 as a back to back event. Note that in Antichrist Before the Day of the Lord, Alan Kurschner has an interlude between the 6th and 7th seals in which the rapture occurs. He shows the 7th seal as pronouncing God’s Day of the Lord wrath. One event is a gathering and another is God’s wrath – they are not the same.
White says:
He [Paul] says that neither the falling away nor the Antichrist revealing himself in the temple had happened and so, therefore, the Rapture could not have happened yet either. Paul is essentially reminding them of the Bible study he gave them of the Olivet Discourse – or Matthew 24. He’s about to remind them what events need to happen before the gathering together. This exact same phrase in English (gathering together) and Greek (episunago) are used by Jesus in Matthew 24 to refer to the rapture….
In a previous article we showed why episunago isn’t a rapture term and why the gathering of Matt 24:31 is the final gathering of Israel. We also pointed out that Van Kampen (as does Charles Cooper) cites a separate coming of Christ to gather Israel and then returns to heaven. One might refer to it as a “secret coming” because Scripture is silent about it. One wonders if White or his viewers are aware of this.
While prewrath proponents claim Paul directly references Matt 24:31 in 2 Thess 2:1, they don’t allow that his reference to birth pangs (1 Thess 5:2-3) is equal to Christ’s (Matt 24:8). Paul associates birth pangs as within the Day of the Lord, not preceding it. Prewrath teaches that the birth pangs precede the DotL. This is an important point when comparing Paul’s statement and interpreting 2 Thess 2.
Robert L. Thomas (Imminence) states that the grammatical construct of 2 Thess 2:3 allows for two possibilities:
It can mean that the coming of the apostasy and the revelation of the man of lawlessness precede the day of the Lord, or it can mean that the coming of the apostasy precedes the revelation of the man of lawlessness, both being within the day of the Lord.
Thomas opts for the latter, and offers other NT examples as support. He compares the imminence of 1 Thess 5:2-3 to the contradiction that the Day of the Lord allegedly has precursors in 2 Thess 2. He concludes that the second option must be correct. In other words, Paul tells the Thessalonians that the DotL cannot be present because they don’t see the apostasy or the Man of sin, which are components of that period.
Eric Douma discusses this concept in more detail while discussing imminence HERE. Listen to the audio and follow with the PDF notes.
Some will appeal to Joel 2:31. Yet there are issues in always restricting the DotL to a narrow period. Paul’s example was noted above. Another is Isaiah 2 where the context is a DotL (v 12) containing an event (vv 19 & 21) which parallels Rev 6:15. White’s view has that event preceding the DotL. If there is a unique period called an unparalleled, worst time in history (Jer 30:7; Dan 12:1; Joel 2:2; Matt 24:21) then this must include the DotL. Some protest that the unparalleled nature of Joel 2:2 refers to the armies only. But that would imply that the DotL (Joel 2:1) isn’t unparalleled. The same Hebrew word (tsarah) is used for trouble in Zeph 1:14-15 and Dan 12:1, which suggests that God’s wrath is coincident with tribulation (Rom 2:8-9). Ezekiel chap. 7 has a day of the Lord’s wrath involving sword, famine and pestilence, evoking elements of the 4th seal.
White’s view also has the bowl judgments occurring post 70th week, yet the Antichrist’s kingdom still exists at the 5th bowl (Rev 16:10). Since the prewrath view agrees that the bowl judgments are God’s wrath, this then suggests that the DotL, at the very least, coincides with the 42 month reign of the Beast.
Another issue is the idea that the Antichrist is revealed at 2 Thess 2:4 when Michael allegedly ceases his restraint. F. F. Bruce, Robert L. Thomas and Gordon Fee suggest that the timing of the revelation of the Antichrist and The Apostasy (rebellion) are coincident. It is the cessation of the restraint of lawlessness which gives rise to the Man of Lawlessness. The revelation of the Man of Sin at the midpoint of the 70th week is not required of v 4. It is an appositional phrase describing what he does.
Even if the Restrainer were to be identified as Michael, it is doubtful his restraint ceases at that point. It doesn’t make sense to say that “Michael will stand up (stop defending your people); the angel who defends your people” when the context of the verse is that they will be saved through that tribulation (Dan 12:1; Rev 12:7-8). Michael fights until Israel’s redemption. See Eric Douma’s discussion HERE
A further problem for White is 2 Thess 2:8, where the Man of sin is destroyed at Christ’s premil appearing (Isaiah 11:4). It’s clear from Revelation 19 when this occurs but prewrath teaches a coming of Christ before the end of the 70th week. So it is proposed that the Antichrist is only handcuffed at v 8. This is challenged by the fact that he musters the world’s armies for Armageddon. The persecution of the saints likely continues until then (Rev 13:5, 7). See also Dan 11:36.
Sometimes proponents argue that Christ’s coming is a “single event” which occurs over an undisclosed period of time. Therefore the Antichrist is slain at v 8 but it occurs over that period. This makes about as much sense as the excuse that, since Christ’s coming occurs over this same period, the multiple comings (to the earth and back to heaven etc) are actually One Parousia Coming.
Note: Amillennialists, posttribulationists and some prewrathers assert that 2 Thess 1:6-16 poses problems for pretribulationism. Because the prewrath view teaches a coming of Christ for the church before the end of the 70th week – followed by final premillennial coming – they’re faced with the same issue as pretribulationism. Mike Stallard has addressed the issues from a pretrib perspective HERE.
To my mind Richard Mayhue gives us the simplest explanation:
Paul is not writing a detailed, chronological, or even precise prophetic treatise here, but rather is wanting to give the Thessalonians hope that, in the end, God’s righteousness would prevail. Like Old Testament prophets (cf. Is. 61:1-2; 2 Pet 1:10-11), Paul has compressed the details so that the range of time is not apparent, nor are all the details. ~ Christ’s Prophetic Plans (p 101)
In conclusion, there is a lot of debate regarding Paul’s Thessalonians epistles, even among non-pretribulationists. Given that, and the points presented above, one needs to go much further than a simplistic eight minute video to imply that these materials pose any problems for pretribulationists.
Further reading:
The Day Of The Lord And Certain So-Called “Precursors”
Sharing is caring!
