In my previous study I compared 2Thessalonians 1:6-10 with 1Thessalonians 4:13 to 5:11, showing that both texts refer to the coming of Christ in judgment of Jerusalem in 70 AD. In doing so, I noted at least five parallels showing both passages concerned: (1) the coming of the Lord, (2) with his angels, (3) judging evildoers and rewarding the saints, (4) persecution, and (5) the same timeframe, which was during the first century AD. If these things are logical and true from a literary perspective, that is, there is nothing in the texts themselves that show Paul has a different coming (i.e. return of Christ) in mind, then it would be the task of the critic to either show how my conclusions are theologically wrong or that there is more than one return of Christ: one in 70 AD and the other sometime in the future at the end of time and human history (which, by the way, the Bible never mentions).
In this study I will consider the eschatology of Jesus’ coming in 2Thessalonians 2:1-12. Is it a different coming than what we’ve already considered, or does Paul mention anything here that would change our understanding and conclusions, which we’ve already drawn from the texts we’ve studied thus far?
Keeping in mind that Paul had prematurely left Thessalonica, because he had been expelled by the city governors, under accusations made by the local Jewish authorities that Paul was stirring up trouble in the city against Caesar, consider with me what Paul writes in this epistle:
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.(2 Thessalonians 2:1-2)
Notice that the Thessalonian believers were “shaken in mind” and “troubled” and this concerned the coming of the Lord Jesus. Now, consider the similarity this text has with what Paul said in his first epistle to the Thessalonians:
But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.(1 Thessalonians 4:13)
Notice that the Thessalonian believers were troubled over their brethren who had fallen asleep (i.e. died), and this pertained to the coming of the Lord (cp. 1Thessalonians 4:15). According to 2Thessalonians this confusion was due to enemies writing letters to the believing community in the name of Paul, which called the resurrection into doubt, or they did so through personal confrontation over what the disciples believed or both (2Thessalonians 2:2). So, the coming of the Lord in chapter two in what we call Paul’s second letter seems to dovetail with the coming of the Lord in 1Thessalonians 4:1, which, as I concluded in my previous study, occurred in 70 AD. I noted five parallels within the texts that specifically deal with the judgment of Jerusalem in 70 AD. So, unless the critic can prove otherwise, the coming of the Lord in 1Thessalonians 4:1 is the same as that in 2Thessalonians 2:1, and both point to Jesus’ return in the first century AD to judge Jerusalem and bring the Old Covenant to an abrupt end.
Finally, consider the word that Paul uses for the coming of the Lord. The Greek word is parousia (G3952), and it is the same word used by the Apostles in Matthew 24:3. Paul uses this word for the coming of the Lord, Jesus, at 1Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2Thessalonians 2:1, 8, 9. In all seven mentions not one makes the point of it being different from any of the other texts. Paul is consistent in his language and his subject matter. Why, then, would anyone believe there is more than one coming of the Lord (70 AD and the end of human history). If the text doesn’t overtly say there are two returns of Christ, why would anyone say there is? Moreover, in doing so, how would this be different from Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees in Mark 7:9-13?
Smoodock's Blog 