I’ve been asked by one of my readers to offer a summary of the arguments I have presented in this study.[1] I didn’t intend to do so; in fact and if memory serves, I’ve never summed up my arguments at the end of a study series. That said, I shall endeavor to do so here, and I’ll use 1Thessalonians 4:13-18 as my skeletal frame to recall and place into one study the main theme I presented in this study series.
There are several keys to understanding Paul’s epistles to the Thessalonians, and the first is audience relevance. One simply cannot just believe everything Paul says in these epistles and apply them for today, just as one cannot believe Noah’s arguments for the coming of the Genesis Flood and apply them to our own day. The Flood occurred long ago in Noah’s day. While there are certain arguments concerning the Flood and Noah’s generation that would be interesting and find application in our day, we may be assured that the Flood is in the past and will not be repeated. So, too, Paul’s announcement of the Lord’s coming was for his generation. It was for “we who are alive and remain” (1Thessalonians 4:15), something which the Lord, himself, foretold (Matthew 16:27-28; 23:36; 24:34). AUDIENCE RELEVANCE: is the first key to understanding Paul’s eschatology found in both the Thessalonian epistles.
The second key to understanding 1Thessalonians 4:13-18 is that Paul was expelled from Thessalonica by the city officials. This understanding is found in Acts 17. If one doesn’t read Acts 17 with a view to understanding what Paul wrote in both his epistles to Thessalonica, then one simply doesn’t desire to understand the truth of what Paul wrote. Rather, that one is simply content to believe whatever others have told him (or her) about the epistles. Both epistles to the Thessalonians were written by Paul to the most immature church in the first century AD . They didn’t even believe in a resurrection (1Thessalonians 4:14)! How so? 1Thessalonians 4:13 tells us they had no hope. The dead were dead, and that can’t be changed. The Thessalonians and probably most of the Diaspora believed the false doctrine of the Sadducees (Matthew 22:23).
Paul’s expulsion from the city kept him from properly teaching the church what they needed to know about the coming Kingdom of God. All they knew was, Jesus was the Messiah, and he was returning to establish his Kingdom, which they assumed would be a physical kingdom (cp. John 12:34). They believed Jesus would literally rule from Jerusalem, but they thought anyone who believed and died before that day would lose any reward they could have expected when that happened. The second key to understanding the epistles to the Thessalonians is: PAUL’S EXPULSION from the city left the Thessalonians untaught. They were an IMMATURE CHURCH. We need to be careful what theology we base upon Paul’s teaching to an immature church.
A third key to understanding Paul’s eschatology found in the Thessalonian epistles is that we would not receive our reward before those who had died in Christ (1Thessalonians 4:15), but neither would they receive their reward prior to those of us who are alive and remain at the coming of the Lord (cp. Hebrews 11:40). Everything was to occur at the same time, in the twinkling of an eye (1Corinthians 15:52). This tells us, if, indeed, the dead have been raised, then Christ has come, and, if Christ has come, we have our reward. This idea is represented in the gathering of the elect (1Thessalonians 4:16-17; cp. Matthew 24:31).
This is not a literal gathering. It is a covenantal gathering. In other words, as Jesus abolished the Old Covenant at his coming, he established the New Covenant at the same time. He always wanted to gather Israel together, but they refused (Matthew 23:37). Just as Jesus’ desire for Israel wasn’t a literal gathering, neither was the establishment of the New Covenant represented in a literal gathering. We were changed spiritually. What occurred in 70 AD was the destruction of the Old Covenant, and the restoration of the fellowship between man and God that was lost in Eden. Just as there is no curtain separating the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place in the Temple, so there is no longer a sword guarding the entrance into the Garden of God and keeping man out of his presence. We now have uninterrupted fellowship with our God, and that fellowship has been restored in Christ and is represented in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. That destruction is the sign that the Old Covenant has been abolished, and Jesus is in the heavens (Matthew 24:34), that is, he has returned and the elect have been gathered to him. Thus, the third key to understanding Paul’s eschatology is that the New Covenant has been established in THE GATHERING OF THE ELECT at the coming of the Lord. Has the Old Covenant been abolished, and has the New Covenant been established? If the answer is “Yes!” then the Lord has returned.
_______________________________________________________
[1] One of the readers who follow my studies is a gentleman called Dave White, and he asked me to sum up the arguments I presented in this study series. His comment can be found HERE.
Smoodock's Blog 
4 responses to “A Summation of the Arguments”
Thank you for your efforts Eddie. I had to sit through another sermon about the coming and of course a literal interpretation of the text we have been discussing.It is frustrating as I think it takes the eye off of the ball so-to-speak. It seems to me that the correct interpretation of these texts as you have enlightened us, makes us more responsible for such things as care of the planet, outreach to our fellow mankind, and a clear mandate for us in our ministry to the generation to which we are called i.e. the current one! I also have found it helpful to go back to some of your previous work on the dating of Revelation. Clearly, one must accept the post 70A.D. dating of the book in order for dispensationalism to hold any water; otherwise it falls apart.
I further appreciate the summary as we can go back and use it as a reference tool; and I understand the effort it takes to put such things together. Writing can be like birth pangs!
Greetings Dave, and thank you for your comment and interest in my studies, Lord bless you.
This is the very reason why I had to resign as a teacher for Sunday School. I was one for about 30 years. Once I accepted the 70 AD coming of the Lord, I couldn’t teach without either denying that truth or preaching the future coming of the Lord. I wasn’t a subject oriented teacher, but a book orientated one. We went through the Gospels of Luke and John, Acts, Galatians, 1Peter and parts of Genesis, all verse by verse, and each study took over a year; we didn’t use the 13-week courses. When one does that one cannot but run across the 70 AD coming of the Lord; it permeates the New Covenant text. When my pastor arrived at our church and understood I didn’t believe all things that that denomination preached (back then it was small things like whether or not one could lose one’s salvation etc.), we talked and I was permitted to continue teaching as long as I didn’t major in the minors etc. He didn’t want two different voices preaching, and I understood that. So, I promised. When I could no longer keep that promise in the integrity of my heart, I resigned in 2020. He was my pastor for about 17 of those cir. 30 years teaching. I moved away, and I left on friendly terms. In fact, I still keep in touch with several of my brethren, but we never speak of these things.
On the negative side, there are “Christian” (so-called) ministries built up entirely on the future second coming of Christ, taking funds away from what the first century Church of Christ was concerned with, namely, helping the poorer brethren, even the poor unbelievers, because there was very little distinction made between the two. Jesus had much to say about helping the weak, but he laid no responsibility upon believers for his, so-called, second coming. He didn’t need our help for that.
There will be much to say when these drones die and meet the Lord, and I’m not referring to local church pastors who are simply ignorant of the price Christianity pays in support of these people. I’m speaking of fairly famous folks who live off money that should be used to put food on the tables for the poor. I don’t often speak of this, but when I do, I offer no grace to these murdering thieves. They are enemies of the Gospel. Paul curses them, and so do I. It would be different if they would repent, but to my knowledge none ever do.
On that note, I’ll close. Thanks, Dave, for your continued interest in these studies and for taking the step out of that way of thinking. It is so encouraging when I run across brethren like you. Lord bless.
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your candor. So far I have been able to maintain my integrity by avoiding the subject; or in some cases stating that to the original audience the future event was 70A.D. and that if one desires to extrapolate that to future times that is a different discussion. When asked by a student in my class, my answer is usually “…the church’s position is… and my own position differs from that…” Then I move on.
But like you, I am struggling with this because there are so many studies that will make that not possible. Like you also, my teaching is book-based, verse by verse study. I am conflicted because my class is the only opportunity in our church for a verse by verse study; our pastor is strictly a subject-oriented preacher. But at some point I will have to resign from teaching for the reasons you outlined.
Further I had to resign from the Board (30 years) after the pastor had us publicly pledge to support the doctrines of the church, including end -time prophecy, in a Sunday morning service as part of installing new Board members.
Hi Dave, I’m sorry to see that your experience is similar to mine. There is a real trend in our churches to get away from the word of God. All folks want to do is follow a CD video program about Jerusalem or about some ‘relevant’ subject. A real Biblical study is too hard, especially without a booklet that leads the ‘student’ along a specific line of doctrine that supports the particular denominational viewpoint of the local church. More and more the trend is toward power and wealth. Perhaps, I’m being too negative and avoiding letting grace rule, so I think I’ll stop here.
Lord bless you, my friend, and thank you for your candor as well.