2 Thess 1.5-6
ENDEIGMA THD DIKAIAS KRISEWS TOU QEOU EIS TO KATAXIWQHNAI hUMAS THS BASILEAS TOU QEOU, hUPER hHS KAI PASCETE, (6) EIPER DIKAION PARA QEWi ANTAPODOUNAI.
5 ἔνδειγμα τῆς δικαίας κρίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, εἰς τὸ καταξιωθῆναι ὑμᾶς τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ, ὑπὲρ ἧς καὶ πάσχετε, 6 εἴπερ δίκαιον παρὰ θεῷ ἀνταποδοῦναι τοῖς θλίβουσιν ὑμᾶς θλῖψιν 7 καὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς θλιβομένοις ἄνεσιν μεθ’ ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ
I am trying to connect the dots. What is the ENDEIGMA – the suffering or the steadfastness in faith and love? Is it evidence of the righteous judgement of God that they are suffering? Or has God made a good choice to count they worthy because they are so good at enduring affliction?
NRSV seems to me to stretch a little its translation, although most often with such questions I eventually come around to agree with the NRSV rendering.
Should EIS TO KATAXIWQHNAI be understood to mean “is intended to make you worthy,” as in the NRSV? Maybe it means that the steadfastness in faith through their struggles is evidence that God was right to judge them worthy.
Verse 6 EIPER – since indeed or if indeed?
I think it makes most sense for me to read “If indeed it is just according to God to repay with affliction to those who afflict, and to repay with rest to those who are afflicted, (then) this (your affliction) is evidence of God’s righteous judgement to account you worthy of the kingdom.” (The underlying given assumption is that of course it is according to God to repay in such a way.)
DIKAION PARA QEWi – the NRSV has “just of God”, but maybe it should be “just according to God, just in God’s will”?
Any help with these verses is appreciated.
Thanks,
Richard Smith
I am inclined to say that it is τῆς ὑπομονῆς καὶ πίστεως THS hUPOMONHS KAI PISTEWS though I must confess that this is not on the basis of any syntactical rationale. As a noun ἔνδειγμα cannot agree in gender with whatever is judged to be its referent — it simply is what it has always been. Although the NRSV (and the NET as well) translates with a demonstrative, it is not present in the original text. Had a demonstrative been present, it might have shed some light on the matter — then again, it might not. The result of the δικαίας κρίσεως DIKAIAS KRISEWS of God of which the referent is a sign is that they are considered worthy of the Kingdom of God. The fact that IT (the referent) is a sign of God’s righteous judgment that they be considered worthy of the Kingdom of God seems to point in the direction of considering it to be the two items mentioned previously.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Richard,
2 Thess 1.5-6
ENDEIGMA THD DIKAIAS KRISEWS TOU QEOU EIS TO KATAXIWQHNAI hUMAS THS BASILEAS TOU QEOU, hUPER hHS KAI PASCETE, (6) EIPER DIKAION PARA QEWi ANTAPODOUNAI.
5 ἔνδειγμα τῆς δικαίας κρίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, εἰς τὸ καταξιωθῆναι ὑμᾶς τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ, ὑπὲρ ἧς καὶ πάσχετε, 6 εἴπερ δίκαιον παρὰ θεῷ ἀνταποδοῦναι τοῖς θλίβουσιν ὑμᾶς θλῖψιν 7 καὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς θλιβομένοις ἄνεσιν μεθ’ ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ
Concerning KATAXIWQHNAI, I think there is a helpful parallel usage in Acts 5: 41: hOI MEN OUN EPOREUONTO CAIRONTES APO PROSWPOU TOU SUNEDRIOU hOTI KATHXIWQHSAN hUPER TOU ONOMATOS ATIMASQHNAI “So they went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name.” Here it seems that the disciples suffered BECAUSE God considered them worthy to do so. So it would seem in the case of 2 Thessalonians that the SUFFERING is the ENDEIGMA of God’s righteous decision to consider them worthy of the kingdom.
Doug Knighton
I am inclined to say that it is τῆς ὑπομονῆς καὶ πίστεως THS hUPOMONHS KAI PISTEWS though I must confess that this is not on the basis of any syntactical rationale. As a noun ἔνδειγμα cannot agree in gender with whatever is judged to be its referent — it simply is what it has always been. Although the NRSV (and the NET as well) translates with a demonstrative, it is not present in the original text. Had a demonstrative been present, it might have shed some light on the matter — then again, it might not. The result of the δικαίας κρίσεως DIKAIAS KRISEWS of God of which the referent is a sign is that they are considered worthy of the Kingdom of God. The fact that IT (the referent) is a sign of God’s righteous judgment that they be considered worthy of the Kingdom of God seems to point in the direction of considering it to be the two items mentioned previously.
george gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth, defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
Richard,
2 Thess 1.5-6
ENDEIGMA THD DIKAIAS KRISEWS TOU QEOU EIS TO KATAXIWQHNAI hUMAS THS BASILEAS TOU QEOU, hUPER hHS KAI PASCETE, (6) EIPER DIKAION PARA QEWi ANTAPODOUNAI.
5 ἔνδειγμα τῆς δικαίας κρίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, εἰς τὸ καταξιωθῆναι ὑμᾶς τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ, ὑπὲρ ἧς καὶ πάσχετε, 6 εἴπερ δίκαιον παρὰ θεῷ ἀνταποδοῦναι τοῖς θλίβουσιν ὑμᾶς θλῖψιν 7 καὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς θλιβομένοις ἄνεσιν μεθ’ ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ
Concerning KATAXIWQHNAI, I think there is a helpful parallel usage in Acts 5: 41: hOI MEN OUN EPOREUONTO CAIRONTES APO PROSWPOU TOU SUNEDRIOU hOTI KATHXIWQHSAN hUPER TOU ONOMATOS ATIMASQHNAI “So they went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name.” Here it seems that the disciples suffered BECAUSE God considered them worthy to do so. So it would seem in the case of 2 Thessalonians that the SUFFERING is the ENDEIGMA of God’s righteous decision to consider them worthy of the kingdom.
Doug Knighton
I like this, i wish could perfectly read and be able to translate myself the greek Testament .
I like this, i wish could perfectly read and be able to translate myself the greek Testament .
Link Hudson lets start with this verse in 2 Thes 1; how does it prove your anti-rapture hypothesis in any shape form and way?
Unless there is a reason the Greek of the passage sheds light on the passage, why do we not discuss in English so the bulk of the forum can understand. I do not see how this particular verse is really the issue, do you?
This is quoted from another post:
There is also this verse:
II Thessalonians 2:1
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
First, doesn’t it make sense that the ‘coming’ of Jesus is the same thing as the ‘revealing’ of Jesus spoken of in the same passage in chapter 1?
If pre-trib teaches on second coming of Christ, then how do you explain this verse? Why is ‘our gathering together unto him’ mentioned AFTER the coming of Christ instead of before it.
II Thessalonians 2:1 makes sense if the coming of Christ occurs before or at the same time as our being gathered unto Him.
If pre-trib were true, why doesn’t Paul say, “Now we beseech you, brethren, by our gathering together unto the Lord Jesus, and His coming seven years later…”?
Paul teaches the resurrection of the saints occurs at the coming of Christ.
I Corinthians 15:
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
The dead in Christ rise first, immediately before the rapture. Paul calls the return of Christ when the dead are raised Christ’s ‘coming.’ So that is the Second Coming of Christ, right? What does pre-trib have Jesus coming back again. Where is the scripture to justify a belief in a Third Coming of Christ?
Shouldn’t we use these straightforward scriptures to interpret the allegorical passages liek the apoctalyptic literature of Revelation, rather than try to wrap the metaphors around a pre-concieved pre-trib theory? Is there any scripture that actually teaches pre-trib. I know there are passage that can be interpretted through the pre-trib rubric. But where does the Bible actually teach pre-trib?
We are discussing it in ENGLISH as far as I can see Where we reference the original text, however, we use the help of the original Greek It’s a theological thing Scholars have done it for centuries
You however like to jump and cherry pick Instead of answering the question WHICH verse of 2 Thes 1 you are now off to 1 Cor 15; where I already showed from the Greek text that your theory is unsubstantial To put it simply in the English Bible there is an absolute difference between resurrection and transformation of the body. It is not a new thing or an 1800s thing – we see it all through the OT since Enoch. Paul is writing the Thessalonians namely because much many in this thread they believed things about the last days that Jesus never promised to the Church http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/pentecostal-theology-definete-proof-of-the-pre-trib-rapture/
Troy Day In another thread, I laid out my argument. For now, look at these verses from chapter 1.
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
Do you believe this refers to the rapture or the second coming?
If the rapture, why does Jesus execute vengence at this time instead of letting the people experience some time of peace during the beast’s peace treaty with Israel according to the pre-trib theory?
If the second coming, why is the church (see v. 4) still here on earth at the second coming if pre-trib is true?
Please answer the questions and explain how this passage is possible under a pre-trib scenario.
dont know which of the many threads you started bu this verse 1:5 specifically does not help your claim one little bit
Troy Day does not gurt it in the least either.
I still dont see what you are saying in 1:5 Your whole argument about 2 Thes 1 seems very very weak now
Troy Day, Are you talking about this verse?
5 This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering— (ESV)
Are did you put the wrong number down. How does that verse argue for a particular eschatology?
verse of OP 1 Thes 1:5 – does not help your case like you claim it does in 2Thes 1 in any way shape or form
You could say this verse John 11:35, ‘Jesus wept’ does not help my case, but it does not hurt it either.
How does either of the verses you mentioned support pre-trib any more than post-trib?
1 Thessalonians 1:5
5 For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake.
2 Thessalonians 1:5
5 which is manifest evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer;
This verse does NOT in any way help your teoretix. Again, one must know first your eschatological plan in order to figure out what are you trying to say
Troy Day How is II Thes. 1:5 a pre-trib verse?
are you saying now 2 Thes 1:5 is a pre-trib verse?
Troy Day you are just being obtuse. How does that verse contribute to our understanding of the timing of the rapture.
Is there scripture to justify Jesus coming back more tgan once after the ascension. The idea goes against the plain sense of the text, eg II Thes 2.
Pretribbers read the idea into various passages to interpret them thru a pretrib grid. But where is the Biblical justification for Jesus returning only partway?
How does that fit with II Thes 1 where Jesus executes wrath on them that know not God when He comes and gives the suffering church rest?
now you are making things up again – obtuse?
Troy Day Just show scripture that___teaches pretrib___. Not one where you can eisegete pretrib into the passage.
I showed scripture in the OP As a matter of fact I also showed it in the original Greek, but instead of discussing it you started beating around the bush Here it is again if you missed it http://probible.net/2-thessalonians-15/
Could you explain how this verse is televant to the case for pretrib? I cannot read your min. Might as well refer me to John 11:35.
I presented several verses from 1 Thes 1-2 which you claimed to mean a certain pos-Trib theory. I presented all these verses to show that your thesis is wrong and namely that 1 Thes 1-2 does NOT backup your claim that you originally posted certainly do not back up post-Trib
The case of pre-Trib is made by Paul as early as 1 Thes and sets the case for both Thes epistles I already answered your question that you just asked again like I have not answered it 5 times already I answered via 2 Thes 2:2 and you have yet to present a single argument against what I sad #noughSaid
Troy Day Posting verses that do not lay out a case for pre-trib does not prove pre-trib.
Which verse(s) in I Thessalonians in the passage indicates a pre-trib rapture? The passage is about the ___coming__ of the Lord.
You believe the coming of the Lord is at the end of the tribulation, don’t you?
II Thessalonians tells us of the man of sin being destroyed by the brightness of Christ’s coming.
In Matthew 24, the sign of the coming of the Son of Man and the gathering together of the elect happen AFTER the tribulation. You can see this clearly written in the passage, right? It is there. Can you see and percieve it?
my point to your logic exactly
You posted 2 thes 1
I asked which verses
You said all of them
I showed 2 thes 1:5 does NOT prove your point
You saw it does not and started asking how it proves pre-Trib
No one ever said it did #strawman
I then showed many more verses in 2 thes 1 that have nothing to do with your pos-tramatic theory
Logical conclusion – 2 Thes 1-2 does NOT prove your thesis
Case closed
Rico Hero no question 2 Thes speask of the PRE-Trib rapture taking place the Greek noun, apostasia, is used only twice in the New Testament. 2 THESSALONIANS 2:3 and in Acts 21:21 where it states that an accusation was made against Paul that he was “teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake [apostasia] Moses.”
The word is used in verb form a total of 15 times in the New Testament, and only three of these have anything to do with a departure from the faith (Luke 8:13, 1 Timothy 4:1, andHebrews 3:12). In other settings, the word is used for departing from inquity (2 Timothy 2:19), departing from ungodly men (1 Timothy 6:5), departing from the temple (Luke 2:27), departing from the body (2 Corinthians 12:8), and departing from persons (Acts 12:10 andLuke 4:13).
This insight about the use and meaning of the word was certainly compelling, but the argument most convicting comes the first seven English translations of the Bible rendered the noun, apostasia, as either “departure” or “departing.” They were as follows:
1. The Wycliffe Bible (1384)
2. The Tyndale Bible (1526)
3. The Coverdale Bible (1535)
4. The Cranmer Bible (1539)
5. The Great Bible (1540)
6. The Beeches Bible (1576)
7. The Geneva Bible (1608)
The Bible used by the Western world from 400 AD to the 1500s — Jerome’s Latin translation known as “The Vulgate” — rendered apostasia with the Latin word, discessio, which means “departure.”
The first translation of the word to mean apostasy in an English Bible did not occur until 1611 when the King James Version was issued. So, why did the King James translators introduce a completely new rendering of the word as “falling away”? The best guess is that they were taking a stab at the false teachings of Catholicism.
Also quite important for us is the fact that Paul used a definite article with the word apostasia. Since the Greek language does not need an article to make the noun definite, it becomes clear that with the usage of the article, reference is being made to something in particular. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 the word apostasia is prefaced by the definite article which means that Paul is pointing to
a particular type of departure clearly known to the Thessalonian church.
In light of this grammatical point, it is observed that the use of the definite article would support the notion that Paul spoke of a clear, discernable notion. And that notion he had already identified in verse 1 when he stated that he was writing about “our gathering together to Him [Jesus].
This interpretation also corresponds to the point that Paul makes in verses 6 and 7 where he states that the man of lawlessness will not come until what “restrains” him “is taken out of the way.”
Troy Day i addresssed this on another thread.
A plain sense interpretation is that tge rapture (gathering to Christ) cannot occur until the departure takes place.
There is no pretrib rapture described in Revelation. Preyribbers just assume it happened. The scene with Jesus on the white horse isvlate in the book of Revelation, chapter 19. After that, the first resurrection occurs. Paul ties rapture and resurrection events together.
He puts the resurrection of the saints at Christ’s coming. He says the man of sin will be destroyed by the brightness of Christ’s coming.
There is no reason to make the coming of Christ refer to the whole tribulation period unless you assume pretrib. There is no reason to redefine the apostasia as the rapture unless you assume pretrib. But where is tgere wven one passsage tgat teaches pretrib?
What else would the gathering of II Thes
2:1 refer to besides tge rapture? In Matthew 24 the sign of the coming of the Son of Man and the gathering of the elect occur ‘after the tribulation of those days’.
Pretribbers argue for pretrib based on ‘not appointed unto wrath’ as if being here through tough times means God is angry at us or is pouring wrath on us. (What a cushy, comfortable American way of imterpreting the Bible) Is God angry with the tribulational saints in Revelation? Is their being here proof they are appointed unto wrath?
Pretrib argues weak arguments like that buthave no chronology that puts the rapture where they want it in scripture but these passages point in another direction.
Pretrib is popular because people do not ___want___ to live through a time of great tribulation.
Yes
1. The Wycliffe Bible (1384)
2. The Tyndale Bible (1526)
3. The Coverdale Bible (1535)
4. The Cranmer Bible (1539)
5. The Great Bible (1540)
6. The Beeches Bible (1576)
7. The Geneva Bible (1608)
all give us their plain sense of interpretation
Are we smarter than
1. The Wycliffe Bible (1384)
2. The Tyndale Bible (1526)
3. The Coverdale Bible (1535)
4. The Cranmer Bible (1539)
5. The Great Bible (1540)
6. The Beeches Bible (1576)
7. The Geneva Bible (1608)
??? I dont think so
Troy Day ‘Departing’ could work in the translation. It does not change what the passage means.
But it is a silly argument, since how a first century passage was translated 1300 or more years later does not change what the first century passage meant. And if that is the strongest argument, it is weak indeed.
The departing away – there is only 1 departing of the church So long
Troy Day Paul mentions a departing from the faith elsewhere. The gathering of the church happens after ‘the departing.’
Paul does not say ‘departing of the church’. You add that idea in there.
Do you see that you are grasping at straws to come up with a pre-trib argument? Can you show pre-trib in Revelation? How come the first resurrection occurs after the second coming passage.
Paul mentions a departing from faith elsewhere
while here Paul speaks of THE departing away 🙂
Do you make a difference?
Troy Day verb v noun right? The other noun is a reference to apostasy from Judaism right?
The definite article fits well with the traditional understanding of apostasy.
Why would Paul say the rapture (gathering) cannot take place until the rapture takes place? Makes no sense. Why reference the rapture in verse 1 if the ealture is not at the day of Christ.
The lect are gathered AFTER the tribulation in Matthew 24. Can you show us a passage that places the raptue before the tribulation elsewhere in scripture to justify retranslating II Thes. 2?
I certainly believe pretrib can be eisegeted into passages. Is there any passage you can show that teach it. How fo you deal with passages that teach against it like Matthew 24?
the elect in Mt 24 clearly refers to Israel – the very subject of those chapters but I would not so easily discard the Greek here as you did The departing away as referring to the True Church cannot mean apostasy
Troy Day the issue is not disregarding the Greek. The issue is pretribbers redefining the term contrary to context.
A straightforward reading of the text is that the day of Christ us when the coming of Christ’s and our gathering unto Him occurs on the day of Christ, and that this cannot occur before the apostasia.
In chapter 1, we see thatbat Jesus’ return to be glorified in the saints the church recieves rest and He executes judgement on them that know not God. That us a priblem for preteib which has the ungodly having a peace treaty after the raptue and no church here at the second coming for Jesus to return for.
The Gentile believers are fellow heirs with Israeli saints and will bbe raptured also.
There is also Matthew 24:36– that no man knows the day or hour of the second coming. If it is 7 years after the rapture, then they can know the day.
you are redefining the Greek based on your “theology”
Troy Day no I am pretty sure the Greek has been interpreted to refer to tge apostacy consistantly until the 19th or 20th century. I would strongly suspect that interpreters who read thebword ‘departing’ interpreted that way.
You nearly gave to have someone teach you pretrib first and indoctrinating you in it before you have a reason to start interpreting texts around it since the pretrib rapture does not show up in the eschataligical passages. If the ‘departi g’ has to happen before the rapture then it is not the rapture.
Can you find evidence that anyone interpreted the English or Greek of apistasia or depparting (or Old or Middle English equivilent) to mean the rapture?
not according to
1. The Wycliffe Bible (1384)
2. The Tyndale Bible (1526)
3. The Coverdale Bible (1535)
4. The Cranmer Bible (1539)
5. The Great Bible (1540)
6. The Beeches Bible (1576)
7. The Geneva Bible (1608)
Troy Day you assume anyone before the pretrib movement would interpret ‘departing’ to refer to a rapture in a passage that teaches the rapture cannot occur until the departing takes place. Any evidence?
if by pre-trib you mean OT – obviously not Enoch and Elijah were raptured well before your Tribulation
http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/the-ancient-church-fathers-believed-in-pre-trib-rapture/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UsNpZJId-U
Rico Hero Gary Micheal Epping do you feel this verse helps in any way the pos-Trib rapture theoretix of Link Hudson?