Robert Thomas and II Thessalonians 2
A Critique by
Charles Cooper
Dr. Robert L. Thomas’ efforts to defend pretribulational imminence may be likened to gymnastic contortions with his exegesis of II Thessalonians 2:1-3, and suggest either a deliberate attempt to deceive his readers or an ignorance of the whole counsel of the Word of God. I refuse to believe either conclusion to be true. Therefore, I am at a loss to explain why Dr. Thomas takes the positions he does when seeking to interpret what some conclude is the most difficult passage for the pretribulational position to overcome.
If Dr. Thomas lives to June 4, 2011, he will be 83 years old. In 1987, he became Professor of New Testament at The Master’s Seminary, where he presently teaches. Dr. Thomas also serves as the Executive Editor of The Master’s Seminary Journal (1990 – present). I say all this because it is important for you, the reader, to understand who this man is. He is a very respected and honorable man. Yet, given his long career and abilities, I do not understand how he could have written the article this critique will examine.
Dr. Thomas begins by saying:
Since Paul’s first epistle, the persecuted Thessalonian church had been beset [by] false teaching that [claimed] the day of the Lord had already begun and the persecutions and afflictions the church was experiencing (1:4) were the initial phase of that day, [and coincided] with the pains of a “woman with child” spoken of in the first epistle (5:3). They should not have had such an impression if Paul had taught them that Christ’s return for [His own] would be a single event, an event at the beginning of the day of the Lord.
Let’s assume that Thomas is correct that the Thessalonians were confused about whether they were experiencing the day of the Lord. If the rapture is pretribulational, a very simple solution would have been to remind the Thessalonians that they would be taken off the earth before any aspect of the Daniel’s final week begins. If the church is removed before Daniel’s final week begins, then how can the Thessalonians be confused? The very first sign that the day of the Lord has begun is not easily missed. Joel 2:31 states, “The sunlight will be turned to darkness and the moon to the color of blood, before the day of the Lord comes – that great and terrible day!” This passage proves that the day of the Lord is not imminent and that believers should have no need to be deceived regarding whether the day has begun.
The cataclysmic disturbance in nature spoken of by Joel is also spoken of in Matthew 24:29 and Revelation 6:12-13. The most spectacular event in the sky that human history will ever witness is clearly the most easily anticipated event to mark the beginning of the eschatological day of the Lord. Why worry about the events within the day of the Lord if the church is taken away before it begins? Clearly, Thomas is not correct in his conclusion about the meaning of II Thessalonians 2:1-10.
Dr. Thomas continues,
To correct this error, Paul pointed first to “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him” (2:1). “Our gathering together to Him” defines which aspect of Jesus’ coming the writer has in mind and reminds readers of the great event described in 1 Thess 4:14–17, the gathering of those in Christ to meet Him in the air en route to be with the Father in heaven. He wanted to emphasize that the day of the Lord cannot begin on earth before the saints are in heaven with the Father. Since Christ’s reappearance to take the saints to heaven had not yet occurred, the day of the Lord could not yet have begun. Therefore, the apostle exhorts them not to be shaken or troubled by the false message they had received (2:2a). The gathering together had not yet occurred; hence the day of the Lord had not yet begun.
Thomas does not correctly understand the problems the Thessalonians were having and he does not understand Paul’s answer. This will become very clear in just a few paragraphs.
Thomas adds,
Paul even specifies what the false teaching consists of. [1] It was proposing that “the day of the Lord is present” (2:2b). The rendering of the verb ἐνέστηκεν (enestēken) in 2:2b as “is present” rather than as “has come” or “will come” is very important, because that is the key to interpreting the difficult verse immediately following. [2]English versions have, for the most part, consistently mistranslated this verb. Those with erroneous renderings include the KJV, the RSV, the NASB, the NASBU, the ESV, the NTV, the ASV, the ICB, and the NKJV. Only three versions consulted render the verb correctly. Darby renders, “the day of the Lord is present,” Weymouth has, “the day of the Lord is now here,” and the NRSV gives, “the day of the Lord is already here.” Either of these captures the intensive force of the perfect tense enestēken. [3]That the perfect tense ἐνίσιημι (enistēmi) means “is present” cannot be doubted seriously in light of its usage elsewhere in the NT (Rom 8:38; 1 Cor. 3:22; 7:26; Gal 1:4; Heb 9:9) [Highlighted numbers added]….
There are three critical problems with this paragraph. We need you (the reader) to pay close attention to what Thomas says in the paragraphs highlighted by the numbers above. First, an uneducated reader is immediately mislead by Thomas’ first defense of his conclusion that “is present” is the best translation of enestēken (ἐνέστηκεν) because of the three translations that support his position. He posts the position that enestēken (ἐνέστηκεν) should be translated as “is present,” rather than “has come” or “will come” even though “has come” or “will come” is the reading in the majority of New Testament translations. Instead, he picks the three translations that favor his position as a support for his conclusion.
Most laymen do not know who Darby and Weymouth are. Neither do they know the history of the NRSV. John Nelson Darby is the father of classical pretribulational rapturism. He is clearly biased. His translation of the Bible is his personal work. Therefore, the degree of his authority as a Bible translator must be called into question. Richard Francis Weymouth’s translation of the New Testament is also the work of an individual. He attempted to translate the New Testament into the modern English of the early 1900s. Both Darby and Weymouth translated the Bible without the help of others. This is not bad or wrong in and of itself. However, the work of an individual limits the confidence readers should put in his translation, particularly, when a version like the ESV that had more than 100 of the finest and most competent scholars alive at the time the translation work was done contradicts both Darby and Weymonth.
The third translation Thomas uses to support his conclusion is the New Revised Standard Version. This version was published in 1989 by the National Council of Churches, an ecumenical Christian group. A significant number of conservatives reject this Bible. It remains popular among liberal denominations, but has been resoundingly rejected by conservative groups. We are shocked that Thomas would use it as support for his position. No conservative would use it as a basis of authority unless his position is weak from the beginning. Therefore, upon closer examination, Thomas’ first support for his conclusion is extremely weak.
Near the bottom of the paragraph above, Thomas writes, “That the perfect tense ἐνίσιημι (enistēmi) means “is present” cannot be doubted seriously in light of its usage elsewhere in the NT (Rom 8:38; 1 Cor. 3:22; 7:26; Gal 1:4; Heb 9:9).” Again, an uneducated person might conclude that Thomas lists all the occurrences of the term in the New Testament. This would be a false conclusion. Thomas’ point sounds pretty compelling, doesn’t it? But when one looks at all the places this particular usage occurs in the New Testament, it is readily seen that Thomas conveniently left out I Cor. 7:26, which seriously undermines his argument. Notice that this reference says, “I think that in view of the impending crisis it is good for a person to remain as he is (NET, italics added).” The ESV offers, “I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is (italics added).” I believe the latter to be the better translation, although in a footnote it indicates “impending” is the literal idea of the Greek text.
Scholars disagree about which translation is best. Both are real possibilities, as a check of multiple translations will verify. This explains why Thomas conveniently left out this verse. It undermines his assertion that “‘is present’ cannot be doubted seriously.” Actually, the truth is just the opposite of Thomas’ claim. We can say that Thomas’ assertion that the meaning of this Greek word is key to the understanding of verse 3 must be thrown out in light of the possible meanings of enestēken (ἐνέστηκεν). Therefore, either “to come” or “is present” is a real possibility. To understand correctly which meaning is intended, the context is critical.
Originally, we had planned to refute Thomas’ arguments paragraph by paragraph. However, it is clear that that is unnecessary. In the final paragraph of this section of Thomas’ article, he states,
[1]Assigning these criteria to 2 Thess 2:3 frees Paul from the accusation of contradicting himself. In 1 Thess 5:2 he wrote that the day of the Lord will come as a thief. If that day has precursors as 2 Thess 2:3 is often alleged to teach, it could hardly come as a thief. Thieves come without advance notice or precursors. [2]Neither does the day of the Lord have any prior signals before it arrives…Paul does not contradict that meaning in 2 Thess 2:3. He still clings to the imminence of the wrathful phase of the day of the Lord.
This final paragraph in Thomas’ article is full of contradictions. First of all, Thomas concludes that his interpretation of II Thessalonians 2:1-3 rescues the apostle Paul from contradicting himself. Yet it is clear that Thomas has rather badly missed Paul’s intended meaning. First Thessalonians 5:2ff actually says,
For you know quite well that the day of the Lord will come in the same way as a thief in the night. Now when they are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction comes on them, like labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will surely not escape. But you, brothers and sisters, are not in the darkness for the day to overtake you like a thief would. For you all are sons of the light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of the darkness. So then we must not sleep as the rest, but must stay alert and sober (NET).
It is obvious that the coming of the day of the Lord will be thieflike for unbelievers. “Sudden destruction” is the prospect for the wicked in connection with that “day”. On the other hand, Paul states that believers who are alert and sober will not expect the day of the Lord to surprise them as would a thief’s sudden appearing. Nothing that Paul wrote here is contradicted by what he wrote in II Thessalonians 2:1-3. Thomas completely misunderstands what Paul has written. Sadly, he attempts to prove a position which from the beginning was never true. This is so typical of the pretribulational position.
The second error we find in Thomas’ final paragraph concerns the statement, “Neither does the day of the Lord have any prior signals before it arrives.” In order to manifest good scholarship, an author knows he must deal with any passages which either directly or indirectly contradict his assertions. Thomas completely ignores Malachi 4:5, which states, “Look, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord arrives.” It is true that John the Baptist ministered in the spirit of Elijah, and that Israel could have responded, thereby securing the temporal blessings promised by God. However, John the Baptist was not Elijah literally, and thus there yet remains a future ministry of Elijah to the Jews before the eschatological day of the Lord begins. Malachi 4:5 is inconsistent with Thomas’s assertion.
Joel 2:31 adds that “The sunlight will be turned to darkness and the moon to the color of blood, before the day of the Lord comes – that great and terrible day!” With explicit Scriptures like Joel 2:31 and Malachi 4:5, it is extremely difficult to fathom how Thomas can assert that the Bible does not set forth signs that must occur before the eschatological day of the Lord comes. Therefore, the day of the Lord cannot be imminent in a pretribulational sense. Dr. Thomas is dead wrong.
Thomas concludes by writing, “Paul does not contradict [the] meaning [of the Scriptures above] in 2 Thess 2:3. He still clings to the imminence of the wrathful phase of the day of the Lord.” He began wrong, and so naturally his conclusion is wrong. For their definition of imminence to be correct, pretribulationalists like Thomas must distort Scripture to prove it. There are no contradictions in the writings of Paul. The only contradictions are found in the writings of those who simply will not take Paul at face value!
