1. INTRODUCTION
Yes, there are apparent contradictions in the Bible. A number of them! (I said apparent, not actual!)
Ever tried to reconcile Divine Sovereignty with human free will? Justice with mercy? A Divine yet human Saviour? Ever struggled with the place of grace vs works in salvation?
And then there is eschatology, the study of the things that shall come in the last times. Are you pre- post- or a-millennial? Will Jesus come 2 more times, or just once? Do we have to go through the coming Tribulation?
I have written of these things before. In fact, this work is closely aligned with my study on the placement of the rapture, a work I entitled, "Caught Up, But When?" I make the same point in this book from a different angle.
Are you looking for Christ? Or are you daily searching the news to see if antichrist is near? Perhaps you are one who sees antichrist in the Papal system known as Romanism, or Catholicism?
Those are usually the options given when those opposed to the message of this book confront it. You are either a Pope-hater, or a conspiracy-monger, or perfect in every way: looking daily for the return of Jesus Christ.
Never hesitant to burst a bubble, especially in not-so-old theology, I quickly jab that fantasy with a fact. This fact is as conclusive to the question of who comes first as Matthew 24 is to the study of the rapture. Once the fact is stated, all theology must be built around it... even the tough verses.
That's what I propose to do in the following pages: Present the incontrovertible fact, given by an inspired apostle, and proceed from there to answer the issues that other verses only seem to suggest.
2. THE FACT
Thank God for the church in ancient Thessalonica. Oh, it was a cruel trick someone played on them, to be sure. But through Paul, they got it all straightened out, and in the process, Paul put down a series of thoughts that forever settled the order of events of the last days.
Fact is, most of the New Testament was written to correct first-century errors. In the wisdom of God, the early church suffered just enough problems to give us, through apostolic corrections, a perfect handbook for living the Christian life and building the Christian church.
What was the error, the trick?
Well, someone, or some group of teachers or prophets, was circulating the notion that the day of the Lord had already come. "You've been left behind," was the sad implication of the heresy. The rapture has come, the true saints are in Heaven, and you second-class guys better get it together before the world ends for real.
Sound familiar?
There is a group among us today selling the idea - quite successfully - that the top-notch believers will be caught up first, followed, seven years later, by the "tribulation saints" who finally woke up, put their lives together, and made it to the final catching up. (Yep, that's two raptures...)
Don't believe it? Go see the movie. Surely the movie would not try to deceive...
The history I just related is from II Thessalonians 2, verse 2. Check it out before we move on. Don't want you thinking I'm making stuff up, too. This really happened. There was a liar spreading his theories among the Thessalonians and probably others. And these poor believers, new in the faith, wanting to believe anything that seemed to come from God, bit.
Also sound familiar? Sound like all the prophecy theories and "words" from "prophets" circulating among us, some even backing up their words with a supposed [in many cases] visit to Heaven or Hell?
I say "in many cases" because I do not want to come against anything genuine. But write it down: if the teaching doesn't agree with what the Spirit has already given, it is anathema and must be shunned and ignored and rebuked.
These evil men, and we will call them men for now, though we don't want to leave out the women when it comes to spreading false doctrine. It can come through a child. These evil men, I say, took one more step, showing their corrupt nature: they signed Paul's name to their letters.
Today, sometimes, it is even worse. How many people are saying "The Lord told me..." when the Lord didn't tell them? Better to say, "I had this thought come to me while I was praying. Do you think it is the Lord?" Better that, than to bind your audience to make a decision about you immediately. Either you are very false or very true, when you say "The Lord told me." If I have to make a decision right now, well...
So why did Paul bring up the subject of these particular false teachers? Well, he had brought up the subject, "The coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him," in verse 1.
Interesting way to put it, don't you think? The coming first, the gathering second. Usually the "gathering" is how we refer to the rapture. The teachers of our day want the (secret) rapture to be first, and the second "coming" later. Doesn't work here.
That's because the coming and the rapture are all the same event. He comes from Heaven, He gathers us to Himself. And that is what II Thessalonians 2 is about. The one event of His coming and His "catching away." One.
But Paul goes on to say that they were shaken about this whole subject. The aforementioned letters, plus some goings-on in church had bothered them. Yes, Paul mentions a "spirit" that had spoken in the assembly. You know, "Thus saith the Lord, the rapture is past. Repent before it is too late!"
Now what do you do? You've got this letter signed by the holiest man you ever met, and yet another holy man or woman stands up in church and confirms the awful truth: the good Christians are already in Heaven!
I'll tell you what you do! You panic. You tremble. You stay awake nights.
You saw Paul's miracles. You know he speaks the truth. And the letter is undeniably his.
Well, until Paul denies it, it is. And he emphatically denies it!
Verse 3 contains the fact. For the Thessalonians, a comforting fact. For Christians today, trying at any cost to escape the idea of an inescapable period of horror on Earth, not so comforting, maybe...
The fact is clouded a bit by Paul's style, or the Greek language, or both. In English there are actually some words missing. But nearly every translation of the Bible supplies those words because of the construction of the Greek grammar. There's another clue in the verse that even sweeps away the need for such an explanation.
Here are the words Paul uses, after a clear command (that oh! I wish God's people could hear), "Don't be deceived!" Not by anyone, not in any way!
The fact:
"That Day will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction..."
Those first few words are not in the Greek, and thus are italicized. The day of His coming has been the subject all along, and so that day is the subject here. Thus did the translators allow for the English to read in this obvious manner.
But the word "first" is all we need to see here. Want to know what's coming in the end times?
First, says Paul, apostasy, a great falling away. That is the opposite of revival, by the way. Now, revival can come whenever God's people pray and desire it, but the general feeling of the church that worldwide revival will usher in the end of all things is foreign to Scripture.
Second, the man of lawlessness. Man of sin. Antichrist.
Then comes the day of the Lord's return, and not until.
That is cold, hard, fact. Let no one tamper with it. It is the "Rosetta Stone" of this whole hieroglyphic-like quest into the subject of who comes first. On this fact we can build all other facts, and we must.
By the way, here was an opportunity for Paul to discuss the order that we hear so often today, about a secret coming, first, then the apostasy, antichrist, and second coming. But it's not there. The Scripture is silent. Let God's teachers and people be likewise silent in the face of this clarity.
But why is this all so important, anyway?
3. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FACT
I can think of several ways to explain the importance of knowing who comes first.
A. The integrity of God's Word.
Either we can depend on apostolic statements or we cannot. While everyone grants up front that some statements of these men are clouded and difficult, we know that many others are not.
This is one of the unclouded ones: The coming of Christ will not come until a general falling away that sets the stage for the semi-final world ruler, the antichrist.
It's in there. Let's just believe it.
B. The Thessalonian Syndrome.
In a word, that syndrome is panic. Many Christians will be entering blindly into the antichrist era, and finally realize several months or years in, that Jesus has not come. What if there are false teachers then as in Paul's day who explain to you what was explained to them: You didn't make it! Jesus already came. You missed the big event of all times. Next time He'll come in judgment!
What if that is you? Won't you be asking a lot of questions in fear and anxiety, and won't it be comforting to know that it was not true at all, that Jesus never promised a "secret" coming? The book of II Thessalonians will be a treasure to you then!
C. The restricted pastor
Pastors are being told by their higher-ups not to mention the Post-Tribulation rapture! They must think this teaching is important, though in a negative sense.
No, really. The by-laws of a major evangelical group that I know of officially frowns on any of its pastors talking about the possibility of anything or anyone showing up on the scene before Jesus does.
Their reasoning:
1. The coming of Jesus, they say, is imminent. They have defined that word, and their definition demands that nothing can come before this imminency is fulfilled.
2. Teaching about a Tribulation brings confusion to the saints, not to mention division.
3. Teaching about some event coming before Jesus lulls people's minds into complacency.
I get a little uneasy when I read things like this. Imminency I think I understand, and we'll talk about it later. But the fact that a doctrine would confuse is now grounds for it to be excluded? Could it be confusing because this denomination has reached a wrong conclusion to begin with?
As in, "Don't confuse me with the facts"?
And then the final salvo, that people like myself and the host of believers through Biblical and church history who simply believed the clear word about a second - and not a third - coming, these people are lulling the rest of the church to sleep by suggesting that a worldwide catastrophe and the most evil man of all time will come before Jesus appears?
Where did that come from?
It is true that wicked servants will play and sleep and stall until the last minute, then serve Jesus on the day before they think He arrives. Are they suggesting that those who do not believe in imminency are wicked servants?
What shall be said of the pastor who believes that a pre-tribulation rapture is wrong, yet wants to stay in that denomination as a pastor? Perhaps he has no strong feelings about it, and lets it go. Perhaps he truly wants to talk about it, but decides to obey, either for obedience's sake or for a lesser motive.
If he knowingly misleads the people of God in the name of obedience, what is to be said of him?
This doctrine must be very "important" to be under the censure of otherwise godly men. We need to get it right.
D. The Last Days
Everyone keeps telling us we are in the Last Days. Well, according to Joel and Peter, we've been there since Pentecost. Agreed. John would say we've been in the last hour since the first century!
But suppose we really are in the last of the last days. Isn't it time the church have a major discussion about this, correct the popular new doctrines of the last 100 years, restore the church to its serious looking for of Christ and those events just before His coming, in line with Scripture, and not with Tim LaHaye?
E. It's All Important
Why make a big deal of this particular teaching? Because it is a particular teaching. I think it's a truism that many folks who don't want to talk about Biblical doctrines of "lesser" importance, will often fill their days and their free time gaining knowledge about the news and the world of sports and automobiles and houses.
I've always contended that the least important teaching of Scripture (and this is far from the least!) is far superior to any ball game that was ever played, any series of sports statistics that was ever compiled.
Why shouldn't we want to get it all right, since God took 1600 years to bring us this wonderful book we [used to] carry around?
But granted, this teaching is not a slam dunk because of one verse. This verse is the foundation, but what is to be built upon it?
