I am so ecstatic that anyone would take 50 minutes of their lives to respond to me about an article that I posted here on this website. So, I am looking forward to responding to Charles Cooper, a Pre-wrath advocate, on his comments of my article, entitled: An Exegetical Analysis of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-17. If you would like to watch his video critiquing me please click here.
Let me say at the outset that I did listen to Charles Cooper’s video all the way through, so I am not just cherry picking arguments to respond to. I did however feel that most of the video was spent addressing the sources that I used in my analysis of the text. This becomes purely arbitrary as we can both throw names of scholars back-and-forth all day, but never really get to the meat of the discussion. To me, this isn’t how you debate the arguments. You bring forward counter-arguments regardless of who said it. I agree that we need to see which men are credible and which men are able to speak to these issues, but as to which one we may side with that can be arbitrary. It also seemed odd that Cooper noted that several of the authors that I selected were “nobodies,” as if that somehow discounts what they are saying. There were several people that I used that were easily up to the task that Cooper just dismissed as having no valuable input. This seems intellectually dishonest.
Let me highlight some of the people that Charles Cooper feels are nobodies and should have no say in the public realm of discourse:
1.) Robert L. Thomas – Th.M, Th.D
2.) Paul L. Tan – Th.D
3.) John MacArthur – M.Div
4.) F.F. Bruce – M.A
5.) Nathan D. Holsteen – B.S, Th.M, Ph.D
6.) Renald Showers – B.A, Th.M, Th.D
7.) Thomas D. Ice – B.A, Th.M, Ph.D
8.) Gordon R. Lewis – B.A, M.Div, M.A, Ph.D
9.) Ray C. Stedman – Dallas Graduate
10.) Daniel K. Davey – B.A, Th.D, Th.M, M.Div
11.) Leon Morris – B.Div, Th.M, Ph.D
12.) Heinrich Meyer – Jena Graduate
13.) Thomas Constable – B.A, Th.M, Th.D
14.) William MacDonald – B.A, M.BA
15.) David A. Hubbard – B.A, B.D, Th.M, M.Div, Ph.D
16.) J. Hampton Keathley III – Th.M
17.) John F. Walvoord – A.B, D.D, A.M, Th.B, Th.M, Th.D, Litt.D
18.) J. D. Pentecost – B.A, Th.M, Th.D
19.) Warren Wiersbe – Th.B, D.D
20.) Benjamin C. Chapman – B.R.E, B.D, M.RE, Th.M, Ph.D
21.) Lawrence O. Richards – B.A, Th.M, Ph.D
22.) Kevin D. Zuber – B.A, Th.M, M.Div, Ph.D
23.) Danny Akin – B.A, M.Div, Ph.D
24.) Allan A. MacRae – B.A, M.A, Th.B, Ph.D
Note: Cooper did say that he felt a couple of these men were adequate sources for him, but the majority were ignored.
What Cooper wants to do in his 15 minute opening is attempt to persuade his audience that the men that I used to back-up my arguments are essentially worthless. As you can see above, these men have the credentials required to engage at a scholarly level. They cannot simply be dismissed because they are “nobodies” in the eyes of Cooper.
Now, there were approx. 4 arguments that I wanted to address in my rebuttal that I believe will sufficiently respond to Cooper and his claims. My hope is to respond in love and to further sharpen my brother as well as myself.
2 Thessalonians 2:1 – Granville Sharp Rule
Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, regarding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him,
Ἐρωτῶμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, ὑπὲρ τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἡμῶν ἐπισυναγωγῆς ἐπ’ αὐτόν,
Cooper thinks that it is absurd to render “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him” as two separate events simply separated by the kai. I disagree, Cooper is arguing for an improper usage of the Granville Sharp Rule (GSR). This was dealt with by grammarian Daniel Wallace.1 Cooper essentially sees the TSKS (article-substantive-kai-substantive) construct in this passage. In Wallace’s article he articulates that there is an exception to the GSR rule when the TSKS does not speak of the referent and its identity. In 2 Thess. 2:1 we have an exception to that rule, because we have impersonal substantives. Had Cooper been familiar at all with Holsteen’s article on this passage from ‘Evidence For the Rapture: A Biblical Case For Pretribulationism‘ he would know that Holsteen deals with this exact issue. I was merely quoting from Holsteen in agreement with his conclusion. I didn’t feel it was pertinent to outline all of the grammatical arguments in relation to the text, but to point people towards the conclusion that I believe was correct based upon my own study.
Now, when we look for referents that Paul is using in his 2nd letter to the church at Thessalonica we must not look only to the grammar, but also to the context. Paul, expects his readers to know what he is speaking about here. The coming of our Lord Jesus Christ is clearly a reference to the 2nd coming of Jesus, the parousia. This has been used elsewhere in his letter. In 2 Thess 1:9-10 the coming (erchomai) of the Lord Jesus is rooted deeply in the minds of the audience by the time he moves to 2 Thessalonians 2:1. His audience would be able to understand that the gathering together to Him would be marked as a distinct event based upon 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17. There are two events that are separated by the kai. The first is the coming of our Lord Jesus (2nd coming) and our gathering together to Him (Rapture). Two phases of a singular event. This is consistent with the grammar of the text. There is nothing that demands that Paul place these two events in chronological order.
2 Thessalonians 2:2 – The Day of the Lord
Interestingly, Cooper appeals to Richard L. Mayhue, Th.D, to argue against Dr. Showers. I felt that the explanation provided by Dr. Showers of the ‘broad and narrow’ day that encompasses both the tribulation and the millennium was consistent within pre-trib theology and better encompasses all the data from both Old and New Testaments. It is clear that when one studies the Day of the Lord (DoL) it is seen as a reference to both judgment and deliverance and not just a reference to judgment (contra Mayhue) as we will see. Zephaniah 1:1-3:8 depicts judgment and Zephaniah 3:9-20 speaks of deliverance. Contextually they are both tied together. Zechariah 14 is an intermingling of judgment and deliverance. Zechariah speaks of the Lord fighting for Jerusalem (14:3), it will be a day characterized by light and great blessing (14:6-8) and God will rule over the earth (14:9). Joel 3 also depicts both judgment (3:1-16) and deliverance (3:17-21).
Walvoord, a pre-tribulationalist, agrees with Dr. Showers, “The Day of the Lord is a period of time in which God will deal with wicked men directly and dramatically in fearful judgment…The Day of the Lord is also a time of deliverance and blessing for Israel. The millennium—the whole kingdom reign of Christ on earth—in which Christ personally directs the government of the world, is also included in the Day of the Lord.”2
Hoyt agrees, “This period is predominately characterized as a day of judgment… This period is also characterized as a day of salvation.”3
Pentecost concludes that, “the Day of the Lord is that extended period of time beginning with God’s dealing with Israel after the rapture at the beginning of the tribulation period extending through the second advent and the millennial age unto the creation of the new heavens and new earth after the millennium.”4
Davidson states, “Hence the ‘Day of the Lord’ acquires a double-sided character. It is a day of salvation and judgment, or a day of salvation through judgment … a day of salvation behind this. Sometimes one side prominent and sometimes another … Sometimes both sides of the Divines manifestation are brought forward, as in Joel.”5
When we look at biblical dictionaries we come to the same conclusion:
“Many Bible students believe the Day of the Lord will be a long period of time rather than a single day–a period when Christ will reign throughout the world before He cleanses heaven and earth in preparation for the eternal state… The day would be a time of judgment (Is. 13:6, 9; Jer. 46:10), as well as restoration (Is. 14:1; Joel 2:28-32; Zeph. 1:7, 14-16; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Peter 3:10).6
“The time of the decisive visitation of Yahweh when he intervenes to punish the wicked, deliver and exalt the faithful remnant who worship him, and establish his own rule. Both judgment and salvation are especially prominent aspects.“7
It is not as though pre-tribulationalists are not clear on this point. The standard view of this matter is that the DoL encompasses both blessing/deliverance and judgment. One may have more prominence placed on it, but it is clear that there is an aspect of salvation that is inherently tied in with the judgment.
2 Thessalonians 2:3 – The Departure (Apostasy)
I really appreciate the information that was shared from Dr. Alan Kurschner8 by Cooper and I definitely believe it warrants further analysis from my end. I am also familiar with Anthony T . Hopkins and his similar approach to the word apostasy.
I concede that much of what Kurschner and Hopkins have stated and articulated better encompasses the totality of evidence from a grammatical and linguistical standpoint. Apostasia, while it can be translated as “departure” is a much more difficult position to defend. Even if pre-wrath and post-tribulational opponents grant that the secondary usage is probable it still doesn’t follow logically that it is a spatial departure, it could still be a “departure” from something else, not necessarily a location. As Cooper points out, we shouldn’t read a later usage backwards into a text which creates a new meaning that wasn’t commonly used in Koine Greek. We should have a stronger basis in the language for using a secondary meaning than what I believe has been provided by pre-tribulationalists (including myself). As stated, I believe this warrants looking back over my analysis to sharpen my understanding of the apostasy. I don’t want to read theological conclusions into the text. In my honest opinion, while my interpretation may be faulty on this point, I don’t feel that this argument has put a damper on pre-tribulationalism. It might be true that ‘the apostasy’ is simply a religious ‘rebellion’ from the faith, which aligns with the context in 2 Thess. 2:4-8, but this doesn’t negate what was previously stated in regards to (vs.1) or any other arguments for pre-tribulationalism.
2 Thessalonians 2:6 – The Restrainer
Not a lot was given here by Cooper, except for the challenge of Mark 13:9-11. I didn’t feel that Cooper interacted with my summary notes regarding the function of the Spirit as the restrainer and didn’t really provide any sort of clarity around who the restrainer or what the restrainer was (perhaps I missed it). The fact the Spirit is restraining ‘him’ now is likely tied to the abyss where the man-of-lawlessness will arise from. It is clear from my own study of the word abyss, that is is most likely a metaphysical (spiritual) location where the beast resides. This beast appears restrained and it isn’t until Revelation 13 that we see the beast rising from the abyss. The function of past restraint is likely tied to the Spirit and the beasts present location. It isn’t until the beast is freed from the abyss that he is allowed to begin his rule on earth.
In terms of Mark 13:9-11 let’s address this briefly. Cooper seems to think that with the removal of the Spirit, the Spirit suddenly ceases to be omnipresent. The Holy Spirit as restrainer is removed (i.e. his restraining work ceases) and his ‘convicting‘ work will continue which is how we can harmonize Mark 13:9-11. So, there is no contradiction here. The Spirit as restrainer can be removed and yet His work can still be underway.
Conclusion
While I appreciate the interaction from Cooper, I am still not convinced that he did a more thorough analysis of the text than I provided. I believe that a couple points need to be re-worked from my end, but this hardly debunks our position on the text, it merely facilitates further discussion between pre-tribulationalists and pre-wrath proponents.
References:
1. Daniel B. Wallace, Sharp’s Rule Revisited: A Response To Stanley Porter, (JETS 56/1 (2013) 79–91), https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/56/56-1/JETS_56-1_79-91_Wallace.pdf
2. https://bible.org/seriespage/5-day-lord
3. Herman Hoyt, The End Times, (BHM Books, Winona Lake, IN, 1969), 142.
4. J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology, (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1958), 230-231.
5. A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the Old Testament in International Theological Library, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1936), 377-378.
6. Ronald F. Youngblood, Nelson’s New illustrated Bible Dictionary, (Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1995), 335.
7. Greg A. King, Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids MI, 2000), 324.
8. https://www.alankurschner.com/2015/09/11/does-apostasia-in-2-thessalonians-23-refer-to-a-physical-departure-i-e-the-rapture/
