Angels or Saints? Part 2

A continuation of Angels and Saints Part 1

Thanks for the feedback. Regarding “hagios”, however, I think I gave a more than sufficient example of the noun form referring unequivocally to angels in 1 Thess 3:13.
No, not really. Remember, the fact that you think the word translated as “saint” may really refer to angels is quite different from the fact that the Greek term “hagios” literally (and I would add contextually) means “saint”.
Still, let’s cut to the chase. In 2 Thess 2, What was Paul warning us not to let anyone deceive us about? A different chronology of events than the one he gave us. And what was Paul’s chronology? That we won’t be gathered together unto the Lord until AFTER the “apostasia” (that word refers to “rebellion” in both Acts 21:21 as well as all six times it’s used in the Septuagint), and AFTER the “son of perdition” is revealed (2 Thess 2:1-3). And how is he revealed? Paul goes on to tell us in verse 4, which seems to be a description of the Abomination of Desolation (which the Lord told us we’d see- Matthew 24:15).Keep in mind that had Paul given us any OTHER chronology of events (like you’re suggesting), the Thessalonians would have been duped again by the very next charlatan that came around saying the DOTL had begun. But again, Paul gave them/us two markers to KNOW what to look for first. They/we should never be fooled again. Sadly, we have.
Dave Hunt’s book had a section called “Post-Tribbers Would Not Be Troubled” which deals with your concerns about the Thessalonians and the DOTL. I thought he did a good job explaining what would essentially be my response to your point, so, I would simply point you to that part of the book. I have included part of it for you to digest:
Other than being caught by surprise, which they shouldn’t have been, why would the Thessalonian believers be upset to be told that the day of Christ had arrived? There was no reason to be “shaken in mind” if they believed in a post-tribulation Rapture. There was, however, sound reason for being shaken if they believed in a pre-trib Rapture. Clearly, then, the latter was their view. If the Thessalonians knew they had to go through the Great Tribulation in order to arrive at the Rapture, which they looked forward to with eager anticipation, then it would not have troubled them to know that the day of Christ had come. Their reaction rather would have been, “Praise God! The time has come for us to face Antichrist and prove our love and faithfulness to our Lord. If we are martyred, we have a special crown. If not, and we endure to the end, then we will be caught up to meet Christ on His descent to the Mount of Olives.” After all, the coming of the day of the Lord and the revelation of the Antichrist with the accompanying tribulation was certainly what they had anticipated if they believed in a post-trib Rapture. Not exactly a “blessed hope,” but surely nothing to be “shaken in mind” or “troubled” about. If, on the other hand, the Thessalonians were expecting Christ before the tribulation period and it had arrived without their leaving in the Rapture, they had something, indeed, to be “shaken in mind” about! Had they been rejected by Christ? Why hadn’t they been taken? And why was Paul still there and all of the other Christians? No one had been caught up to heaven…
Dave Hunt. When Will Jesus Come?: Compelling Evidence for the Soon Return of Christ (pp. 161-162).
John says:
After all, the Lord only described one gathering together of believers, and that being “after the tribulation of those days” (Matthew 24:29-31).
James says:
I disagree, your reference to Matthew 24:29-31 is actually about Israel. He does consolidate His “elect” from all over as mentioned in Matthew 24:31 and Mark 13:27. However, the word “elect” in the bible refers to both Israel and the Church (Isaiah 45:4, Isaiah 65:9, Matthew 24:31, 1 Peter 1:2, Colosians 3:12). However, Jeremiah 9:25-26 suggests that Israel (and not the Church) will be the elect entity that must endure the great tribulation. Therefore, since the Church is already in heaven attending the Wedding that occurs during the great tribulation (Revelation 19:7-8); and since God said that in that day (when Christ returns in wrath), no Jew would be left outside Israel: “I have gathered them unto their own land, and have left none of them [among other nations] any more” (Ezekiel 39:28, cf. Isaiah 27:12; Amos 9:9); it seems reasonable to interpret Matthew 24:31 in light of God’s promise to gather Israel from all ends of the earth.
John says:
The “hagios” issue notwithstanding, I think I gave a Scripturally faithful description of the “day of the Lord”, and how the tribulation cannot be the “wrath” which we’re “not appointed to”. Have you considered these important points?
James says:
I have considered your points. Some I am clear on and others (like your 2 Thess 2 explanation) still elude me. In regards to your comments about our being appointed to endure the tribulation, I wrote a blog entitled (Four reasons why Isaiah 26:19-21 refers to the Rapture – where I explain why I believe that this passage affirms God’s intent that we escape the wrath that He has prepared specifically for those that have disregarded and disobeyed His loving truth. Have you considered this passage?

John says:

James, I would recommend that you examine 1 Thess 3:13 further:

1 Thessalonians 3:13- “To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints (“hagios”).”

That verse would make no sense if we’re the “hagios” who come back with the Lord at His second coming. Otherwise, why would Paul need to pray for our hearts to be made “unblameable” at that time? Weren’t they made “unblameable” seven years prior (at a “pretrib rapture”)? No, the only way that verse makes any sense is if we’re here when the Lord comes back with His “holy ones” (see Matthew 25:31). Then it makes all the sense in the world for Paul to be praying for our hearts to be made “unblameable”…”at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints.”

Do you see the point?

James says:

I do not see a problem with the idea that our hearts will be established unblameable in holiness before God at Christ’s coming with all his saints (and angels – c.f. 2Th 1:7). Why must this occur at the pretrib rapture? Yes, we get resurrected bodies at the rapture but why must that include the “establishing of our hearts as unblameable and holy?” God can do whatever He wants when he wants and this verse appears to suggest that our hearts will be established when we come back with Christ. No problem there. Unfortunately, the greek word “hagios” can never produce a noun interpretation of angel; such a deviation from the semantic range of a word would allow us to practically interpret the bible to say anything.

2 thoughts on “Angels or Saints? Part 2

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s