Is President Trump the Antichrist?

[Andy C]

believe" and "may" are noncommittal words; they mean this writer is open to another opinion, and isnt totally hard-lined yet; the writer merely looks at the signs of the times, and says, "i BELIEVE" and "you MAY," which are NOT the same as saying, "TRUMP IS THE AC"

He did say “I believe Trump is the AC”. That is a definitive statement.

IMO, trolling or clickbait was the intent of the OP.

 

[Andiamo]

My very strong Christian husband who studies his Bible daily, was called on to quote his favorite Bible verse and he shorted out and couldn’t remember a single one. This was right during a church service too. Thankfully no one is judging his salvation by that.

 

[Almost Heaven]

My favorite verse is the one that ministers to me the most at the moment I need it.

 

[TCC]

Many leaders throughout history have been seen as Antichrist and it's been because those leaders had things about them that some would see as evil about them. Many of those leaders who have been thought to be Antichrist have come and gone. As a matter of fact John being the only one who uses the term Antichrist says there are many antichrists. But only one final Antichrist.

"Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour."
1 John 2:19

Some people may not like some things about him, but that doesn't make him The Antichrist.

Knowing scripture, in particular prophecy, The Antichrist cannot appear until the start of the Tribulation depicted as the rider on the white horse.
We are not in the Tribulation.
According to 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, The Antichrist isn't revealed until after the restrainer is removed when the church is Raptured.

Another thing is going by the prophecies of Daniel 7 and Revelation 17, there has to be a one world government of ten kings in place first, and the Antichrist doesn't have power and authority to rule until the one world government gives him that power to rule.
There's no one world government yet and right now I don't see that world leaders are supportive of Trump other than Israel, and Israel isn't part of the coming one world government that gives power to The Antichrist, because it's Israel who will be persecuted by The Antichrist.
There's other reasons why Trump can't be The Antichrist but those alone is enough to prove he can't be.

I think as Christians we don't need to be looking for The Antichrist because we won't be here when he's revealed, but instead keep looking for the coming of Our Lord Jesus to come take us to heaven with Him.

I like this and totally agree that the AC power is arrived at during the tribulation. Thanks for making this distinction Rose. AC does not have power to rule the world at the beginning. His rule is 3.5 years. From mid to end, as i understand it. I believe too there is irony here. Trump really messes up eschatology, don't he? lol. Therefore, i believe Trump could be a way for the church to consider not to be trolled by its own views of eschatology. That is kind of how i would see Trump. Perhaps more of a commentary on us than himself. A big hug dear sister over the whole "not looking for antichrist" thing. Amen. 1 Thes 5 tells us we are children of the day/light. Somehow, if we don't place a toe, foot, legging under night/dark shade, somehow we feel left out. Blessings.

 

[TCC]

My very strong Christian husband who studies his Bible daily, was called on to quote his favorite Bible verse and he shorted out and couldn’t remember a single one. This was right during a church service too. Thankfully no one is judging his salvation by that.

The least they could have done was throw some tomatoes at minimum. I mean, wow, what a precious moment. If I had Paula White's office, i would mandate all churches to have at least a one month supply of tomatoes at the ready on any given day. Of course meant not just in fun, but that wild visual I just laid out there...is kind of how I tend to view several themes in evangelicalism with eschatology. I do actually think we get quite a few things right. And i am always interested to see various takes (even if i don't agree with them at all). But to me, it reminds me of a food fight Bless your husband. He is godly. Born again. That is the thing. Better a man fall short of his remembrance from time to time and be real in the faith, than the alternative. Like Steven Lawson in the reformed camp, who was top eschatological gun for hire. The poster child of reformed orthodoxy. Only to prove he did not live by it. You are blessed dear sister.

 

[TCC]

and, i think in any case, this is good advice! AC or not, i feel very wary of him, partly for the concerns you raise. many people will disagree, and i get that; but wanted you to know youre not alone, in general. i just dont know enough, but theres something about people who are thrusted into the spotlight and have billions of dollars... i could be wrong, but i dont trust a single one of them. plus hes close to the dude who wants to implant us all with brainchips.!!!!! using his tech to clean up the swamp so to speak? yeah i dont believe their intentions are good.

Always so blessed with your posts dear sister. This morning i heard a sermon on the radio from Charles Stanley. It was not about this sort of concern. It was about bearing with abusive leaders. Something dear to my heart as the reformed Christian camp in America is kind of all about seeing if you flinch when they play chicken with you. Cuz if you respond unbilically, they feel to have schooled us. As this was my upbringing, i resonate a lot with that. It was very difficult for me to see past the leaders who meant well but did not mind appearing like a total jerk, to see if i would honor God in submitting to abuse. lol. So so hard to keep it straight like that. And although i don't think that is right or the place of Christian leaders, coming to terms with how that does not usurp what the word says for us to do has been a great challenge for me. And that is certainly hard to fathom.

So i just bring that up to be of hopefully some encouragement. Bless you dear sister for your understanding heart. And i hear what you saying. Amen. But I don't think it is so much about whether we should trust Trump or government. This is not meant as a schooling. I have to remind myself of that almost everyday...because of how I very often do not trust Trump. The kinds of research i do though leads me to some very different conclusions. Sometimes i don't want those conclusions. They are good ones, but I would rather feel safe and better informed than to see something developing kind of outside the scope of reference for me. What i mean is that the trajectory of the things i study suggest a lot of good things to come. And i very much understand the need to be reasonable in light of our being possibly seduced by the spirit of the age. Amen. But the more i research (as you know i've been looking into this for a decade now), the more I am reminded that the era we are entering seems to be far more about the character of God unto his creation than how we might assess in the flesh. Even though i see those things, I am far more comfortable not trusting government.

In any event, your character is lovely in expression.

 

[TCC]

I believe that Donald Trump is the Antichrist and feel the need to share my concerns.

President Trump has corrupted the Christian values of pastors, politicians and ordinary citizens and he has caused the neediest among us to suffer. Internationally, he has aligned himself with the world's most cruel leaders.

It is clear to me that President Trump is not a true believer. He did thank God for the prophetic survival of an attempt on his life. However, he never attends church, he refused to quote a favorite Bible passage when asked to do so, and he has recently filled his Oval Office golden idols. Most important, would he lie so easily, give such hateful speeches, and make vindictive promises of retribution if he ever asked "What Would Jesus Do?"

I hear President Trump described as an imperfect messiah. Being the Antichrist seems more believable. If you seek a seat in heaven then you may have to make a choice. Support him and risk losing it, or play it safe like me and keep your distance.

Welcome to the forum. Thanks for being so bold in greeting. Amen. The main thing i would share here is Daneil 11:37. He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all.

I don't believe Trump is a Christian. But he is too interested in supporting the Laodicean church in our age. And even though Laodicea, it still is the church of whom God is regarded as such (however poorly we might). If Trump were AC, I don't think he would try and even pseudo support Christianity or Israel's religious right. But he seems to, to me.

I have a shocking view of eschatology in comparison to the general way evangelicalism looks at end times. My main difference is that I believe that we are 1 Thes 5 children of light. And our "age of grace" pertains to us more than the tribulation age to come. So that kind of puts me on the outs. Because I believe how God deals with this dispensation of grace is very different than the 70th week. I believe Trump is relatively (and i use that term lightly lol) a force for good in a very jacked up world. The church for 1800 years saw the first seal as good. Not as the antichrist. That is recent exegesis. But personally i don't think there is any real exegesis to that. I do believe there is a possibility the AC could be the first seal in the sense of having a covenant with the many. But that view seems to trend with those who think the AC rules for 7 years. But i don't see that as biblical at all. Its not his 70th week. So when i see that, to me, that is a bridge too far.

I don't believe though that the 1st seal is Christ. As many historically had also thought. But I would see the 1st seal as a) the downing of the NWO, and b) Israel's peace and safety moment, and c) the rapture bang zone. No one historically came close to this model. Historically perhaps someone like Alexander the Great. But he's dead now. To me, Trump is an excellent candidate for the 1st seal. But I don't see that as AC. So maybe you are, half right? lol.

In any event, a big and welcome to our forum family. Blessings.

 

[Tall Timbers]

i dont know the Bible well

If you knew the Bible well enough you would understand that the AC won't be revealed until after the Church departs.

 

[Goodboy]

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

 

[Andiamo]

My favorite verse is the one that ministers to me the most at the moment I need it.

I love this. I’ve never been able to pick a favorite really. Maybe Ps 23.
I don’t have many memorized word for word (Ps 23 is one of them) and this doesn’t worry me despite admonitions from so many pastors. I know that the word is in my heart. I remember the truth. And verses or parts of verses do come to my memory when I need them thanks to the wonderful Holy Spirit.

 

[Cheeky200386]

i hear what youre saying. and i think some comments from others here, are twisting what youre saying, instead of focusing on what you actually said.

its possible, of course, what youre saying; and where you say that people are risking their place with christ by supporting trump, i realize you mean that if he is the AC, then yeah any person, christian or not, IS risking following the wrong way!!

' "i believe" that trump is the AC; "you may" have to make a choice. '

words are precious cups of meaning; lets not ignore what the OP is really saying.

"believe" and "may" are noncommittal words; they mean this writer is open to another opinion, and isnt totally hard-lined yet; the writer merely looks at the signs of the times, and says, "i BELIEVE" and "you MAY," which are NOT the same as saying, "TRUMP IS THE AC"

lets speculate upon the idea, even if only for a moment, instead of just brushing off what @CharlesW has to say. or at least control yourselves enough not to jump to laughing at what hes said and telling him how wrong he is, when WE dont know the true answer either. he could be right, he could be wrong, but by and large i see a lot of defensive people in here who ignore his main point.

one of the commenters even contradicted themselves here, and no one's going to notice, because they arent paying enough attention to actual words being said.

lets be careful not to automatically side where we think we should sit; lets carefully read what people say. @Batman is a good example of stating facts without making someone feel dumb for opening their mouth.

i dont know the Bible well enough to guess who AC is.

I agree we shouldn’t be mocking this person for this post.

The problem I have is with this quote he wrote:

“ If you seek a seat in heaven then you may have to make a choice. Support him and risk losing it, or play it safe like me and keep your distance.”

Our “seat in heaven” is not based on whether we support Trump or not. It also isn’t based on whether we support the Antichrist or not because we will be raptured before the AntiChrist is revealed. Believers alive right now will not be here to take the mark of the beast which would send someone to hell.

His quote is not implying that supporting Trump might mean you follow the wrong way, he clearly states you risk going to heaven. That’s unbiblical and can’t be left alone.

Hopefully, that clarifies the issue that I think @mattfivefour respectfully responded to at the beginning of this thread.

Expecting we’ll know who the Antichrist is this side of the rapture is also not biblical. Even if someone today supports whoever becomes the Antichrist, that still has no impact on his salvation today. Either way, his post just isn’t biblical.

 

[Goodboy]

LOL even this Canuck doesn't think Trump's the AC. Carney maybe, but no, not Trump.

For one thing he's too much of a womanizer, too many marriages and affairs to qualify as someone who according to Daniel 11:37 shows no regard for the desire of women.

There are many other points well covered above.

Suffice to say according to Paul in 2 Thess 2: 1-4 we don't see the AC - at least to know that he is the AC, which means that he arises after we are gone.

I totally agree with Margery regarding what Daniel 11:37 says about the Antichrist, but I find it interesting that the English Standard Version of the Bible says something different.

Here are some Bible versions of Daniel 11:37.

King James Version (KJV)
Daniel 11:37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

American Standard Version (ASV)
Daniel 11:37 Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall magnify himself above all.

Amplified Bible (AMP)
Daniel 11:37 He will have no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he have regard for any other god, for he shall magnify himself above them all.

English Standard Version (ESV)
Daniel 11:37 He shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women. He shall not pay attention to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all.

The ESV says he shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers or to the one beloved by women. Who is the one beloved by women?


Here is another scripture where the ESV translates a verse very differently from the King James Bible.

King James Version (KJV)
Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

English Standard Version (ESV)
Matthew 19:16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?”
Matthew 19:17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”

Calling Jesus good teacher or master causes Jesus to ask why he calls him good which is an important point.

However the English Standard Version says the same thing that the King James Bible says in Luke's account.

King James Version (KJV)
Luke 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
Luke 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

English Standard Version (ESV)
Luke 18:18 And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
Luke 18:19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

Just some interesting Bible differences.

 

[Cheeky200386]

I totally agree with Margery regarding what Daniel 11:37 says about the Antichrist, but I find it interesting that the English Standard Version of the Bible says something different.

Here are some Bible versions of Daniel 11:37.

King James Version (KJV)
Daniel 11:37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

American Standard Version (ASV)
Daniel 11:37 Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall magnify himself above all.

Amplified Bible (AMP)
Daniel 11:37 He will have no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the desire of women, nor will he have regard for any other god, for he shall magnify himself above them all.

English Standard Version (ESV)
Daniel 11:37 He shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers, or to the one beloved by women. He shall not pay attention to any other god, for he shall magnify himself above all.

The ESV says he shall pay no attention to the gods of his fathers or to the one beloved by women. Who is the one beloved by women?


Here is another scripture where the ESV translates a verse very differently from the King James Bible.

King James Version (KJV)
Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

English Standard Version (ESV)
Matthew 19:16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?”
Matthew 19:17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”

Calling Jesus good teacher or master causes Jesus to ask why he calls him good which is an important point.

However the English Standard Version says the same thing that the King James Bible says in Luke's account.

King James Version (KJV)
Luke 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
Luke 18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

English Standard Version (ESV)
Luke 18:18 And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
Luke 18:19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

Just some interesting Bible differences.

Yeah, I stopped using the ESV after finding lots of other weird and glaring differences that completely changed the meaning from what was so clear in the KJV. This was just on my own several years ago using the Bible computer program Accordance.

Weird how the ESV changes it in Matthew but keeps it the same as the KJV in Luke. Yikes.

My preferred is KJV by far, but I also really enjoy the NASB as a side by side.

Super side note, but I have completely fallen in love with the Alexander Scourby Audio Bible. For some reason, I forget he’s reading the KJV version. He makes it sound so effortless and conversational that I often forget he is saying Thee and Thou. I actually stopped the audio and had to double check it was the KJV.

 

[TCC]

i hear what youre saying. and i think some comments from others here, are twisting what youre saying, instead of focusing on what you actually said.

its possible, of course, what youre saying; and where you say that people are risking their place with christ by supporting trump, i realize you mean that if he is the AC, then yeah any person, christian or not, IS risking following the wrong way!!

' "i believe" that trump is the AC; "you may" have to make a choice. '

words are precious cups of meaning; lets not ignore what the OP is really saying.

"believe" and "may" are noncommittal words; they mean this writer is open to another opinion, and isnt totally hard-lined yet; the writer merely looks at the signs of the times, and says, "i BELIEVE" and "you MAY," which are NOT the same as saying, "TRUMP IS THE AC"

lets speculate upon the idea, even if only for a moment, instead of just brushing off what @CharlesW has to say. or at least control yourselves enough not to jump to laughing at what hes said and telling him how wrong he is, when WE dont know the true answer either. he could be right, he could be wrong, but by and large i see a lot of defensive people in here who ignore his main point.

one of the commenters even contradicted themselves here, and no one's going to notice, because they arent paying enough attention to actual words being said.

lets be careful not to automatically side where we think we should sit; lets carefully read what people say. @Batman is a good example of stating facts without making someone feel dumb for opening their mouth.

i dont know the Bible well enough to guess who AC is.

I love this As uncommon and unusual at it may seem, I believe one of the strongest eschatological verses in the New Testament is: John 15:15/17 blend. The way I see that is "the more we love one another as Christ commanded...the more we walk in faith realizing and functioning as His friends...the more we will practically, in that light, in that walk, in that way, SEE what the Father is doing." Amen.

 

[TCC]

If you knew the Bible well enough you would understand that the AC won't be revealed until after the Church departs.

This may seem like a no brainer to the Old School Christian concepts of 2 Thes 2 (of which I would agree). But there is an empire of eschatological thought upon 2 Thes 2. To me, it foremostly focuses in on "the second half of the tribulation." But the way many prophecy voices see it today is how it is talking about the transition from the age of grace to the tribulation age.

I like Andy Woods, but have some strong differences with him in places. When Andy defines vs 3:

3 No one is to deceive you in any way! For it will not come unless the [d]apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

He had made significant inroads in seeing (apostacy) as (departure = rapture). I believe it is possible to see this. As his reasons with the Greek on that work. I believe because it is the word of God it can simultanously mean both rapture and falling away from the faith (especially if both conditions are present at that time). But what this does is brings a focus to 2 Thes 2 to the church age. It is there where I would see trends in evangelicalism are not whole. But tend to hyper focus on 2 Thes 2 now primarily being a transition from the age of grace to the tribulation. I don't believe that is exegetically sound though.

Beyond Woods views, I had tended to (many years ago) see 2 Thes 2 as the Great apostasy we see now in the church. Its is super there NOW. But as I have backed away from the text, and consider its overall composite in that area, the great falling away seems to be more indicative of the time of the 5th seal +. Leading from that point all the way to the AC demanding worship. Like it is a falling away in reference to an apocolyptic falling away. Which to us may seem to be what we are seeing now. But we have not seen the bohemeth supernatural underpinnings of any "seal" as reference. So that does not seem exactly to be good exegesis.

In general, the primary direction, from what I have seen, is that evangelicalism is trending toward making the tribulation age about us. As we know our teen years are like that. We think everything is about us. That is the kind of thing I see occuring in evangelical eschatological trends. Bleeding the tribulation into the age of grace. I'm saying this because in evangelicalism eschatology is likely the least thing soberly understood in commons among the body of Christ. Which, if true, and I believe that it is, would mean that 70%+ don't know their Bibles. But they are the ones instructing us...lol. So with all due respect TT, that statement may be accurate (as I would agree that we wont know who the AC is before we rapture), the endless bells and whistles of "its about me" evangelical eschatological thought thinks it understands the bible better. And it has been granted a huge seat of massive influence today.

So I'm not altogether convinced a statement like that is overly helpful in the context we find ourselves in Iphone, Imax, Selphies, I'm Possible, and I this and I that age. To me, its an age hands down that does not know that Bible well, but thinks it does. And launches huge psyop compaigns to interpret end times. Looking at it this way, does it make sense though that even if Jaine understood the bible really well (by trending evangelicalism claims) she would not necessarily know it all that well?

I would just encourage that how we use such phrasiology can be less helpful. Steven Lawson is famous for saying that those that are not Calvinists are not Calvnisits because they don't know their Bible well enough. Not the greatest company. Just saying brother. Blessings.

PS -- Is it possible the church might know who the AC is before the rapture? I believe yes. But not probable in my estimation.

 

[Goodboy]

PS -- Is it possible the church might know who the AC is before the rapture? I believe yes. But not probable in my estimation.

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 Thessalonians 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2 Thessalonians 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
2 Thessalonians 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2 Thessalonians 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming

 

[TCC]

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 Thessalonians 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2 Thessalonians 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
2 Thessalonians 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2 Thessalonians 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
2 Thessalonians 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming

Thanks Goodboy, brother. Blessings. The way I see all of those verses is related to the reveal when antichrist demands worship though. To add further complication, lol, I tend to go with another "no one held this view ever" position on the restrainer. There is a lot of research on what is considered in the Greek. My view leans on what makes the most sense connected to the timing of 2:4. That would be the two witnesses.

The prevailing evangelical view is that the church or Spirit of God in the church leaves and that is the restrainer. I admit this is a possibility. But what the scripture itself says in relation to "what does reveal mean?" is that he makes himself to be God. That reveal. It does not say the man of lawlessness is revealed when he makes the covenant with the many. If the scripture said that plainly, I would be in error. I may be in error if it is saying that but less obvious. Amen.

The reason I brought that up is that just because the overwhelming majority of the church is convinced the church is the restrainer, does not have to mean that is what the word is saying. It may be saying that. But it does not say that, directly. The context of what defines "reveal" is when he demands worship. That is in the context. Even so, yes, I may be mistaken. But who is the AC being revealed to if the church raptures befor that (and it is at the time of rapture)? The angels? Believers on the way up? Because for the world, they will not recognize him.

I've heard it said that perhaps it is the tribulation saints that start to wake up to his reveal. And this is possible, amen. But the referent to what reveal means is not: "So that those who discover who he is will be watching." To be fair and balanced though, I will offer a good counter argument. If the sense of AC being revealed has to be related to the very next verse, and most will be under a strong delusion, how is it that the AC is revealed? Because, again, even at that time most of the world won't see it that way. So that is a legitmate and fair counter argument to my line of reasoning in the word. But at the end of the day though the object focus of being revealed is by the word clearly stated in the very next verse: "shewing himself to be God." So who he is revealed to can be considered a mute point potentially. But what is clear in scripture tends to follow the exegetical rule of "go with the most obvious first." And it is there. In the very next verse, is my point on that.

. . . . .

So my point is not to say my view upon scripture is more accurate. I believe it is. But that does not make it so. I am not arguing for what that verse says or does not say foremostlly. My primary reason for bringing it up is that it is a set of verses that does have reasonable shades of interpretation in scholarship. To some degree. A set of verses like that, to me, would not be the best foundation to build a theology on. But I understand why it might seem clear in a different way. Because it does not come right out and say the AC revealed means himself showing he is God. Amen. So on that note, yes, it could be "inferring" that that is what he becomes later. And that is a position. Amen. But even though the word does not say it means what reveal means more than what the one being revealed will become later, it does go with the "later" language. So for the Berean it is for us to consider.

I know we will see the verse differently. But there are a lot of assumptions for 2 Thes to be about the transition from the age of grace to the tribulation:

• That apostasy is the rapture and not just apostasy from religion
• That what is meant by reveal is not clearly stated
• That the church is the restrainer
• That what is revealed about the AC is not what is revealed at the time he is revealed (almost feels like Dr. Suess there for a second...lol)

So we have at least those 4 assumptions. 1 assumption is in good faith considered a reasonable clue to perhaps be more circumspect as to a passage meaning. But 4? So I am just saying this:

• Maybe apostasy is not the rapture
• Maybe 2:4 is what is being revealed
• Maybe the church is not the restrainer
• And maybe what is stated about the AC revealing is not just what AC becomes later outside the context of him being revealed -- but what being revealed actually looks like

The exegetical accuracy is not my point. I am fine with having strong convictions on 2 Thes 2 being about the rapture and the transition from age of grace to tribulation. I consider that myself, amen. But lean more toward it referring to the midpoint. Which if true, than it does not say the church won't know. Personally, I agree with TT that the church won't know biblically, even if these verses are talking about the midpoint. Because of a strange hermenuetic: Even if the majority of the church may be off there, the providence of God might use the church's misunderstanding to overlap what He intends to do anyway. Not because we see the scripture more accurtely. But because even though those verses might be about the midpoint, it might just so happen that God, in His providence, to permit church error to be wrong on the exegesis but right on overlay event occuring the same as if it was what those verses are saying was rapture timing. I believe that can be a legit hermenuetic. So much so, that what does not convince me in evangelical exegesis, might convince me in their good faith spirit to see things a certain way.

But if those verses are talking about the midpoint, and the subject matter about our being gathered to Him relates to the former chapter and Day of the Lord (which the older manuscripts use) more than it relates specifically to the timing of the rapture, here is what 2 Thes looks like to me.

• You have been bothered by some claiming the day of the Lord has come
• I just told you in chapter 1 what it looks like when Christ is revealed at the end of the tribulation
• I realize you are concerned that this is the Day of the Lord
• But that day will not come unless the AC is revealed. And when Christ is revealed, He will slay the enemy with the sword of his tongue.

I understand the KJV uses "Day of Christ." Which does seem to have the blessed hope in mind when stated as such. But the Greek term used "is at hand" is ongoing. Something currently happening. Not something that happened in the past. So if it is the blessed hope, why would the Greek grammatical structure of the rapture "is" on going cause the church alarm. Instead, if it means rapture? So the church would be excited. Not alarmed. Therefore, with the Greek Grammer and older documents containing the "Day of the Lord," and how it would only make sense if what was currently upon them happening to be something to cause alarm...it would be The Day of the Lord they where concerned with being in currently.

So the answer looks to be: The Day of the Lord won't come unless the AC is revealed first. I've seen the arguments for KJV Day of Christ. And some consideration on that is intriguing. But at the end of the day though, Thesalonica would not be concerned if the rapture was happening to them on that day or season they were in. The Day of the Lord, would. So this adds a few more potential assumptions...lol.

I am not trying to win an argument. My point was just that we can say "If you don't know Christ is God and rose from the dead, and wants to forgive you, if you know your Bible better, then you would not struggle with if that is true or not." That would be true. I just don't think though that saying to someone they would know their Bible better if when they read it they would see how I interpret some difficult (or semi-difficult) passage. What I meant was that that, to me, is not the best way to encourage someone to read the Bible more. If it runs any reasonable % of it being "our interpretation," that, to me, is not the = to someone knowing their Bible better. That is thinking we think we do to them.

Jane was just practicing a virtue of new forum member to have consideration. I think that is commendable of her. In her humble admittance to not understanding scripture as much as some might, she was just saying that it would be good to show some consideration, or more consideration to the new member. I agree. Even though I don't agree with his position either. But I commend his bold introduction. And Jane's consideration of it. The view we are discussing about 2 Thes 2 is not settled science. Sure it means what it means. And maybe the overwhelming evangelical view on it is correct. But it might not be. This is not an erea in scripture without controversy. It has a ton of controversy. So just being more thoughtful of where others might be coming from is reasonable wisdom in practice if we ourselves understood the mission field of sorts we are in. That that 2 Thes 2 in the commons is hugely debated. And although we might not know the word as much as we might. We can know the sensitivity of the drama in the church that has a somewhat ongoing foodfight over those verses.

. . . . .

PS -- I know for some this is a passionate passage to defend pretrib doctrine. I'm pretrib. So I am not saying the Bible does not say pretrib rapture. I believe it does demonstrate pretrib rapture. So by seeing 2 Thes 2 differently, it is not because I argue against the pretrib position. Which usually is the case when those verses are picked on. Amen. I don't think we have to have 2 Thes 2 to prove pretrib rapture though. I think it is demonstrated in other places. To those that hold a pretrib rapture view, this set of verses can be a kind of sacred cow (saying in gest of course). But I just want my leanings to be clear. I do think Theselonians does teach pretrib by the way. But in the first book: Chapter 5. Blessings