Chapter I 1
2021-2. Need to get the MSB chapter into notes in here.  And in several of the others.
Here they are:  This letter was written by Paul.  The church was founded (Acts 17:-9) during Paul's second missionary journey as he traveled with Silvanus (Silas) and Timothy.  So I guess that explains it's location in the chronology.  MSB also says Paul wrote these letters to Thessalonica from Corinth.  This first letter was written in 51 AD.  We know this because there is an inscription in the archeology site of the temple of Diana that says Gallio was proconsul in Achaia in AD 51-52.  (So I'm guessing Gallio is mentioned in this book?  Will watch for that.)  This city was once capital of Macedonia, was on a main trade route, was ruled by its own citizens even while under Rome, and had a population as high as 200,000.  It was a true metropolis in that day.  MSB lists four "Interpretive Challenges" in this book, all eschatological in nature.  1) the coming wrath (1:10; 5:9); 2) Christ's return (2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23); 3) the rapture of the church (4:13-18); and 4) the meaning and time of the Day of the Lord (5:1-11).  The rapture and when it will be - pre-, post-, mid- , have always been my attractions to both these Thessalonican letters.

The Chronological Bible puts this between Acts 17 and 18.  17 was Paul at the Areopagus.  18 opens at Corinth.  Odd that they think Thessalonica belongs in between those two as I see no hint of it. 

Chapter opens with Paul's remembrances of his time there. He seems, at first at least, very complimentary to these people. 
Vs. 6 says "you received the word in much affliction".  Goes on to say they are a positive example to the whole region.  Seems this was a faithful church even in very trying circumstances.  Paul talks of their work of faith and labor of love.  Lots of effort if works mean nothing at all.  Again, they aren't required for salvation, but to say they are not required...?  Paul notes that the believers in this church turned away from idols.  That was their previous "worship".  A good solid church has been established in the middle of idol worship.

2023 - I have been noticing this following in a number of NT books (later...from the 2022 paragraph, it looks like I have noticed this before!):
6 And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit, [1Th 1:6 ESV].  I keep seeing this "imitation" theme.  The Greek word translated "imitators" is mimetas".  Oh my!  That's where "mimeograph" comes from!  Recognizing THAT connection drives home just what kind of imitation we're talking about!  Not as good as the original, surely, but relatable in every way.  NO changes made, says just what it used to say.  How big a theme is this with Paul?  Here are all the uses of "mimetas" in the NT:
16 I urge you, then, be imitators of me. [1Co 4:16 ESV]
1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. [1Co 11:1 ESV]
1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. [Eph 5:1 ESV]
6 And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit, [1Th 1:6 ESV]
14 For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, [1Th 2:14 ESV]
12 so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises. [Heb 6:12 ESV]
They all seem to convey the same message.  We are to do as those "better than us" have done.  Especially that Hebrews reference.  Imitate those in the faith chapter.  Do as they did, do as Paul did, do as Jesus did, and as God.  Imitate.  Copy.  Mimic (another obvious English derivative of mimetas!  I think there is a big lesson here, and I need to do some more thinking about it!  Moving this to 
Possible FB post, so I can come back to it.

2022 - All of verse 6:
6 And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit, [1Th 1:6 ESV].  This whole concept of imitation shows up many many times in Paul's writings.  He is always telling people to be imitators, or he is praising them for being imitators.  How are we to understand this?  Are we all to seek out some model, some mentor and try to be like that person?  This doesn't seem right.  Was this just an "imitate apostles" kind of thing?  The Greek word is "mimetes".  Reminds me of mimeograph machines.  The word is used six times in the mGNT, including once in Hebrews, and all the rest in Paul's epistles.  Three times it is Paul saying "imitate me".  The other three are a bit different.  KJV translates it "follower" every time, never imitator.  It just seems odd to me that Paul would say "Hey, wanna be a good Christian?  Be like me!"  Hard to read it any other way though.

2021-2, This verse is mentioned in item 1 above as to the coming wrath:
10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come. [1Th 1:10 ESV]
This seems to fit very well with my own understanding of the wrath to come.  Jesus will come and rapture out the church, just before the wrath of God is released at the sixth seal.  To me, the deliverance is of the church, and from wrath on the earth.  So I don't see a lot of controversy there.  You certainly might, though, if you are all about a pre-trib rapture.

Chapter I 2
In I chapter 2 Paul defends the actions and behaviors of his group as righteous, honest and with the best intent toward the Thessalonicans.  This makes it seem as though some have attacked their integrity since they left in an effort to undo their teaching. Paul goes to great lengths to remind them that they worked to support themselves while among them, rather than asking for support, how they spoke to them as a father to his children, and treated them as a mother nursing her children. 

Paul says that these at Thessalonica were mistreated - persecuted - by their own countrymen as Paul was mistreated by the Jews.  He uses the phrase that the Jews have "filled up the measure of their sins".  I think this is about how once God has condemned, he usually seems to allow a nation to continue, growing perpetually worse, so that in the end there is no doubt that they should be condemned.  Perhaps Paul has some idea of the coming of 70 AD, and knows that the persecution by the Jews is just another gallon of gas thrown on the fire that will consume them.  The paragraph ends with this line:  "But wrath has come upon them at last."  I had never noticed the use of this word "wrath" before.  I would latch onto this if I wanted to say that Revelation was about 70 AD.  But I don't think it is.  MSB gives four things these two phrases could refer to, one of which is 70 AD.  But he says in this case, it it soteriological, about God's wrath pouring out on unbelievers being so certain that it is spoken of as if it is already done.  Sure seems debatable, and MSB is acknowledging that I think by giving four possibilities for how this might have been meant, and then choosing the one he thinks it is.

Paul indicates that he was "torn from them", perhaps by some big event elsewhere that required his presence.  (2021-2, No, I think in the MSB intro it says that he was essentially run out of town, went to Berea, and was forced out of there too, and ended up in Athens.  It was in Thessalonica that Jason was dragged from his house into the town square because the frustrated crowd couldn't find Paul and Silas to murder them.  This was definitely a "run out of town" situation.  Acts 17 has the details.)  He doesn't seem to be saying that he was "run out of town" as he was so many other places.  Since that time, Paul says he has been trying to return, but Satan has hindered it.  This should give an indication that Satan has considerable power in this world.  You know that Paul was praying for this opportunity but so far it hasn't happened.  Satan doesn't want it to happen.  He can prevent good things from arriving where they are needed and wanted, and he can prevent those who strive to deliver what is needed...for a time.  How is that?  Does God allow Satan this freedom as part of the curse or part of some punishment of mankind in general for rejecting Christ? 
2024 - Or does He allow it to test the faith of those who need but have not received, to grow their faith, to turn them to each other in time of need, in love, in sharing, in support of each other.  This seems far more likely.
Surely there is a battle, and I have recently heard that Satan, being Prince of the Power of the Air, controls the "highways" from heaven to earth and back, to the point of trying to prevent human souls going to heaven at the rapture.  He fails, of course, and I'm not sure I believe this anyway.  But something is going on if Satan has prevented Paul from returning to Thessalonica.  OR...Paul is speaking figuratively.  As in "the devil made me do it".  As in circumstances seem to be conspiring to prevent him from returning.  And the simplest explanation...maybe Paul wrote to Thessalonica while he was imprisoned someplace.  I didn't check to see where this was written from. (2021-2. Supposed to have been written from Corinth.  In fact, both the Thessalonican letters were written from there.  And Paul was always pretty busy at Corinth.  There were big problems there.  Perhaps dealing with those kept him from leaving, perhaps those problems were a bigger threat to the Corinthian church than anything building up at Thessalonica.)

2021-2, These first two chapters went pretty quickly.  Either I am missing something deep, or there isn't a lot of doctrine at the beginning of this book.  It has essentially been praise and reminiscence so far.

Chapter I 3
2021-2,  This chapter starts with "Therefore...".  Paul had just told them about not being able to come himself, and this "therefore" is introducing what he did instead.

IThess 3:1, 2 says Paul sent Timothy back from Athens to see them, though he himself still couldn't get there. So...Paul had been to Thessalonica, he'd left there, and was in Athens but could not get back to see them from there, and so sent Timothy.  There are clues here.  This might be the third journey instead of the second???  I just can't tell for sure.  If he was in Athens though, he wasn't very far away from them at all.  Paul sent Timothy to check on them, and Timothy has returned to him with a good report, and so Paul is writing in a complimentary way...and wants to see them even more than he did before. 

2023 - I am aware only of the one time that Paul was in Athens, when he spoke at the Areopagus.  Remember that he had gone there ahead of his companions when he had to leave in a hurry or be killed, and he waited in Athens for them to catch up with him.  This tells us that they were in Athens for more than a few days if there was time for Timothy to catch up, to run over to Thessalonica and see how they were doing, get back to Athens, and then Paul writes them at least one letter from there.
NOPE...checked MSB and this letter was actually written from Corinth...at least that's what we think, and MSB says it coincides exactly with details in Acts 19-18.  So the story of Timothy going to see them from Athens still tells us that Paul was in Athens for more than just a day or two, and perhaps he was there for an extended time, though we have no Biblical information that he tried to start a church there.  But he was there, and for quite some time.  (The map I have says Paul was in Athens on his 2nd trip, and, if I'm reading it right, also on his third, though it is not as clear from my map.)  NO...I found another map that shows Paul skirted around Athens on his third trip.  Perhaps he'd made some serious enemies there when he previously outstayed his welcome.  He got run out of a lot of places on that second journey.

2021-2, Paul was quite concerned about this newly planted church in Thessaloniki.  He hadn't been able to stay there very long before he was run out of town.  He'd left this little fledgling church in the middle of a large city that had a significant Jewish population and those Jews did not have any qualms about using violence to shut down "The Way".  There'd been no time to drill them in doctrine, no time to tell them how to meet in homes instead of in large gatherings to avoid too much attention.  No time to tell them how to organize their church with deacons and elders.  Who was preaching?  Had anyone been trained at all?  Paul had good reason to be concerned, especially given the problems he was having in Corinth, where he'd spent significantly more time training.  Yet look how far they'd strayed!
In the Intro, it says Paul wrote these letters from Corinth.  But last time we saw him, he was in Athens.  So.  Time had passed since Paul was in Athens, since he had sent Timothy to them to check on them, and since Timothy had returned.  So sometime after Timothy left Paul for Thessaloniki, Paul must have moved on toward Corinth.  Maybe Timothy had just rejoined him there, and given him an update on things in Thessaloniki, and that occasioned this first letter from Paul.

2021-2, The setting as to who is where and why they're there is now in the introduction above.    I also note that there are almost no previous notes on this chapter 3.

2021-2, In vs 6, Paul tells them what Timothy reported to him.  It starts with "But now that Timothy has come to us from you,...", lending credibility to the surmise above, that Timothy's return to Paul prompted the letter.  And Timothy must have "returned" to Corinth, since Paul is writing from there.  (2023 - But...how do we know he is writing from Corinth?  Will we see that in the closing?  No, there is nothing in Chapter 5 about where Paul wrote the letter.  I don't know where they get that.  Seems like we have better clues that say it was from Athens.  This verse: 1 After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. [Act 18:1 ESV].  That's all we have.  Ahhh!  Here is the answer!   5 When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus. [Act 18:5 ESV].  From vs 1 we know that Paul had left Athens and gone to Corinth.  AFTER THAT, in vs 5, Timothy and Silvanus finally catch up.  So Paul went from Berea to Athens to Corinth traveling alone.  Not sure how Timothy and Silvanus knew Paul had gone on to Corinth, since they apparently had no church to ask in Athens, but somehow they found him.  Tough times with no cell phones!)

He summarizes at the end of 3, as if ending a point, and I 4 starts with "Finally...". 

2021-2, Look at how this verse is phrased:  13 so that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints. [1Th 3:13 ESV].  These Christians at Thessaloniki are going to be dead before the second coming.  Yet they will be present "at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints".  Aren't they going to be with the saints?  Won't these all be with the raptured - in fact, won't they be with the raptured even if Christ had come the next day after Paul wrote this and they'd all still be alive?  At the rapture, Jesus does not come with all his saints, he brings them up to him.  We have already seen that when Jesus comes to earth, he will come with his armies.  So is this verse now telling us that either his saints are in his army, or he is coming with BOTH his army and his saints?  What Saints will be available to come with him, other than raptured saints, and won't these people be among those?  What does this verse mean?
Here is the MSB explanation, "His Saints.  Since this exact term is not used elsewhere in the NT of angels (see note on Jude 14), but is commonly used for believers, it is best to understand the coming of the Lord to rapture all His church (see notes on 4:13-18) and take them to heaven to enjoy His presence (see notes on Jn 14:1-3).  So the argument is that when Jesus comes at the end of t/gt, with his armies, those armies will include his angels.  We know there are angels in his armies.  By extension, we can say that MacArthur does NOT think there will be saints included in the army of Christ when he comes to earth for the battle before the Millennial.  Therefore, Paul's use of the phrase "His saints" informs us that Paul is referencing the rapture and the time of the saints in heaven during t/gt.  So MacArthur has rolled much into this verse.  There may be other verses to corroborate, but for now this is the only one I'm aware of.  It is an answer to my question about who exactly is in Christ's army at the second advent, and an answer to my question about where the saints will be during that battle - but not about where they will be during the Millennial itself, although the implication is that they will remain in heaven.  Copying this to the end of my How Many Judgments notes, to address more rigorously in connection with that.
One more thing...If Jesus is coming to the rapture with His Saints, then who are they?  Who is in heaven with Christ already that could come with him?  Aren't the OT saints awaiting their own later time of resurrection?  Or did "Abraham's bosom" empty out into heaven at the resurrection, and so all the OT saints are already up there, and will greet us when we arrive.  This would require that it is our "spirits" only that go on to heaven when we die, and the reunion at the rapture will be one of spirit and body.  Will the spirits of the dead saved come back with Christ to meet their own resurrected bodies on the way up?  Is that how Satan can interfere, because he has some power over physical resurrecting bodies, but none over the spirit that goes on to heaven when we die?  Great.  Once again, for every answered question, I get ten more puzzles.

2022 - This year, it also occurs to me that Paul is not trying to tell the Thessalonians here about the order of end times events.  He is going to get to some information about that in Chapter 5, addressing specific concerns that the Thessalonians expressed to Timothy when he was there.  But in this last verse of Chapter 3, he is being general in what he says.  It would be a mistake to take this verse meant generally and use it as proof text for how end time events will go.  Better to look at it as a verse that end time events as understood from more direct scripture about them will not contradict, rather than as primary information about those events.  So what is it that won't be contradicted?  That Jesus will actively portray us blameless before the father.  He's doing that now.  I believe he will do that at the sheep and goat - so no contradiction there.  This will happen "at Jesus' coming with all his saints".  Those are not to be contradicted, but there is certainly not enough here on which to hang a full blown chronology.  

2021-2, Isn't it interesting that I saw almost nothing here when I read it previously, and this time, I find a verse that unlocks many questions I've had and couldn't answer.  It makes one think that it is a good learning tool to have an ongoing, broader study, like "How Many Judgments" going all the time you're doing your daily reading, so that scriptures that you had no context for understanding before might "light up like neon" when you run across them with the question they answer already in your mind.

2021-2, I note also that the end of Chapter 3 seems like a closing.  He is bringing a section of the letter to a close, and will start something completely different in Chapter 4.  That's my prediction.

Chapter I 4
2024 - Learned a LOT in Isaiah 47-49 this morning.  Worn out.  Reading this straight through...maybe.
2021-2, Though the last verses of 3 seem like a closing, the first vs of 4 starts with "Finally...".  So while the subject may be changing some, this is still part of the same outline.  Not like that section in 1Co that seems like a whole different letter.

In Chapter 4 Paul first encourages them to continue in the things that he taught them when he was there.  He tells them more and more to walk and to please God the way they have been doing.  Paul warns them against sexual immorality.  Given the praise he gave them in Chapter 1 you wouldn't really expect such a strong warning against something like this.  He even tells them not to defraud each other about it, as if some are saying sex is ok as long as you're both Christian, in order to deceive the chaste.  Perhaps sex was pretty rampant in Thessalonica, as it is today in the USA.  Perhaps this was the central remaining problem with them from the idol worship they came out of, and the freedom they had in Christ.  Paul doesn't address it as a grave problem, but as perhaps the one that most needs to be addressed.
2021-2, I think the note above is accurate, but I would add that the "moral atmosphere" concerning unmarried sex might well have been "just like the US today", and it would have justified Paul stating this injunction this way.  For the most part, the prevailing morality in the US is that you can sleep with whomever agrees to sleep with you, as long as you are both single.  There's just no stigma, no negative, no thought of whether that's ok.  We don't even have a problem with people who sleep with someone different about every night.  Marriage does not enter into the picture, unless we are sleeping with a person married to someone else.  There is still just a little stigma associated with that.  But the people I have talked to that are most adamant about NOT sleeping with a married man are divorced women, and their determination is based on the fact that their X slept around while married to them.  It is not about the morality of it, but about the hurt they felt when it was done to them.  This is the wrong reason.  We like to think we are so liberated about sex, so far ahead of previous generations, peoples, eras.  But this has always been there.  It was happening in the days when Canaan was settled.  Religious orgies were common.  It was going on in the NT, with the temple of Diana at least, and how many others?  Near the fall of Rome fathers were prostituting their daughters because it was "good for them".  In the 30's, there were the flappers, in the 60's, free love.  Throw in homosexuality, where monogamy is extremely rare, even for short periods of time.  (Is this true, or is this just how I think it is?)  Those are all just different apples from the same tree. The tree is sexual immorality.

I 4:11, "...aspire to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business, and to work with your own hands..."  What wonderful advice.  This is so we may, as vs 12 says, "...walk properly toward those who are outside..."  Christians need to set an example for those not of the body.  That example is of not sticking their noses where they don't belong, of living their own lives without troubling others to take care of them.  Christians should be self-sufficient.

Any of these exhortations could be taken singly, and emphasized as the "main thing" about Christianity, and so be turned into something greater than intended.  However, I have never heard this one mentioned at all.  I think it is just as wrong to avoid saying that Christians should work with their hands to provide for themselves and not depend on outsiders or government charity and so on.  Our own efforts should sustain us.

I Thess 4:13 starts a very often cited section of the book:
13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. [1Th 4:13 ESV]  Reading MacArthur's book on gifts, he refers to the use of the phrase "I would not have you ignorant" in 1Corinthians.  I had never noticed the very same phrase here.  It would be worth comparing the two passages to see if anything "extra" could be extracted.

The Thessalonicans were so expectant of a quick return of Jesus, that they thought they would all still be alive when he came.  But it hadn't turned out that way.  Some had died.  They were worried about what would happen to those who died.  Had they just missed heaven because they died too soon?  That would be a pretty awful thing to worry about.  So Paul explains the rapture to them. 
2021-2, Remember that Paul didn't stay here very long.  I expect Paul taught them the most important things first, and perhaps that means he hadn't gotten around to the details of eschatology.  He'd only hit the high point about them being raptured out, but not about the dead.

This verse:
14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. [1Th 4:14 ESV]
Pretty clear that the dead in Christ return with him.  But...don't the dead in Christ rise first at the rapture?  How can they both return with him and rise from their graves?  MSB note on this is very unsatisfactory.  He leaves out the part where Jesus brings them with him.  Only way I see this working is that the dead rise at the rapture, and then he brings them with him at his second coming at the end of Great Tribulation.  So...where are they now?  If already in heaven, what rises at the rapture?  Why come back to retrieve the bodies if the souls are already in heaven?  MSB just ignores this question. 
2023 - At the rapture, soul and body are reunited, and changed.  We get our new bodies, as Christ's resurrected body, and perhaps as Adam and Eve had originally.  We will live in  heaven forever not as disembodied spirits, but as flesh and blood.  So he brings our spirits with him when he comes.  The dead get raised and reunited, and then those still living get changed.
2023 -There is nothing here that gives me a clue about the timing of the rapture.  I can see it being mid-trib, and these days, I can even see it at Christ's return at the end of great trib.  Other places tell me different, but you can make that case here.

2021-2, Looking at this verse again, with what I think I've learned in the last year:
14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. [1Th 4:14 ESV]
God will bring...That is an interesting choice of words.  Might it better be read "God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus"?  In fact, that is exactly how the NASB95 translates it.  I think it helps a lot with understanding the verse.  It reads similarly, but rearranged a little in KJV:  
14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. [1Th 4:14 ESV]
(2023 note:  Iesous is there twice in the Greek.  Jesus died...and the Jesus again at the end, however you translate it.)
The ESV seems to have reshaped the verse to say that it is through Jesus that God will accomplish this resurrection, rather than that those who are resurrected will be dead in Christ.  They must be getting this from the first part of the verse - and indeed it does fit better with that.  Because Christ died and rose again, God will use that accomplishment, that "plan", and bring the dead with him.  Ahh...there it is.  
As the ESV puts it, God may be bringing ALL the dead saints, not just those "in Christ".  We have discussed that phrase extensively and tied it to the Holy Spirit and Pentecost.  ESV does not want to restrict this resurrection to NT saints, but wants to include ALL saints.  So they go with "through Jesus" instead of "in Jesus".  
The NIV takes a direction completely different than KJV or ESV with this translation:
14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. [1Th 4:14 NIV]
"with" Jesus.  God is coming and Jesus with him, and they will also bring those who are dead "in him"?  Just looking at the other translations, NIV has to have added a word or two.  You can't do a one-to-one "check" on translations like the NIV because they are translating phrases, and meanings, NOT the very words.  So they  grant themselves some extra liberty.  I can't think of a verse anywhere that says God and Jesus are coming back together at the same time.  And I am not willing to try and build a new eschatology based on this one translation, that I put far down the reliability chain anyway.  I will consider the fact that we have nothing to tell us that God is coming down to earth - indeed he could not, while it is in it's corrupt state - until the old has passed away.  That is after the Millennial, after that last battle, and I believe after the GWT.  So that's pretty late for when those who have died throughout all history will come back.  But that may be when the OT saints finally come back.  We don't really have any other good place for them to return...unless we jump on the ESV train, and bring them back at the rapture...partially back that is.
Here is yet another way to look at it in the NLT:
14 For since we believe that Jesus died and was raised to life again, we also believe that when Jesus returns, God will bring back with him the believers who have died. [1Th 4:14 NLT]
This one is interesting. 
You can always tell when a verse is "difficult" by how far the various versions go in trying to translate it!
So moving on, the word in question - whether through or in Jesus - is just a little tiny three letter Greek word, "dia".  It is a preposition.  It appears 646 times in the KJV, Strong's G1223.  241 of the 646 times, it is translated "by".  And I don't find any translations that render it that way.  It is translated "through" 88x, and the ESV went there.  They are the only ones, and we discussed why they may have done that.  But seeing this now, it could be that the ESV went that way because that is the "least disruptive" way to translate the word!
We still have to watch our perspective though.  All the translations agree that this is something God is going to accomplish - this bringing of the saints.  He may do it "by" Jesus, or "through" Jesus.  These two tell us the means of God's work in this matter.  But if we change it to "in Jesus", and move it to the end, then we say the verse is about "who" God is bringing, not how He will do it.  These are so very different in meaning.  And I see no way to resolve which one it is!  Why should this verse be so difficult?  Is it because God wants the details of the rapture to be shrouded in mystery?  Something reserved for revelation only on that very day when it happens?
Here is one more item that favors the ESV translation:  that word dia is NEVER translated "in", anywhere in the KJV.  So moving things around and saying that it is those "in Christ" that is the critical factor in the translation makes the use of "in" a completely unique interpretation in the Bible.  And that does stretch things way on out there.
So my conclusion is that the verse is about "how" God will accomplish bringing back those previously dead, and not about their position in relation to the Son.  ESV is the right read.  So what does ESV mean?
When Christ arose, he conquered death, once and for all, never to die again.  It is Jesus who has power over death.  Therefore, if you want to raise the dead, you look to the one who has the power to do that.  It is only through that person that has the power that this can be accomplished.  God wants it done, so it will be done, and He will do it through the person of the Son.  This:
Even so, God through Jesus, will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep.  
If you do it this way, then those who have died before the rapture will return with Jesus at the rapture, according to the work and will of God. There is no restriction, expressed or implied, on who these dead will included.  That is left open.  It could go all the way to Adam.  It could be just the saints since Pentecost.
Note also that this still allows for the interpretation that it is the spirits of those who have died that come back with Christ, and their physical bodies, dead and buried, are going to rise and join their spirits in the air.  This is the only possible way that to be dead is to be with Christ, and yet have a rapture where the old mortal body is put off and we put on an immortal body.  A body that to this point, only Christ has ever worn.  This is a unique thing that comes into existence in a big way here.  We will truly be "like Christ" after the rapture.  And if he is in heaven with this kind of body, then the raptured may surely also go into heaven with Jesus.
I cannot go on without putting in the MSB note here, which DOES restrict those caught up at this time.  Going to just type it in here:
"As Jesus died and rose, so also will those who die believing in Him rise again so they can be taken to heaven with the Lord (see notes on Jn 14:1-3;, 1Co 15:51-58).  These texts describe the rapture of the church, which takes place when Jesus comes to collect His redeemed and take them back to heaven.  Those who have died before that time (called "those who have fallen asleep") will be gathered and taken back to heaven with the Lord."
MSB is definitely saying this is ONLY the church that will be raptured.  Maybe so.  These other passages that MSB quotes need to be studied out also, and perhaps all three together will clarify what is meant.  I just don't see how you can restrict the rapture to the church based solely on this verse.
Now.  Moving on!

2022 - I suspect that Paul is talking here about the second coming.  
No, that's not it, as vss 16-18 make so very clear.  Paul is speaking about the rapture in this chapter.  He calls the rapture "This means that when the rapture occurs, it is not only Christ who will be there in the clouds to meet us, but those who have gone before.  We don't wait until heaven to see those who died before us, we see them there in the sky in our new bodies. 
What if I read it like this:
"14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep.  Now it is saying that because of what Jesus did in rising from the grave, through the power given Jesus by God, God - who ultimately made this plan - will have those who die before "this time" to return with Jesus (when Jesus returns).  What is still not clear is whether those returning are all the saints or the church age saints.  I tend to think church age saints.
2022 next day - If we think of the rapture as the time when our bodies will be "remade" into the likeness of Christ and when those new bodies - which are just dust now with no use to anyone - will be united with our Souls/Spirits which went immediately to heaven when we died, then this makes some sense.  If the rapture is the time when body and soul are reunited, then it makes sense that our spirits would return and wait in the clouds for our new bodies to come up from the earth - possibly to fight their way through the demonic armies trying to prevent them from doing so - and some kind of miraculous union occur there in the clouds.  Then we would return with Christ to heaven, and there await the marriage supper, followed by the Millennial reign on earth, followed by the new heaven and the new earth for eternity.

As Paul explains this, vs 15:  15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. [1Th 4:15 ESV]  by a word seems to indicate that this is a revelation to Paul directly from God, and has it's source from Him.  Paul didn't get this from reading OT scrolls.  This is inspired by God through Paul. 
2021-2, The MSB note on this single verse is very, very long.  There is much discussion, many x-refs.  Alternatives are considered before reaching a conclusion.  It is an extensive note.  I am not going to type it here because it is very long, but I would consider no study of this passage complete without reading that note.  It would take an hour easily just to puzzle out what this long note is saying...and then you'd still have to decide if you agreed or not!  The main thing about the note is what is meant by that little phrase "by a word from the Lord".  The short version is that MSB believes it means this was a revelation to Paul, never before seen, so not to be found in previous scriptures.  This was "new" information to the Thessalonians.  

Jesus returns, there's a shout from an archangel, and a trumpet.  These will be the visual and auditory clues that the rapture is here.  Doesn't seem to me that it will be any secret to anyone at all.  It will likely scare some who have held out for one reason or another to finally repent.  This is where those saved during the tribulation will come from.  The ones who believe the evidence of their own eyes that a LOT of people went missing coincident with this supernatural event.  The dead rise first, then those who are still alive will join them, and be with Jesus from that point on.  No separation from Christ for the dead in Christ or the living saved following the rapture.
(I think the paragraph above has some problems.  Note vs 17 - caught up in the clouds.  This implies the rapture.  Jesus doesn't come all the way to earth at that time, but the dead in Christ meet him in the air.  And it will not necessarily be secret, and that makes me wonder if the sixth seal is indeed the place it will happen - during an earthquake so the departure can be hidden.  So I still don't get it.  Time is short this morning...moving on.)
2021-2, this last section is about vs 16, which goes into an extraordinarily detailed account of this event that Paul is revealing for the first time.  Here's the whole verse:
16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. [1Th 4:16 ESV]
The word translated "Lord" is "kyrios", which is the Greek word used for God, the Messiah.  So it is Jesus that will descend.  What command is it that he will give?  Rise, my children, and receive the place prepared for you?  Rise, and receive the promised reward?  Or just simply "Time to come home".  Lots of sounds.  A cry, a voice, a trumpet.
So much is here, and I am so short of time...Almost two hours on this chapter already....
I don't see any way to "mesh" this with the breaking of the Sixth Seal, which I have long thought is when the rapture will occur.  If that is so, then the cry, the voice, and the trumpet will be separate from anything in Rev. 6:12-17, which describes the events of the Sixth Seal.  These three would be in addition to those.

2024 - And why should they not be "in addition"?  What would be wrong with seeing these verses in 1Thess as a further description of the rapture?  Ahh...It just occurred to me...Perhaps the description in Rev at the Sixth Seal is what things will look like from Heaven's perspective.  But here in 1Thess, we are getting what things will be like for all those in Christ.  Perhaps it is those who died saved and those still living when he comes who will hear that command from the returning Christ to "Rise!", and then the shout of the archangel - Michael - setting his forces to work clearing the demons who will oppose this resurrection and the path it must take in the air (the Prince of the Power of the Air will after all be very active and powerful on earth at this time), and then the trumpet - sounded in victory as those whom Christ came to gather assemble with him, and return in body AND spirit to heaven with him.  YES!  That is what these things are about!!!

He will descend "from heaven", but it does not say "to earth".  So it is reasonable to assume, in vs 17, that when we meet him "in the clouds", it means that's as close as he gets to the earth.  There will be clouds that day.
This is the whole verse:
17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. [1Th 4:17 ESV]
"always with the Lord".  Could read into this that when he comes with his armies, the church - or whomever is resurrected here - will come with him also.  Otherwise we would not be "with" him.  "Kyrios" is the word for Lord both times in this verse.
And I am just done.  Stopping here, because I have three chapters of Isaiah to read also.
2022 - These last verses - 16-18 - do not seem at all like the second coming, but like the rapture.  So...
2022 - Perhaps by "so we will always be" means this transformation of our bodies and the reuniting of spirit and body will be the last transformation.  This is our eternal form.  It could just mean that.


Chapter I 5
I Thess 5 begins by talking about when this will occur.  

2021-2, This vs:
2 For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. [1Th 5:2 ESV]  The verb translated "will come" is Greek "erchomai".  It is present tense, middle voice, indicative mood.  That's a lot of stuff for one word.  Present tense is interesting since in English it is translated as future with "will come".  Maybe better to say "arrives".  No, can't do that.  It is translated "come" over 600 of the 850 or so times it appears.  It is just very difficult to think of this in the present tense when it is clearly the future tense in English.  

2024 - Maybe it is in present tense so we will think of it as if it happened right now, in the next second or so.  Maybe we are to get a sense of immediacy about it.  When a thief breaks in, one is certainly in the present.  Time sort of dilates into the present, with fear of the outcome, with urgency about what to do.  Maybe the writer here is trying to put us "in the moment" by using a present tense for a future event.  Yes!  That's the way to understand it!!!
2024 - I figured out that I can zero in not just on a specific word, but on that word used grammatically the same way as the incidence in question.  So I did that just now, and here are the first three other uses of "erchomai" as present middle indicative:
9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it." [Mat 8:9 ESV]
19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. [Mat 13:19 ESV]
11 He answered, "Elijah does come, and he will restore all things. [Mat 17:11 ESV]
Note that NONE of these resorts to using an English future tense to translate the word.  It is inserting that word "will" that makes it English future.  What conjugation of "will" would put it in the present tense.  How about "is coming".  Yes!  "...the Day...is coming...like a thief in the night..."  But I think that is a participle, which is readily available in Greek, and could have been used if that's what Paul meant.  Looked up translations (five of them) of the future middle voice, and four of them translated that form of the verb as "will come".  Exactly the same as the present is translated here.  That is just wrong.  So how should it read?  What else is available to say something about the future using a present?  How about "...the day of the Lord comes like a thief".  What is wrong with that???  Yes.  That is better, much better.  The KJV and NKJV both get it right.  Old KJV says the day "so cometh", and the NKJV stays with this and says "so comes".  All of the other translations I looked at translate it as a future tense.  That is just wrong.
2024 - But now I can't think why that was so important...

Here's what the middle voice is, though I am not sure how it "adds" to understanding the verse:
"Denotes that the subject is both an agent of an action and somehow concerned with the action."  The subject here seems to be "the day of the Lord" in this compound sentence.
Here's the thing about this.  It will come like a thief.  Does that mean that when it happens, most people won't know about it?  It will happen in secret?  How can that be with that trumpet blowing as we saw in the last chapter?  Or does it mean that the signs that it is imminent will be inconclusive right up until it actually happens?  Probably the second one.  We are supposed to look for it, but doesn't this verse say that we just really aren't going to be able even to narrow it down?  I've heard people saying "It has to be close to time for the rapture" for my whole life.  This says we just cannot zero in on it.  
So what does that do to my idea of it being at the 6th seal?  Can I get that close?  Once the Tribulation starts, will each seal be recognized as it opens?  If so, we could have a decent idea of when the rapture was coming.  Pretty dang decent idea, I think.  But Paul says the main thing to remember is that the rapture is entirely unpredictable.  This actually lends itself more to a pre-trib rapture.  Yet unlike it is with thieves, we do know the rapture is coming!

2022 - This, from my notes on Chapter 9 of "The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church":
Pre-Wrath - the subject of this book, looks this way:
1.  The rapture occurs immediately prior to the "Day of the Lord"
2. The "Day of the Lord" occurs sometime within the second half of the seventieth week.
3. The cosmic disturbances of the sixth seal signal the approach of the "Day of the Lord"
4. Day of the Lord begins with the opening of the seventh seal.
This book uses the Olivet Discourse - Matthew 24,25 as its central text. 
These notes continue with a survey of all uses of this term in the Bible.  MSB, as noted below in II 2 also talks about a survey of these verses.  It helps me, today in 2022's reading, to understand that the rapture and the day of the Lord are very close in chronology, but they are not synonymous.  The Day of the Lord is a horrendous time for mankind.  It is the day the wrath starts.  The rapture is a glorious day for the church - the day we all anticipate.

2021-2, What about this one:
3 While people are saying, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. [1Th 5:3 ESV]
Does it mean the rapture is going to come when things seem to be going well?  Should we "worry" when things are good instead of when they are at peace?  Or does "sudden like labor pains" mean that disasters far and wide will spring up, one after the other, building and increasing in frequency, and during these upheavals, the rapture will come?  This actually DOES fit will with the rapture occurring during the Sixth seal.  Those first five seals cause lots of troubles, they build, they affect more and more of the world system, knocking holes in it, and the whole planet will start to "crash".  And then the rapture, leaving only the lost, only the objects of His wrath, to deal with the rest.  This fits pretty well with a mid-trib rapture.  Vs 2 more with a pre-trib.  So there ya go.  Like a thief in the night.  We just can't say!

2023 - It is important to remember that the rapture and "the Day of the Lord" are not the same thing.  First the rapture, and then the Day of the Lord.  If you are pre-trib, you would say the rapture is years before the day.  If mid-trib, then closer together.  But if you are about a Premillennial rapture, then the day comes first and I think these verses are a very good argument against that being the case.  As for the reference to labor pains, what if we understand them as "starting" just before the birth.  Everyone knows when they're 9 months pregnant that they are soon going to have a baby.  They wait, they grow impatient, they count the minutes, sometimes they even try to initiate labor to get things over with.  That is how the day will be.  Those first five seals will make it plain as day to the saved still on earth that events are getting very very pregnant and that something is about to happen.  Things will be so bad, if I am even close on my interpretations in Revelation 1-10, that many people, and the saved of the last days of the church age especially, will be anxious for the labor to begin and so we can get this over with!  The saved will be praying for the rapture, the rest of the world will just want some relief.  The saved will have their prayers answered.  The lost will get the opposite of what they want.  Wrath will start.

2024 - There is a footnote in MSB for vs 2, and "day of the Lord".  I have copied that entire note into here, because it has definitions of both "The Day of the Lord" and "A Thief in the Night":
1 Thess. 5:2 day of the Lord. There are 19 indisputable uses of “the day of the Lord” in the OT and four in the NT (cf. Acts 2:20; 2 Thess. 2:2; 2 Pet. 3:10). The OT prophets used “day of the Lord” to describe near historical judgments (see Isa. 13:6–22; Ezek. 30:2–19; Joel 1:15; Amos 5:18–20; Zeph. 1:14–18) or far eschatological divine judgments (see Joel 2:30–32; 3:14; Zech. 14:1; Mal. 4:1; 5). It is also referred to as the “day of vengeance.” The NT calls it a day of “wrath,” day of “visitation,” and “the great day of God the Almighty” (Rev. 16:14). These are terrifying judgments from God (cf. Joel 2:30–31; 2 Thess. 1:7–10) for the overwhelming sinfulness of the world. The future “day of the Lord” that unleashes God’s wrath falls into two parts: 1) the end of the seven-year tribulation period (cf. Rev. 19:11–21), and 2) the end of the Millennium. These two are actually 1,000 years apart and Peter refers to the end of the 1,000-year period in connection with the final “day of the Lord" (cf 2Pe 3:10; Rev 20:7-15).  Here, Paul refers to that aspect of the "Day of the Lord," which concludes the tribulation period.  "a thief in the night".  This phrase is never used to refer to the rapture of the church.  It is used of Christ's coming in judgment on the Day of the Lord at the end of the 7-year tribulation which is distinct from the rapture of the church (see note on 4:15) and it is used of the judgment which concludes the Millennium (2Pe 3:10).  As a thief comes unexpectedly and without warning, so will the Day of the Lord come in both its final phases.

2021-2, In vss 3-6 he seems to move well away from anything like specifics, and instead encourages them to be vigilant in staying prepared.  Don't get caught in sin when the rapture occurs, and like that.  He is telling  them they don't need to worry about the rapture, because the rapture is only a "bad thing" to those who won't be going when it happens. Don't focus on the rapture, focus on living like children of light in a dark world.  That's what Paul says is important.

5:9 says "For God did not appoint us to wrath..."  Nowadays, this means that the rapture will occur pre-wrath, or pre-great tribulation, instead of before any tribulation at all.  Possible I suppose.  But things are going to get pretty bad during the tribulation, too.  And Paul may not be describing the chronology of the end times here.  He may just be comforting the Thessalonians who have significant worries about those who have gone on before them.
2021-2, ESV renders it "has not destined us for wrath...".  Not much difference really.  The thing is this is an aorist verb, indicative again, and middle voice.  Here is an excerpt of how the BLB Interlinear describes the aorist tense:  "There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations."  My Zodhiates describes it as continuous ongoing action - no beginning or end.  BLB goes on to say that it is an action with a definite beginning or definite end - but possibly ongoing otherwise.  It is a tense we just do not have in English.  This cannot be precisely translated into English.  Here's my try:  This is telling us that God, at some time in the past, when he was deciding when to pour out His wrath, decided also that those who were to be raptured would not be present for the wrath.  So he decided it in the past and it has existing results.  The decision, though made in the past, is not yet consummated.
It is hard though to think that when Paul uses that word wrath, that he is talking about anything but the wrath described here:
16 calling to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, 17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?" [Rev 6:16-17 ESV]
In Revelation, the Greek word for wrath is "orge", a feminine noun.  Same word here in 1Thess5.

As John MacArthur says, Paul didn't give them a bunch of signs that would appear in heaven (moon turns to blood, stars fall to earth) and on earth (the anti-Christ, the rebuilding of the temple) to look for.  The one thing they were to watch for, and which is entirely and completely predictable, was the rapture.  It is the next big thing.  We work as best we can right up until then.

2022 - If I take some liberty, and "fit" Paul's words in 1-11 into my understanding - current understanding - of the end, I would say that Paul is telling the church they won't see the "day of the Lord", because we will "obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ".  Note also his use of "them" in vs 3.  Them and not us.  The thief comes at night, but we are children of the day, children of the light.  We won't be here on "the day of the Lord".  I think it is a day.  A precise and immediate commencing of wrath.  The church will be raptured out, and this will be followed by the signs in heaven, the earthquakes, and a panic worldwide because so many are missing.  But the MoS's will get them all settled down.  He will show them there is plenty of food, water, essentials, even luxuries, and that there is peace in the world.  He will assure people that this is some kind of conspiracy and that he will get to the bottom of it - or better yet he will say that all the missing were killed in the catastrophes.  He will settle everyone down, convince them that "There is peace and security".  While he is calming everyone down, the 144.000 will be sealed on earth and the bema judgment will take place in heaven.  Rev 7.  The world will likely think they are some kind of religious fanatics as they begin their ministry to the Jews.  Rev 7:14 tells us that the church was raptured out of Great Tribulation - which occurs BEFORE the wrath of God - and all these are now in heaven, around the throne.  The seventh seal is open, bringing only silence.  The calm before the storm.  The MoS's has still more time to convince those remaining on earth that all will be well.  Then we have the first four trumpets occurring rapidly, like labor pains, in just 6 verses.  (Hmm...the first four seals only lasted 7 verses.)  Perhaps these first four trumpets are the birth pangs.  The planet will be devastated.  Very little plant life survives - food supply cut by a third, 1/3 of the fish from the ocean gone, further reducing the food supply, and then the fresh water goes bad.  Nothing to drink.  People die in great numbers.  And then it gets bad.  The three woes - the last three trumpets are announced.
I think this little paragraph fits pretty well.

Verses 14-22 are some of my favorites.  I need to get them re-memorized.  They are a good guide for everyday living. 
2021-2, These verses are instructions to the church.  To "church people" about how they are to treat each other.  Some of them may extend outside the church also, such as "don't repay evil for evil".  That certainly applies inside the church, but I think we refrain from this even when the neighbor deliberately does us harm.  Don't "give it right back to him".  And if it is a church member who does it....forgive forgive forgive!

2023 - This verse, in the ESV:
22 Abstain from every form of evil. [1Th 5:22 ESV], and then the KJV:
22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. [1Th 5:22 KJV].
In English, I think we would get a different idea of what is really meant, depending on whether form or appearance is chosen to translate the Greek word "eidos".  This word is only used 5 times in the NT, and those into four different English words in the KJV - shape, fashion, sight, and appearance.  Here is the BLB definition:
1. the external or outward appearance, form figure, shape         
2. form, kind         
ESV seems to be trying to make this about us not doing evil in any form or fashion or shape.  If there is anything at all evil about it - if it resembles evil, if it is questionable at all as evil - then just don't do it.  That makes it about making sure that as Christians, WE OURSELVES avoid evil.  In the KJV, though, we would see the injunction as saying don't do anything that "appears" to be evil.  Appears to whom?  I think the emphasis in KJV is on others.  Don't do anything that other people might see you doing and say "He is doing evil".  This displaces our goal from making sure we give evil a very wide berth with making sure no one ELSE thinks we're doing evil.  I think that if you read this whole passage - get the context - it is obvious that Paul is speaking to each of these Christians individually about what THEY ought to do in their own lives.  It is about their own behavior, it is not about the perspective of those who SEE their behavior.  So I think ESV has it right.  And imagine how many arguments and problems go away if we don't interpret this as not doing what appears to be evil!  There are people out there who think we are evil if we drive an eight cylinder diesel for crying out loud!  They think we're evil if we say homosexuality is sin.  So no.  What other people think of our actions is NOT what Paul is going on about here.

2022 - One more verse - an old argument:
26 Greet all the brothers with a holy kiss. [1Th 5:26 ESV].  The word here translated brothers, with NO FOOTNOTE AT ALL, is the same root word used in 2:1, where the footnote says it could mean brothers and sisters.  Why is that footnote missing here?  Men greet each other with a kiss, but the sisters don't meet the sisters with a kiss?  Why wouldn't everybody just kiss everybody when they meet together?  Are women excluded from this command?  What is the contextual indication that this use of adelpho is restricted to the males in that church?  This is the kind of ridicule to which you open yourself when you start trying to accommodate current culture with 2000 year old common speech.  You just end up looking like a fool, and you spend your apologetics time arguing THIS instead of Christ crucified!  This is always a mistake.

MSB Book Introduction:  Written by Paul, probably just a few months after he wrote I Thessalonians, and while he was still in Corinth.  Around 51 AD or early 52 AD.  MSB says that Paul was "keeping up" with happenings in Thessalonica either by regular couriers, or possibly the person(s) who delivered the first letter brought word back after a space of time.  As this church grew and matured, MSB says there were three addressable developments that Paul wrote them about.  As the church grew, so did persecution of the church.  False teaching began to creep in, in this case especially as it concerned the return of Christ, and third, many were refusing to follow divine commands, particularly by refusing to work.  I think this means they weren't earning a living, but mooching off the rest of the church.   We shall see as we read.  
MSB says eschatological issues dominate the letter, even while it is still pastoral in describing how to maintain a healthy church with a testimony in the community.  "One of the clearest statements on personal eschatology for unbelievers is found in 1:9."  Church discipline is the major focus of 3:6-15.  This is to be considered along with other scriptures such as Mt 18:15-20; 1Co 5:1-13; Gal 6:1-5, and 1Ti 5:19,20 for more complete teaching on the theme.  

Chapter II 1

Chapter 1 recounts again the persecution and suffering of this church and their faithfulness through it all.  It also continues the theme of the second coming, saying that Christ and His angels will be "...taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel..."  At the time this vengeance takes place, those saved that Paul is addressing will be given "...rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed...", according to a previous verse.  This seems to say that vengeance will occur after the rapture and that the saved will be long gone when this occurs. 

2023 - This.  A lot of verses, but a point to be made:
7 and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels 8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, 10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. [2Th 1:7-10 ESV].
As we read through all these, we can see that this is not about the rapture, but the second coming.  There is no flaming fire at the rapture, no vengeance will be dealt out, no eternal destruction away from the Lord.  This is about when he comes to be glorified - to sit on his earthly throne.  So having established the "when" of this passage, look at what we can know.  He will come the second time with his mighty angels, that is, with his army.  We will have Armageddon.  There will be the Premillennial judgment - the sheep and the goats - and the goats will go straight into hell from that judgment.  

2021-2, Vss 5-8 are a sort of promise of vengeance from God toward those who are persecuting the Thessalonians.  Paul says it is only right that those who persecute the people of God should receive their own afflictions in return.  Vs 7 though indicates that this will not really occur until Jesus is revealed from heaven with his angels.  This seems like the second coming, not the rapture.  I am probably making too big a deal about whether the angels are coming with him or not.  I get that in Rev. 19:14, where the armies of heaven, clothed in white robes and riding white horses, come to earth with Christ.  Somehow, these on the horses, these in his army, are angels.  Maybe I think that because of these verses:
13 When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing before him with his drawn sword in his hand. And Joshua went to him and said to him, "Are you for us, or for our adversaries?" 14 And he said, "No; but I am the commander of the army of the LORD. Now I have come." And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped and said to him, "What does my lord say to his servant?" [Jos 5:13-14 ESV]  It says he saw a man, but it had to be an angel.  But...MSB says this commander, appearing as a man, is in fact a Christophany.  So...there is nothing here about the make-up of the army itself.  Surely though, back then, it had to be exclusively angels?
This was the other place I remembered:
17 Then Elisha prayed and said, "O LORD, please open his eyes that he may see." So the LORD opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha. [2Ki 6:17 ESV]
Horses and chariots mentioned, but no angels here either.  So I may just be way off on this army of angels.

2021-2, 9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, [2Th 1:9 ESV]
This is the fate of those who do not believe, as mentioned in the MSB intro.

2021-2, There are these things here (2Thess1) about the end, but the end is not at all the subject of chapter 1.  I would be very hesitant in building an eschatology on anything in this chapter.  Perhaps these verses could be used as support for other statements, but I would not use any of these as foundational.  That's just me.
Next day...The paragraph title is "The Judgment at Christ's Coming".  On second thought, it would be best to focus some attention here in connection with my "How Many Judgments" note, rather than to discount it without due attention.  Yesterday was not a very focused morning for me.  Let me look at these verses again and see what might be there.  Also, copying this little paragraph to the Judgment note.
Vss 5, 6 are making the case that it is right in God's eyes to judge.  We have that very often quoted verse that says "judge not lest ye be judged", and yet here we are told that God considers judgment a proper thing, in due time, and with a proper judge.  Further, judgment is not only about condemnation, it is about repaying those who have done wrong with affliction in return.  Beyond judgment is proper sentencing of the guilty, and beyond that there is punishment carried out.  God says the guilty are to suffer punishment.  So even if there are no specifics here about a particular judgment, we are told that judgment is a proper thing in the eyes of God.  
End of vs 7:
7 and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels [2Th 1:7 ESV].  This is actually pretty specific.  It says judgment will not likely be "today", but when Jesus comes with his angels.  Now we know from Revelation that this happens at the end of t/gt, and before the beginning of the Millennial.  These people to whom Paul is talking - as they were hearing what Paul said - believed that Jesus' return was imminent.  Possibly that very day.  So their understanding was that the hurts they were experiencing would be "relieved", and it would happen in their lifetimes.  That is how they would have understood it, and surely their preoccupation with the second advent corroborates this understanding.
Vs 8 continues the "identification" of the time when this will happen, at the second advent.  In Revelation 19 it says that when he comes his eyes will be a flame of fire.  This vs 8 says "in flaming fire".    I think these tie together.  Paul is talking about the second advent.  However, from other places, I believe only the living will be judged in the sheep and goat judgment, not ALL sinners, and I see no reason at all to think that the raptured will be judged here.  Only the sheep will be judged - the saved who survived the tribulation.  I think mostly, these will be Jews.  Perhaps this is where the saved will be rewarded based on merit...or maybe, since I think the church will also come back with Jesus at this time, this is where all the saved will receive the reward for what they did with what God gave them.  Wouldn't it make sense that if the sheep are being judged, then all the saved in Christ would be judged here?  After all, we're deciding who will be in charge of what for the next 1000 years.  Jesus told the apostles they'd judge the twelve tribes - but not at the Sheep and Goat judgment, because Christ is doing the judging there, of that we are sure.  But perhaps they will judge during the 1000 years!  I think this is finally coming together.  Here, as Jesus sets up his kingdom, as King of all that is, he will delegate authority in his kingdom to those who are present in the Millennial, based on merit.  Here is where the crowns come out.  Here is where what we did will matter.  But...who will we be "over"?  We know that at this judgment, and as it says in 2Thess9, 9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, [2Th 1:9 ESV].  There will be no lost to judge.  The lost who survive t/gt will go away here, and return only for a brief time at the GWT to sentenced and sent to the Lake of Fire.
Only "glitch" in this is that there won't be that many "people".  Most of the inhabitants of the Millennial would seem to be the raptured.  These have resurrected, uncorrupted bodies, and these are not going to sin.  The only source of sin will be from the survivors of t/gt.  Yet we  know that all the nations will look to Zion during this time for advice, judgment, and direction.  (Find the scriptures that make this plain, many will be in the OT).  But, even with this question still to be answered, I do like the rewards - to the sheep and to the raptured - being handed out here.  This could even extend to OT saints, if we are to include them in the rapture...which I am still unsure about.

2022 - Vs 7, as shown above, says the relief happens "when...Jesus is revealed...with his...angels".  This is about the second advent, when Jesus comes back to set up his Millennial kingdom on earth.  So...what relief?  The church will have been in heaven since the rapture.  A year or three.  If you are still on earth when Jesus comes down with his army, it means you were saved during t/gt or the wrath.  You've gone through a lot, survived the efforts of Satan and the Antichrist to wipe out all the Jews.  I think the best indication of this might be the word relief.  Those who are alive and being persecuted are in need of relief, not those in heaven since the rapture.  There are two things here -affliction repaid, first, and then relief granted.  This also meshes well with the idea that that he is talking about those who were NOT saved at the rapture, but get saved after that.  First, the persecutors, those with the mark and so on, are severely afflicted by the bowls.  This will certainly affect the saved also.  But at the end of that, Jesus appears, and he will judge the sheep and the goats.  The goats go straight into hell - that's vs 9.  And IF we say that Paul is talking here about sheep and goat, and he is addressing the church at Thessalonica, doesn't that mean that Paul believes some of them will go through ALL of it and survive to stand before Christ as living people at the pre-Millennial judgment?  But...that can't be right, unless the rapture is...when?  Or...the rapture is...who?  
2022 - Back up a bit to vs 5..."This is evidence..."  What is?  What is he referencing here?  The steadfastness and faith mentioned in vs. 4?  That is evidence of God's righteous judgment? That doesn't seem to fit.  Or perhaps the evidence is "worthiness" n vs 5, worthy because of their suffering.  Hmm...again, we see that it is "worthy of the kingdom".  The spiritual or the physical Millennial kingdom?  
2022 - Perhaps we can read it this way...The rapture occurs, and the church goes to heaven.  While there, those left behind are repaid with affliction for afflicting the church.  So far, this makes good sense.  The church will be severely persecuted prior to the rapture, and after rapture, wrath begins, afflicting those not saved.  Thought of this way, Paul to this point has in view the "future" of the church people he is addressing.  If we take the position that both Paul and the Thessalonians (we know for sure they did from 1 Thess...) expected the second coming in their lifetimes (remember that Paul had to tell them in 1 Thess about the rapture - they did not understand the rapture, but were expecting to go straight to the second advent and the physical kingdom) then we can understand "relief" to mean relief from current persecution.  BUT, vs 7b is pretty clear that the relief comes only AFTER Jesus' appearance.  So that last phrase of vs 7 is where this line of thinking breaks down....
Vs 9 is clearly the punishment handed down after a judgment.  So the second advent takes place, Jesus wipes out the army of Antichrist at Armageddon, and then there is the judgment of the sheep and goats.  At that judgment, those who don't know God, and/or those who do not obey the gospel, are sent to hell.  
I think the only way we can understand this is that relief for both the Thessalonicans and for Paul is about the rapture.  But that DOES NOT fit end times chronology.  So.  All I can do is fall back on the idea that Paul's letter is not written as a clarification of end times chronology.  That is not his subject, so we shouldn't try to enforce an end times rigidity on it.  Paul is speaking generally.  Nothing he says is "wrong", nothing is "contradiction", but we can't really even expect that he is laying things out chronologically.  His point in this passage is to encourage the Thessalonicans that their persecution will be avenged by God, and they they themselves will be relieved from it.  
On last idea.  I looked up the meaning of the word translated "relief".  It is the Greek word "anesis".   Looks a little like where "anesthesia" comes from.  Here is how it is used in the Bible:
1.              a loosening, relaxing         
    1.                      spoken of a more tolerable condition in captivity, to be held in less vigorous confinement                 
    2.                      relief, rest, from persecutions                 
So maybe Paul is just telling them that things won't always be this bad.  That the "level of persecution" they are currently experiencing is at a peak, and he is assuring them - based on the level of persecution in other places - that there will be some relief.  And ultimately, when Jesus returns, the perpetrators get what is coming to them here - at Armageddon - and then ALL the losers will be thrown into hell.
2022 - Ok, wait...here it is:
This is evidence of God's righteousness when he judges (two things):
1.  Since we know that God will afflict those who are doing the persecuting at his second coming, we know that he judges them for their wrong in that they should NOT be persecuting God's people, and he counts affliction suffered to the credit of the sufferers, and 
2. At the judgment following his appearance, God sends those who persecuted straight to hell, but those who remained faithful even during that intense period of persecution will be granted relief in that they WILL NOT go to hell...at least for now.  I think that makes the best sense so far.  We just have to remember that Paul is expanding on the idea of God's righteousness in judgment, and NOT on end times eschatology.  (I made a note in Rev 20 and the "resurrection count".

Chapter II 2
2023 - Reading the OT passages before NT this year...and there was a lot in Isaiah this morning.  So just reading straight through this today.
2021-2, The header for this chapter is "The Man of Lawlessness".  It is NOT "The Anti-Christ".  I believe Bobby Kelly is right about that whole thing.  We have labeled this last ruler Antichrist but in fact Son of Perdition and Man of Lawlessness are his true Biblical titles.  Antichrist is a more general term for those who aggressively oppose the work of Christ.  
2022 - This first verse:
1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, [2Th 2:1 ESV]...
Two things here:  
1, the coming of our Lord, The Greek word translated "coming" is parousia.  This word can mean actual presence, appearance, and advent.  But the question is, in this case, does it mean the second coming, or does it mean the rapture.  The word is used 24 times in each of the mGNT and the TR.  Here are some of them, starting with uses that are printed in red:
27 For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. ... 
37 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. ... 
39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. [Mat 24:27, 37, 39 ESV]
Matthew uses the word three times, right in a row, same chapter, and "THE" end times chapter in the Bible.  27 and 39 are both about the sudden and unexpected "flash" that is the parousia.  37 is about the environment in which it will happen.  So far, the "suddenness" sounds more like the rapture than the second advent.  This one also goes with that interpretation:
23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. [1Co 15:23 ESV]...and this next one seems particularly weighty in establishing the parousia as the rapture:
15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. [1Th 4:15 ESV].  This passage using parousia is two verses before the verse that uses "harpazo" in the same context.  I think this is pretty conclusive that the parousia in view here is the harpazo.  The coming of our Lord that Paul is telling them about is the rapture.
2, our being gathered together.  The Greek word translated "gathered" is episynagoge.  A gathering together in one place, or assembly.  This is NOT the same word used in 1Thes 4.17, which is the famous "harpazo" in Greek and "rapturo" in Latin, both meaning essentially the same thing - to snatch or take away.  Here are the two uses of episynagoge in the NT:
1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, [2Th 2:1 ESV]
25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. [Heb 10:25 ESV]
This word is far less definitive about the specific time that is in view.  The word most often used in the NT for "gathering" is "syllego".  Here are some interesting uses of that word that may shed light on the time in question:
28 He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' So the servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' 
29 But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. [Mat 13:28-29 ESV]
The parable of the wheat and the tares.  I believe this parable is about the pre-Millennial judgment after the second advent.  There is also this:
32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. [Mat 25:32 ESV].  The word here is "synago", related, obviously, to episynagoge.  I believe the sheep and goat judgment and the wheat and tare judgment are the same.  Pre-Millennial judgments.
So...I think this year, that parousia is pretty specifically referring to the rapture, and that episynagoge is more likely about the second advent.  That is the opposite of what I thought each word meant prior to this study.  So as Paul lays it out, first you get the parousia - the rapture - and then the assembly, the gathering, at the second advent.  And as always, I don't know anything about Greek, so this is just how I'm understanding things this year.

2024 - So...for what possible reason should we assume that these verses, or even this whole chapter, is just about one thing and not about both?  Perhaps Paul deliberately phrases things this way - uses these specific words - in order to make sure we know he is talking about both the rapture - the sudden appearance in the clouds - and the second advent - the episynagoge.  And let's not forget that back in II 1:7, he referenced what he called the "apokalipsis".  So three words, which may always mean different things in terms of end times, or may in fact all reference the exact same thing.  Perhaps only context will tell, and that may not always be definitive...in fact, it may not always word at all!
2024 - Just checked...and I use the phrase "day of the Lord" 36 times in 1 and 1Thess.  This one I just typed makes it 37.  So wow, that's a lot and tells me that this phrase is quite important.  What I need to do now is go back and read all that stuff, plus the MSB note that talks about all the places this phrase is used.  FOR NOW, I believe the "Day of the Lord" that Paul is talking about in this case is the beginning of wrath.  Paul has said the church will be saved FROM wrath, and yet here are the Thessalonians being increasingly persecuted, times gettin harder, and then someone says "Hey, remember in Matthew 24 where it says tribulation worse than ever before seen?"  Well this is it...but I know that cannot be right, and for the same reason Paul gives!  The MoL has not yet appeared!  In that verse in Matthew, he is already there.  
So, since the idea that the church in Thess was already into the "wrath of God" period based on what Matt 24 says is so easily refuted, what they did next to prove their point - and their expertise - was to circulate this fake letter from Paul!  You have to lie to show that the church goes through wrath.  It does not.  
See the little outline below on what all has to happen - and be RECOGNIZED BY THE CHURCH - before The Day of the Lord, which I now see is the beginning of wrath.  And think of what this means....The church will see the arrival of the MoL, go through a LOT of tribulation as a result of his arrival, but then gets removed before wrath.  Seems simple right now!

2021-2, The subject of II 1 was judgment.  The subject of II 2 is here:  1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, [2Th 2:1 ESV].  This is clearly about the rapture.  At least.  If you separate the compound sentence, it could be first about the second advent, tying it back to chapter 1, and second about the rapture - and being about both, we may be about to learn how those two are related.  OR, it could be exclusively about the rapture since Jesus will return and initiate that - I believe prior to the wrath of God being poured out.  This verse:
2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. [2Th 2:2 ESV]
So there seems to have been a coordinated attack on this church trying to undermine what they had been taught about the end times and the return of Christ.  It was a spiritual attack, there were "human" teachers preaching this false information, and a forged letter from Paul was circulating also saying that the rapture - well actually, saying that "The day of the Lord" had already come and gone, and here they were still.  Either they were not saved and so did not participate, or it was a non-event really, much less important than they thought.  What an insidious attack.  Wasn't it Corinth, where Paul was at this time, where there was false teaching that there was no resurrection at all?  Paul was successfully putting that one down, so here's another tack - he already came, and you didn't get resurrected.  Instead of "you won't be", this attack puts his coming in the past and says "you missed it".  The implication being that you can stop all this Jesus stuff now, it's over and done with.

2021-2,  Shouldn't we ask now what the precise meaning of "day of the Lord" might be?  I think I've looked before, and it can mean one day or a period of time.  As in Great Tribulation - however long it lasts - might be thought of as "the day of the Lord", and the rapture itself - very short-lived, might be the day of the Lord.  No, I have that wrong.  The MSB says that the source of distress in Thessalonica was that they expected to be raptured out before "the day of the Lord".  Likely Paul had taught them this would be the case while he was there. But here they were, being persecuted, suffering, and so on, and someone was telling them that this persecution was in fact part of the final "day of the Lord".  So their understanding of the "day of the Lord" was at least the tribulation period, and at most the whole 7 years.  In any case, they thought it had started without a rapture and were shocked to still be here.  That's what MSB says.  I know that John MacArthur teaches a pre-trib rapture.  So don't be thinking this is the only interpretation.

(((2021-2, Oh my!  There is an MSB note at 1Thess5:2 that starts "There are 19 indisputable uses of "the Day of the Lord" in the OT and 4 in the NT."  This would be an excellent thing to study, especially given that JM has already gathered all the scriptures about it!)))
(((2022 - Pre-Wrath Rapture by Rosenthal has them all listed also.  He sets out to show that the Day of the Lord is when Wrath begins, and says that the rapture is just before that.  A good second source for this study.)))

The Thessalonians seem to have been obsessed with the second coming.  Chapter 2 opens with Paul saying they should not be so concerned.  Apparently, someone had sent a fake letter, as if from Paul, telling them the rapture was over and done with, and they were left behind.  So Paul is going to clear that up.  HERE, he gives them additional signs to look for, unlike his approach in I Thessalonians.  They are:

1.  The falling away
2.  The Man of Sin (lawlessness) is revealed.  Also called the Son of Perdition. 
     b.  He opposes God
     c.  He exalts himself above all that is called God
     d.  He exalts himself above all that is worshiped
     e.  He sits in the temple of God
     f.   He shows himself that he is God.

2024 - What about this "apostasy", this "falling away".  I have never spent any time trying to understand anything about that.  Some kind of worldwide abandonment of God?  Worldwide worship of Satan perhaps?  The tables flip and it is those who believe that are seen as evil, and need to be "converted" to an every man for himself kind of existence?  You can kind of see that progression as ongoing.  First, it got ok to be an atheist.  Now it is ok not only to deny belief but to make fun of those who do believe.  But then somehow, it has become ok to worship Satan - no one makes fun of that - but it is not ok to worship God?
Or could it be that Islam - and a God purported to be the same God as the one in the Bible - continues to expand and take over country after country, and we get to a point where sharia law is the worldwide law?  Islam would most certainly take a dim view of Christianity and the worship of Jesus, since in their view that flies in the face of the whole idea of "One God".  

((((2021 - BUT, is Paul talking about the rapture or is he talking about the second coming at the end of GT?  I guess this is really an easy question....if we believe the rapture is anything but post GT, the Thessalonians will already be gone at the second coming.  If the second coming and the rapture happen together, then....A different interpretation is possible.  In any other event, the rapture would have already come.  So Paul is telling them about the rapture and what will precede it.  Pre-rapture, we will see the Man of Lawlessness take his seat in the temple of God and proclaim himself to be God.  The saved, pre-rapture, will see that event and know.  Then and only then is it "at the very doors".))))
2022 - We have to remember this verse in Matt 24:  21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. ... comes BEFORE this verse in Matthew 24:
29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. [Mat 24:21, 29 ESV]
Great Tribulation comes BEFORE the signs in the Sixth Seal.  So again, I believe Paul is telling them about events that occur BEFORE THE RAPTURE.  The Rapture is in view, not the second advent.  If the rapture occurs ANYTIME before the second advent, which I think is a pretty universally held position, then the church will come with at the second coming.  The church WILL BE GONE during the Day of the Lord.
2022 - Did Titus actually have some kind of throne put into the temple that he could sit on?  He'd have had to bring one in because no chairs are included in the temple furnishings.  I think we know from purely secular sources that he had a three sacrifices made in the temple, one of which was a pig.  But Titus' dad was vying for emperor when Titus sacked Jerusalem.  It would seem unlikely that he would declare himself the god of the Hebrews while his father was trying to become the god of Rome.  Titus did no "miracles", deceived no one into thinking that he had god-like powers.  I say all this to say that to me at least, it is unlikely that Paul is talking about 70 AD when he gives this list of things to look for.  And if it didn't happen in 70 AD, then it has still not happened, because there is no temple, and the Jews have no temple in which the man of sin can sit and declare himself a god.  So.  I see how you could make a case for a pre-trib rapture if 70 AD was in view, and Titus was the man of sin.  But I do not think this was about the events and persons of 70 AD.  I think vs 9 is further corroboration of this.  False signs, wonders, and so on accompany the coming of the man of sin.  Titus didn't do any.  This is not about him, these events are still future.

So things get bad before they get better.  A common theme.  Also, somewhere during this falling away, a man with two titles will appear.  Man of sin, Son of Perdition.  Also, depending on translation, Man of Lawlessness.  I assume this is the antichrist, but Paul doesn't call him that.  Would need to establish that connection somehow.  Will he actually trot out these specific titles for all the world to hear?  Wouldn't people be put off by someone called the Man of Lawlessness proclaiming that he is God?  Perhaps vs 11 explains how this can happen. 

Also, this says that Antichrist will appear - will be revealed - BEFORE the rapture.  Since Paul is trying to calm the Thessalonians down following this fake letter saying Christ has already come, Paul is saying that until they have seen the things in this list - until the man of sin is REVEALED, that is, recognized by the Thessalonians, then there has been no "Day of the Lord".
YET, I wonder...Thessalonians was written before the fall of Jerusalem.  Many say that Titus did all those things in the list when he sacked Jerusalem.  But I am not so sure.  That's the thing.  No one is sure.  The argument that it was about 70 AD gains credibility from:
vs 7 says he is already here, but is being restrained until the proper time.  Who is restraining him?  If he is a man, a strong angel could do it.  But I suspect this one is something like Judas, whom Satan entered to carry out his attempt to destroy Jesus.  A man betrayed Jesus, but Satan was in full control of the things he did at that time.  I suspect the Son of Perdition will be much the same.  He will be allowed to invade some mortal man and act according to his own ambitions to dethrone God Himself.  vs. 9 seems to say this very thing.

But this verse could also have been about Titus and the sacking of Rome.  Jesus after all said the temple would be thrown down, not one stone upon the other, before he returned.

2021-2, 2 Thess 2 vss 3-12.  Consider this an "update" of the previous few paragraphs.  I have learned some things since I made those notes.  First, the title "Antichrist" is a misnomer.  Son of Perdition is a better title.  Thanks to Bobby Kelly for preaching our complete over use of the term Antichrist.  The Bible does not use this name of the one who comes to power in the last days and proclaims himself God.  The Bible calls him these other things.  Son of Perdition, Man of Lawlessness, and a few others.  If we are to believe the MSB note on 2, then these verses - 3-12 - are about things that will happen pre-rapture.  There are some things in the passage that one might point to and suggest that Paul is mixing pre-rapture and pre-advent2 together.  For this year, lets stay with it being strictly pre-rapture.  If so, then this Man of Lawlessness will seat himself in the temple and declare himself to be God BEFORE the rapture.  So when does he come to power?  He is the one horn that replaces the three.  When is that?
Hmm...I cannot find it right now.  This is CRUCIAL to understanding when the rapture occurs.  Must find it!
2022 -  What about here:  8 I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. [Dan 7:8 ESV].  Also this:
1 And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems on its horns and blasphemous names on its heads. [Rev 13:1 ESV]
5 And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months. [Rev 13:5 ESV]

2022 - This whole 70 AD idea - that Titus was the Man of Lawlessness, because that inescapably goes with it -  would mean that the in contrast to Thessalonica, since all these things in Paul's list happened in 70 AD, the next thing Christians today are looking for is the rapture.  All the signs were complete 2000 years ago.  We'd be saying that all Paul's "signs" were seen in 70 AD, so next is the rapture itself.  No more signs, no more warnings.  Wow...If I want to be a pre-trib rapture guy, THIS would be the way to argue it!  There is no getting around the idea that these signs must come before the rapture.  But if 70 AD was when these signs appeared, all we're waiting for is that trumpet that will come when we least expect it.  But to take this view, we now need to totally re-look at what Revelation is about.  

2022 - This verse:
7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. [2Th 2:7 ESV].   What is this mystery?  Mystery, in the NT, usually is about something that was always there in scripture, but not previously understood.

2022 - I think 9-12 are about great trib.  AFTER the man of sin is recognized and WHILE he is trying to wipe out both church and Jews and BEFORE the rapture. I think this ties back to Matt 24's use of the term great tribulation.

(((2022 - I have worn myself out on the first 6 verses again.  About 2 1/2 hours worth on 6 verses.  So once again, I am reading through the rest, and will focus on 7-17 some other time.)))

In vs 13, Paul moves on.  Verse 13 is also a pretty good proof text for predestination, or in strict Calvinist terms, of Unconditional Election, which is not quite the equivalent of predestination.
[2Th 2:13 KJV] 13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

In vs. 14, even those chosen from the beginning come to salvation through the gospel.

2021-2, Wow.  There is so very much information in 2Thess2, and in the past, the reading plan has required me to read ALL of 1 and 2 Thess the same day.  That is a month's worth of study.  No wonder I am so weak on these things.  I am just reading on through  vss 13-17 this time, and I didn't scratch the surface of 6-12.  So NEXT YEAR, work on those - or hopefully I can break it into a separate study.  So much here!

2024 - Look at vss 16-17.  Do they not look like the end of a letter from Paul?  It doesn't have the references to specific people that many Pauline letters have, but this wording seems quite familiar.  And 3 looks like maybe it was tacked on a week or so later.  Like he finished the letter...but then decided to add a little more.  I mean, compare 2:16 with 3:16!  

2024 - I also note, realizing perhaps for the very first time, that just as you cannot study Revelation with studying Daniel, you also cannot study Revelation without studying 2Thess 2:3-12.  This passage is vital.  It MUST fit into any end times chronology that we can propose.  It is a necessary piece of the puzzle.  I point out that saying the rapture comes before the first seal is opened must deal with the idea that the MoL will have already declared himself God at that point - before the seals even start.  And THAT MEANS that in Matt 24, the great tribulation that occurs BEFORE the MoL appears, must all happen even longer before the first seal.  These verses in 2Thess2 say unequivocally that the church will see the MoL declare himself to be God, from his throne in the Temple.  The church will still be here, not yet raptured out, at that point.  I can't see how that works out at all.

Chapter II 3
Chapter 3 begins with "Finally".

2021-2, Vss 1-5 are a sort of "it might get worse before it gets better" paragraph.  Paul asks them to pray for him as he preaches the gospel, that it might be accepted where he is as it was in Thessalonica.  He also asks to be delivered from "wicked and evil men", and contrasts them with those who have faith.  The implication is that those who do have faith will be "with them", and the unsaved will be against them.  But we have to remember that it is the unsaved he is trying to reach, also.  We must put ourselves before these wicked and evil people, and preach to them, and leave it to God to either save them, or to protect us from them.  This is totally irrational by worldly standards.  Why would we intentionally put ourselves into harms way in order to do good to those who will likely want to harm us as a result of our efforts?  This is, in fact, the Great Commission.  Go, and do good, for those who will more than likely hate you for your efforts.  And keep doing it.  And don't be upset at those who do you harm.  This is difficult to wrap ones  head around.

2021-2, In vs 6, Paul gets down to some "correction".  There has been very little of this in the letters to Thessalonica.  It seems that somehow, some in the church have decided it is ok to "mooch" off others, to "retire" and live on charity.  Paul says that is not correct, and is not the example that he and others set for them when they were there.  Paul often appeals to his own example as a lesson of how things should be done.  You have to set the bar pretty high to be able to make this case.  

2022 - Here is vs 6:
6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. [2Th 3:6 ESV].  Looking at this in 2022, this is a very strong statement.  Paul says he is "commanding" this, and doing so in Jesus' name.  It is a command from God.  Not a command to work, but a command to those who ARE working to keep away from those who are not working.  Is this about daily physical work, earning a living  so you can feed yourself?  Or is this about not working to further the gospel?  Or could it be that some were furthering the gospel but expecting everyone else in the church to support them as they did so...MSB references vs 14.  MSB says that this was about obedient Christians not associating with disobedient Christians.  MSB explains that there were false traditions and true, and that Paul's traditions were the inspired teachings he had given.  All this from MSB is interesting but really answers no questions at all.  There are verses about the false traditions:  
3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) ... 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' 8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men." [Mar 7:3-4, 7-8 ESV].  These verses do, I think, have a bearing here.  But how is this walking in idleness?  I don't see how you get that from these verses.  Here is the only other scripture MSB lists:
8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. [Col 2:8 ESV].  So if this is what Paul was thinking about, there may have been a teaching that to follow Christ you had to give up your job and spend all your time studying.  Paul certainly did not set this example.  We can get into the whole "called to study", or "called as evangelists" and so on, but the "tradition" about that from Paul was that you keep making tents while you're doing all that because it is still your own responsibility to support yourself.  Even so, we know that Paul did accept offerings in various places from other churches for the furtherance of his work.  So...you should expect to support yourself in the work to which God calls you, but also accept gifts provided by supporters, through God's will and prompting of those benefactors, since that will allow you to devote still more time to God's work.  Perhaps there were people just sitting around the church, eating provided food, waiting to receive enough money to "be a missionary to Africa".  
Yes, as Paul goes on he makes it clear that "doing God's work" does not entitle you to free room and board.  But...Paul says he was "entitled" to such pay, but that his example to them was not to take that to which you are entitled?  Like, you have to at least be WILLING to work.  Maybe that is the division.  
2024 - I think the NASB95 is perhaps a better translation for understanding to whom Paul refers in this command:  6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. [2Th 3:6 NASB95].  It says keep away from BROTHERS who lead an unruly life.  So we are talking about nominally saved people who's lives, who's lifestyles, are not focused on furthering the gospel and living according to Jesus' example.  BUT...as I read on in the chapter Paul seems to clarify that he is speaking of those who fail to support themselves, and end up relying on the church to supply their need for food...and by extension, everything else.  So he would be calling unruly those who can't focus on a job enough to keep it, or who think it is ok to quit a job until after they finish helping with the Christmas program while expecting to be supported by others during that time.  Maybe.  The passage never really says what these brothers to be avoided are actually doing - if anything - that makes them think they should be supported.  But that idea is there in that Paul says the work he was doing DID entitle him to church support, but he never asked for it, and others, doing less than he did, shouldn't ask for it either.  
2024 -God does not expect us to starve in order to serve at church - especially if our family is going hungry in order for us to serve.  He does expect us to give of both time and resources, as we are blessed by God, and have excess, and have time that we can devote.  

2023 - Here is "imitate" again.  Paul says all should conduct themselves in the world as he did:
7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, [2Th 3:7 ESV].  Just exactly how far are we to go with this?  How literally are we to take it?  Surely Paul didn't mean they ought to dress like him and talk like him.  Is this command to imitate always about how we are to support ourselves?  I don't think Jesus continued to be a carpenter after he turned 33.  So that wouldn't apply to both he and Paul...This is going to be an interesting study when I get to it.

vs 10 includes the phrase "...If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat".  And this was among the brethren in the church.  Even in church, where charity to others is the rule of the day, if you don't work, you don't eat.  Seems there were some in Thessalonica who felt entitled, or who just decided to take advantage of the brotherly love of Christians, in order to "retire" and live off the labor of others.  So being against giving welfare to those who will not work is a Biblically sound attitude.  Doesn't say the able bodied only, it says all.  Each according to his abilities comes to mind.

Vs. 13, "...do not grow weary in doing good."  More about works.

2021-2, This is interesting: 
11 For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. [2Th 3:11 ESV].  The contrasted "busy" words are ergazamai, and periergazamai.  Not at all working, but working at nothing.  I know of no English word that has ergazamai as it root, but still an interesting contrast.
2022 - Maybe these two words are the key.  Perhaps they were hanging out at church organizing the hymn books, and wanting to receive money for room and board for their efforts.  I think it is implied that these were more than capable of organizing the hymn books AND holding down a full time job.  As in the work was insufficient for the pay they were demanding.  We ought not provide for someone like this.  Paul could work, and he did so when the support was less than he needed.  And when his ministry - his teaching and preaching - was so intense and continuous that he had no time to work, and his ministry was deemed critical to what the church needed, THEN he was entitled to support.  And apparently Paul set this bar very high for himself, and expected others to do likewise.

[2Th 3:14-15 KJV] 14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet count [him] not as an enemy, but admonish [him] as a brother.
These two verses give us the proper way to deal with those who will not "eat their own bread".  Shut them off.  They don't eat at your table.  But when they come around, explain what is required, and don't be  holding a grudge against them.

(What a long section of reading for a single day, when yesterday only a single chapter of Acts was on the schedule.  Ought to be a little more even way of doing this.)