"revelation of the Lord Jesus". The descent "from heaven" and the revelation "from

heaven" are the same in the original, ap ouranon being used in both passages. In

I Thess. 4: the descent "from heaven" is associated with the "voice of the Archangel",

and, as we shall prove presently, with the Lord's "holy angels" (I Thess. 3: 13). In

II Thess. 1: this is repeated with added details: "With His mighty angels, in flaming fire

taking vengeance."

In Dan. 12: 1 we read that, when Michael the "Archangel" stands up: "There shall

be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time."

There can be only one such time of trouble, and Dan. 12: 1 must therefore synchronize

with the even spoken of in Matt. 24: 21 and Rev. 7: 14.

If it be objected that this makes the hope before the Church of the Thessalonians

identical with the hope of Israel, we would reply that this is not an objection, but actually

the truth of the matter. The hope of Israel was the only hope in view in Acts 1: 6, and

the hope of Israel was still in view in Acts 28: 20. We have seen that the church at

Rome was taught to abound in this very hope, and we also find that all that is written

concerning the hope in I and II Thessalonians links it to this same hope of Israel.

Michael, according to Dan. 12:, "stands for the people of Israel"; and the coming of the

Lord "with all His saints" is a fulfillment of Zech. 14: 5. The "saints" here are angels,

as a comparison of Deut. 33: 2 and Psalm 68: 17 will show.

The only other mention of the "Archangel" in the N.T. is in Jude 9, and Jude speaks

of the days immediately preceding the dreadful Day of the Lord.

The whole of the prophetic passage in II Thess. 2: is taken up with teaching

concerning the Beast and the False Prophet. If the hope of the Thessalonian Church was

the blessed hope of the Mystery, why should the Apostle spend so much time describing

a period that has nothing to do with this hope?

It may be necessary to say a word here on II Thess. 1: 10. The translation "When He

shall have come" is to be preferred to the A.V. rendering, but there is no warrant for

teaching from this that the hope of the church will have been fulfilled before "He shall

have come". The context points the other way, and there is no possibility of this meaning

in other passages where the same tense is used.