There is much debate concerning the proper translation of this text, but not because of the actual use and definition of words but the difficulty in accepting its meaning. It is a good illustration to show how easy it is to reject one view for another based on our own prejudices, instead of open and honest study of the Scriptures. It reads,
…that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come (NASV). The Greek word used here is enistémi . The Greek words translated “at hand” in other texts, like where John preaches that the kingdom is at hand, is engizo. It means “to draw near to something”. But, enistémi means that the subject of the sentence has already happened. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translates it, “… not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here.” Youngs Literal Translation (YLT) translates it, “… that ye be not quickly shaken in mind, nor be troubled, neither through spirit, neither through word, neither through letters as through us, as that the day of Christ hath arrived.” Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges writes about the word. It reads, “The verb means more than is at hand,—rather, is now present (R. V.), is upon us; under the same verb (in its participle) “things present” are contrasted with “things to come” in Romans 8:38, and 1 Corinthians 3:22.” Other uses of the word is found in Galatians “this present evil world” (cf. 2 Tim. 3:1, Heb. 9:9). Paul uses it in 1 Corinthians 7:26 to refer to “the present distress.” These examples do not describe something coming soon but still in the future, and certainly not a distant future. Instead, we are describing that which is already present. Hogg and Vine demonstrates that the use of the verb and its cognates in the perfect tense is called an intensive perfect and always has the “present” meaning.
The King James Version, on the other hand, has the last phrase translated, “as that the day of Christ is at hand”. The old English used this to convey someone or something nearby or within reach. As an example of its use in a sentence, one might say, “Your brother will need his wife to be close at hand when he comes home from surgery.” Or, “The preacher always keeps a glass of water at hand when he’s teaching.” This is a poor translation of English word meanings today, but represents the thinking of many Christians regarding the second coming. For them, it can’t possibly mean “present” because we are all here on planet earth. Instead of questioning whether the second coming is associated with the end of the world and time, they would prefer to alter the meaning of words. For example, Matthew Pool (and Eadie) admits that the Revised Version translated it literally, “is present.” He then cites Romans 8:36, 1 Corinthians 3:22, Galatians 1:4 and Hebrews 9:9 where it is translated, “present,” and admits “it ought to be so rendered.” Despite the evidence in its favor, he then writes, “It is, however, difficult to conceive how the Thessalonians could think that the day of the Lord was actually present. We cannot imagine that they thought that Christ had already come for judgment.” For this reason, some have concluded that the writers of the New Testament believed he was planning on coming soon, but he delayed his coming and will fulfill the promise at some unknown future. To remove the strange sound of a first century promise that is delayed for over 2,000 years, someone else has added the argument that “one day is a thousand to the Lord.” In other words, words like “soon” and “present” don’t really mean that because, God measures time so that one day may equal a thousand years. This borders on the ridiculous from those who close their eyes and minds to any other explanation. Either we accept the correct translation of the word and reconsider our view of the resurrection or maintain our view and reject the proper translation. Why was it so difficult for Pool to imagine that the day of the Lord had come? Pools view of the coming of Christ included the end of the world, and a final day of judgement in which all will be consigned to heaven or hell. It became obvious to me that no one living in the first century could have had this same idea of the second coming of Christ that is common among us, today.
Thomas notes that some commentators think of the day of the Lord as a single event and Hiebert points out that it refers to a definite period rather than a single event. The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary describes it correctly when it reads, “The second epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians was written to correct the erroneous notion among the Christians at Thessalonica that the persecutions from which they were suffering were those of ‘the great and awesome day of the Lord’ (Joel 2:31) from which they had been taught to expect deliverance by ‘the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to Him’ (2 Thess 2:1). The theme of this epistle, obscured by the mistranslation of the KJV in 2:2, ‘the day of Christ is at hand,’ is correctly rendered in NASB ‘The day of the Lord has come.’ ” The great and terrible day of the Lord that Joel had prophesied would come in the last days had come. Joel explains that the outpouring of the Spirit was a sign before that day came. First, they could testify to the Spirit’s outpouring and would expect his coming in that same generation upon whom the Spirit was poured. Second, they were experiencing severe persecutions from which they were expecting to be delivered. Third, they were not expecting the end time and the end of the world. For these reasons, and contrary to Pool’s logic, it might not be so “difficult” to accept that someone may have actually thought that Jesus had already come.
In addition, the response given by Paul in the text itself leads to the conclusion that the coming of the Lord is not a a final judgment and end of the world. If Paul thought of the Lord’s day as Pool and a majority of students, he would have said, “Have you lost your minds? Are we not all still present? Does not the earth remain with us and time continues as before? Contrary to what some commentators have written, the problem at Thessalonica was not that people wrongly thought that the second coming (and the DOL) was near. Paul doesn’t correct their understanding of the nature of His coming nor its imminence. He only corrects the timing of the day of Lord by giving measurable events that must take place, first.
Several conclusions are easily reached if we dismiss the notion that Paul is talking about the end of the world judgment day. First, even though the Lord had not come at the time of writing the letter to Thessalonica, the fulfillment of the promise was near. Second, if Paul doesn’t correct the imminent return of Christ nor the nature of his coming, it is clear that when he comes, some could be on planet earth and not be caught up in the air to meet the Lord. Third, their misunderstanding would have caused much alarm and troubled hearts at the thought that they had missed the gathering and were not among those “caught up.” The discouragement would cause people to loose hope, quit working and become unproductive stewards. This text proves that today’s popular views of Christ’s coming do not match that of Hymaneus, Philetus or Paul. The error of the second coming was not the nature of His coming or its imminence, but that it had already passed.
Next, if we assume that Paul, by inspiration, chose the right word and there were those living then who thought the Lord had already come, then, what promise of the Lord’s return would people think had already occurred? The problem with its answer is the “difficulty” in fitting the texts into our understanding. So, I’m encouraging you to allow the text to take you on an uncharted course. If Paul’s description of our gathering to him (1 Thess. 2:14) is not at the end of the world, then how could this judgment be described as the harvest or gathering, judgment and resurrection?