IF you read your Bible, you would first of all know that Jesus promised us tribulation in this world. Secondly, you have a myopic view of the scriptures if you believe that God doesn't allow his children to suffer such trials and tribulation. Why does Rom 8:35-36 say this?
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written: “For Your sake we are killed all day long; We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”
Why the need for this explicit verse if God's children don't go through such things as you erroneously believe? If you think that you're exempt from suffering from atrocities then I ask you why did all of the Apostles except John - the very people who were the closest to Jesus - suffer a martyr's death? Even today, why are Christians in the Middle East being persecuted for their faith with some even losing their heads. Why don't you ask them where there heads went and for what reason? So we know that there were martyrs in the past and martyrs in the present; yet your rose-colored view of the scriptures doesn't allow for the possibility of martyrs in the future? Rest assured unlike you, scripture plainly states that will happen:
Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. Rev 20:4
This scripture states that these martyrs had been beheaded because they refused to worship the beast and take the mark. What does that say about your theory that you will be immune from such persecution? It also refutes your myth of the belief that there won't be hardly any raptured if all are martyred. Their testimony dictates otherwise.
Since I answered your question; now answer mine.
I think you have missed the entire intent of these scriptures.
2 thes. 2 is not an easy passage, although some just read it through and think they have it. We know the THEME of the passage is HIS COMING and the rapture or gathering of the saints. Therefore, any posit of this passage that does not clearly show the rapture cannot be the intent of the author.
Next, we know that Paul left out words that the translators have added. However, I agree with what they have added. others may not.
Verse 3 is the pivotal verse in this passage. Yet probably 99% of the positors ignore the fact that in verse 3b the man of sin IS revealed.
These people heard a prophecy, or perhaps read a letter which apparently told them that the day of the Lord had started and they were now IN IT. Paul's argument will show them that the Day can't possibly have started and how to know for sure when it has come.
Next, even the Greek texts we have don't agree on "Day of the Lord" or Day of Christ. However, since Christ is Lord, I don't see what difference this makes.
Young's Literal Translation
2:3 let not any one deceive you in any manner, because -- if the falling away may not come first, and the man of sin be revealed -- the son of the destruction,
Darby's English Translation
2:3 Let not any one deceive you in any manner, because it will not be unless the apostasy have first come, and the man of sin have been revealed, the son of perdition;
Weymouth New Testament
2:3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for that day cannot come without the coming of the apostasy first, and the appearing of the man of sin, the son of perdition, who sets himself against,
So Paul is telling them - those that were worried that they were already IN the day of the Lord - that "that day" or the "day of the Lord," could not come without the apostasy coming first and then the appearing of the man of sin.
Now we must regress again, for the "day of the Lord," may mean different things to different people. If people believe that this "day of the Lord" is the day of the rapture, they would interpret this verse one way; but if they believed that the "day of the Lord" started right after the rapture, then they would interpret this verse a different way. So what can we determine about the "day of the Lord?"
Zeph 1
14 The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.
15 That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,
Need we look any farther? The "day of the Lord" is a day of wrath!
Isaiah 13
6 Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.
Paul must have had this verse in mind, when he said, "sudden destruction."
Isa 13
9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.
There can be no doubt that the day of the Lord is filled with His great anger or wrath.
Jeremiah 46:10
For this is the day of the Lord GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance, that he may avenge him of his adversaries: and the sword shall devour, and it shall be satiate and made drunk with their blood: for the Lord GOD of hosts hath a sacrifice in the north country by the river Euphrates.
Joel 1:15
Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.
These people had heard Paul teach on the day of the Lord. Paul had undoubtedly used some of these verses. Then someone had at least attempted to convince them that the day of the Lord had started! Now, stop and think: if Paul had taught them that the day of the Lord would come first, and after that the rapture, why would these folks have been disturbed? That would not have made any sense. It seems VERY likely that they had written Paul both about the day of the Lord that they had heard had already started, and about their being gathered together in the air, because of the way Paul started this chapter.
Now let's look at one more:
2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
When will this all happen? Peter says it will be in the day of the Lord! It seems VERY unlikely then, that the "day of the Lord," is one 24 hour period, but rather, and extended period of time. It is also very doubtful that the rapture would start the "day of the Lord." It is a day of wrath, not a day of joy. Now, let's look at our verse again:
Darby's English Translation
2:3 Let not any one deceive you in any manner, because it will not be unless the apostasy have first come, and the man of sin have been revealed, the son of perdition;
So Paul is saying that the "apostasy" must come first, before the day of the Lord can come. KJV put it like this:
King James Version
2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
What day? What day would the translators be looking back to? The "gathering together" day? NOT! We would go back to the last time "day" was mentioned. Let's see these two verses together:
Weymouth New Testament
2:2 not readily to become unsettled in mind or troubled--either by any pretended spiritual revelation or by any message or letter claiming to have been sent by us--through fancying that the day of the Lord is now here.
3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for that day cannot come without the coming of the apostasy first, and the appearing of the man of sin, the son of perdition, who sets himself against,
"That day," refers back to the "day of the Lord." However, please keep in mind that Paul did not write "that day" here: he left it blank! In reality this verse would say:
Let no one in any way deceive you, for - - without the coming of the apostasy first. So anything we put in will be added! As I have said many times, this verse is ambiguous at best! But we will guess, as the translators have done, that what was left out would be "that day cannot come."
So the terrible day of God's wrath, that day of darkness in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise - that day - cannot come, until the apostasy comes first.
Here is where we get the vast differences of opinion. If we say that apostasy is departure, then it would read:
Let no one in any way deceive you, for that day cannot come without the departure coming first, and the appearing of the man of sin, the son of perdition, who sets himself against,
If we think departure is rapture, which I do, then it would say: "the day of the Lord" cannot come or be here, without the coming of "the departure" first, and the appearing of the man of sin
If we think departure is departing from the truth, which I don't, then it would say: "the day of the Lord" cannot come or be here, without the coming of "the departure from the truth" first, and the appearing of the man of sin...
Paul goes on to explain more about the man of sin:
King James Version
2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5: Don't you remember when I was with you, I taught you these things?
Weymouth New Testament
2:6 And now you know what restrains him, in order that his true character may be revealed at his appointed time.
Now Paul has said an interesting thing: He said that He has just told them who or what the restrainer is!
American Standard Version
2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work: only there is one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way.
Now Paul has told us that the one or "he" that is restraining, will be taken out of the way.
Noah Webster Bible
2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the spirit of his mouth, and will destroy with the brightness of his coming:
So the one or the "He" that is restraining or holding back the revealing now, will be taken out of the way, and
then, the "man of sin" will be revealed.
What then did Paul tell us, that will be "removed?" Who will be removed? Who will be taken out of the way?
Now, again, we come up against translators adding something to the original, whether or not justified. There is no Greek word that "taken" is translated from! As much as I would like "taken" to be there, it is not. (it would fit the rapture theory nicely!
A close, word for word translation would go like this:
The for secret already is operating of the lawlessness only the one detaining at present until out of the midst may be becoming.
Now, let's try to get this into typical English order: It could be rendered
"The secret of lawlessness is already operating, only the one detaining, (restraining or keeping down) at present until he (it) become (may be becoming) out of the midst,"
Does "
taken out of the way" seem a good transliteration for "
become out of the midst?" I will let the reader decide. I think so. However, I can believe that we can deduce, an "it" or a "he" gets out of the way. Whether or not the "he" steps out of the way, or is taken out of the way, Paul is not clear enough for us to be certain. If this were speaking of the church being the restrainer, then indeed, the church would be "taken" out of the midst. This could be a possible rendering.
How would the church "falling way" fit into this? Could the church falling away from truth be rendered as "becoming out of the midst?" Again, I will let the reader decide. (Note carefully that the word Apostasia does NOT include WHAT is being departed from: if it is truth, we would have to ad lib that part.) Whether we go with "taken out of the way," or "become out of the midst," a departure of the church seems to fit this verse better, in my opinion. Others may disagree.
What will happen when the "it" or "he" becomes out of the midst?
8. and then the lawless one shall be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall consume with the breath of his mouth, and shall annul by the appearing of his coming;
So Paul was saying that:
the Day of the Lord could not come until the departure takes place first, and then the man of sin would be revealed, the one Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Don't you remember when I was with you, I taught you these things? And now you know what restrains him, in order that his true character may be revealed at his appointed time. For the secret of lawlessness is already operating, only until the one restraining at present become out of the midst,"
Again, I refer back to "now you know" who was restraining and who has become out of the midst.
Paul had just told them, perhaps in code, and on purpose to protect his life, who had just been "become out of the midst." Why did He say "now you know?" I think he wrote this so that only those he was writing to would understand. So to make sure the understood his code, he said, "now you know." This is just my opinion. I think his plan in writing this was to cause them to go back and read more carefully.
Next, if we study verse 3, we see it is in two parts, 3a and 3b. If we study 3b, we see that in Paul's argument at this point in time, the man of sin HAS BEEN revealed and now IS revealed. Don't take my word for: read it in every translation: BE revealed means IS revealed. And the proof that he is revealed now (in 3b) is what he will do shown in the next verse.
So if we see the man of sin revealed in 3b, and we certainly do, then in verse 3a we MUST find the one restraining being "taken out of the way or out of the midst." Therefore, hidden in the word "apostasia" is the one restraining being taken out of the way. This is an absolute.
Now, with all that being said, it seems to me much more likely that apostasia has the meaning of spatial departure in this context, because Paul said that it was something that would "become out of the midst." This really is a good definition of the rapture: we will indeed be taken right out of the midst of the world population.
How does falling away from truth fit with the rest of the verses? I can't see how this would be "becoming out of the midst," or even "taken out of the way."
This is how I see these verses.
Coop
