Well, Paul even says speaking of the day of Christ (what many call the rapture) will not happen until there is a falling away first and that man of sin is revealed. The problem with most Christians is they believe that this is all going to happen the last few years of earth's history. However, that would be a pretext of the actual text. Paul gives some clues as to what the "falling away" means and who the man of sin actually is. Notice, he says the man of sin will sit in the temple of God. Carnally minded people think this means he will sit in some rebuilt jewish temple (which you have to really twist). The greek word for "temple" is clearly the church of God. He uses this word "naos" in other texts calling the christian church the "temple of God" as he uses in 2nd Thess 2:4. The man of sin "sits" in the church meaning he has authority in it. Just as we say the president sits in office, it simply means he has authority in our nation. Jesus was seated at the right hand of the Father, but that doesn't mean he was sitting down literally! Notice this man of sin cannot be revealed until the falling away (greek word apostasia) happens and that which restrains him is taken out of the way. You may have been taught that the restrainer is the Holy Spirit, but why was Paul so reluctant to name who it was? If it was the Holy Spirit, he would have simply said so. Notice he says that "remember not when I was WITH YOU, I told you these things?". So in other words, he told them who the restrainer was in PERSON, but could not tell them in his LETTER. Why do you ask? Well, in Chapter 1, you will notice the Thessalonians are being persecuted and if you know Christian history, you will know who was doing it - Rome. For this reason, Paul reminded them he told them about the restrainer in person (telling them it was the fall of Rome), but he did not tell them in his letter (had the letter been caught by the Romans and he had said Rome would be "taken out of the way", it would have caused many more problems for the Thessalonians). Now, Paul was basically saying that this man of sin is revealed (given power) based on 2 principles. One was this "falling away" which the greek refers to as an apostacy in the church. The other would be the restrainer being taken out of the way in order for this man of sin to get his power/be revealed. The falling away/apostacy is most certainly the falling away in the christian church from the time of the apostles (31 AD) until the fall of Rome (476 AD). Paul even prophesied about the church being taken over by wolves after his departing. The restrainer being the Caesars of Rome had to fall from power in order for this man of sin to be given power (the popes of Rome). Why the popes? By the time the fall of Rome had taken place, the popes were "sitting" in the temple of God (the church) as its head (replacing Christ as the head). Does not the very greek meaning of "antichrist" means "instead of Christ"? How fitting. Also, notice the code phrase Paul applies to the man of sin. He said he is the son of perdition. What other person in the bible is known as this son of perdition? Judas of course. He appeared to be a friend of Jesus Christ, not an obvious enemy. He was a disciple and when the disciples were given power to heal people, he also was included in having this power. He was so convincing as a disciple of Christ, that when Jesus said one of them would betray him, his disciples wondered "Is it I Lord?". If Judas was obvious, they most certainly would not have wondered who it was. So, this man of sin is LIKE Judas Iscariot. He appears to be a friend of Christ, he sits as the head of the church, he blasphemes the God of heaven, he shows himself he is God. Some will say "Doesn't it mean one man because it says man of sin?". Well, Paul uses the phrase "man of God" and gives certain characteristics and he isn't referring to only one single person, but the fruits of a man of God. The idea of a future single antichrist who is more like a dictator is not from the scriptures, but from the vivid imagination of a catholic jesuit priest named Fransisco Ribera. He created this in order to counter the teaching of the protestants on the topic of the antichrist. It evolved and was accepted by Edward Irving who foreran the charismatic movements we have today. He translated the jesuit Manuel De Lacunza's commentary into English which is pretty much the dispensational doctrine with one difference. A young girl in his congregation named Margaret MacDonald had a gnostic vision of a secret rapture of the church and Irving began to accept this vision and preach it all over the world. It began to get acceptance by more evangelical churches, including charismatic, pentecostal and fundamental baptist churches. Prior to 1900, most evangelical and protestant churches still believed as the bible and reformers believed about antichrist, but after 1900, with the rise of the zionist movement and eventual founding of the Israeli state, most began to teach this "futurist" ideology. We can thank the rise of zionism to this flawed interpretation of the bible. A real protestant will completely reject this futurist teaching (commonly known as Left Behind theology) and will embrace the biblical teaching about who antichrist is! If you claim to be a baptist, you beileve in the doctrine of baptism whom John the Baptist made popular. If you wanna know when Elijah the prophet will come, the answer is in Matthew! Yet, most dispensationalists hold to the same literal interpretation of scripture as the pharisees held who looked at John the baptist and Jesus with contempt. Had they read the prophecies of the Messiah spiritually, and not literally, they would not have yelled to crucify Christ or tried to make him a political ruler. Open your mind!
