Prophecy and History

iamlamad · Aug 26, 2023

RandyPNW said:
And so, I don't believe it. In fact, Paul taught that Jesus can never be said to have come on any day unless Antichrist appears first. So we are told not so much to wait for Antichrist, but to expect that the world will be Antichristian in character until Christ returns from heaven. In that way we are to be looking for him, because keeping our eyes on the prize causes us to work to be found diligent and responsible, so that we will not fall under the judgment that is coming upon the world.

Did Paul really teach that? Again I disagree. I believe the departing (apostasia) is the rapture and it must come first, because it is the Holy Spirit working through the church that is the restraining force that must be taken out of the way before the man of sin can be revealed.

The first problem is that the KJV missed the tense of a Greek word in verse 2. Here is how it should read.

AMP
2 Thes. 2:2: not to be quickly unsettled or alarmed either by a [so-called prophetic revelation of a] spirit or a message or a letter [alleged to be] from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has [already] come. (AMP)

Then almost every English translation adds words using the false idea that the Day was only "at hand." ("That day shall not come...")

1535 Coverdale Bible (added words removed)
Let no man disceaue you by eny meanes. For, excepte the departynge come first, and that Man of Synne be opened, even the sonne of perdicion.

It goes without saying that Paul must have expected his readers to know what he meant by the significant departing. If we look in his first letter, the significant departing was the rapture. The rapture or gathering was the theme of this passage.

Did you notice that in verse 3b the man of sin IS revealed? (Not in reality but in his argument.) Yet, in verses 6-8 he told us that the man of sin could NOT be revealed until the power restraining that revealed was taken out of the way. Therefore, logic tells us that somewhere in verse 3a we MUST Find something being "taken out of the way."

The ONLY word I can find that makes any sense is "apostasia" as something taken out of the way.

Here is what Strong tells us about this compound word.
The question is, CAN this word mean something else? It is a compound word - "apo" and "stasia."

Here is what Strong says about "apo:"
1. of separation…
1A. of local separation,
1B. of separation of a part from the whole

1Bi. where of a whole some part is taken
1C. of any kind of separation of one thing from another…
1D. of a state of separation, that is of distance
1Di. physical, of distance of place

At the rapture, will some part of the entire population be taken? You know the answer is YES.

Will those taken be separated by DISTANCE? Again the answer is YES.

The other part of the compound word 'stasia" is where we get "stationary" or "not moving" from.

Putting these two words together then can certainly mean a part of a whole group suddenly moved from where they were to a new location, and it happen so fast, the rest of the whole group seems stationary - not moving.

I believe this passage is pre-trib.

RandyPNW · Aug 27, 2023

iamlamad said:
Did Paul really teach that? Again I disagree. I believe the departing (apostasia) is the rapture and it must come first, because it is the Holy Spirit working through the church that is the restraining force that must be taken out of the way before the man of sin can be revealed.

People can read it the way you do, and cause it to make rational sense. But there is no background information by which to see this as a prophetic revelation.

However, there is much background information for seeing 2 Thes 2 as describing the necessity of Antichrist coming *before* Christ comes for his people. 2 Thes 2 is talking about the Antichrist, and the only real information on the Antichrist in the prophetic Scriptures/OT is in Dan 7. There, the Man of Sin appears before the Son of Man comes from heaven.

Furthermore, in Daniel we read of 4 great powers that will rule on earth, indicating that Antichristianity precedes the coming of Christ to judge the earth. Again, Antichrist precedes the coming of Christ.

But to say that Christ cannot come for his Church unless his Church departs 1st makes no sense to me at all! You're entitled to your opinion--I just can't agree with it.

As to any further discussion about what "apostasia" means, that's an exercise in futility. The word can mean a simple departure, or it can mean a departure from something like the faith. It is *context* that determines how the word is being used.

So you're going to have to decide what the greater context of the passage is--a departure of the Church or a departure from the Faith? I choose the latter, since Paul is here talking about the Antichrist leading people astray.

Marilyn C · Aug 27, 2023

RandyPNW said:
However, there is much background information for seeing 2 Thes 2 as describing the necessity of Antichrist coming *before* Christ comes for his people. 2 Thes 2 is talking about the Antichrist, and the only real information on the Antichrist in the prophetic Scriptures/OT is in Dan 7. There, the Man of Sin appears before the Son of Man comes from heaven.

Furthermore, in Daniel we read of 4 great powers that will rule on earth, indicating that Antichristianity precedes the coming of Christ to judge the earth. Again, Antichrist precedes the coming of Christ.

Hi Randy,

Yes, the A/C is revealed before the Lord judges him. However, that has to do with the nations and Israel as the Body of Christ revelation was not revealed in the OT.

RandyPNW · Aug 27, 2023

Marilyn C said:
Hi Randy,

Yes, the A/C is revealed before the Lord judges him. However, that has to do with the nations and Israel as the Body of Christ revelation was not revealed in the OT.

Yes, obviously you're a Dispensationalist, and that's okay. We do share a lot in common.

Berean Tim · Aug 27, 2023

iamlamad said:
The truth is, Paul wrote both letters to the Thessalonians. His rapture timing is the same in both letters. Sadly, due to poor translations by the KJV in both verse 2 and verse 3, plus their added words in verse 3, have caused many to misunderstand Paul in his second letter. I find many people have formed part of their doctrine from chapter 2 from the words added by the translators, and not by Paul's words.

First, in verse 2, they did not think that the day was "at hand." They thought the Day of the Lord had come and they were IN IT.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for, except there come [the] departing first, and that that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition. (Geneva Bible: words added by translator removed: "a" changed to "the" as per every Greek text.)

What great "departing" did Paul write of in his first letter? It is the rapture or catching away of the church. Paul certainly expected His readers to know what significant (the in Greek) departing he wrote about in his first letter.

Paul's argument is simple: when people see two events, then they can know that the Day has already started and they are IN IT. Of these two events, one must come before the other. The restraining force must be "taken out of the way" as the church departs, and then the man of sin will be revealed, since he is no longer restrained.

This passage is as pre-trib as it can be.

The word "apostasia" never means a physical departure in Koine greek, Never !!

RandyPNW · Aug 28, 2023

Berean Tim said:
The word "apostasia" never means a physical departure in Koine greek, Never !!

That seems to be the case, though I know very little Greek. Thanks.

iamlamad · Aug 30, 2023

RandyPNW said:
People can read it the way you do, and cause it to make rational sense. But there is no background information by which to see this as a prophetic revelation.

However, there is much background information for seeing 2 Thes 2 as describing the necessity of Antichrist coming *before* Christ comes for his people. 2 Thes 2 is talking about the Antichrist, and the only real information on the Antichrist in the prophetic Scriptures/OT is in Dan 7. There, the Man of Sin appears before the Son of Man comes from heaven.

Furthermore, in Daniel we read of 4 great powers that will rule on earth, indicating that Antichristianity precedes the coming of Christ to judge the earth. Again, Antichrist precedes the coming of Christ.

But to say that Christ cannot come for his Church unless his Church departs 1st makes no sense to me at all! You're entitled to your opinion--I just can't agree with it.

As to any further discussion about what "apostasia" means, that's an exercise in futility. The word can mean a simple departure, or it can mean a departure from something like the faith. It is *context* that determines how the word is being used.

So you're going to have to decide what the greater context of the passage is--a departure of the Church or a departure from the Faith? I choose the latter, since Paul is here talking about the Antichrist leading people astray.

I agree with you about context. First, this had to be a departing that Paul fully expected his readers to understand; therefore a departure or departing that he had taught them before. it is a significant departing. Strong's says this "ἡ" is a definite article. Therefore I believe this is a significant departing, and one that the readers would know about. Paul never talked about a departing from the faith in his first letter.

Next, in verse 6 Paul wrote, "and now you know what is restraining." Why would Paul write that? It is obvious that Paul knew who or what the restraining power was, and he also knew that at some point in time that power would be taken out of the way. In context we need only to look for Paul's theme for this passage, which is about the departing of the church. I believe Paul wrote, "and now you know" simply because he told us, but did it in a very cloaked way, so he wanted to stop the reader so they would ponder and figure out Paul's meaning.

Next, Paul wrote parallels: the first part of a thought was the restrainer or the restraining, and the second part was the man of sin revealed. We find this three times, first in verse 3, next in verse 6 and finally in verses 7 and 8.

Next, this definite departing had to be something everyone would recognize. I don't think a falling way could be recognized as such: how would anyone know if enough had fallen away to be what Paul had in mind? It seems it has to be something sudden and completed, so people could say, "that is what Paul was talking about."

Therefore when I consider Paul's theme, and these other points, I think the departing of the church makes the most sense.

RandyPNW · Aug 30, 2023

iamlamad said:
I agree with you about context. First, this had to be a departing that Paul fully expected his readers to understand; therefore a departure or departing that he had taught them before. it is a significant departing. Strong's says this "ἡ" is a definite article. Therefore I believe this is a significant departing, and one that the readers would know about. Paul never talked about a departing from the faith in his first letter.

Well perhaps the 2nd letter of Thessalonians was written to explain what was lacking in the 1st letter? Perhaps Christians began to look at the "Rapture" of 1 Thessalonians and began to think the Kingdom could be actualized immediately? And then, Paul may have determined to explain that the Kingdom cannot actually be here unless the Antichristian thing is completely resolved at the coming of Christ?

iamlamad said:
Next, in verse 6 Paul wrote, "and now you know what is restraining." Why would Paul write that? It is obvious that Paul knew who or what the restraining power was, and he also knew that at some point in time that power would be taken out of the way.

I think Paul might explain the Restraining in order to explain why Antichristianity is in itself not enough to make ready the coming of Christ for his Church. There has to be Antichrist himself, and not just Antichristianity.

And so, there is this historical process that delays the coming of Antichrist so that Christians do not think the Kingdom can appear immediately. There is an historical process that must be resolved in the actual appearance of Antichrist.

iamlamad said:
In context we need only to look for Paul's theme for this passage, which is about the departing of the church. I believe Paul wrote, "and now you know" simply because he told us, but did it in a very cloaked way, so he wanted to stop the reader so they would ponder and figure out Paul's meaning.

It is more likely, to me, that Paul refrained from specifics that would identify Rome as the "bad guy." And so, in a public letter, Paul would be discreet. Why would he be discreet with the Church about something as important as this unless there was a danger from enemies? Paul isn't making riddles for the Church--he is teaching doctrine!

iamlamad said:
Next, Paul wrote parallels: the first part of a thought was the restrainer or the restraining, and the second part was the man of sin revealed. We find this three times, first in verse 3, next in verse 6 and finally in verses 7 and 8.

Next, this definite departing had to be something everyone would recognize. I don't think a falling way could be recognized as such: how would anyone know if enough had fallen away to be what Paul had in mind? It seems it has to be something sudden and completed, so people could say, "that is what Paul was talking about."

The article "the" identifies a specific event, yes. The event is the revelation of Antichrist, as opposed to general Antichristianity throughout the Christian age.

iamlamad said:
Therefore when I consider Paul's theme, and these other points, I think the departing of the church makes the most sense.

Trouble is, the word "apostasia" is used most often for some kind of betrayal, or backtracking--an abandonment of principle. The idea of a departure of the Church would be an unusual application of the word, it seems?

And since the Rapture of the Church is already identified from the start of ch. 2, when Christ comes to gather his Church, why must Paul say that that event must be *preceded* by the Departure of the Church? That means zero sense to me!

May I add that Jesus indicated the harvest must fully mature before the end comes? The wicked must come to full maturity, indicating that the world is no longer open to the message of the Gospel. That happens when Antichrist arises.

His destruction, therefore, is the end, when Christ will come to save his Church. Until then, he is being restrained by forces that keep open the door of Salvation. When that door closes, judgment will fall, and Christ will return.

iamlamad · Aug 30, 2023

RandyPNW said:
Well perhaps the 2nd letter of Thessalonians was written to explain what was lacking in the 1st letter? Perhaps Christians began to look at the "Rapture" of 1 Thessalonians and began to think the Kingdom could be actualized immediately? And then, Paul may have determined to explain that the Kingdom cannot actually be here unless the Antichristian thing is completely resolved at the coming of Christ?

I think Paul might explain the Restraining in order to explain why Antichristianity is in itself not enough to make ready the coming of Christ for his Church. There has to be Antichrist himself, and not just Antichristianity.

And so, there is this historical process that delays the coming of Antichrist so that Christians do not think the Kingdom can appear immediately. There is an historical process that must be resolved in the actual appearance of Antichrist.

It is more likely, to me, that Paul refrained from specifics that would identify Rome as the "bad guy." And so, in a public letter, Paul would be discreet. Why would he be discreet with the Church about something as important as this unless there was a danger from enemies? Paul isn't making riddles for the Church--he is teaching doctrine!

The article "the" identifies a specific event, yes. The event is the revelation of Antichrist, as opposed to general Antichristianity throughout the Christian age.

Trouble is, the word "apostasia" is used most often for some kind of betrayal, or backtracking--an abandonment of principle. The idea of a departure of the Church would be an unusual application of the word, it seems?

And since the Rapture of the Church is already identified from the start of ch. 2, when Christ comes to gather his Church, why must Paul say that that event must be *preceded* by the Departure of the Church? That means zero sense to me!

May I add that Jesus indicated the harvest must fully mature before the end comes? The wicked must come to full maturity, indicating that the world is no longer open to the message of the Gospel. That happens when Antichrist arises.

His destruction, therefore, is the end, when Christ will come to save his Church. Until then, he is being restrained by forces that keep open the door of Salvation. When that door closes, judgment will fall, and Christ will return.

Randy, I also believe Paul wrote this so that if it fell into Roman hands, they would not understand it. But he made it so difficult I think few church people have understood it. This may well be a verse Peter was talking about.

Why did Paul write the second letter? I believe the answer is obvious: the church had written to him for help. They had been told that the severe persecution they were under was because the Day of the Lord had started and they were then in it. Paul could have written, "no, you are not in the day, for it has not started yet," but he went much deeper.

I think Paul used this Greek word, apostasia, in an unusual way, then wrote, "Now you know" so they would study this passage more carefully. I am convinced, from Strong's definitions of each word in this compound work that it could be used for the departing of the church—and that would certainly be a departing all were familiar with since his first letter.

When we get our resurrection body, we will know for sure!

iamlamad · Aug 30, 2023

RandyPNW said:
Well perhaps the 2nd letter of Thessalonians was written to explain what was lacking in the 1st letter? Perhaps Christians began to look at the "Rapture" of 1 Thessalonians and began to think the Kingdom could be actualized immediately? And then, Paul may have determined to explain that the Kingdom cannot actually be here unless the Antichristian thing is completely resolved at the coming of Christ?

I think Paul might explain the Restraining in order to explain why Antichristianity is in itself not enough to make ready the coming of Christ for his Church. There has to be Antichrist himself, and not just Antichristianity.

And so, there is this historical process that delays the coming of Antichrist so that Christians do not think the Kingdom can appear immediately. There is an historical process that must be resolved in the actual appearance of Antichrist.

It is more likely, to me, that Paul refrained from specifics that would identify Rome as the "bad guy." And so, in a public letter, Paul would be discreet. Why would he be discreet with the Church about something as important as this unless there was a danger from enemies? Paul isn't making riddles for the Church--he is teaching doctrine!

The article "the" identifies a specific event, yes. The event is the revelation of Antichrist, as opposed to general Antichristianity throughout the Christian age.

Trouble is, the word "apostasia" is used most often for some kind of betrayal, or backtracking--an abandonment of principle. The idea of a departure of the Church would be an unusual application of the word, it seems?

And since the Rapture of the Church is already identified from the start of ch. 2, when Christ comes to gather his Church, why must Paul say that that event must be *preceded* by the Departure of the Church? That means zero sense to me!

May I add that Jesus indicated the harvest must fully mature before the end comes? The wicked must come to full maturity, indicating that the world is no longer open to the message of the Gospel. That happens when Antichrist arises.

His destruction, therefore, is the end, when Christ will come to save his Church. Until then, he is being restrained by forces that keep open the door of Salvation. When that door closes, judgment will fall, and Christ will return.

What really did Paul write that must precede another event? Simply answer: the departing must precede the revealing since the departing is also the taking away of the restraining power. It makes perfect sense that when the power restraining the revealing is taken away, then soon after the man of sin will be revealed

RandyPNW · Aug 30, 2023

iamlamad said:
Randy, I also believe Paul wrote this so that if it fell into Roman hands, they would not understand it. But he made it so difficult I think few church people have understood it. This may well be a verse Peter was talking about.

Why did Paul write the second letter? I believe the answer is obvious: the church had written to him for help. They had been told that the severe persecution they were under was because the Day of the Lord had started and they were then in it. Paul could have written, "no, you are not in the day, for it has not started yet," but he went much deeper.

I think Paul used this Greek word, apostasia, in an unusual way, then wrote, "Now you know" so they would study this passage more carefully. I am convinced, from Strong's definitions of each word in this compound work that it could be used for the departing of the church—and that would certainly be a departing all were familiar with since his first letter.

When we get our resurrection body, we will know for sure!

I agree--we'll know when it counts! Don't be overly concerned with me--I've attended Pretrib churches for decades, and I don't convince many people to convert to Postrib!

I do think you're wrong with your use of "apostasia." It even sounds like "apostasy" in English, which is an abandonment of the faith. And that's what both Satan and Antichrist are trying to do, change the laws of God and corrupt the true worship of God. Antichrist boasts that he has the word of God--not the real God. He is a claimant to God's throne and temple.

So that is the "apostasy," as I see it, respectfully. I also think you have the reason for Paul writing the letter wrong. The church was not afraid of being in Tribulation--they were *already* in Tribulation! They weren't afraid they "missed the Rapture!" Paul would surely just have said that, if that was the case!

No, Paul was concerned about the very thing Christ was concerned about--the appearance of "False Christs." In Jesus' time the "False Christs" were Jews who proclaimed they were bringing in God's Kingdom in victory over the Roman Empire.

But Paul saw this take place among Christians who also thought they were bringing in God's Kingdom, much like Jehovah's Witnesses or Kingdom Now Christians think, or perhaps even the Faith People. They thought they had power over Satan and over the world beyond what Christian Grace promised them. It would lead to great disappointment when they did not see victory over all of their enemies!

There was, for example, great disappintment here in the US when prophets proclaimed that Trump would win a 2nd term. A lot of Christians, including me, began to wonder if prophecy was even a legitimate gift in these matters? However, there are prophets who said Trump would win a 2nd term, and not necessarily 2 *consecutive* terms!

False confidence, or false faith, is dangerous. And so Paul wanted people to look realistically at how far we can go in our ministries. We may experience God's power and blessing, but at some point we are also persecuted, and sometimes martyred. Paul wanted balance, in my opinion. And he based his opinion and firm doctrinal eschatology.

So Paul assured them that enemies would persist throughout this age until Christ comes back to visibly defeat the Antichrist, who is the culmination of opposition to the Gospel. Antichrists have existed throughout history, but at some point rebellion take place throughout the earth so that the Gospel has no where else to go. Then the end will come, according to Paul. At least that's what I think the doctrine of Antichrist infers.

iamlamad · Aug 31, 2023

RandyPNW said:
I agree--we'll know when it counts! Don't be overly concerned with me--I've attended Pretrib churches for decades, and I don't convince many people to convert to Postrib!

I do think you're wrong with your use of "apostasia." It even sounds like "apostasy" in English, which is an abandonment of the faith. And that's what both Satan and Antichrist are trying to do, change the laws of God and corrupt the true worship of God. Antichrist boasts that he has the word of God--not the real God. He is a claimant to God's throne and temple.

So that is the "apostasy," as I see it, respectfully. I also think you have the reason for Paul writing the letter wrong. The church was not afraid of being in Tribulation--they were *already* in Tribulation! They weren't afraid they "missed the Rapture!" Paul would surely just have said that, if that was the case!

No, Paul was concerned about the very thing Christ was concerned about--the appearance of "False Christs." In Jesus' time the "False Christs" were Jews who proclaimed they were bringing in God's Kingdom in victory over the Roman Empire.

But Paul saw this take place among Christians who also thought they were bringing in God's Kingdom, much like Jehovah's Witnesses or Kingdom Now Christians think, or perhaps even the Faith People. They thought they had power over Satan and over the world beyond what Christian Grace promised them. It would lead to great disappointment when they did not see victory over all of their enemies!

There was, for example, great disappintment here in the US when prophets proclaimed that Trump would win a 2nd term. A lot of Christians, including me, began to wonder if prophecy was even a legitimate gift in these matters? However, there are prophets who said Trump would win a 2nd term, and not necessarily 2 *consecutive* terms!

False confidence, or false faith, is dangerous. And so Paul wanted people to look realistically at how far we can go in our ministries. We may experience God's power and blessing, but at some point we are also persecuted, and sometimes martyred. Paul wanted balance, in my opinion. And he based his opinion and firm doctrinal eschatology.

So Paul assured them that enemies would persist throughout this age until Christ comes back to visibly defeat the Antichrist, who is the culmination of opposition to the Gospel. Antichrists have existed throughout history, but at some point rebellion take place throughout the earth so that the Gospel has no where else to go. Then the end will come, according to Paul. At least that's what I think the doctrine of Antichrist infers.

Isaiah 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.

Paul's readers probably never heard the term: "the tribulation." What then knew of was the "Day of the Lord." Then knew it was a dark day filled with God's wrath.

2 Thes. 2:2
AMP not to be quickly unsettled or alarmed either by a [so-called prophetic revelation of a] spirit or a message or a letter [alleged to be] from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has [already] come.
ESV 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.
HCSB not to be easily upset in mind or troubled, either by a spirit or by a message or by a letter as if from us, alleging that the Day of the Lord has come.
NIV not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.

There are many more I could have chosen: I counted 48 out of 60 some English translations that have "The Day of the Lord." It is sad that our Greek texts differ on this phrase. Some have "Day of the Lord" while others "The day of Christ." Which one did Paul really write? I refer back to his first letter and notice that he wrote "the Day of the Lord" there. Or, perhaps in his mind these are two terms for the same day.

Since they were shaken up or very troubled, I think it is obvious that they thought the real, cruel, filled with God's wrath, Day of the Lord had started and the persecution they were under was because of God's wrath. Without a doubt, because they were under severe persecution, and then somehow they had begun to believe the Day had come and they were in it—they re-read his first letter. There he wrote of the Day of the Lord three verses after his rapture or catching up verse.

The only conclusion I can come up with as to why they were so troubled is that they thought Paul was wrong in what he had taught them, or else they thought they had missed the rapture.

As for Apostasia, it is written in verse 3, and at the end of verse three Paul wrote that the man of sin is, at that time in His argument, revealed. Then he wrote of how such a thing could happen. There is a power restraining or holding back that revealing, and that power must be removed or taken out of the way—and THEN the man of sin can be removed.

We must then refer back to verse 3 with this information: if the man of sin is revealed in 3b, then the power restraining this revealing must have been taken out of the way in 3a.

This leaves us two choices: if the church is restraining the revealing, but enough people fall away from the church, perhaps the church is weakened enough so that the man of sin can be revealed. If this is the case, how would anyone know that enough had fallen away to fit what Paul wrote? Another problem, I think worldwide the church will continue to grow until the rapture: if one falls away, two join.

The other choice is that the Holy Spirit working through the church is the restraining power, but when the church is taken out of the way, then the man of sin can be revealed. In my mind, this fits the context much better than the previous scenario.

I agree that Kingdom Now and the Latter Rain group has it wrong.

David Kent · Aug 31, 2023

RandyPNW said:
Not really. Through most of Church history, Christians never read 2 Thessalonians in a "Pretrib way." So it's apparently not as obviously Pretrib as you think?

The passage can read either a Pretrib way or a Postrib way. The Pretrib way is, "You'll know when the Antichrist is coming imminently when the departure of the Church takes place." But what value is there in knowing the Rapture precedes the Great Tribulation if Christians won't be here to see it? Is it just some kind of assurance that Christians won't suffer "God's Wrath" in this way?

Or, the passage can be read the Postrib way like, "Don't think the Kingdom can come on earth unless the Antichrist appears 1st and is actually destroyed by Christ." You have to decide what makes more sense in light of the burden Paul is expressing.

As to the Restrainer, the early Church Fathers believed that before Antichrist can arise the 4th Kingdom of Daniel had to develop and evolve in history until 10 nations form out of the old Roman Empire. Antichrist is thus being restrained until he comes after this time when the Christian Church is commanded to testify to the world.

The idea that the Restrainer is the Holy Spirit is a modern interpretation when given in a Pretrib sense. Nobody in the Early Church believed the Kingdom would arrive before the rise of Antichrist (except these false prophets, and others like them who believed that their cult was the Kingdom." And their sense of Christ's Coming was synonymous with expectation of the Kingdom's arrival.

The Roman empire did dissolve into 10 kingdoms with the abdication of the last western emperor. The Italian historian Machiavelli names them:
Heruli
Suevi
Huns
Burgundians
Ostrogoths
Visigoths
Vandals
Lombards
Frank's
Anglo Saxons

Daniel 7:8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.
Daniel 7:21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;
Daniel 7:25 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

The above verses tell us 8 main thing about the little horn:
1. It will be a Roman power. A horn on a beast grows out of a beast. The Beast is Rome so the horn must be Roman The papacy is a Roman power, its seat is Rome and its kingdom is and always was Roman Catholic.
2. It would a power that would arise from out of the ten kingdoms into which the the empire was divided into. The horn was to rise at one hour with the 10 horns. The papacy arose at the same time as the 10 horns and came out from them.
3. The little horn was to pluck up three of the horns. Interpreted as "subdue three kings." The papacy did subdue three kingdoms, the Heruli in 493, the Vandals in 534 and the Ostrogoths in 553.
4. The little horn would be diverse from the others. The papacy s different from all the other kingdoms that arose from the 4th beast.Other powers claimed secular authority, the papacy claims that and spiritual authority. What other power claims that? He wears priestly garments but a triple crown to support his claim to reign in heaven, earth and hell. What other monarch claims that. He certainly is diverse.
5. The little horn has a mouth speaking great words against the most high. The papacy has a mouth and in its false doctrines and man made traditions which it gives prominence over scripture. He professes to speak the words of God, and define the doctrines of God but in fact his doctrines are opposite to scripture.
One of his greatest claims is in the Unum Sanctam of Boniface VIII "All the faithful of Christ by necessity of Salvation are subject to the ROMAN pontiff, who judges all men.....Therefore we declare, assert, define, and pronounce, that to be subject to the ROMAN pontiff is to every human creature altogether necessary for salvation.
6. The little horn "had eyes" and his "look was more stout than his fellows." A horn does not usually have eyes. This horn would be a power with foresight and be a seer. The Pope claims to be the overseer of the whole church. He claims to hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
7 the little horn was to make war with and wear out the saints of the Most High. The early church was persecuted by the Jews and the pagan Empire. But the power who would come out of the Rome after the break up of the empire was the one that would persecute the saints. In history we find that the papacy has consistently persecuted, tortured and killed the saints of the most high. Every imaginable method of torture was against members of the true church.
8. He would "Think to change times and laws," Daniel 7:25 , Daniel tells us that God changes times and seasons. Daniel 2:21.
The papacy has annulled laws of kings and emperors. It has made kings kiss his feet. He has introduced religious days and observance of rites that have no authority in scripture. He set himself up to be final authority over doctrine.
The papacy is the little horn.

David Kent · Sep 11, 2023

iamlamad said:
Perhaps you have not read the "Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraem." It was written somewhere around 500 to 700 AD. He states very clearly that the rapture would come before the tribulation.

"All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation,
which is to come, and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at
any time the confusion which overwhelms the world because of our sins." –Pseudo-Ephraem (c. 374-627)

I suspect that many of Paul's first readers, after studying his second letter, understood it as pre-trib. I agree, it has irony: the church will not be here to see the revelation of the man of sin. But then, it seems Paul was answering their questions. They had begun to believe that the tribulation they were living through was the Day of the Lord, so they believed it was God's wrath against them. Of course Paul had to straighten out that kind of thinking. So he explained how anyone (remaining behind at the rapture would know when they were IN the Day of the Lord.

Paul never got to read John's book, so perhaps Paul did not know exactly when the Day of the Lord would begin. Perhaps He only knew that when someone saw the revealing of the man of sin, then the day was already ongoing. From John and Daniel, and then from this passage, we know that the week will be divided when then man of sin enters the temple and declares he is the God of the Jews.

Paul certainly understood that such an abomination (a gentile in the Holy of Holies) would stop the daily sacrifices as Daniel told us. A big question is, why did Paul make this one of those verses that Peter wrote of: hard to understand? It is my guess that Paul wrote this so that if it fell into Roman hands they would be clueless to its meaning.

He left us clues. For example, in verse 3b, the man of sin IS revealed. Yet in verses 6-8 he makes it clear that the man of sin CANNOT be revealed until the restraining force is taken out of the way. This leaves only one conclusion: somewhere in 3a the restrainer has been removed. There is only one word that could possibly fit the restrainer being taken out of the way, and that is his word, apostasia. I have studied this compound word. I find what Strong wrote very interesting.

1. of separation…
1A. of local separation,
1B. of separation of a part from the whole

1Bi. where of a whole some part is taken
1C. of any kind of separation of one thing from another…
1D. of a state of separation, that is of distance
1Di. physical, of distance of place

At the rapture, will some part of the entire population be taken? You know the answer is YES.

Will those taken be separated by DISTANCE? Again the answer is YES.

The other part of the compound word 'stasia" is where we get "stationary" or "not moving" from.

Putting these two words together then can certainly mean a part of a whole group suddenly moved from where they were to a new location, and it happen so fast, the rest of the whole group seems stationary - not moving.

The first several translations used the word "departing."

1384 Wycliffe N.T.
That no man deceyue you in any maner / for no but departynge aweye (or dissencon) schal come firste & the man of synne schall be schewid [shewed] the sone of perdicioune.

1534 Tyndale N.T.
Let no ma deceave you by eny meanes for the lorde commeth not excepte ther come a departynge fyrst and that that synfnll man be opened ye sonne of perdicion

1535 Coverdale Bible
Let no man disceaue you by eny meanes. For the LORDE commeth not, excepte the departynge come first, and that Man of Synne be opened, even the sonne of perdicion.

1539 Cranmer Great Bible
Let no man deceaue you by any meanes, for the Lorde shall not come excepte there come a departinge fyrst, & that that synfull man be opened, the sonne of perdicion.

1549 Matthew's Bible
Let no man deceyue you by any meanes, for the Lord commeth not, except there come a departyng first, and that, that sinful man be opened, the sonne of perdicyon

1565 Beza Bible
Let no man deceiue you by any meanes: for [that day shall not come,] except there come a departing first, and that man of sinne be disclosed, [euen] the son of perdition.

1575 Geneva Bible
Let no man deceiue you by any meanes for that day shal not come, except there come a departing first, and that man of sinne be disclosed, euen the sonne of perdition.

Then Paul left another clue: He wrote in verse 6, "and now you know what is restraining." Why would Paul write these words? It is my guess—and it is only a guess—that Paul KNEW He had hidden the restraining force being removed in his use of apostasia, so wrote this so the readers would say, "What? How can we know?" And they would re-read until they understood.

Then there is Paul's parallelism. Verses 3, and 6, with verses 7-8 form parallels. In the first half of verse three and verse 6 the restrainer is restraining until He is taken out of the way, and the last half of the verse, speaks of the revealing. For verses 7 and 8, verse 7 is the restrainer restraining and in verse 8 we read the revealing.

The correct exegesis of this verse MUST agree with Paul in 1 thes. 4 & 5. There Paul mentions the Day of the Lord just three verses after his classic rapture verse of 4:17.

Some people prefer "the day of Christ" while others think Paul wrote "the day of the Lord." I believe it is the Day of the Lord, for that fits the context and is the term Paul used in his first letter.

Pseudo means fake,false etc.

Berean Tim · Sep 12, 2023

iamlamad said:
The truth is, Paul wrote both letters to the Thessalonians. His rapture timing is the same in both letters. Sadly, due to poor translations by the KJV in both verse 2 and verse 3, plus their added words in verse 3, have caused many to misunderstand Paul in his second letter. I find many people have formed part of their doctrine from chapter 2 from the words added by the translators, and not by Paul's words.

First, in verse 2, they did not think that the day was "at hand." They thought the Day of the Lord had come and they were IN IT.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for, except there come [the] departing first, and that that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition. (Geneva Bible: words added by translator removed: "a" changed to "the" as per every Greek text.)

What great "departing" did Paul write of in his first letter? It is the rapture or catching away of the church. Paul certainly expected His readers to know what significant (the in Greek) departing he wrote about in his first letter.

Paul's argument is simple: when people see two events, then they can know that the Day has already started and they are IN IT. Of these two events, one must come before the other. The restraining force must be "taken out of the way" as the church departs, and then the man of sin will be revealed, since he is no longer restrained.

This passage is as pre-trib as it can be.

The word "Apostasia" never means a physical departure in Koine greek.

David Kent · Sep 24, 2023

iamlamad said:
Did Paul really teach that? Again I disagree. I believe the departing (apostasia) is the rapture and it must come first, because it is the Holy Spirit working through the church that is the restraining force that must be taken out of the way before the man of sin can be revealed.

The first problem is that the KJV missed the tense of a Greek word in verse 2. Here is how it should read.

AMP
2 Thes. 2:2: not to be quickly unsettled or alarmed either by a [so-called prophetic revelation of a] spirit or a message or a letter [alleged to be] from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has [already] come. (AMP)

Then almost every English translation adds words using the false idea that the Day was only "at hand." ("That day shall not come...")

1535 Coverdale Bible (added words removed)
Let no man disceaue you by eny meanes. For, excepte the departynge come first, and that Man of Synne be opened, even the sonne of perdicion.

It goes without saying that Paul must have expected his readers to know what he meant by the significant departing. If we look in his first letter, the significant departing was the rapture. The rapture or gathering was the theme of this passage.

Did you notice that in verse 3b the man of sin IS revealed? (Not in reality but in his argument.) Yet, in verses 6-8 he told us that the man of sin could NOT be revealed until the power restraining that revealed was taken out of the way. Therefore, logic tells us that somewhere in verse 3a we MUST Find something being "taken out of the way."

The ONLY word I can find that makes any sense is "apostasia" as something taken out of the way.

Here is what Strong tells us about this compound word.
The question is, CAN this word mean something else? It is a compound word - "apo" and "stasia."

Here is what Strong says about "apo:"
1. of separation…
1A. of local separation,
1B. of separation of a part from the whole

1Bi. where of a whole some part is taken
1C. of any kind of separation of one thing from another…
1D. of a state of separation, that is of distance
1Di. physical, of distance of place

At the rapture, will some part of the entire population be taken? You know the answer is YES.

Will those taken be separated by DISTANCE? Again the answer is YES.

The other part of the compound word 'stasia" is where we get "stationary" or "not moving" from.

Putting these two words together then can certainly mean a part of a whole group suddenly moved from where they were to a new location, and it happen so fast, the rest of the whole group seems stationary - not moving.

I believe this passage is pre-trib.

I don't believe it I pretribulation. And I see nowhere in the scripture where the holy spirit will be taken from the earth.
The early Church believed that the let and hindrance were the empire and the empire. Remember Paul told the Thessalonians that they knew what it was because he told them, and they would not have kept it to themselves.

When the empire was taken out of the way, it would be succeeded by 10 kings. That happened in the fifth century,

David Kent · Sep 26, 2023

iamlamad said:
I disagree. I think those that read Paul's letters and heard him speak believed in his pretribulation rapture. However, just as salvation by faith got lost over the years, to be recovered by Martin Luther and others, so Paul's doctrines are returning to the church. Therefore the "beginning of Pre-trib belief" was Paul himself.

Look at Paul's order: he wrote of the rapture first, (1 Thes. 4:17) then three verses later wrote of the Day of the Lord. A few verses after that he wrote of God's wrath. I had to ask God, "Why would Paul include the Day of the Lord and God's wrath in His classic rapture passage?" I believe the answer is simple: the rapture will be the trigger for the start of the Day of the Lord, that day that "comes with wrath and fierce anger."

This is confirmed in the book of Revelation. As the context of the first seals, John saw (in the vision) Jesus suddenly appear in the throne room, having just ascended. The first thing He did was send the Holy Spirit down. The second thing He did was take the book from the Father's right hand. Then He began opening the seals, right then. No one can find 2000 years in any of those verses, not even trying to read between the lines. That was not God's intent. His intent was that Jesus began opening the seals as soon as He ascended and entered the throne room - so around 32 AD.

Seal 1 then, is to represent the great commission: the church taking the gospel to the world.
Seals 2, 3, and 4 are to represent Satan's attempts to stop the advance of the gospel.

Satan, as the god of this world, of course demanded of God that he be allowed to stop the advance of the gospel. God has allowed Satan to use wars, famines, pestilences and wild beasts to try and stop the gospel - hold it within that one fourth of the earth that God limited them to.

Because Satan is the god of this world, as the gospel advanced, matryrs were killed.

The 5th seal is for the martyrs of the church age. Stephen was surely one of those who cried out to God wondering how long it would be before God would avenge their murders—bring judgment. They were told that judgment (think the Day of the Lord) would not begin until the final martyr was to be killed as they all were killed—as church age martyrs. It seems God is waiting for that final number.

The pre-tribulation rapture will end the church age, and at that moment, the final martyr will have been just killed. Then judgment will be as the Day of the Lord will begin. When? At the 6th seal. The church has been waiting at the 5th seal a long time. Take note that the 6th seal is the very next event John write of after the 5th seal.

John confirmed this again because he saw the just-raptured church in heaven and wrote it in chapter 7—as the great crowd, too large to number. This will probably be billions of people: perhaps 50 generations of saints, plus all the children of the world, all in one place at one time. There will be no greater crowd mentioned in the book of Revelation. (The OT saints including those before the flood may be a larger group, but John does not mention them.)

Why did John write that this huge crowd, too large to number "came out of the great tribulation?" Most readers expect John's answer to be how this huge group got suddenly from earth to heaven—but that is not the answer John was given. Rather, the elder speaking to John explained how each member of this great crowd joined all the others. They each got born again as they washed their robes in the blood of Jesus. The elder never answered the question as to where they came from as a large crowd.

I believe God considers this life on earth as a life of tribulation. John wrote in the first chapter, "I, John, in the tribulation..." But I think God combined all this individual tribulation into one, since he was addressing one huge crowd. So "they" came out of each individual's tribulation, and added together God chose the word Mega or great.

This cannot possibly be referring to the days of great tribulation (GT) Jesus spoke of, for that will not begin until after the division point of the week, and at this point in time, John has not yet even started the week.

In summer, Paul told us his rapture would come just before the start of the DAY, John confirmed that timing with what he wrote at the 5th seal, and God confirmed it by allowing John to see the just-raptured church already in heaven before the week will begin.

This is why I believe the rapture is pre-trib: I know where the rapture is on John's timeline, and I know where the week is. The rapture is going to be pre-trib simply because 6 comes before 7 in counting, and the 6th seal will certainly be opened before the 7th seal is opened.

I

David Kent · Sep 26, 2023

iamlamad said:
I disagree. I think those that read Paul's letters and heard him speak believed in his pretribulation rapture. However, just as salvation by faith got lost over the years, to be recovered by Martin Luther and others, so Paul's doctrines are returning to the church. Therefore the "beginning of Pre-trib belief" was Paul himself.

If they believed that, they didn't believe Jesus, who said John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

John didn't believe the church wouldn't go through tribulation. Revelation 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Revelation 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

The last are the martyrs throughout the centuries who knew they would go through tribulation.

When tribulation comes to your country will you be ready?

Prophecy and History

Lamad

Well-Known Member

Pre-tribulation.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Lamad

Well-Known Member

Lamad

Lamad

Well-Known Member

Lamad

Continuing Historicist

Continuing Historicist

Well-Known Member

Continuing Historicist

Continuing Historicist

Continuing Historicist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency