The Doctrine of Imminence
- Thread starter rollinTHUNDER
- Start date
Me? No. I am responding to iamlamad. I am trying to explain why apostasia does not mean the gathering.
Upvote
0
Interplanner
Newbie
Allow for it to be a referring to Judaism's own departure from truth in the 1st century.
Upvote
0
iamlamad
Lamad
- Jun 8, 2013
- 9,620
- 744
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
Ha ha ha! When one makes such a silly statement: "Saying that the departure (as in rapture) must happen before we are gathered together to Him simply makes no sense" tells me they simply don't understand this passage.
This is not AT ALL what Paul wrote. It is very clear that in verse 3b the man if sin has already been revealed in Paul's argument, and therefore the Day of the Lord is well under way, and the man of sin revealed is PROOF of this. But in verses 6-8 he tells us this cannot possibly happen until the one restraining him is "taken out of the way." Therefore, there can be no other deduction but that verse 3A the one restraining IS TAKEN out of the way. It can be no other way, for Paul declears this in 6-8.
Please note:
New International Version and the man of lawlessness is revealed,
King James: and that man of sin be revealed
Aramaic Bible in Plain English and The Man of Sin, The Son of Destruction, be revealed,
Darby Bible Translation and the man of sin have been revealed
Many others say "IS revealed" or BE revealed."
It is conclusive and all are in agreement, in 3b the man of sin IS REVEALED so the one restraining MUST BE "taken out of the way."
Therefore there can be only ONE CONCLUSION drawn: hidden in the word "apostasia" is the one restraining being taken out of the way so the man of sin CAN BE revealed, since he IS revealed in 3b.
So we have a choice: we could think that a falling away allowed him to be revealed, but if we say that, they we are saying that evil restrains evil. The other choice is to believe that the apostasia really means the departure of the church. Several of the first translations into English rendered apostasia as "departure." Not that Paul did not include WHAT would be departed from, except to tell us that the one restraining will be "taken out of the way." Next, we have Paul's THEME for the passage which is the gathering.
Therefore a good rendering would be the church has departed as in raptured or taken out of the way in 3a, and then, since the restraining force has departed, the man of sin is revealed, and therefore the Day of the Lord has already come and the man of sin is proof of it.
Remember, they had only THOUGHT the Day of the Lord had come, so Paul was showing them it had not, but how to know for sure when it had come. The departure of the church had to come first.
Some people seem to think "day of the Lord" means Christ's coming and the gathering, so they come up with nonsense like "the rapture comes first before the rapture." Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is the gathering that comes first, then the man of sin revealed, as PROOF that the Day of the Lord had already started (previous to the revealing." IN other words, for those that SEE the man of sin revealed, they can KNOW the are already IN the Day of the Lord.
Just so you all know, Paul taught in 1 thes. that the rapture would be the TRIGGER for the Day of the Lord. That is why John wrote, at the end of the 6th seal, "the day of His wrath has come."
LAMAD
Upvote
0
iamlamad
Lamad
- Jun 8, 2013
- 9,620
- 744
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
I disagree. They had heard from some source that the Day of the Lord had already started and they were IN IT. They were very upset because Paul had taught them that HIS RAPTURE would come first, before the Day of the Lord. It is no wonder they were upset. They thought they had MISSED the rapture Paul had taught them about.
Paul then sets about to straighten out their thinking: his theme then would be the gathering, since they thought they had missed it and were already into the Day of the Lord. So notice, in Paul's mind the gathering and the Day are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
I certainly agree that apostasia has been used for a departure, but in those verses it always tells what is being departed FROM. Did you notice that Paul did not included that? If you take apart this compound Greek word, you find it certainly CAN be used for a spacial departure of one group from a whole, from standing in one place to ANOTHER place.
We really have to follow Paul's CONTEXT.
There is really only two choices: either a falling away (from something - Paul did not included what) is what Paul meant by "being taken out of the way" or else a departure - a very significant departure - is the restrainer being "taken out of the way." Truthfully, a departure of the church fits verses 6-8 much better than a falling away from something.
The Day of The Lord or Day of Christ is Pauls subject in this passage
No, the GATHERING is his subject: these are two different things. You cannot make the gathering and the Day as the same event. In 1 Thes. Paul shows us they are back to back events but not the same events: the rapture comes as the trigger for the Day.
It is that Day when Christ gathers His elect just as Paul mentioned in the opening verse.
No, you are reading your preconceptions onto what Paul wrote. They THOUGHT the Day had come and they were IN IT. They were very upset. WHY? It is simple, they thought they had MISSED the rapture that was to come first. It is truly the only reason for their being so upset. Paul's argument is simple, the departure (rapture) must come FIRST: then, after the church is "taken out of the way," then the man of sin will be revealed. Remember, Paul wrote that it - the Day of the Lord, CANNOT COME until something happens first: the departure that allows the man of sin to be revealed. So once that happens, the Day of the Lord has come.
LAMAD
Last edited:
Upvote
0
B
Bible2
Guest
2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 is most often referred to in order to refute the mistaken idea of an imminent, pre-tribulation coming of Jesus and rapture (gathering together) of the church, which won't happen until immediately after the future tribulation (Matthew 24:29-21). But the apostle Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 wasn't so much countering pre-tribulation rapturism as he was countering full preterism. Full preterism mistakenly says that the day of the Lord/Christ is already at hand (2 Thessalonians 2:2), in the sense of already present, that the 2nd coming and rapture have already occurred (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2), that the resurrection of the church is already a present reality (2 Timothy 2:18). Paul was careful to counter full preterism, for it can trouble (2 Thessalonians 2:2) and even overthrow the faith of some believers (2 Timothy 2:18). It can cause them to lose the blessed hope (Titus 2:13) of obtaining eternal life (Titus 1:2, Titus 3:7) in an immortal, physical resurrection body (Romans 8:23-25, Philippians 3:21, Luke 24:39) at Jesus' 2nd coming (1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-53; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6).
Preterism (whether full or partial), as well as historicism (in its various modern forms), and pre-tribulation rapturism, symbolicism, and spiritualism, could all be animated by the same spirit of fear: that the church alive today throughout the world would otherwise have to physically suffer through the future, almost-entirely literal, worldwide tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24. For these 5 views of preterism, historicism, pre-tribulation rapturism, symbolicism, and spiritualism, in their different ways, each gives a mistaken assurance to the church alive today that it won't have to physically suffer through that tribulation.
Preterism says that the tribulation happened in 70 AD (or a few years before and including 70 AD). Historicism says that it happened over a long period in history (e.g. during the rise and height of the RCC's power in Europe during the Middle Ages and after, or during the rise and spread of Islam in the Middle East and elsewhere during the Middle Ages and after). Pre-tribulation rapturism says that Jesus will return and rapture the church into the 3rd heaven before the tribulation begins. Symbolicism says that the tribulation is only symbolic of theological themes which those in the church have always had to struggle with (e.g. Matthew 6:24), and is symbolic of only-local physical persecutions which some in the church have always had to face, and are still facing today in some places. And spiritualism says that the tribulation is only spiritual events which go on only within the hearts of individuals.
But when the almost-entirely literal, worldwide tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 begins in our future, the shaky doctrinal wall which (in their different ways) these 5 views have each tried to build up between the church and the tribulation, will be completely shattered (Ezekiel 13:10-12) as the church worldwide begins to physically suffer through the tribulation (Matthew 24:9-31, Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6). These 5 views may have left some in the church unprepared mentally to undergo this physical suffering, to where these 5 views could even contribute to some in the church ultimately losing their salvation because of committing apostasy (Hebrews 6:4-8, John 15:6; 2 Timothy 2:12) during the tribulation, when they become "offended" that God is making them and their little ones physically suffer through it (Matthew 24:9-12, Matthew 13:21, Isaiah 8:21-22, Luke 8:13).
Even though the church today throughout the world will have to physically suffer through the future tribulation, the church need not fear this (cf. 1 Peter 4:12-13, Revelation 2:10). For even though many in the church will suffer and die during that time (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13), this will be to their gain, as it will bring their souls into heaven to be with Jesus (Philippians 1:21,23; 2 Corinthians 5:8; see also 2 Corinthians 4:17-18; 2 Timothy 2:12), and it won't rob them of the blessed hope (Titus 2:13) of obtaining eternal life (Titus 1:2, Titus 3:7) in an immortal, physical resurrection body (Romans 8:23-25, Philippians 3:21, Luke 24:39) at Jesus' 2nd coming (1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-53; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6), which will occur immediately after the future tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6).
Upvote
0
Let’s be clear, no credible researcher of the Greek Scripture (from which the English NT is translated) will deny that apostasia means a defection from one’s previous loyalty or belief, revolt, rebellion, or rejection of or defection from [truth]. The figurative nature in which this word was used has been demonstrated and is well established. This is not even open to debate as there is more than enough evidence to support this definition of the word as provided in my previous post. This is how the word was used. At the very least, understanding and translating the word this way is both credible and defensible. Therefore, the burden of proof isn’t on the one who accepts this translation and applies it to Paul’s writing. The burden is on the one who wishes to say this word also means something else, and therefore, could (emphasis here) mean something else in this passage. Where is your proof?
The primary argument for those who want to equate apostasia with the rapture is an English definition of a Greek word that is stripped of all context. They look up the word, see an English definition using the English word departure, then they interpret the English word in the literal sense according to how a modern English speaker might interpret it (as in departing a building), and they offer that as evidence that the word could mean a literal departure from the ground one is standing on. The obvious problem with this approach is many-fold.
First, you cannot define a word outside of its common usage. How it is used establishes its meaning, and from this meaning, someone derives a definition. The definition doesn’t limit the word. The word limits the definition. Therefore, the context of how a word is used must be considered when attempting to define or translate any word. Any attempt to define a word cannot be divorced from the context and the culture the word was or is actually used in. To do so is to invite error and misunderstanding. Therefore, to say that apostasia could mean a literal departure (as in rapture), one must first demonstrate that those that spoke, wrote, and read the Greek language at that time actually used the word in that fashion. Such evidence would at least allow for the possibility that the word could mean such a thing; however, one would still have to deal with the ultimate context of Paul’s message which essentially negates such an interpretation and therefore, translation.
Another common argument is that the Restrainer (or that which withholds or restrains) must be referring to the church, yet there is no real reason to jump to that conclusion. It would take time to go through the Scripture and demonstrate who or what restrains. Suffice it to say, there are many theories as to who or what Paul was referring to. The idea that it is the church is appealing to one who holds a pre-tribulation rapture view because acceptance of such an interpretation would definitively prove that the church is removed before all of these things happen, yet there is nothing definitive in the passage that suggests that this must be the case (or that the Restrainer or restraining force is the church). In fact, if we accept what Paul actually says, it is clear that he links the gathering of the saints (in which he includes himself) to the coming of The Lord, the same coming of The Lord he goes on to say the man of sin will be destroyed by the brightness of. This is a clear allusion to the battle of Armageddon, which clearly links the gathering to the Second Coming when the battle of Armageddon takes place. As much as one would like, this simply cannot be overlooked. It is clearly stated in the passage, and only through hermeneutical gymnastics can someone try and say these two events are not linked to the same coming of Christ.
It is also error to say that the revealing of the man of sin signifies that the Day of The Lord has come. In fact, Paul explicitly says that the Day of Christ (Day of The Lord) cannot come until the apostasia takes place and the man of sin is revealed. Therefore, these two things must precede the Day of Christ, and the Day of Christ is when we are gathered together to Him.
Without arguing about what those in Thessalonica thought or didn’t think, Paul’s message is clearly meant to correct any erroneous view regarding the timing of Christ’s return and our gathering together to Him. He clearly establishes that two events must precede the Day of Christ: the apostasia (falling away or defection from truth), and the revealing of the man of sin. He clearly links our (including himself) gathering to the same coming of Christ which results in the destruction of the man of sin. Aside from all the other evidence supporting the translation of apostasia as falling away, this is the Achilles heel of trying to argue that apostasia could possibly refer to the rapture. Paul already told us in the first verse that the rapture happens at the coming of Christ. Paul also told us that the destruction of the man of sin happens at the coming of Christ.
Therefore, he would not tell us that the coming of Christ must happen before the man of sin is revealed if we know that the man of sin cannot be destroyed until after he has been revealed and performed his function. It would make no sense given what he already told us in verse 1, and goes on to tell us in verse 8. This is why any attempt to equate apostasia to the rapture essentially boils down to arguing that the gathering must happen before the gathering. Paul explained that the gathering is linked to the coming of Christ (one event), and that the gathering and the destruction of the man of sin (two events) are linked to that same coming of Christ (one event). It’s like saying when I get home, I’m going to hug my wife and chasten my children. I’m only coming home once; however, once I get home, these two things are going to happen in short order. Both peripheral events are linked to the same singular event: my arrival at home. In the same way, both the gathering of the elect and the destruction of the man of sin are linked to the same singular event: Christ’s Second Coming.
Given a straightforward reading of the passage and the evidence for the actual usage and meaning of apostasia, it is essentially impossible to credibly argue that Paul was referring to the rapture when he used the word apostasia. He had other words he could have chosen to relay that message if that was what he had intended. Furthermore, the entire argument is predicated upon the idea that Paul would have even understood the word apostasia to mean a literal physical departure as opposed to a figurative departure from truth. Without evidence of its usage in such a fashion, there is no reason to even think it would have entered into Paul’s mind to use that word when speaking of the rapture. I still maintain that even if such evidence were provided regarding the usage of apostasia, the context of Paul’s message essentially establishes how apostasia should be understood in this passage.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Interplanner
Newbie
All the Thess material should be read in light of the DofJ. The 2nd coming was expected right after it, but allowed to be delayed.
Upvote
0
AJCServant
Active Member
<><> <><
Hi all,
and Hi again Interplanner,
Valid points that so many refuse to, or can not "see" for some spiritual reasons, that cause many doctrines- of- men to become used by Beelzebub to steal, kill, and destroy Jesus' inheritances throughout the earth, as he compels many "religious" and unlearned people to be spiritually indolent towards God's plights in destroying the works of the Devil in the earth - I think.
Will anyone rise up and stand in the gap with me for our nations to work to see that Zechariah 14:10 does not occur before 2Peter 2 is to be fulfilled by The Prince of Peace Himself in a surgical and orderly way, and would thereby only be done after we are "all"
[*] evacuated for a short season?
More called-out "believers" truly need to become holy [+] as our God is holy for this to occur - I think.
[+: Holiness defined via scripture is - - "set apart for service" to "all" of mankind, and the Trinity does this without favoritism so that eventually 1 John 3:8b would be fulfilled in the earth as more "believers" would become "Holy" disciples of Jesus.]
Originally Posted by AJCServant
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]<><> <><
So I encourage you to "worship" God with your life and He will make His presence known in a deeper more relational and covenantal way every day you will be in His service during your short sojourn here.
I hope I have encouraged some of you a little today and whoever might someday read this post in the future.
God bless.
Into Jesus' love - we should "all" put our trust eternally,
AJCServant
John 10 & 15 & 17 & Revelation 21
<><> <><
[/FONT]*: Colossians 1:20 - - And, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be things in earth, OR things in heaven.
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]+: 1 John 3:8b - - [/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.
[/FONT]
Marana tha, INSHALLAH, Amen.
<><> <><
Upvote
0
