|
|
Introduction on 2 Thessalonians 2:2-3:
Second Thessalonians Chapter 2 is interpreted in two opposing ways with
regard to the time of the rapture. Some say the tribulation must come
first. Others, such as myself, say the departure, or rapture, comes
first, as I will show.
This commentary is long, but that is because (and many commentators agree)
2 Thess 2 is a difficult passage that is hard to understand.
Since there are two totally opposite interpretations, then one interpretation
must be the result of twisting words around.
Peter tells us that Paul's writings contain some things that are hard to
understand.
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction
What hard-to-understand things was Peter just talking about in 2 Peter
3:8-10? The topic of the Day of the Lord is the subject of 2 Peter
3.
In 2 Peter 3:8-10, Peter quotes Paul from 1 Thess 5:2, "the day of the
Lord will come as a thief in the night". In 1 Thess 4 and 5, Paul
was discussing the rapture and how it relates to the Day of the Lord.
This quotation is not found in the Hebrew Scriptures, and is unique to the
New Testament, and appears as if it might be a new or hard teaching.
The Bible is clear that the Lord comes as a thief.
Rev 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
But there is great dispute over what "coming as a thief" means; whether
that phrase means Jesus will come to take away believers in the rapture
(as I believe), or whether it means that Jesus will come to destroy his enemies
at the end of the tribulation.
Now here is the interesting part that relates to 2 Thess 2. There
is no serious dispute that the Lord comes as a thief, and that the Lord comes
as a thief at the start of the Day of the Lord. Therefore, all the
views on the rapture, whether pretrib, mid trib, prewrath, or post trib,
say that the rapture must come first, before the Day of the Lord is present.
In other words, there is nearly universal agreement (regardless of one's
rapture-timing view) that the Day of the Lord will not have come, or be present,
unless the rapture comes first. And that's exactly what I believe 2
Thess 2-3 says, as I will prove.
The quotation, "the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night",
is best explained when studied in the context of the Feast of Trumpets, which
pictures the wedding of the Messiah. The Lord, "coming as a thief"
shows how Jesus will come for his bride to take her away in the rapture "like
a thief in the night". The doctrine about how the Church is the Bride
of Christ is "a great mystery".
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
So, this is one mystery about the Day of the Lord, regarding how it will
come "as a thief in the night", as a groom comes for his bride in a marriage.
The rapture is also a mystery.
1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Since the topic of the bride of Christ is a great mystery, and the topic
of the rapture is also a mystery, it should be no wonder that Peter wrote
that these are "hard to understand" things.
Therefore, God may have intended the topic of the Day of the Lord, the
subject of 2 Thess 2, to be "hard to understand" on purpose, as Peter wrote.
Jesus also spoke in parables on purpose, to hide the truth from unbelievers.
Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
The final reason that 2 Thess 2 may well be hard to understand (on purpose)
is the fact that Paul was writing a letter after a counterfeit letter or
message that had come as if from Paul. Therefore, Paul may have intended
that his letter of correction would be understood by true believers to utterly
refute the deceivers, while at the same time, not be properly understood
by those very deceivers. With the power of the Holy Spirit guiding
him, he probably succeeded. Obviously, his letter became revered as
Holy Scripture. And yet, the Thessalonian Church itself most likely
descended into false doctrine before Paul's ministry was even finished.
I believe the Thessalonian Church most likely descended into false doctrine
for several reasons.
First, the very occasion for writing 2 Thess was that the Thessalonians
were already beginning to believe false doctrine. The false report mentioned
in 2 Thess 2 was shaking their faith.
Second, the Thessalonians did not search the scriptures daily, as the Bereans
did.
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Third, as Paul's ministry comes to a close, he notes that those who oppose him have gone to Thessalonia, probably because that Church had already forsaken the gospel, just as all of the Churches in Asia that Paul had founded, had forsaken Paul himself:
2 Timothy 4:7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: ...
2 Timothy 4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.
2 Timothy 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.
2 Timothy 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
Now, if the Thessalonian Church fell away by the time Paul's ministry
ended, perhaps this is why there is a lack of good commentary on 2 Thess
2 from the early church fathers. The early homilies on 2 Thess 2 include
the admission from the writers that they did not fully understand the chapter.
Further, they thought "the apostasia" was a title, or name, of the man of
sin, whereas virtually nobody today considers that a valid interpretation
of those words. The early church suffered heavy persecution, unto
death, as 2 Thess 1 shows. Therefore, true believers in the early
Church likely had little use, or time, for writing good commentaries; and
even if they did write accurate commentaries, they were likely destroyed
and lost by those who persecuted the Church, and subverted it. But
the Holy Bible remained intact.
----------------------------
To Preview the arguments & points.
A huge part to help understand centers around word definitions.
- The Day of the Lord -- tribulation vs. rapture
- Enistemi-- huge implications; present vs. will come
- Apostasia-- departure vs. departure from the faith
- who or when, -- the man of sin vs. the appearing
Then, there is the grammar:
And finally, doctrinal unity:
---------------
Here is my summary or transliteration of what I believe the passage is
saying (clarifications in parens):
2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, (rapture)
2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ (day of the Lord or tribulation) is at hand. (present, here now)
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come (don't be worried as if the day is present) except there come a falling away (apostasia / departure / rapture) first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
The five words, "that day shall not come," are not contained in the
Greek text; thus, if we omit them, the passage reads like the following:
"be not shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word,
nor by letter as from us, as that the day (of the Lord) is present, (Let
no man deceive you by any means,)... except there come...,
Here is a shorter version to more easily see how the sentence structure links
the main ideas:
Be not shaken in mind... if you hear the Day of the Lord is present,...
unless the departure (rapture) comes first, and the man of sin is revealed...
In other words, if the departure (rapture) comes first, and the man of
sin is revealed, then they should be worried because those things would
conclusively prove that the the Day of the Lord will be present!
It would be much easier to just assert what the passage says, and finish.
But that is not what I, nor you, are commanded to do.
God has also called us to "rebuke," "reprove", and "refute" the errors
(1 Timothy 5:20, 2 Timothy 4:2, Titus 1:13), and "contend (fight) for the
faith," (Jude 1:3) and make a "full proof of our ministries" (2Timothy 4:5),
and "provide reasons for our hope" (1 Pet 3:15).
So, now I will begin to argue, and set out to prove why my view must be
correct, and why other views are wrong.
I have also found out, through experience, that if I just preach what the
passage says, it falls short of convincing and converting those who have
fallen into error, for they, who are ignorant of the truth and are in darkness,
assume I am in darkness because they have no reason to believe I have ever
even heard of their interpretation, and thus they assume I'm ignorant of
their view, and thus, since they assume I'm ignorant, they also assume that
I'm in error.
But I also cannot simply acknowledge the other side's view, and just assert
that it is wrong. For then, the accusations become even worse.
Those who have fallen into error see that I know there is another opinion,
and then, they assume that I'm willfully choosing to "ignore the (their)
truth". Therefore, I need to show, and prove, and reason, and demonstrate,
why, at each point, on each definition, the other views are wrong.
This takes time, and explains the length of this article. This
is also necessary so that those who are in error will have their errors exposed,
so that they may fear to continue to preach errors, and thus, hopefully be
converted.
1 Timothy 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
Jude 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
So, to prove my view is right, and other views are wrong, I will appeal
to the definitions of words, to the word of God, to truth, to reason, and
to doctrine.
Now then, here's a typical view of 2 Thess 2 that denies the pretrib rapture.
Note, it reads nearly 100% opposite of the interpretation I gave earlier.
(The types of errors others typically make are in parens)
2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ (the rapture) is at hand (coming soon).
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means (by teaching a rapture is coming soon): for that day (of the rapture) shall not come (in the future), except there come a falling away (departure from the faith, or tribulation) first, and that man of sin be revealed (which also must come first), the son of perdition;
2Th 2:4 Who (not who, but when, in the tribulation, he) 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.
All the comments in parentheses above are wrong, as I will show.
Through the use of some or all of the distortions made in the passage above,
others teach that the rapture will come after the tribulation, or late in
the tribulation. But even some of those who teach the pretribulation
rapture have been influenced to make a few of the errors above, not realizing
the implications of how each error distorts the overall passage.
- The Day of the Lord-- tribulation vs. rapture
(section to be added)
- Enistemi-- present vs. will come
Some people erroneously translate the word "enistemi" at the end of the
line in 2 Thess 2:2 to mean that the Day of the Lord will "come", or be "at
hand" (KJV), meaning the day will arrive soon. Most translate the word
"enistemi" to mean the Day of the Lord is "present", or had "already begun".
The differences in meaning are 100% opposite and totally crucial to understanding
the rest of the passage. Either the false report was that the Day
will soon arrive because it is in the future, or the false report was that
that the day had already begun and the start of the Day of the Lord was
in the past. The best way to determine which is the correct translation,
is to consider both the definition of the word and how the word is translated
by others, and also to consider the implications with regard to doctrine.
Listed below are several reasons refuting the "COME or SOON ARRIVE..."
interpretation of enistemi. These reasons thus support the other interpretation,
of "PRESENT".
1. (COME or SOON ARRIVE is the wrong translation of the word.)
The definition of the word enistemi was translated, "at hand" (KJV) or "present"
(Darby) or "has come" (RSV):
Strong's Concordance and dictionary:
1764 enistemi {en-is'-tay-mee}
from 1722 and 2476; TDNT - 2:543,234; v
AV - present 3, things present 2, be at hand 1, come 1; 7
1) to place in or among, to put in
2) to be upon, impend, threaten
3) close at hand
4) present
Most translators correctly show that the false report was that the Day
of the Lord had already come, or had already begun, or was now present;
NOT that the day would come in the future or will soon come.
(NIV) 2 Thessalonians 2:2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come.
(NASB) 2 Thessalonians 2:2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
(NKJV) 2 Thessalonians 2:2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ[1] had come.
(RSV) 2 Thessalonians 2:2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
(Darby) 2 Thessalonians 2:2 that ye be not soon shaken in mind, nor troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as [if it were] by us, as that the day of the Lord is present.
(Young's Literal) 2 Thessalonians 2:2 that ye be not quickly shaken in mind, nor be troubled, neither through spirit, neither through word, neither through letters as through us, as that the day of Christ hath arrived;
(WE) 2 Thessalonians 2:2 Do not let your minds be easily upset. Do not be troubled by a spirit, or a message, or a letter. Do not be troubled if you hear that the day of the Lord has already come. Some people will say it came from us.
So, if the word definition and majority translations are so clear, how
did the issue get so confused, and why is there even any debate at all?
I think the problem was caused by two major errors in the passage in the
King James Bible, and the King James Bible is the most popular translation
in the English language, by far.
The first problem with the King James is that the word "enistemi" is translated
"at hand", which is not very specific.
(KJV) 2 Thess 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
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;
Second, there are several words added in verse 3 that are not contained
in the text. The words "that day will not come" were added.
These words make it appear as if the issue under consideration is the coming,
or soon arrival, of the Day of the Lord, and not the presence of the Day
of the Lord, as it should be.
It is amazing to me that the translators of the KJV, who were attempting
to give a word for word translation, would add a full five words not contained
in the text at all. Within those five words are an entire subject
and verb, which simply do not exist in the Greek text itself. Since
those words do not exist, we cannot appeal to them to assert that the topic
that Paul was addressing is whether or not the day will come, or soon arrive.
The issue Paul was addressing, as is stated in verse 2, is whether or not
the Day of the Lord was present.
Like the KJV, the following translations add those odd words to verse 3:
the NIV, NASB, AMP, NLT, ESV.
I think Darby gives one of the better translations of this particular issue
in verse 3. His translation retains the idea that the subject under
consideration is whether the Day of the Lord is present (not coming soon).
2 Thessalonians 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;
Darby is joined on this issue by others:
American Standard Version:
3 let no man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition,
Oddly, Young's Literal Translation, although in agreement that the subject in question is whether "the Day of Christ hath arrived", which is past tense, it adds an odd phrase at the end of verse 4, "the day doth not come".
2 Thess:2 that ye be not quickly shaken in mind, nor be troubled, neither through spirit, neither through word, neither through letters as through us, as that the day of Christ hath arrived;
2 Thess: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,
2 Thess:4 who is opposing and is raising himself up above all called God or worshipped, so that he in the sanctuary of God as God hath sat down, shewing himself off that he is God -- [the day doth not come].
Based on definitions and translations, therefore, I believe the best way
to translate the passage is to retain the idea of whether the day of the
Lord was present all the way through verse 3, so that Paul is saying:
Be not shaken in mind... if you hear the Day of the Lord is present,...
unless the apostasia (departure) comes first, and the man of sin is revealed...
Later, I will discuss several doctrinal implications of this view that
Paul was discussing the presence, not the coming, of the Day of the Lord.
But I will not do so yet, and build on this block of knowledge, because
I have not yet refuted the other view.
So let's consider the implications of the less likely, minority interpretation:
that the Day of the Lord will COME or SOON ARRIVE.
2. It is true doctrine that the Day of the Lord will come soon.
But it is impossible for a false report to be "true doctrine". Therefore,
the false report was not, and could not have been, that the Day of the Lord
will come soon, because the Bible clearly teaches the day of the Lord will
come soon.
Note, many of these verses also say "at hand", but those words are translated
from "eggizo" not from "enistemi," which used in 2 Thess 2:2.
1448 eggizo {eng-id'-zo}
from 1451; TDNT - 2:330,194; v
AV - draw nigh 12, be at hand 9, come nigh 8, come near 5, draw near
4, misc 5; 43
1) to bring near, to join one thing to another 2) to draw or come
near to, to approach
Rom 13:11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.
Rom 13:12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand [eggizo]: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.
1Co 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
Phi 4:5 Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand [eggus]
1451 eggus {eng-goos'}
from a primary verb agcho (to squeeze or throttle; akin to the base
of 43); TDNT - 2:330,194; adv
AV - nigh 13, at hand 6, nigh at hand 4, near 4, from 1, nigh unto
1, ready 1; 30
1) near, of place and position 1a) near 1b) those who are near access
to God 1b1) Jews, as opposed to those who are alien from God and his blessings
1b2) The Rabbis used the term "to make nigh" as equivalent to "to make a
proselyte" 2) of time 2a) of times imminent and soon to come pass
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Heb 10:37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
Jam 5:7 Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain.
Jam 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
Jam 5:9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.
1Pe 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand [eggizo]: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Rev 22:6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
It is true doctrine that the Day of the Lord will soon come in the future;
this is what we still teach today. The implication is that if the false
report was that the Day of the Lord would come soon, then there would be
a huge contradiction within the Bible on this teaching. It is an axiom
or self evident that there cannot be a false report of true doctrine. Therefore,
it could not have been that the false report was that the Day of the Lord
would come soon. The false report had to be that the Day of the Lord
was present.
The false report (and correct interpretation of what Paul was writing) was
that start of the Day of the Lord was past; had already begun; and that
the Day of the Lord was present.
Consider further the doctrinal implications. A report saying that the
Day of the Lord would "SOON ARRIVE" (which would be true doctrine) could
not cause the true Christians in Thessalonia to worry or shake their faith.
A message that said the Day of the Lord would soon arrive would be a blessing
of comfort for believers; especially believers who were facing tribulation
as the Thessalonains were. Christians look forward to that day; it
is the blessed hope.
Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Next: The Day of the Lord begins with the resurrection and the
rapture, as was taught in 1 Thess 5:2. In 2 Tim 2:18, we see that
false doctrine consists of reports of the resurrection is past.
2 Tim 2:18 "Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some."
This kind of false doctrine would be like a false report that said that
the Day of the Lord had already begun and was now present, which would imply
that the resurrection is past already.
I strongly suspect that Paul, in 2 Tim 2:18, was referring to the type
of false report that he addressed in 2 Thess 2:2. Therefore, the correct
interpretation of 2 Thess 2:2 is that Paul was addressing a false report
that said the Day of the Lord had already begun and was present, which meant
that the resurrection was past.
Those who were teaching the false doctrine that the resurrection is past
might have attempted to point to the resurrection of the saints at the time
of the resurrection of Jesus, to falsely support their false doctrine:
Mat 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
Mat 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
Mat 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
Mat 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
But that was not the resurrection that the Bible teaches will come.
There is nothing in scripture indicating that these saints were given immortality,
which is the feature of the resurrection to come: 1 Cor 15. False
doctrine tends to be a distortion of something real; otherwise it would
not be believed.
Therefore, the correct interpretation of 2 Thess 2:2 is that the false
report was that the Day of the Lord was PRESENT, or ALREADY BEGUN, which
implied that the resurrection is past already. The false report must
have been false doctrine, and that was the false report that was shaking
the faith of the Thessalonians, which provided the occasion for Paul to write
to them.
Thus concludes the many proofs, from definitions of the words, to translations,
to doctrinal unity, to show that the word "enistemi" meant that the Day
of the Lord was PRESENT, and not to come. And here are the implications
of this: it proves that the rapture is before the tribulation.
Consider: why would it shake their faith if they believed a false report
that the Day of the Lord was PRESENT, and the resurrection was past?
As shown in 2 Thess 1, the Thessalonians were being tested by tribulations.
The false report about the presence of the Day of the Lord, if believed,
would have meant that the tribulations they were suffering were the evidence
of the presence of the tribulations of the Day of the Lord. If the
tribulation of the Day of the Lord had begun, it would mean that they had
missed the resurrection and rapture. It would also mean that they were
unworthy of the rapture; exactly the kind of feelings that their persecutors
would want them to feel.
So then, Paul's job is to refute the false report that the Day of the Lord
is present; and the false idea that the tribulations they were facing were
the tribulations to come. Paul spends the first chapter telling them
that their tribulations are evidence of their worthiness; which would refute
and calm their fear that their tribulations were evidence of the presence
of the tribulations of the Day of the Lord, and evidence that they had missed
the rapture.
It is clear that you cannot understand the answer unless you understand
the question. Since the question was not "the coming", but the presence
of the Day of the Lord, this has huge implications.
Note, Paul did not write, and could not have written, to say the Day of
the Lord had not yet come. And Paul did not write to say the Day of
the Lord would not come soon. Either of those things might have been
wrong between the time when Paul wrote his letter, and when his letter arrived.
After all, what if the Day of the Lord did arrive between the time he wrote
his letter and when they received his letter? Then, his letter would
have been worse than useless, it would have been incorrect and wrong!
Therefore, Paul tells them how they can know for certain whether the Day
of the Lord is present or not. Paul writes about two unmistakable
signs that would both signify the presence of the Day of the Lord: the "apostasia",
and the revealing of the man of sin.
These two things are certainly not signs that "must come first" at some
vague point in time before the Day of the Lord comes. The point is,
if there is a time gap between when these two things are seen and noticed,
and when the Day of the Lord comes, then the signs become absolutely useless
as indicators of the presence of the Day of the Lord. Think for a moment
and consider what it would mean if the "apostasia" and the revealing of the
man of sin were two things that "must come first" before the coming of the
Day of the Lord. And therefore, you had no idea how much time there
would be between when those two things came, and when the Day of the Lord
started. Well, what if those two things did come? The question
and problem would still remain: How would you know whether the Day of
the Lord was present or not?
Therefore, Paul discusses two things in relation to the presence of the
Day of the Lord, the "apostasia" and the revealing of the man of sin.
For now, in order to continue to discuss the implications of the fact that
Paul was addressing the PRESENCE of the day of the lord, I will simply say
that apostasia means departure, and later I will examine why that is so.
So then, Paul says that the Day of the Lord will not be present, unless
the departure comes first, and the man of sin is revealed. Paul
is saying that the day of the Lord will not be present unless the man of
sin is revealed. Thus, the revealing of the man of sin is a feature
of the presence of the Day of the Lord, it is not something "that must come
first". The only thing that must come first is the departure.
Note, it is not a list of two things that must come first. If it
were a list of two things that must come first, the grammar would have to
be different than it is. If it were two items in a list, the two items
would have to be listed together, and the modifying words "come first" would
have to appear either at the start, or at the end of the list. As
examples, here is how it would have to be written if it were two things
that must come first:
...the day of the Lord is present,... unless first come (two things): the
apostasia, and the man of sin being revealed...
or
...the day of the Lord is present,... unless (two things) the apostasia,
and the man of sin be revealed, come first...
But neither of these forms is used. The two items, the apostasia
and the revealing, are not listed together as in a list, and the words "come
first" do not come at the beginning, nor at the end of these two items.
But rather, the word "first" comes in between the two items, therefore it
modifies only one of the items, the apostasia.
This is important because it proves that it is wrong to say that the revealing
of the man of sin must come first before the Day of the Lord is present.
(Again, the topic is not whether the Day of the Lord is coming, but whether
it is present.) Rather, the revealing of the man of sin is a primary
feature of, and indicating, the presence of the Day of the Lord.
The main reason why this is important is that it means that there is only
one thing "must come first" before the presence of the day of the Lord;
which is "the apostasia", or the departure. And therefore, if there
is only one thing that must come first, then that one thing must be something
that, when it happens, would unmistakably signal, and would mean with certainty,
that the Day of the Lord is now present. A departure from the faith
simply is not such a sign whatsoever. But the departure of the rapture
definitely is such a sign, that if it were to come, then it would, indeed,
prove that the day of the Lord has begun and is present. Therefore,
the implications of "enistemi" meaning presence, and not "coming", ultimately
proves that "the apostasia" is the departure of the rapture, not the departure
from the faith.
Getting back to the distinction of whether there are two items in a list
that must come first, or only one that must come first. This is important
because the two things, the apostasia and the revealing of the man of sin
are definitely related to each other, but not as two items that must come
before a third thing happens (day of the Lord comes). (Again, it is
not the coming of the day of the Lord that is at issue, it is the presence
of the day of the Lord that is being discussed.) One thing must come
first before the presence of the day of the Lord, and that is the apostasia,
or departure. The second thing, the revealing of the man of sin, is
the evidence that the day of the Lord is present, and since the man of sin
is not revealed yet, that is therefore evidence that the Day of the Lord
is NOT present.
Therefore, the two items, the apostasia and the revealing, are items that
happen in sequence, one right after another.
The apostasia, "the departure", therefore, also must be the type of sign
that if it were to come, it would mean that the revealing of the man of
sin would take place immediately thereafter. Again, a departure from
the faith, since that has been an ongoing sign in the Church since the days
when the New Testament was still being written, is not the type of sign
that, if it were to come, would necessarily and logically mean that the revealing
of the man of sin would happen immidiately next. However, the departure
of the saints at the rapture definitely is such a sign. The rapture,
when it happens, will reveal the man of sin to the world. This also
means that "the apostasia" is the departure of the rapture, not the departure
from the faith.
The apostasia, or departure, must come first, before the presence of the
Day of the Lord, which is characterized by the revealing of the man of sin.
This means that the apostasia, or departure, allows for the revealing of
the man of sin.
This concept is repeated a few verses later, that a departure, or taking
out of the way, happens before the revealing, in verses 7 & 8.
2Th 2:7 "...only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of
the way.
2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed,.."
Note the parallel to:
2Th 2:3 "...except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin
be revealed, the son of perdition;"
This shows that the apostasia, (departure), is related to the phrase, "he
that is taken out of the way", because each item is written as if it must
come before the revealing of the man of sin. And if the apostasia
is the same as "taken out of the way", then the apostasia much more likely
means departure, as in the rapture, and not departure from the faith.
But I will discuss more about why the apostasia means the departure later.
Apostasia cannot mean "departure from the faith", and here's why not.
If apostasia means "the departure from the faith", and if that is what Paul
said must come first before the presence of the Day of the Lord, how would
that prove to the Thessalonians that the Day of the Lord was not present?
A departure from the faith would have to be something that they could look
for and say "no departure from the faith has happened, so therefore, the
Day of the Lord is not present". But a departure from the faith had
happened: a departure from the faith was exactly what was troubling the Thessalonians
at the time Paul was writing, because he was writing to correct a false
report that was being believed!
Imagine the aburdity for a moment of the interpretation that the apostasia
is a "departure from the faith". I'll phrase it another way.
Paul was writing to correct false doctrine, a departure from the faith that
had already occurred in the Thessalonian church! The false report was
that the Day of the Lord was present, and the resurrection was past.
Therefore, if Paul said that a departure "from the faith" must come first,
he would refute and correct absolutely nothing!!!
It would be a totally circular and most illogical statement for Paul to
make: "Don't worry about the false reports about the Day of the Lord
being present, unless false reports come first!"
If a departure from the faith, or false doctrine, was already present and
needed to be refuted, then listing that as something that must come first
would not change or refute anything, and would be utterly ridiculous.
Paul was saying that the Day of the Lord was not yet present, because a
sign, which had not happened yet, "the apostasia," needed to come first.
Since "the apostasia" had to be something that had not happened yet, then
"the apostasia" could not be referring to a departure from the faith, which
was happening. Instead, "the apostasia" must refer to some other departure,
a rather specific departure that would be an unmistakable sign: a
departure that would lead to another unmistakable sign.
The departure of the rapture, which leads to the revealing of the antichrist,
are these unmistakable signs.
Others have recognized that "the apostasia" cannot refer to a departure
from the faith as the key item that needs to come first before the Day of
the Lord, because Christians and entire Churches were departing from the faith
since before the New Testament was finished being written. As an ongoing
sign of the tribulations of this age, a departure from the faith could not
be the specific sign that Paul said must come first before the Day of the
Lord is present.
Further, this is THE apostasia, not a apostasia. The use of the definite
article means it is a specific departure, a departure previously mentioned.
There is no mention of a departure from the faith earlier in 2 Thess, nor
is it mentioned in the first book of 1 Thess. But there is mention
of another departure, the rapture, both earlier in 2 Thess 2:1, and in 1
Thess 4 & 5.
Some wildly speculate that Paul must have spoken to the Thessalonians about
a departure from the faith, since he writes, "2 Thess 2:5 Remember ye not,
that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?" However,
we have no evidence that Paul taught about a departure from the faith that
must come first before the Day of the Lord. In contrast, we do have
evidence that he taught them about "the" departure of the rapture that must
come at the start of the Day of the Lord.
Paul wrote in 1 Thess 5:2, "the Day of the Lord comes as a thief in the
night". This means that the Day of the Lord starts with the rapture.
Jesus will come to steal away his bride like a thief in the night according
to the custom of the wedding, therefore that phrase, "comes as a thief in
the night" refers to the rapture.
Additionally, Paul mentions the departure of the rapture (our gathering
together to Jesus) as he introduces his subject in chapter 2.
2 Thess 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of
our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
Therefore, THE apostasia, the one of previous teachings, is the departure
of the rapture, not some vague departure from the faith.
Now, the Bible says that everything should be established by two or three
witnesses. Acts 17 tells us that Paul founded the Church at Thessalonia
by arguing from the scriptures at a synagogue. Can this doctrine,
that the rapture comes before the Day of the Lord, and leads to the revealing
of the Antichrist, be taught strictly from the witness of the Hebrew Scriptures?
Yes, it can.
Isaiah 13 tells us that the Day of the Lord is a time of travail.
Zeph 1:15-18 tells us that the Day of the Lord is a time of wrath, tribulation,
distress and trouble.
Ezekiel 38-39 tells us that the Day of the Lord is followed by a time when
Israel burns weapons for 7 years, and is the time of the "captivity of Jacob".
Jeremiah 30:3-7 tells us that the "captivity of Jacob" is the time of travail
is the time of Jacob's trouble.
Daniel 12:1 tells us that the resurrection happens at the time of trouble.
Daniel 9:27 tells us that the antichrist, or man of sin, confirms the covenant
with many for seven years, the lengh of time mentioned in Ezekiel 39.
Isaiah 26:19-21 tell us that the resurrection, also typified by how a bride
will enter her bridal chambers, happens before the Day of the Lord.
Isaiah 57:1 tells us that the righteous are taken away from the evil to
come.
Therefore, the resurrection of Isaiah 26:19-21 and Daniel 12:1 happens
at the start of the time of trouble, or tribulation, and the start of the
Day of the Lord, at which time the antichrist of Dan 9:27 is revealed, because
the antichrist would be revealed when he confirms the covenant with many.
Unfortunately, Acts 17:11 tells us that those in Thessalonica were not
as noble as others who searched the scriptures daily; therefore, they might
not have had a firm foundation on this subject matter, and thus, more easily
shaken by a false report.
Therefore, based on the Hebrew Scriptures alone, I could teach the same
thing that Paul taught; "Don't worry if you falsely hear that the Day of the
Lord is present, unless the rapture happens first, and the man of sin is
revealed. But if you do see those things, then you will know that the
Day of the Lord is present, and thus you will know that you have been missed
the rapture, and that the tribulation has begun. But, of course, since
the man of sin has not yet been revealed, and since you are still here, you
know that your very presence is restraining the revealing of the man of sin."
The interpretation of the word "enistemi", meaning PRESENT, is often rejected
by those who reject the doctrine of the pretribulation rapture, because
this interpretation proves that tribulation is a main feature of the Day
of the Lord; which completely refutes their theories. Those who reject
the pretribulation rapture often go to great lengths to try and show that
the Day of the Lord comes after the tribulation, which is not the case.
Further, those who reject the pretribulation rapture often also believe
(erroneously) that the Day of the Lord is only 24 hours long. Therefore,
they refuse to consider even the possibility that the Day of the Lord could
ever be spoken of as being "present".
But look at how Paul refutes the notion of the false report of the presence
of the Day of the Lord. If the Day of the Lord were only 24 hours
long, as many post tribulation rapture believers suggest, then why didn't
Paul simply say, "Don't worry if you hear that the Day of the Lord is present,
for that day is not a time of ongoing tribulations, but it is only 24 hours
long."
()
Click Here to go Back to the Home
Page:
Online Bible Prophecy Studies;
Please feel free to email me, Jason, at
bibleprophesy@yahoo.com
if you have any questions or comments on this article,
or on the subject of the pretribulation rapture,
or if you wish to share any scriptures with me.
 |