|
|
Post by tom67x on Sept 17, 2017 10:23:15 GMT -6
I know I was taught for years that there will be a great apostasy, i.e. a falling away of Christians from the faith. I will say I don't believe this is remotely possible, as Christ's redeeming work on the cross was either a perfect success or a perfect failure simply because He said point blank He will not lose one of whom the Father has given Him (John 6:39). God is FULLY sovereign, ALL powerful, ALL knowing, and ALL present (the "omni's). There's no room for even a .0000001% failure here or He is simply not worthy of our worship. I think all Christians can believe this, thus, we are either once saved for all time, or never saved at all as we are the failures, not God, and we stand on quickening sand. I say that because I could never square away a "falling away" from the Faith that He alone has given us by grace, not a shred of work involved, else we take upon ourselves a measure of sovereignty over Him- which we know is not possible. So I stumble over this topic for years...and then it is shown to me, courtesy of our brother Scottie Clark...it absolutely ties the scripture to God's unchanging character! Quoting Scottie (emphases mine): Here is the actual page link that you can read more on this very, very important point: www.erfministries.com/QnA_4.phpAs a "Calvinist" (Like Spurgeon I really don't like titles) this tends to end the conversation unfortunately with those of the Amillenial view...we ought be mindful how we have our wagon attached and simply be willing to be shown our own error- it leads to growth and understanding- and frankly a challenging of any remnants of pride dwelling within us that causes us to retreat rather than consider. Scottie did this for me, I have often said I can't wait to be shown to be wrong that I might grown in the knowledge of Christ! Hope this is as fascinating and eye-opening for you as it was for me not so long ago! Maranatha! |
|
|
|
Post by watchmanjim on Sept 17, 2017 12:12:11 GMT -6
Good thoughts, Tom! I have also struggled with this passage. If "falling away" means basically like "falling up" ie, falling away from the earth, that is a perfect picture of the Rapture.  |
|
|
|
Post by hillary on Sept 17, 2017 13:05:31 GMT -6
I’ve been studying this and I wrote about it yesterday. I know that many dear ones have a different view & I love and respect them greatly. A few thoughts....
In studying the day of Christ vs. the day of the Lord (mostly via teachings by Robert Breaker), I've come to understand that the day of Christ is the rapture and the day of the Lord is the 2nd coming. And if this is the case, which I believe it is, the passage indicates that the day of Christ (rapture) won't come until the falling away comes first and the man of sin be revealed. As soon as the man of sin is revealed, the rapture happens. Apostasia as departure can't be rapture in this context because that would not make sense....the rapture won't come until the rapture comes first? It doesn't work.
2 Thess. 2:3 “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first...” Using the principle of scripture interpreting scripture, along with the context, prayer & seeking the Holy Spirit, I believe the falling away is departing from the faith.
This falling away is Greek 646: apostasia. It says: 646 apostasía (from 868 /aphístēmi, "leave, depart," which is derived from 575 /apó, "away from" and 2476 /histémi, "stand") – properly, departure (implying desertion); apostasy – literally, "a leaving, from a previous standing."
Now let's compare 1 Tim. 4:1 “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils...”
This depart from the faith is Greek 868: aphistémi: to lead away, to depart from.... which is a root that "apostasia", Greek 646, is taken from.
Original Word: ἀφίστημι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: aphistémi
Phonetic Spelling: (af-is'-tay-mee)
Short Definition: I lead away, seduce, depart, abstain from
Definition: I make to stand away, draw away, repel, take up a position away from, withdraw from, leave, abstain from.
Word Origin
from apo and histémi
I agree that apostasia can be translated “departure,” but in this context I do not believe it is the departure of the body of Christ from the earth, but rather a departure from the faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by tom67x on Sept 17, 2017 14:03:39 GMT -6
Couple things...
The day of the Lord is a fearful, terrible thing- His wrath (who could stand) is poured out as mentioned numerous times in scripture- we will not see that day as it will be dreadful beyond imagination. We depart sometime prior. We also will not see (I contend) the man of lawlessness, the antichrist, as he is the "man with the answers" after the world has been shaken by our departure. Now that part is debatable with some, it's not completely clear the timing, but if we look at the OP and the oldest, earliest manuscripts- it does clarify...rather perfectly!
Strong's- though a great resource that is very reliable- is not always foolproof against these earliest manuscripts, before a sort of "tone" was set by the KJ1611. So we need to discern what wagon we are going to hitch ourselves to...a modern assertion, or the historical one? I can't answer on behalf of anyone but myself...I'll go with the earliest manuscripts being less likely to be altered or mistranslated.
Food for thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Sept 18, 2017 6:53:12 GMT -6
2 Thessalonians 2:3 ἀφίστημι meaning departure from earth, in my humble opinion, is probably correct.
When you keep the first and second paragraphs (2 Thes 2:1 - 2 Thes 2:12) together as one entity, the subject of [falling away] is referenced in the second paragraph as "He".
1st Paragraph:
3 "... for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition"
2nd Paragraph:
7"... For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed"
I think Paul was keeping the subject matter aligned to keep the flow. Plus, the second paragraph adds more information, more detail, about the blue text from the first verse:
This is likely a [departure/falling away/taken out of the way] of --> "He"... the restrainer...
The main clue we have is in red.
["the falling away comes first" --> (which includes "He (the restrainer) is taken out of the way")] <-- Then the lawless one is revealed!
|
|
|
|
Post by uscgvet on Sept 18, 2017 7:31:41 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by kjs on Sept 18, 2017 9:23:34 GMT -6
I agree that apostasia can be translated “departure,” but in this context I do not believe it is the departure of the body of Christ from the earth, but rather a departure from the faith. Please keep in mind that the word "THE" precedes apostasia ---- regardless if you allow the word to represent departure or falling away -- you need to tack THE in front of it.... Making it either THE departure or THE Falling Away I believe the context makes more sense with The Departure But let us look at the other way -- just for looking at both sides..... The Falling Away --- would indicate it is not a generic type of Falling Away -- but a Specific Type of Falling Away..... if there was a specific type of Falling Away -- would not that type be spelled out? |
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Sept 18, 2017 9:28:18 GMT -6
2 Thess. 2:3 is tough, but I do lean towards the "departure" translation for several reasons. For starters, not only was it translated "departure" in the first English translations, but also in the Latin Vulgate, which is what the Church used for an entire millennium before many of those translations. Apostasia definitely CAN mean to "depart from the faith", but it doesn't necessarily have to, and context dictates the meaning. The word is only used twice in the NT, which gives us little evidence in translation either way - the other use being in Acts 21:21. In Acts 21:21 the word clearly refers to apostasy because of the context: ἀποστασίαν διδάσκεις ἀπὸ Μωϋσέωςdeparture you teach from Moses (You teach departure from Moses) As pointed out earlier, apostasia is derived from aphistémi and this word is used more often. Imho, its use in the NT provides a huge clue to me that these two words can only ever mean "departure" and apostasy has to be derived from the context (as is the case in Acts 21:21). Here are examples of aphistémi: Luke 2:37: "Then she lived as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She never left the Temple but stayed there day and night, worshiping God with fasting and prayer." Luke 4:13: "When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time." Acts 12:10: "They passed the first and second guards and came to the iron gate leading to the city. It opened for them by itself, and they went through it. When they had walked the length of one street, suddenly the angel left him." Acts 19:9: "But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus." Acts 22:29: "Those who were about to interrogate him withdrew immediately. The commander himself was alarmed when he realized that he had put Paul, a Roman citizen, in chains." Now here is something I find interesting: a number of commentators that interpret apostasia as "apostasy" in 2 Thess. 2:3 argue that this derivative of aphistémi necessarily means "apostasy" whereas they acknowledge aphistémi merely means "to leave, depart, withdraw" and context is necessary to identify what is being departed from. The problem with this is 1 Timothy 4:1, which clearly speaks of an end-of-the-age apostasy: "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon [ aphistémi] the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons." Paul wrote both 1 Timothy and 2 Thessalonians. Considering that 1 Timothy 4:1 clearly speaks of an apostasy, you would think he would have favored apostasia if indeed apostasia necessarily meant "apostasy", but he sticks with aphistémi, unlike Luke's use of apostasia in Acts 21:21. That's telling. Regarding the context of 2 Thess. 2, imho, it almost requires that apostasia be translated "departure": Context: Rapture"Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him..." - 2 Thess. 2:1 Fear: We missed the rapture and/or are in the Tribulation"we ask you, brothers, 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." - 2 Thess. 2:1c-2 In v. 3 we are told that a certain something will not happen until the apostasia occurs - v. 2 tells us this certain something is the Day of the LORD. The Greek is Κυρίου (Lord) rather than Χριστοῦ (Christ). The Day of the LORD is the name frequently given in the Old Testament prophets to the coming period of God's wrath (see Zech. 14:1; Is. 13:6, 9; Jer. 46:10; Ez. 30:3; Joel 1:15, 2:1, 11, 31, 3:14; Am. 5:18). What Paul seems to be saying in vv. 1-3 is "Don't be troubled by those telling you that you've entered the Day of the LORD/Time of Jacob's Trouble/Tribulation. That time can't start until we're gathered first." Now *if* v. 2 is speaking about a spiritual defection and the order of events is 1. Apostasy, 2. Antichrist revealed, 3. Church raptured, then we run headlong into a major contradiction in vv. 6-8: Paul says the Thessalonians know who it is that is restraining the man of lawlessness from being revealed. We learn that the man of lawlessness is 1. restrained by a certain someone that you know, and 2. not yet revealed. I've read many opinions on who the Restrainer is, but there is widespread agreement among futurists/dispensationalists that this is none other than the Holy Spirit whom the Thessalonians know - or perhaps more specifically - the Holy Spirit-indwelt Church. The order of events here makes it difficult to translate apostasia as "apostasy" in v. 3. In vv. 6-8 the order of events is 1. Lawlessness currently restrained by the Restrainer, 2. Restrainer will be removed, 3. Only *then* will the man of lawlessness be revealed. Since the lawless one cannot be revealed until the Restrainer is removed, the Restrainer cannot be the Holy Spirit if v. 3 is about an apostasy. Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I could be wrong, though. There are some more detailed articles here, here, and here. |
|
|
|
Post by hillary on Sept 18, 2017 10:14:20 GMT -6
I really want to understand, so I hope my posts are not considered divisive or obtuse. I've held to traditional interpretations for awhile, including that the restrainer is the Holy-Spirit indwelt Church. And I'm not saying I don't believe this now, but I take Paul's words seriously: "let no man deceive you" so I'm re-evaluating many things.
1) I recently re-read this passage in the KJV and greek-to-english and it makes me wonder about a few things. For example:
KJV with Strongs: 2 Thess. 2
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now [Greek: 3568 meaning "just now," as in: here is new information] ye know what withholdeth [Greek 2722: "holds back" "restrains"] that he might be revealed in his time. [The reason the lawless one is held back is that he will be revealed in his time. In other words, it's not his time yet, so now you know what holds him back.]
Greek-to-English without the added or implied words. Note: I am not a Greek scholar, and so my ignorance may be glaring here. But when studying the Greek passage without the words added for clarity, but just the plain Greek-to-English rendering, it offers a very different understanding of this passage. I think this is important, because it shows how the added words shape our interpretations.
2 Thess.2:7 plain Greek to English without added clarifying words:
"the indeed mystery, already is working, of lawlessness; only the restraining at present [indicates a state of being or holding, rather than a person] until out of the midst he might be."
"he might be" is Greek 1096 which means to come into being, to happen, to become, to be born, to emerge.
This makes me question the implied added words. Again, obviously I'm not a scholar, but I don't know who chose to add the words that have shaped our understanding today. Where did they come from, and by what authority were they added?
2) Preacher Robert Breaker has done a study about the Day of Christ vs. the Day of the Lord. He believes the Day of Christ is the rapture, and the Day of the Lord is the 2nd Coming. (Teaching on YouTube, for those interested.)
If he is correct, then the text in this passage indicates that the Day of Christ (rapture) will not happen until the falling away comes first. I understand this is not a widely held belief here, but *IF* he is correct, then the apostasia could not mean departure as in rapture, because that would be saying "The rapture cannot happen until the rapture happens first."
Please forgive me if this is out of line. I'm not trying to be divisive but to study and discern. Does any of the above seem plausible to you? I know I'm not infallible, nor is Robert Breaker although I do "follow" him so to speak & weigh what he teaches according to Scripture with prayer. At the very least, I know this is not a salvation issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by kjs on Sept 18, 2017 11:50:17 GMT -6
If he is correct, then the text in this passage indicates that the Day of Christ (rapture) will not happen until the falling away comes first. I understand this is not a widely held belief here, but *IF* he is correct, then the apostasia could not mean departure as in rapture, because that would be saying "The rapture cannot happen until the rapture happens first."
Sorry, Hillary -- even if your objection does not make sense -- you are attempting to claim that adding THE Departure makes the passage say "The rapture cannot happen until the rapture happens first." BUT that is simply how you worded it to make it seem out of place ..... Let's start with verse 3 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not arrive until the rebellion comes and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction. (this is the NET Translation) NOW LET's change rebellion to departure 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not arrive until the departure comes and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction. Remember -- here in the passage it is "TALKING" of that Day? What Day? Go back one verse and it tells you ... "...the day of the Lord...." |
|
|
|
Post by kjs on Sept 18, 2017 11:54:14 GMT -6
Personally, I think part of your confusion is believing the term "Day of The Lord" -- means rapture ONLY....
Even if Robert (or whoever) is correct and that the Rapture takes place on "Day of The Lord" DOES NOT MEAN
That is the only event taking place .... there are many many other things scheduled to take place -- rapture being one of them...
|
|
|
|
Post by hillary on Sept 18, 2017 12:06:58 GMT -6
If he is correct, then the text in this passage indicates that the Day of Christ (rapture) will not happen until the falling away comes first. I understand this is not a widely held belief here, but *IF* he is correct, then the apostasia could not mean departure as in rapture, because that would be saying "The rapture cannot happen until the rapture happens first."
Sorry, Hillary -- even if your objection does not make sense -- you are attempting to claim that adding THE Departure makes the passage say "The rapture cannot happen until the rapture happens first." BUT that is simply how you worded it to make it seem out of place ..... Let's start with verse 3 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not arrive until the rebellion comes and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction. (this is the NET Translation) NOW LET's change rebellion to departure 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not arrive until the departure comes and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction. Remember -- here in the passage it is "TALKING" of that Day? What Day? Go back one verse and it tells you ... "...the day of the Lord...." Kindly, I am not trying to word anything to make it seem out of place. Perhaps it is a translation issue. The KJV uses "day of Christ" here, which has been shown in a compelling study to mean the rapture, rather than "day of the Lord." It could be that this interpretation of "day of Christ as rapture" is not correct. I'm not trying to prove that apostasia as rapture is false, but I am trying to discern it. "Study to show thyself approved," etc. If the day [the day of Christ in KJV] [the day that according to this detailed study is the rapture] is a day that will not arrive until the apostasia comes, my question had to do with what interpretation of apostasia is correct. I hope my heart in this is apparent. It's not a salvation issue and I apologize if I've caused offense. Blessings to all. |
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 19, 2017 5:42:54 GMT -6
I was thinking about this topic in general and thought that if the "apostasy" means catching or falling away it really doesnt matter on the 18th of September does it? I thought to myself "isnt it evident that the world is apostate!". Kick God out of schools, kick God out of public, shame people who do right, praise for doing wrong, homosexual, transgender, transsexual, all gods are equal, all gods are the same, and so on and so on and so on. This is not just here in America, but in Israel, throughout Europe and even into Asia. As Daniel prayed in chapter 9 we are witnessing this before our eyes, and the outcome will be the second advent this time around
4 And I prayed unto the LORD my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments; 5 We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments: 6 Neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which spake in thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land. 7 O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee. 8 O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee. 9 To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him; 10 Neither have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets. 11 Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him. 12 And he hath confirmed his words, which he spake against us, and against our judges that judged us, by bringing upon us a great evil: for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem. 13 As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the LORD our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth. 14 Therefore hath the LORD watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us: for the LORD our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth: for we obeyed not his voice.
|
|
|
|
Post by rt on Sept 19, 2017 7:31:29 GMT -6
Not to change the subject but I was recently looking at the following passage:
If there is any doubt as to who is currently restraining evil, this passage surely seems to tell us that it is us, the body of Christ clothed in His armor, we struggle against those powers of darkness, those spiritual forces of wickedness, we stand firm against them. This not only benefits us as individuals, but society in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by tom67x on Sept 19, 2017 11:42:24 GMT -6
Sorry, Hillary -- even if your objection does not make sense -- you are attempting to claim that adding THE Departure makes the passage say "The rapture cannot happen until the rapture happens first." BUT that is simply how you worded it to make it seem out of place ..... Let's start with verse 3 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not arrive until the rebellion comes and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction. (this is the NET Translation) NOW LET's change rebellion to departure 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not arrive until the departure comes and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction. Remember -- here in the passage it is "TALKING" of that Day? What Day? Go back one verse and it tells you ... "...the day of the Lord...." Kindly, I am not trying to word anything to make it seem out of place. Perhaps it is a translation issue. The KJV uses "day of Christ" here, which has been shown in a compelling study to mean the rapture, rather than "day of the Lord." It could be that this interpretation of "day of Christ as rapture" is not correct. I'm not trying to prove that apostasia as rapture is false, but I am trying to discern it. "Study to show thyself approved," etc. If the day [the day of Christ in KJV] [the day that according to this detailed study is the rapture] is a day that will not arrive until the apostasia comes, my question had to do with what interpretation of apostasia is correct. I hope my heart in this is apparent. It's not a salvation issue and I apologize if I've caused offense. Blessings to all. As a former moderator for more than 6 years myself Hillary- I personally think you have "discoursed most earnestly and graciously" and find no fault with your seeking answers and understanding- whether sufficiently provided or not! FWIW...$.02...etc. |
|
