Thistles in Thessalonians

Last month, I wrote an article about the strong delusion that Paul mentions in 2 Thessalonians 2:11, and how I am convinced that God will send this delusion after the abomination of desolation for the explicit purpose of deluding the unbelieving majority of Jews into finally receiving a Gentile Antichrist as their Messiah after rejecting him as such for the first three and a half years of the Tribulation—just as the Jews rejected Christ during His earthly ministry two thousand years ago. Along the way, I brought out the point that I believe the official "revealing" of the Antichrist occurs at the mid-point of the Tribulation, following the abomination of desolation.

Shortly after posting that article, my friend Jerry over at A New Name emailed me with a question. In my article, I referred to a couple of points in 2 Thessalonians 2, and his timing-related question concerned verses 7–8, where Paul basically tells us that the Holy Spirit will restrain the Antichrist until He is taken out of the way (via the Rapture), and then the Antichrist ("the lawless one") will be revealed.

Now, Jerry teaches a pre-trib Rapture as do I, and his question amounted to a bit of "thinking out loud." He asked me, almost apologetically, how I might deal with the fact that verses 7–8 could be read to suggest a mid-trib Rapture. Here's the passage in question:

Jerry's point was that when Paul says that the Restrainer (the Holy Spirit) is taken out of the way (which can only be the Rapture) and then the Antichrist is revealed (which I believe, as I stated in the article, occurs at the abomination of desolation at the midpoint of the Tribulation), on the surface that does smack of a possible mid-trib Rapture. You know, the Restrainer is removed (Rapture), then the Antichrist is revealed (mid-trib)—bada bing, bada boom.

Jerry was just curious how one might answer that potential interpretation, in light of the inescapable truth garnered from multitudes of other places in Scripture that the Rapture must precede the entire seven-year Tribulation.

I had actually thought of that point before, and was satisfied in my own mind that verses 7–8 did no damage to the pre-trib view. But I had never attempted to explain why to anyone. As I gave some thought to my response to Jerry's email over the next couple of days, I began to ruminate on a couple of other gnarly little interpretive issues pertaining to 2 Thessalonians 2 that I had grappled with before and had seen others grapple with, and before you know it the form of this article took shape: I would tackle several of these pesky little issues and just cobble them together into one article.

The passage in question is only 12 verses long, but it is one of the major crossroads in the pre-trib vs. post-trib debate. I like to call the Olivet Discourse the Gettysburg of the Gospels, but this little passage gives it a run for its money. (The Antietam of the Epistles?) But whatever you call it, adherents of both camps gravitate to this passage armed to the teeth—and when they meet, blood is likely to be spilled.

What I want to do in this article is address five interpretive issues that come up in discussions of 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12, and give you the whys and wherefores of my views on them.

The thistles

First of all, here is the passage in question with the five items I am going to address numbered and highlighted in a color-coded manner for your convenience (and because I think it looks cool):

OK, five points to address.

1. The Rapture alone is being referred to in verse 1.

The first point I want to deal with is what Paul means in verse 1 when he says "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to him." Of course, those who are predetermined to wring a post-trib Rapture out of this passage in any way possible see this strictly as a reference to the Second Coming, while most pre-tribbers see "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" as a reference to the Second Coming and "our gathering together to him" as a reference to the Rapture (just not necessarily in the stated order). They argue that "the day of our Lord Jesus Christ" and "our gathering together to him" are not necessarily the same event, since nothing in the passage requires these two phrases to be referring to the same thing. Granted. I don't have any real heartburn with this last view, and I don't think it inflicts any irreparable harm to a pre-trib view of the passage.

But recently something hit me right between the eyes about this verse, and it made me believe Paul is referring to the Rapture alone. In other words, I believe the entire phrase "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to him" is all one big, wordy reference to the Rapture, and the reason is the mind-numbingly simple mantra I'd like to tattoo on the foreheads of every single person who somehow manages to come away from this passage still clinging to a post-trib Rapture:

I'd tattoo it just like that so every time they looked in the mirror, they would be reminded that CONTEXT IS KING!

Consider: Notice how Paul opens this entire chapter with the words...

"Now, brothers, concerning blah blah blah..."

Paul said that for the exact same reason a person would say the equivalent in English. In other words, Paul is saying exactly what any person of normal intelligence would assume he's saying:

"I've got some things to say to you about blah blah bah, and so what I'm going to write about in the following passage deals with blah blah blah...it concerns blah blah blah."

I think you'd agree this isn't the linguistic equivalent of rocket science—it's just plain, everyday use of language.

OK, so...what is Paul talking about in the following passage, which would amount to verses 1–12? What do verses 1–12 concern?

Well, let's walk through it verse by verse and take stock:

Verses 1–2: Paul implores the Thessalonians to be neither "shaken" nor "troubled" due to a forged letter that appeared to come from him, saying that the Tribulation had already started.

Does this concern the Second Coming?

Yes:
No: ✔

Verse 3: Paul urges them to not be deceived, and reminds them that the Tribulation cannot start until after the "departure" (whatever that is) and that after this the Antichrist will be revealed. I believe the Antichrist's "official" revelation is via the abomination of desolation, so I believe Paul is emphasizing the latter half of the Tribulation or the Great Tribulation here, not necessarily the entire Tribulation proper. But be that as it may...

Does this concern the Second Coming?

Yes:
No: ✔

Verses 4–5: Paul gives more details about the nature of the Antichrist, and then he reminds them that he already taught them all about this when he was with them a short time earlier.

Does this concern the Second Coming?

Yes:
No: ✔

Verse 6: Paul reminds them that they already know what is restraining the unveiling of the Antichrist: the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, sealed within the hearts of members of the body of Christ. That is, the Church.

Does this concern the Second Coming?

Yes:
No: ✔

Verses 7–8: Paul explains that the Antichrist will be revealed at some point after the Restrainer is taken out of the way...oh, and by the way, speaking of the Antichrist, he's gonna get stuffed in the hurt locker when Christ returns.

Does this concern the Second Coming?

Yes:
No: ✔*

*The Second Coming is only mentioned in passing, and is certainly not the point of what Paul is saying. It is only mentioned to complete what is in effect a parenthetical comment in regard to the ultimate fate of the Antichrist, so in my opinion this one still merits a "NO."

Verses 9–10: Paul is talking about how the Antichrist will be empowered by Satan to perform lying signs and wonders to deceive all those who have not received the truth of the gospel.

Does this concern the Second Coming?

Yes:
No: ✔

Verses 11–12: Paul tells them that God is going to send a strong delusion upon the world because they rejected the truth and "had pleasure in unrighteousness." And as I discussed in my last article, I believe this is aimed primarily at the unbelieving majority of Jews and is for the express purpose of getting them to fall for a Gentile Antichrist's lies about being the Messiah after his coming-out party at the abomination of desolation.

Does this concern the Second Coming?

Yes:
No: ✔

OK, let's review, shall we? Paul says in verse 1 that what follows concerns "the day of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to him."

But then what follows has nothing to do with the Second Coming.

And that's my point. Paul uses the word parousia in verse 1 to refer to "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," and many people will bend your ear insisting that this is the smoking gun that links it to the Second Coming.

But as we have clearly seen, it makes no contextual sense whatsoever to assume that Paul is referring to the Second Coming in verse 1.

Yes, the word parousia does often refer to the Second Coming. Does it automatically refer to the Second Coming every time it is used? No. For example, Paul uses the word parousia in verse 9 to refer to the "coming" of the Antichrist, for crying out loud. Parousia refers to the Second Coming when the context suggests as much, which it often does. The word parousia simply means a presence, a coming, an arrival, an advent, etc. The context of the passage has to do the rest.

So...is the Rapture a parousia? You bet your sweet bippy it is—Jesus comes in the clouds and we go up to be with Him.

No? Consider: Not counting this verse, the word parousia appears 23 other times in the New Testament, and seven of those usages are unrelated to either the Rapture or the Second Coming. I won't be dogmatic about it, but of the remaining 16 usages, it is my studied opinion that six of these most likely refer to the Rapture (1 Thess. 2:13; 4:15; 5:23; James 5:7, 8; 1 John 2:28).

The bottom line is that the Second Coming doesn't have the exclusive rights to the word parousia that many seem to assume it does, and so there is no reason at all for Paul's use of the word here in verse 1 to refer to the Rapture to cause anyone any heartburn.

Again, context is king...and it does NOT point to the Second Coming.

In light of all this, it is clear to me that Paul used the phrase "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" to refer to the Rapture; but since he obviously knew the word parousia was also used for the Second Coming, he felt compelled to clarify his remark to make sure he was communicating clearly to the Thessalonians. After all, that's the entire point: They were "shaken" and "troubled" and sorely in need of some clarification.

I believe that's why he added the clarifying phrase "and our gathering together to him" (which can only refer to the Rapture) to spell out his meaning in no uncertain terms for one highly distressed group of believers.

2. Why exactly were they "shaken" and "troubled" in verse 2?

Speaking of distressed, in verse 2 Paul urges the Thessalonians to be neither "shaken" nor "troubled," and it turns out that the emotional state of these believers is a crucial clue in determining just what they had been taught or not taught by the apostle Paul. First, let's briefly set the stage:

Without going into a detailed history of the church at Thessalonica, suffice it to say that this relatively new group of believers consisted of both Jews and Gentiles, and was located in a city that had a sizable Jewish population (enough to warrant at least one synagogue). This fledgling congregation had been facing severe persecution; and although specific details are scarce, according to some sources property was being seized, people were being restricted in the practice of their trades and thus were having difficulty making a living, many were being shunned by their families (especially Jewish families), many were being beaten, physically intimidated, and some were put to death.

Paul wrote his first letter to the Thessalonians in response to reports that some of the believers in Thessalonica were expecting the Lord to return at any moment, and so had simply abandoned their jobs and any responsible planning for the future. Some had also been given over to riotous living. In addition, some were greatly distressed concerning what would happen to their loved ones who had recently died—would they miss out on the Lord's coming, or what?

In his first letter, Paul encourages the Thessalonians in their new faith, and corrects some misinformation that had been circulating. He also reiterates his detailed teaching about the Rapture to reassure them that their deceased loved ones not only wouldn't miss the Lord's coming, but in fact would rise first, and then we who are alive and remain would be caught up together with them to meet the Lord in the air.

But at some point during the next several months, the Thessalonians had received a forged letter appearing to come from Paul that claimed the day of the Lord (i.e. the Tribulation) had already begun. Now, most of the Thessalonian believers had been growing stronger and deeper in their faith in the face of severe persecution, and Paul wrote his second letter to further strengthen and encourage them. But he also wanted to clear up the confusion concerning the day of the Lord that this forged letter had caused—a letter that had resulted in these strong believers suddenly becoming "shaken" and "troubled" for some reason.

So in his second letter, Paul reviews some of the detailed eschatological teaching he had already given them in order to prove to them beyond any doubt that the Tribulation couldn't have started...and tells 'em to chill out and go back to work.

And that brings us to verse 2, where Paul urges them not to be "shaken" and "troubled," and this represents an eschatological fork in the road in the age-old pre-trib vs. post-trib  food fight  debate.

Naturally, those who hold to a post-trib view of the Rapture insist that Paul taught the Thessalonians that the Rapture would occur at the end of the Tribulation, in conjunction with the Second Coming. Those who hold to a pre-trib view insist that Paul taught them the Rapture had to occur prior to the onset of the Tribulation.

First, a few comments about two key words that Paul uses in verse 2...because it matters. Never forget: All throughout Scripture, the Holy Spirit uses the words He uses for a reason.

First, Paul urges the Thessalonians not to be "shaken" in mind. In the Greek, the word he uses is a form of saleuo. According to Strong's Concordance, and forgive me if I dispense with the fancy grammatical niceties, if someone is "saleuo'ed," they are:

• shaken up
• agitated
• cast down from a previous confident, secure state

Then Paul urges them to not be "troubled." The Greek word Paul uses is a form of throeo. According to Strong's Concordance, you could say that if someone is "throeo'ed," they are:

• troubled
• disturbed
• agitated
• alarmed
• unsettled
• confused
• wanting to scream in terror
• thrown into an emotional uproar

I just want you to see that these are strong words, arguably a bit stronger than the way "shaken" and "troubled" come across in modern English. And then Paul amplifies his meaning by using both of them. That is, he didn't just describe them as "shaken"—he didn't just describe them as "troubled."

He described them as "shaken" and "troubled."

My point is that the Greek makes it clear that Paul's words paint a picture of a group of believers who were suddenly in a panic. They had been growing stronger in their faith and deeper in their walk with the Lord, and then they got this forged letter they believed was from Paul saying that the Tribulation had already started and BAM! Rather than saying they were "shaken" and "troubled," modern speakers of English might say:

They were bouncing off the walls and freaking out. Suddenly, their little world had been turned upside down and they didn't know what to think.

That's the picture Paul paints of the emotional state of the Thessalonians, who fired off a letter to Paul desperately seeking some clarification.

Now, let's get back to that fork in the road and see where the branches lead. First, let's consider the post-trib branch.

OK, so let's assume Paul taught the Thessalonians that the Rapture would occur at the end of the Tribulation, in conjunction with the Second Coming in one grand, end-time lollapalooza. That means Paul must have taught them the "departure" (v. 3) that had to precede the Tribulation was some kind of apostasy or falling away from the faith—obviously not the Rapture.

Now, here's the thing. Since the conception of the Church two thousand years ago, there has never been a time when there has not been apostasy. Jesus spoke of it a number of times in the Gospels. Both Paul and John speak of it several times in later epistles. There have always been those who fall away from the faith or apostasize, which indicates they were never genuinely saved to begin with.

But according to the post-trib view, Paul taught the Thessalonians there was one great apostasy that would occur before the Tribulation started. OK, so the Thessalonians get this letter saying the Tribulation had started. Considering the times they lived in, how hard do you think it would have been for them to look around at the religious/political landscape of the day and interpret something they saw as just such an apostasy?

Are you kidding? Apostasy? Check.

So, they think Paul has written to tell them the Tribulation has started. They look around, see the apostasy of the day in certain circles, interpret that as the "departure," and then what do they do? Well, isn't it obvious?

They freak out and fall into utter confusion and alarm, and shoot off a panicked letter to Paul seeking clarification because they don't understand what on earth is going on.

Right. We don't have to venture too far down the post-trib branch of the road until we come face to face with the following $64,000 question concerning the "shaken" and "troubled" state of the Thessalonians:

WHY?!

So Paul supposedly taught them the Tribulation would start following some type of apostasy (which is never in short supply), then they get a letter they think is from their beloved apostle Paul telling them the Tribulation has started! How do you think they would have reacted?

These strong believers would have been elated, not alarmed. They would have been shoutin', not shaken. They would have been possessed of a spirit of confirmation, not confusion. After all, everything Paul taught them was coming to pass!

It's really happening, just like Paul said it would! Praise God! We're almost there! Glory to the name of Jesus!

What would they have been confused about? Why on earth would they have been alarmed, or suddenly thrown into a panic? Because the Tribulation would bring persecution? Uh, been there, done that. These believers in Thessalonica had been undergoing severe persecution since their inception, and all it did was make them grow stronger in their faith. That's all persecution has ever done to the body of Christ.

So, the post-trib fork in the road leads to a dead end, because it offers us no plausible explanation for the emotional state of the Thessalonians.

Post-trib fork: STOP...DEAD END.

OK, so let's back up and try the pre-trib fork, and see where that leads us. Let's assume Paul taught these believers that the Rapture would occur prior to the beginning of the Tribulation. That would suggest that the "departure" in verse 3 that must occur first is in fact a reference to the Rapture, and not some vaguely defined apostasy (which I am convinced is precisely the case—see #4 below).

OK, so the Thessalonians receive a letter they believe is from Paul that tells them the Tribulation has already started. Uhm...and they are all very much still here. How do you think they would have reacted? One word says it all:

WHAT!?

And here's why. The Thessalonian believers would have been faced with two basic possibilities:

1. They had all missed the Rapture!

I've heard many people offer this as a possibility; but the more you think about it, the less sense it makes. In fact, I have concluded that it makes so little sense I have personally dismissed it as being untenable.

Here's the problem: I realize the Thessalonians didn't have the Internet or cable TV—they didn't have Facebook or Fox News. But if an event like the Rapture had actually occurred and they had all been left behind, they would have heard reports of this amazing event in short order—at most a day or two. News still traveled, albeit not instantaneously as it does today. They certainly would have been aware that the Rapture had not actually occurred before they had time to sit down and write a letter to Paul.

There is also the issue of them being left behind. Every single one of them?! I mean, if some had been raptured and some had been left behind, that would have been different. But every single believer in a congregation known for being strong in their faith? Really?

Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense—and that leaves us with only one remaining possibility:

2. Paul was wrong!

They all missed the Rapture? Forget that. Now, theoretically they could have assumed they had misunderstood Paul's teaching, but that's almost as unlikely. (All of them misunderstood the same part the same way? I don't think so.) The only reasonable conclusion they could have come to is that the apostle Paul, their beloved and venerated spiritual mentor, had simply taught them something that was wrong.

Now, at first blush, that might not seem like such a big deal to modern believers. After all, today you hear Bible teachers say all sorts of things that are way off base scripturally—misinterpretations of certain Scriptures, errant speculation about end-time events, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Believers today are confronted with a kaleidoscope of opposing viewpoints and a smorgasbord of differing interpretations. It's become the norm, and so most in the Church today are fairly desensitized to it.

But this wasn't the twenty-first-century Church—this was the first-century Church. This group had been established in about AD 50, only about 17 or 18 years after the Resurrection. So, it is not outside the realm of possibility that there were several people in the group who were eyewitnesses to some of the events described in the Gospel accounts, or at least knew someone who was.

Can't shake this: Understand that the Church was established in the first-century with the aid of the miraculous sign gifts of the Holy Spirit, gifts that proved beyond all doubt that the message of the gospel was of God and not of men. These gifts ceased after the deaths of the original apostles because the Church was well established and so they were no longer needed, but they were part of what made the first-century Church so unshakable.

But shaken they were, and if they truly believed Paul had taught them something that was undeniably wrong, they had every reason in the world to be shaken. Think about it: If Paul was wrong about the Rapture, then what else was he wrong about? Now they couldn't trust his teaching. What if he was wrong about other things as well, like, say, the Resurrection? What if Paul was wrong about that, too?

If Paul's teaching had been in error on one single point, it would have plunged the Thessalonians into a maelstrom of misgivings and shaken the very foundations of their faith. Had they believed lies? Had they gotten caught up in something that wasn't what it seemed? Had they been deceived by this persuasive ex-Pharisee who claimed to be an apostle of Jesus of Nazareth...who might have been resurrected, but who can be sure?

Had they sacrificed everything for a sweet-sounding charade that was falling to pieces and about to be exposed as a sham?!

I'm as serious as a tax audit. This cannot be overstated: For these believers in Thessalonica, the idea that Paul might have been mistaken about something he taught them was HUGE. Everything they had come to believe about God, Jesus, the Resurrection, His work of atonement, eternal life, reconciliation to a holy God, being born again, being indwelt by presence of the Holy Spirit, etc. would have suddenly been cast into grave doubt.

Do you think that might have made the Thessalonians feel shaken up, agitated, cast down from their previous confident, secure state, troubled, disturbed, agitated, alarmed, unsettled, confused, wanting to scream in terror, or thrown into an emotional uproar?

Ya think? You can bet your life on it. So, I don't see any way around it—the fact that Paul taught the Thessalonians the pre-trib view of the Rapture is the only plausible explanation for the emotional state of these believers.

Pre-trib fork: GREEN LIGHT...GO!

3. The "day of Christ" in verse 2 should read the "day of the Lord."

Since the express purpose of Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians was to reassure them that the Tribulation hadn't started yet, it's pretty obvious that Paul is referring to the Tribulation in this verse. There's scarcely any other intelligent way to read it.

The Tribulation is frequently referred to as the "day of the Lord" throughout the Old and New Testaments; but due to the context of this passage, I doubt if too many people are going to get terribly confused when they see the King James Version (or the World English Bible I have quoted above) render the phrase as the "day of Christ." There's just one small problem, however:

The "day of the Lord" and the "day of Christ" are not the same.

Surprise. Besides the King James translation of this verse, the phrase the "day of Christ" (or "Jesus Christ" or "our Lord Jesus Christ") appears four times in the New Testament, so let's take a look at these one by one:

God began a good work in us the day we trusted Christ for our salvation, and He will complete it at some point. But when?

Simple: God will complete the good work He began in us the day this corruption puts on incorruption and this mortal puts on immortality (1 Cor. 15:53). He will complete it the day we become perfected saints standing before Christ in heaven, ready to receive our rewards for our works (2 Cor. 5:10). And when does that occur, at the Second Coming or the Rapture?

That's right! The Rapture. (Uh, we're coming back with Him at the Second Coming, already rewarded.) You're off to a good start.

And a few verses later, we have this:

OK, think hard: Until when do we need to worry about being found sincere and without offense, and filled with the fruits of righteousness: the Second Coming or the Rapture?

Right again! The Rapture. Same deal—the Rapture is when we will become perfected saints in heaven, with no more sin nature dwelling in our flesh to war against our spirit.

OK, you're two for two. Ready for a curve ball?

Now, when do you think that Paul will rejoice, not having run in vain, neither having labored in vain? The Second Coming or the Rapture?

Nailed it! The Rapture. Paul will rejoice when he sees every member of the body of Christ—the children of God without blemish—perfected and glorified, standing before the Lord. And oh what a sight we're going to be!

You're good. OK, the last one comes from Paul's first letter to the Corinthians:

Don't be thrown by the fact that Paul actually uses the word "Lord" here: He isn't talking about the day of the Lord, he's clearly referring to this same "day of Christ" thing. And it's pretty much the same routine: When will we be confirmed and blameless, the Second Coming or the Rapture?

Oh, you know that's right—the Rapture. Of course, I'm just playing around by talking about this as a quiz, because in reality the most thunderingly obvious difference between the day of the Lord and the day of Christ couldn't be any clearer. In every case, the following fact jumps out at you:

The day of the Lord is invariably
characterized by wrath and judgment.

The day of Christ is invariably
characterized by reward and rejoicing.

But since the phrase "day of Christ" is normally a reference to the Rapture, and the context of verse 2 is clearly not the Rapture, what gives?

The phrase "day of the Lord" normally uses a form of Kurios (Lord), while the phrase "day of Christ" normally uses a form of Christos (Christ). And verse 2 uses a form of Kurios, not Christos. Yet the KJV translators chose to render it as the "day of Christ."

Long story short, the KJV translators got it wrong. You know, I hate to pin things on mistranslations because it's too often used as a cop out, but I think it's justified in this case. The manuscript evidence overwhelmingly supports the rendering "day of the Lord," but for some reason they translated it as "day of Christ." And with all due respect to the KJV-Only crowd, this is certainly not the first time the KJV translators rendered a verse in a way that is ill-supported by the manuscript evidence.

It's true that this little hiccup on the part of the KJV translators doesn't really impact the interpretation of verse 2, since the context makes it patently obvious Paul is referring to the Tribulation and not the Rapture. But the simple fact that there is a difference in meaning between the phrases "day of the Lord" and "day of Christ" is worth noting, if for no other reason than to eliminate any potential confusion over verses that use these phrases and their variants.

4. The "departure" in verse 3 is the Rapture.

As far as 2 Thessalonians 2 goes, this is easily one of the thorniest thistles of the bunch. I've already touched on this point in #2 above, and discussed why it only makes good sense to interpret the "departure" as the Rapture because that provides the only plausible explanation for the Thessalonians' state of distress and confusion. But there is another reason why I am convinced this must refer to the Rapture.

Legions of Bible scholars of every stripe have wrangled over Paul's use of the word apostasia (defection, apostasy, rebellion, revolt, departure) in verse 3, and the arguments typically revolve around the Greek elements from which the word apostasia is formed.

I'm not going to get into the gory details of this, but here is a sample of the gasoline that fuels the fire of this debate:

In other words, people argue (correctly) that the word apostasia in this verse can be interpreted as a physical departure, which in this case could be nothing but the Rapture. Not only that, but since Paul openly states that the Tribulation cannot begin until this "departure" occurs, interpreting the word apostasia as a physical departure effectively nails down the pre-trib view.

Enter the intrepid King James translators. To the best of my knowledge, the word apostasia in verse 3 was always translated into English as "departure" prior to the 1611 publication of the King James Version of the Bible, which translated it as "falling away" for the first time.

Of course, in the English language, the word "departure" can either be used in a physical or a figurative sense. You could talk about someone's departure from Cleveland, or their departure from the teachings of Confucius.

But not so with "falling away" and its nephew "apostasy," which only have a figurative meaning*: the abandonment of one's religious or political beliefs, or a cause one previously supported.

*Actually, "falling away" can be used in a physical sense, but that meaning has nothing at all to do with anything under discussion here.

After the King James translators decided to use the words "falling away" in verse 3, other English translations began to follow suit and eventually "falling away" became the predominant rendering. Today, the vast majority of English translations render the word apostasia in this verse as "falling away," "apostasy" (i.e. a falling away from the faith), "rebellion," etc.

Case in point: Out of the 28 English translations of the Bible offered at BibleHub.com, only one renders it as "departure," and that's the World English Bible, the one from which I quoted 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12 at the beginning of this section of the article.

I ultimately decided that I wouldn't rehash the lexical argument here. If I were so inclined, I could present you with a compelling case that, lexically speaking, the word apostasia in this verse not only could but should be interpreted as a physical departure, which can only be the Rapture. Relax...take a deep breath.

I'm not gonna do that.

And the reason is simple. There is something a whole lot better that points squarely to this being a reference to the Rapture, and it's that same old mind-numbingly simple mantra:

Once again, those who insist the so-called "falling away" of verse 3 is some kind of end-time abandonment of the faith and certainly not that loathsome, despicable pre-trib Rapture are completely overlooking the number one thing that informs any careful student of Scripture as to the real meaning of any passage, and that's context.

Lexical tiddlywinks: I hate to say it, but far too many good, scripturally competent believers out there, in their study of a particular passage, sometimes get bogged down in the vocabulary-related details of the original Greek or Hebrew.

Now, in-depth study of the original languages of Scripture is a good thing—I've even done a wee bit of it in this article. The problems arise when people do it at the expense of what is far more important in understanding the intended meaning of any passage: the context.

People often get so tangled up in the meanings and usages of the Greek or Hebrew root words or exotic grammatical constructions and so forth that they lose sight of the overall context that informs the passage. They get so caught up in a game of lexical tiddlywinks that they overlook the broader context—context that is the beacon that illuminates the real meaning.

So, don't hesitate to dig into the original languages...but don't do it at the expense of the context—do it to deepen your understanding of the context. OK, I'm getting down off my soapbox now.

OK, let's think this through. Let's begin with the basic premise that Paul either intended to refer to (a) the Rapture, or (b) some end-time apostasy that would apparently precede the Tribulation.

First of all, let's take a closer look at the Greek for a moment to note an important clue. In verse 3, the Greek words Paul uses that are translated "the apostasy" or "the departure," etc. are he apostasia. One point that is sometimes overlooked is that the first little word there is a definite article, equivalent to the English word "the." Not surprisingly, it works pretty much the same way "the" works in English. It is used to communicate the fact that the writer or speaker is referring to one specific thing, and if that thing is not specified, identified, or explained in any way, then we must assume the reader or listener must already know what thing is being referred to.

For example, if I say to you "I'm going to the party," but I don't say anything else about that party, that normally means you already know what party I'm talking about. You already know I'm talking about my sister's birthday party, because I told you about it yesterday.

It's the same deal here. Paul just mentions "the departure," but nothing is specified, identified, or explained. That means there's no need to ask:

"What departure? What are you talking about, Paul?"

And that tells us a key piece of contextual information:

They already knew what "departure" Paul was referring to.

Notice that Paul reminds them that he's already taught them a lot of the stuff he's explaining again here in this passage:

In other words, it is manifestly clear from the context that Paul had already taught the Thessalonians all about the "departure," whatever it is. That's why no particulars are needed.

Hmm...now that's interesting. So, that means if we look at all the stuff Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, we might expect to see some mention of what Paul taught them concerning this "departure." But if you search the pages of Paul's first (or second) letter to this group of believers, you won't find so much as a hint—not a single word—pertaining to any species of end-time apostasy that must occur prior to the Tribulation. It ain't there.

So...what is there? I'm so glad you asked:

Oh, nothing special...

Just the clearest, most definitive teaching on the
Rapture in the entire New Testament, that's all.

It is an established, historical fact that Paul taught the Thessalonians about the Rapture in some depth, but there's nary a molecule of evidence he taught them anything about some end-time apostasy that had to precede the onset of the Tribulation. Thus, the context tells us clearly: Paul is referring in verse 3 to that same topic he taught them earlier—the Rapture. There is simply no other intellectually honest way to slice this.

Oh yeah? Well, what about 1 Timothy?! Now, Paul does tell us in 1 Timothy 4:1–5 that in the "latter times" some would "depart from the faith" for a variety of reasons. Note, however, that Paul is not talking about the "last days" in the way we typically think of them. When the New Testament refers to the "last days" as in the Tribulation, the Second Coming, and so forth, the Greek words eschatais hemerais (lit. "last days") are normally used. But that's not what Paul wrote here. He wrote hysterois kairois (a latter or later period, season, or dispensation). The vast majority of commentators agree that Paul is referring the entire Church Age, not the "last days" as in the brief period immediately preceding the Second Coming. Thus we cannot associate this with the "departure" Paul is referring to in verse 3, since in 2 Thessalonians 2 it is completely obvious that Paul is talking expressly about events directly related to the Tribulation period.

Besides, the phrase "last days" (eschatais hemerais) is also sometimes used to refer to the entire Church Age, which is clearly how Peter used it in on the day of Pentecost:

There have been times in the past when I have speculated that perhaps the word "departure" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is a case of the Holy Spirit using a bit of wordplay, and that it might actually mean both the Rapture and an end-time apostasy. I mean, look around—talk about apostasy à gogo. It is true that the Holy Spirit is not above using wordplay, but nowdays I strongly suspect I was wrong and I am no longer inclined to think that way. I have concluded that it simply makes no sense to claim that Paul is saying that some manner of vague, unspecified apostasy serves as a distinct, identifiable event that must precede the Tribulation.

It just doesn't add up.

The clincher of clinchers: I would be remiss if I didn't toss this in just for comic relief. While I was working on this article, I noticed that the letters of the word "departure" can be rearranged to spell "de rapture." I'm sorry...I notice stuff like that. Pray for me.

5. A mid-trib Rapture is not necessarily implied in verses 7–8.

As I said earlier, when Paul says in verses 7–8 that the Holy Spirit will continue to restrain until He is taken out of the way (at the Rapture), and then the Antichrist will be revealed (I believe at the abomination of desolation), it's not hard to see how some people might look at that and come away with the idea that the Rapture will either occur at or immediately prior to the abomination of desolation, which rhymes with "mid-trib Rapture." I got tangled up in this whole furball when my friend Jerry asked me, innocently enough, how I would answer that line of interpretation.

First, let's get the line down here so we can take another look at it:

First of all, there can be little doubt that the Restrainer will be taken out of the way at the Rapture. I don't mean to sound rude, but I don't have the slightest inclination to argue with people who claim otherwise. That's what it means—there's just no other sensible, Scripture-honoring way to read it.

But then Paul starts a new sentence in verse 8, and I don't believe that is a nuance without significance. If Paul meant that immediately following the Rapture the "lawless one" would be revealed (at the midpoint of the Tribulation), it seems more likely he would have continued the thought from verse 7, rather than using a period and beginning a new sentence.

Admittedly, although it may be worth noting, the mere fact that Paul starts a new sentence in verse 8 doesn't prove anything. It's not even a smoking pop-gun. But there's more.

Notice the new sentence in verse 8 begins with the word "then." In the Greek, it's kai tote (lit. "and then"). The Greek word tote works pretty much the same way as our English word "then." For example, if you say that A happened, and then B happened, it can mean that B immediately followed A with no delay at all, or it can mean that B happened at some point in time after A, with some unspecified delay or other things occurring in the interim.

Also, if you say that A happened or was true then, it means that A happened or was true at that particular time or during that particular period of time. There is nothing special about any of this—this is normal, routine use of language. That's what the English word "then" means, and that's what the Greek word tote means.

Here's an example from Christ's teaching in the book of Matthew:

Same words in the Greek: kai tote. But think about it: If you had a beam in your eye and you removed it, you would immediately be able to see clearly, right? There would be no delay or interim events in this case. We are free to interpret this with a sense of immediacy.

On the other hand, Matthew describes a scene where Jesus is in Bethany in the home of Simon the leper, and a woman pours an expensive vial of perfume over Him. The disciples are indignant over what they see as a waste, and Jesus tells them she did it to prepare Him for burial (Matt. 26:6–13).

But in the very next verse, we see this:

Then one of the twelve...same word: tote. And we read how Judas decided to go to the chief priests to arrange for Jesus' betrayal for 30 pieces of silver. My point is simply that tote doesn't imply that Judas went to the chief priests immediately. There's no reason to assume that he dashed out the door at that moment and ran straight to the temple. It's likely that he stuck around for the rest of the evening's (afternoon's?) activities. He probably stayed for dinner (lunch?). He did some other things. It's possible he went to the chief priests later that night or the next day, and heaven only knows what he might have done in the meantime.

I went to some length here just to leave no doubt in anyone's mind that saying "then the lawless one will be revealed" in verse 8 after the Rapture occurs in verse 7 does not require that the Antichrist be revealed at or immediately following the Rapture.

Note also that back in verse 3, Paul says that "For it will not be, unless the departure (Rapture) comes first, and the man of sin is revealed." Notice he uses the word "first" in reference to the Rapture—Paul lists these as a sequence of two separate, distinct events, with no implied sense that the revelation of the Antichrist immediately follows the Rapture.

Incidentally, one other possible way to view this verse is to consider that after the Rapture, Satan will be unrestrained and will begin the process of bringing his man to global prominence, a process that will likely take several years and will culminate in his official revelation at the abomination of desolation.

So, this is how I might answer someone who claimed this passage supports a mid-trib Rapture. But I can't sign off without getting this off my chest, and it's something I feel justified in dubbing the mother of all false doctrine.

Think for a second. Without considering any other context, is it possible to interpret verses 7–8, in isolation, to suggest the Antichrist is offically revealed immediately after the Rapture, thus suggesting the Rapture occurs at the midpoint of the Tribulation, rather than before it begins? Sure it is. As we have seen, the word tote can legitimately convey a sense of immediacy.

So give it a whirl. Just for fun, go ahead and assume that Paul's words in verses 7–8 suggest a mid-trib Rapture. But don't stop there, oh no.

Your work is just beginning.

You've got a bevy of clear teaching in Scripture that points squarely to a pre-trib Rapture to deal with, so I hope you brought your industrial-strength pliers—you've got some serious Scripture-twisting to do. And there's the rub, and that rub brings us face to face with another point that sorely needs to be tattooed on the foreheads of a whole lot of people out there (at least the ones with bigger foreheads):

When any verse is interpreted in a way
that contradicts other clear teaching in
Scripture, that interpretation is wrong.

How is this unclear? That means you're wrong—deal with it. When anyone interprets a somewhat ambiguous or less clear passage of Scripture in a way that contradicts other compellingly clear teaching in God's Word, that person has made a mistake. End of conversation. And it is at this crucial juncture that such an individual has two options:

Option A: DO NOT PASS GO. DO NOT COLLECT $200. Simply admit you were wrong, and go back and strive to get it right.

Look, I guarantee you that we are all wrong about something in Scripture (and have been numerous times in the past), so there is no shame in making an interpretive error from time to time. I've done it—everyone has done it. As far as I'm concerned, if you haven't done it, you ain't doin' your job, hoss.

The only people who have never made an
interpretive error in their study of the Bible
are those who have never studied the Bible!

It's true that an awful lot of perfectly nice folks are content to sit back and soak in whatever the preacher has to say on Sunday morning, and they're fine with that. And hey...I'm not wagging a bony finger at anyone—it's just that they're the only ones who never have to worry about making a mistake in regard to interpreting the Bible—it's all on the preacher. After all, who are they to disagree with a man of God who graduated from Bible school, right?

And then there is...

Option B: Assume your interpretation of the passage in question simply must be right (after all, it must have been the Holy Spirit that sorta "downloaded" this into your brain), and twist all the clear teaching that it contradicts to mean something different in order to avoid the ignominy of being wrong.

Sadly, it seems that a large number of people gravitate toward Option B, which lies at the heart of virtually every major doctrinal error I can think of: the post-trib, mid-trib, pre-wrath, and partial Raptures, replacement theology, Kingdom Now theology, Universalism, you name it.

Pick your poison—you can bet Option B is lurking in the undergrowth.

My point is that the pre-trib view of the Rapture does far and away the best job of harmonizing all the relevant Scripture, while every other view (including mid-trib, which has all but dropped out of sight in recent decades) is riddled with fatal errors. Thus, if you want to proceed with a mid-trib interpretation of verses 7–8, there's no way around it:

You're going to end up twisting the night away with Option B.

Since you asked: According to a study commissioned by LifeWay Research and published in the book The Armageddon Code (FrontLine, 2016), approximately 36 percent of the 1,000 evangelical pastors interviewed held to a pre-trib view of the Rapture, and only 4 percent held to a mid-trib view. That's nine times as many, and I'll leave it to you, dear reader, to speculate as to why that might be so. (Incidentally, the post-tribbers clocked in at 18 percent.) And if you actually believe this is all because of a lame movie called Left Behind, I've got this bridge in Brooklyn that I've been trying to unload that I think would be perfect for you.

So good luck...at 4 percent, at least you'll have a little company.

Handle with care

You know how it is with thistles—they're prickly little devils that can cause you some pain if you don't watch out. They have to be handled with care.

The same could be said of God's Word—it's often a challenge to ferret out the intended meanings of certain "prickly" passages. And as I always say: We're all wrong about something—guaranteed.

That said, however, the single most important part of handling Scripture is to do one's best to remain true to the context—and it's surprising how seldom that requires any sophisticated knowledge of the original languages.

Of course, we have the Holy Spirit to guide us; but beyond that, a lot of times all it takes is a healthy dose of horse sense. That, and the ability to put aside one's preconceived baggage.

For many, that's the prickly part.

Greg Lauer — FEB '20

Top of the page

If you like this article, share it with someone!

 FEB '20 

Site Search

Powered by:
JavaScript Kit