Is the Rapture Biblical?

[other one]

 

 

 

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

 

But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.

For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words.

I believe in being caught up to be with the Lord, after my brothers and sisters, who had died before that time, go to be with the Lord first.

 

 

At Christ's Second Coming, or does He have to return twice for the above to be fulfilled?

That's the question under debate.

 

I thought the question under debate was if the rapture is true, not when the rapture will occur. Since you do ask, I will say:

1 Corinthians 15:51-53

Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

Scripture tells us "at the last trumpet, the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed." If anyone wants to put a timeline on when this will happen, let them try. Over the years I have been proven wrong though my own studies too many times, so I put away my prophetic statements and rely on scripture, waiting to see how it all unfolds while watching.

If your question is if I believe in a secret rapture, no, I do not. I believe the "thief in the night" means that we will not know when this will happen, not that it is in secret.

As for His return, it only happens once, not twice, three times or a million ... only once.

 

 

Since there's obviously only one second coming -- at which time the events described in what some have called "the rapture" will occur -- then it should all be one and the same event, which leaves the "Left Behind" hype in the dustbin of theology.

 

It's just that we all get left behind..... 

[Marilyn C]

Now fellas,

 

God has His purposes which He planned & we know will be carried out. Thus when you start talking about `WHY` God will do something then we can start to understand the details.

[Giantbear7]

Mat 24:38-41

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

(KJV)

So those in the days of Noah were taken by the flood. What happened when they were taken?

They died. Taking away or rapture is through death. I see no other context to fit the days of Noah.

[Giantbear7]

Until death do us apart from this earthly life.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Giantbear7

[iamlamad]

 

Look at Scripture;

 

2 Thes 2...   Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, 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.

 

Why were those Thessalonians  concerned that they had missed the "day of the Lord".  They new it was not the Second Coming they had missed, for all would have seen Christ at the Second Coming.  So what did they think they had missed?  It had to be the Rapture that they thought they had missed.  And when was this?  Before 51 A.D.  This is not an invention of Darby or anyone during his time.  This is a Pre-Trib position.

 

In Christ

Montana Marv

Pre-trib position?  I don't think so.  Let's read a little more of this passage.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-4

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 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; 4 Who 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.

 

You are correct in saying the Thessalonians thought they missed the rapture, but Paul clearly tells them that that day will not come until after a falling away and the abomination of desolation.  In other words, we will most definitely see the son of perdition or man of lawlessness claim to be God first.  If anything, this passage disproves the pre-trib rapture.  And Christ, Himself, warned not to go after false Christ' and false prophets before the sign of the Son of man appears, which is the gathering we see in verse 31 below.

 

Matthew 24:15-31

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. 23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

 

 

Cheers

 

Sorry, 2 Thes. 2 is VERY PRETRIB when we understand Paul's meaning.

 

First, we MUST understand that the THEME of this passage is the gathering.

2 Thes. 2:1 (Amplified)

1 BUT RELATIVE to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (the Messiah) and our gathering together to [meet] Him, we beg you, brethren,

Therefore, the CORRECT theory of what Paul is telling us MUST include the coming and gathering. These two things cannot be separated. The Greek here has one article with both nouns indicating that the “coming” and “our gathering to Him” go together for one event. What verse should this immediately remind one of? What did Paul tells us of the "gathering?" Of course, it is this:

1 Thes. 4

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

So THIS is the theme of Paul's next few verses. It is what we call the rapture of the church. It is the catching away of His bride. This is the theme of this passage. If anyone loses site of the theme, they will not understand the intent of the Author, the Holy Spirit, in this passage.

2 thes. 2 NIV

1...we ask you, brothers and sisters,

2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.

These people had been convinced, perhaps by a letter or perhaps by a prophecy or a teacher teaching false doctrine, that the Day of the Lord (NOT the rapture, but the Day of the Lord) had already started. Paul will show them that the day cannot possibly have started and is present, for two events much happen before the Day of the Lord can start. Please think about this verse; if they had been previously taught by Paul that the rapture was at the end of the Day of the Lord, and they thought they were IN the day of the Lord, why would they be alarmed? They would know all they had to do was wait 7 years for the end. On the other hand, if they had been taught as Paul taught in His first letter, that the rapture would come FIRST, and then the Day, now we can see a scenario where they would be scared: they thought they were in the day of the Lord, that it had already started and THEY WERE STILL HERE! Clearly they thought either they had MISSED Paul's rapture, or perhaps Paul was mistaken. I can easily see why they would be alarmed at this scenario. (The Greek backs up this translation; "has already come," for the literal Greek is “as that the day of the Lord is present," or as Young puts it, "has arrived." many modern translations confirm this: they thought the day had already come and they were IN IT.)

Here we must discuss the biblical meaning of the Day of the Lord. Many Old Testament verses use words and phrases such as "it will come like destruction," "—a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger— to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it," "a time of doom for the nations," "it will come like destruction from the Almighty," "Will not the day of the Lord be darkness, not light— pitch-dark, without a ray of rightness." ”That day will be a day of wrath—a day of distress and anguish, a day of trouble and ruin, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and blackness." As we can see, this is an evil day, not a good day. It does not sound anything like the time of the rapture.

In fact, Paul mentions the Day of the Lord just three verses from the classic rapture verse of 1 Thes. 4:17. What was Paul showing us by that? If we study that passage, we see that there is a SUDDEN event. Paul goes on to show that two groups of people have two different outcomes at this sudden event. So what What is the sudden event? Of course, it is the rapture Paul was talking about in the previous verses. So at this sudden event, the rapture, those in the light get "salvation" [rapture] and get to "live together with Him." This is saying the same thing as "so shall we ever be with the Lord," just a different way to say it. AT the same moment in time, the time of the rapture, those in darkness get "sudden destruction."

What is this sudden destruction? It is the earthquake caused by the dead in Christ rising. Matthew 27 states: "the earth did quake......and the graves were opened." I believe there is a connection here. When God brings together the atoms of those long dead, it will cause a tremendous earthquake, just as happened in Matthew 27, when the elders of the Old Testament saints rose at Jesus' resurrection. So when the dead in Christ rise - some of them dead almost 2000 years, there will be a worldwide earthquake. We see this same earthquake at the 6th seal. So why did Paul mention the Day of the Lord? He wrote that it will come as a thief - exactly the way the rapture will come! This is not a coincidence: the rapture happens suddenly, without warning, and this worldwide earthquake, or "sudden destruction" happens at the same moment in time. I believe what Paul is telling us here is that the rapture is the trigger for the Day of the Lord or rather the signs for the Day. This earthquake will be the start of the signs for Day of the Lord and the start of God's wrath. It will bring massive destruction. It was no mistake that John finished this chapter with "the day of His wrath has come."

First I want to show the parallel structure of these verses.

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)

6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.

7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.

8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.

In each of these parallels there is someone or something restraining the man of sin, preventing his revealing. Then, when that restraining force is taken out of the way, the man of sin will be revealed. Only in verse three, Paul puts it in present tense, IS revealed.

Now, let's analyze these verses:

Let's talk about the context. The CONTEXT is that there is something RESTRAINING the revealing of the man of sin. The MAIN theme here is NOT about people being deceived by the man of sin. Verses about the man of sin tell us that, but here, in verses 1-3 and 6-8, the MAIN theme is teaching those who thought that the Day of the Lord had already begin - and they were now IN that day - that they were mistaken and were NOT in the Day. For proof, Paul tells them how to KNOW when the day has started and they are IN the day, THEN they will know the day has begun when the one restraining has been taken out of the way, and they will know they are IN the Day when the man of sin is revealed.

We all know, or should know, that the translators have ADDED part of verse 3 that Paul did not write. If we take just what he wrote, it would read:

"Don't be upset or shaken up... if you hear the Day of the Lord is present,..for, unless the departure (apostasia) comes first, and the man of sin is revealed.." (Of course Paul did not write it in English...this is shortened for simplicity.)

Youngs: " 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 [other translations say Day of the Lord] hath arrived 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,

My point is, this verse is ambiguous at best and probably not the best verse to nail down a doctrine. However, many wish to use to to prove their point, so we must determine what was the intent of the Holy Spirit when He caused Paul to write. Pay careful attention to what is bolded. What is Paul really saying here? That, if the departure (apostasia) 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!

Therefore, since the theme is the rapture, it is conclusive proof that the rapture and the Day of the Lord are tied together and cannot be separated, but are NOT the same event; one precedes the other. So whether one is pretrib,prewrath, midtrib or posttrib, the rapture comes before the Day of the Lord, but JUST before, or as the trigger for the Day. Do we all agree on this one point? What we disagree on then, is the start of the Day.

My guess is, this is the way posttribbers read this passage:

2 Don’t be so easily shaken or alarmed by those who say that the day of Christ (the rapture) will come soon. Don’t believe them, even if they claim to have had a spiritual vision, a revelation, or a letter supposedly from us. 3 Don’t be fooled by what they say (that the rapture will come first and soon). For that day (the day of the rapture) will not come (sometime in the near future) until there is a falling away first (a departure from the faith because of the tribulation) and the man of lawlessness is revealed (also first - before the rapture) —the one who brings destruction.

Posttribbers, do I have this about right? Is this the way you read it?

I can assure postribbers and all the readers that this is NOT the intent of the Author for this passage. Everything in parenthesis in the above is WRONG.

Where KJV tells us the day of the Lord in "at hand", (last phrase of verse 2) the Greek word is "enistemi." This word is best translated as "present", or has "already begun". Many translators have this right. The difference in meaning is crucial to understanding Paul's intent. They thought they were IN the Day and it had already started. (they thought they had MISSED Paul's rapture, or else thought Paul had been wrong.)

(Amplified) 2 ...to the effect that the day of the Lord has [already] arrived and is here.

(NKJV) 2... as though the day of Christ had come.

(NIV) 2...saying that the day of the Lord has already come.

It should be clear, those Thessalonian believers thought the DAY had already started and they were IN the day of the Lord. Note, there are many more translations that say this same thing. Therefore, the translators, in their attempt to fill in words Paul left out, should have kept with this same idea, that they thought the Day had already come. So let's write it again with some added words as KJV and most others have done.

3 Don’t be fooled by what they say. For (that day will not have started and be present) until there is a departure first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed —the one who brings destruction.

So what is Paul's intended meaning? Note, is is very true that the Day of the Lord will come soon, and that is what pretribbers teach. But that is not what Paul was writing, or what had them all upset; they thought the day had already started and they were INSIDE the Day of the Lord. Also note, if that false message they received told that that the Day would come soon, HOW could that be a false message - since it is truth? No, the false message they heard was that the Day had started and they were IN THAT DAY. Those first readers of this letter were having pretty severe tribulation. If they received a message that the Day of the Lord would come soon, they would have been GLAD, not upset, for to Christians, that day would bring "blessed Hope." I really like the words of a song, "another day closer to the Day of the Lord is like another step closer to home!" They were NOT glad, for their thinking was, "we have missed the resurrection and the rapture Paul had taught them about!"

What Paul did then, was to REFUTE the idea that the Day had already started and they were IN it. That is the context of the next few verses. So Paul is going to tell them how they can know for SURE that they day has not yet started. Paul gives them two signs to signify the presence of the Day: that the day would have begun: first the departure and second the revealing of the man of sin. If anyone sees these two unmistakeable signs, they will KNOW the day of the Lord is present had has begun.

Now, suppose there was a long time between these two signs and the start of the Day? If the two signs came, one would still not know,if the Day had arrived. So Paul's argument would be worthless. That cannot be Paul's intent! His intent is, when these two signs are seen, the day of the Lord HAS COME - not will come some time later. And these two signs must be UNMISTAKABLE - not something gradual.

What Paul is really saying then, is that the day of the Lord will not have already started and be present unless the man of sin is revealed, and this cannot happen until the departure happens - the second is dependent on the first. Therefore the revealing of the man of sin is proof of the PRESENCE of the Day of the Lord, not a sign in the future saying it must come first before something else can come.

So then, what must come "first?" Since the man of sin revealed proves the PRESENCE of the Day, the departure is what much come first - NOT the departure plus the presence. Therefore, this is NOT a list of two events that must come first before something else can come. There is ONE THING that comes first, the departure. Then, after the departure, the revealing of the man of sin proves the Day has already started. This is pure logic using the words Paul has given us. There cannot be another meaning, or words mean nothing. You see, readers, there is a HUGE difference in saying an event will come, or an event has already come and is present.

Paul could have written, "there are two things that must come first, before the Day can come" but this is NOT the way he wrote it - it is only the way posttribbers interpret it. Please note, the two items, the departure and the revealing are NOT WRITTEN TOGETHER in this manner, as things that must come first before.... .This is why CONTEXT is so important. Paul teaches us that the second is dependent on the first: it is the departure that allows or makes it possible for the second event, the revealing to come. Notice that the word FIRST is BETWEEN the two events.

ESV Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

This means that ONLY ONE OF THESE TWO EVENTS must come first! First modifies the departure, NOT the revealing. Readers, can you see how the posttrib theory simply has not understand Paul's intent? This is NOT two events that must come first, and then some time later the Day can begin. That is false teaching that comes for misunderstanding this scripture. We are told to rightly divide the word of Truth.

It is just NOT TRUTH that the revealing of the man of sin must come first before the Day of the Lord is present. No, it is the departure that must come first. Then, AFTER the revealing of the man of sin the Day is present. Therefore the START OF the DAY is not determined by the revealing but by the departure. The truth is, the revealing is way AFTER the start!

Next, the thing that comes first, the departure, MUST BE SOMETHING VERY EASILY RECOGNIZED as a crisis moment, so everyone would know, NOW it has happened. A falling away from something does not measure up to something easily recognized as a crisis event. If it happens, it is a gradual thing. it has been ongoing for many years. If by departure, Paul meant the rapture, then that would be a sign instantly recognized as fulling this verse. NO ONE would miss that sign. They would then know that the DAY has begun.

Therefore, there is only ONE THING that must come first before we can say the Day of the Lord HAS COME and is present: that is the departure. It MUST come first. By the time the revealing has come, then they are IN the Day. Readers, please note, Paul does not give us a hint as to how much time there will be between these two events; only that one must come first, the departure.

Then, everyone can be sure, the man of sin will be revealed soon after, because the one restraining him will be taken out of the way. This is exactly what verse six, and then 7 & 8 together tell us.

Verse 3 and verses 6, then 7 & 8 are all parallels. First there is something preventing the revealing, but once that thing preventing is departed and taken out of the way, THEN the man of sin is revealed. Some want to argue this part,but it is very clear in all translations: in verse 3-B in Paul's argument, the man of sin IS REVEALED (past tense: a done deal). But in verses 6-8 the ONLY way that could be possible is if the one restraining is taken out of the way. Therefore, there is simply no way around this truth: verse 3-A IS the restrainer being taken out of the way. I will say it again: there can be no other interpretation but that verse 3a is the restrainer, the one holding back the man of sin, is "taken out of the way."

Please note, there already HAD BEEN already a departure for the faith in those days. So HOW could that be the sign Paul wanted then to notice? If that is what was to be meant by apostasia, they would have thought that the DAY had already come way back then......hmmm: that is EXACTLY what they thought! No no! Paul could NOT have meant a falling away from the faith as the great sign that the Day of the Lord was already present. Do you see how silly it is to think apostasia is to mean a falling away from the faith? Paul's letter was to correct such thinking! No no! Apostasia had to be something they had never seen before, else Paul's argument would be a failure. The Holy Spirit does NOT fail!

Readers, as you can see, posttribbers that use this passage for their doctrine have simply not understood it. It is a very PRETRIB passage, and proves pretrib, not posttrib.

3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, (NASB)

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)

I like Darby best, because he kind of keeps to the correct thought that the Day of the Lord had already come: "It will not be." We must remember, these words were added, so it would be much better to put in what Paul wrote first.

2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.

3 Let not any one deceive you in any manner, because [the day of the Lord will not already have come (or already started)] unless the apostasy have first come, and the man of sin have been revealed, the son of perdition;

This was what they thought: the day had already started and they were IN the day. Since Paul already included that in verse two, and left it out here, I think it is justfiable to use his words rather than a translator's words. Just an aside note here, Paul writes "let no one deceive you in any way." However today we have may different theories about this verse, showing that some are certainly deceived.

The real question here is, what did Paul mean by the word Apostasia (Greek)? Many people puzzle over it, yet there is no need, because in three parallel verses Paul clearly tells us. Notice in this very verse [verse 3], SOMETHING must occur FIRST, before the man of sin can be revealed. Now notice:

(NIV) 6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.

(NASB) 6And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed.

(ESV) 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time.

(ASV) 6 And now ye know that which restraineth, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season.

(HCSB) 6 And you know what currently restrains [him], so that he will be revealed in his time.

(Young's Literal) 6 and now, what is keeping down ye have known, for his being revealed in his own time,

It is easy to see there are two parts to this sentence: first, there is something holding back, restraining, holding down, the man of sin from being revealed, and after reading this passage WE ARE SUPPOSE TO KNOW who and what the restrainer is, who or what is holding him back, and preventing him from being revealed until his time.

Paul wanted us to KNOW so much, he basically wrote it yet again in verses 7 and 8.. Something is restraining or holding back, until such time as the restraining is removed or taken out of the way, and THEN the man of sin will be removed.

7 For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work: only [there is] one that restraineth now, until he be taken out of the way.

8 And then shall be revealed the lawless one,...(ASV)

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 Then that lawless one will be revealed ...(NASB)

7 For the mystery of lawlessness already is working, only he is holding back now, until it comes out of the midst.

8 And then "the Lawless One" will be revealed, ..(Green's Literal)

7 For, the secret, of lawlessness, already, is inwardly working itself, - only, until, he that restraineth at present, shall be gone, out of the midst:

8 And, then, shall be revealed the lawless one,... (The Emphasized Bible)

Again, even a beginning reader would be able to understand that the restraining force or the one holding back or the one being an obstacle to the revealing, is going to be taken out of the way, removed, or gone out of the midst. And AFTER that happens, THEN the man of sin can and will be revealed.

This is written very plainly, and all translations give us the same idea. Now we have seen, with different translations, that there is a restraining force holding the man of sin down, and PREVENTING his revealing. And we know that the restrainer will be taken out of the way, or removed, or departed out of the midst, BEFORE the man of sin can be revealed.

Now, back to us KNOWING: Paul wrote "And NOW YOU KNOW." WHY did Paul write this? Because HE JUST TOLD US who the restrainer was. He wrote: "And Now You Know," in verse 6, so if we back up to verse by verse to find someone or something "taken out of the way" or gone from the midst," we will know that is the restrainer Paul mentioned that we can KNOW. It is the only reason Paul would have written, "and now you know what the restainer is..."

Remember, we have just seen several times the restrainer mentioned, then the man of sin revealed. We have seen the restrainer mentioned, and then the restrainer REMOVED, DEPARTED and then the man of sin revealed. We know that the revealing CANNOT HAPPEN until the restrainer or holder downer, is GONE out of the midst or taken out of the way. Since Paul said "and now you know," all we need do is back up and find something that is "taken out of the way," and the man of sin revealed. Let's look verse by verse.

5 Do you not recollect that when I was still with you, I told you these things?

Is there anything taken out of the way here? No. Nothing is departed, removed or taken out of the way here. Nothing revealed. But, here we do find that Paul is talking about something that he has told them before. It is NOT some new idea. He told them about the rapture in His previous letter.

4 Who opposes and exalts himself so proudly and insolently against and over all that is called God or that is worshiped, [even to his actually] taking his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming that he himself is God.

Is anything taken out of the way here? We see that the man of sin HAS ALREADY BEEN REVEALED in this verse (not in actuality but in Paul's argument) and is in the temple proclaiming that he is God! So at this time, just by logic and Paul's parallel verses, we know that the restrainer has been TAKEN OUT OF THE WAY. But, in this verse, we do not find anything "taken out of the way."

3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way. For that day will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction. (HCSB)

Do we find something "taken out of the way" here? Certainly we do!!! Do we find the revealing of the Antichrist here? Certainly we do! But, we understand something taken out of the way, only if we see apostasia as a "departure." A general falling away from truth, just does not compute with "taken out of the way," or "gone from the midst." Since the man of sin IS REVEALED in this verse (again, not in reality, only in Paul's argument), then we must go by the context of verses 6-8, which tells us that the one restraining is "taken out of the way."

I must show some other translations here to show they all agree that in verse 3-B, the man of sin IS revealed.

NIV: "the man of lawlessness is revealed"

RSV: "the man of lawlessness is revealed"

OJB: "the Ish HaChatta’ah Ben HaAvaddon (Man of Sin, Son of Destruction Anti-Moshiach) is unveiled."

NRSV: : the lawless one is revealed"

NKJV: "the man of sin is revealed"

LEB: "the man of lawlessness is revealed"

HCSB: "the man of lawlessness is revealed"

There can be no doubt, in Paul's argument, in verse 3-B the man of sin IS REVEALED. If He IS, then HE was and it is past tense (in Paul's argument). My point is that from verses 6 -8 this is proof that the one restraining the man of sin and preventing his revealing must at this time be removed. Therefore, verse 3-A absolutely must be the restrainer taken out of the way. So verse 3-A is telling us what must come first before the Day of the Lord can come: it is the REMOVAL or DEPARTURE of the one restraining. Therefore, this word "apostasia" MUST carry the meaning of something "taken out of the way," or something departed or something gone out of the midst. Now, look at some of the first English translations:

Tyndale Bible 1526

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

Coverdale Bible 1535

3 Let noman disceaue you by eny meanes. For the LORDE commeth not, excepte the departynge come first, and that that Man of synne be opened, euen the sonne of perdicion

Geneva Bible: 1587

3 Let no man deceiue you by any meanes: for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that man of sinne be disclosed, euen the sonne of perdition,

These translations fit PERFECTLY with all the previous verses show in MANY translations. It tells us WHAT or WHO is removed out of the way, or taken out of the midst. It is the GATHERING, the rapture and departure of the church. I also believe these versions use the word "departure," but I could not find a translation to copy: Cranmer Bible (1539); Breeches Bible (1576); Beza Bible (1583). In fact, the Latin Vulgate used the word "discessio" meaning "departure."

Therefore, DON'T EVER think we don't know who the restrainer is, for Paul wrote, AND NOW YOU KNOW!

We could also say it this way:

Verses 3-5 above provide a description of the order of events:

1. The removal of the Church

2. The revealing of the antichrist

3. The antichrist presenting himself as God

And then again in verses 6-8:

1. The Church is holding the antichrist back or restraining his revealing

2. He is to be revealed in the right time

3. The One who holds him back (the Church) is taken out of the way

4. The lawless one (antichrist) will then be revealed

5. The Lord will return to destroy the antichrist (Second Coming)

When using the word "departure" or "removal" in verse 3 above, the subsequent verses coincide and restate the same events. We have three similar statements on the one restraining being taken out of the way, which we now understand is the removal of the Church, and then the revealing of the antichrist.

Paul speaks of the day of the Lord, giving two signs to look for to KNOW one is IN the day of the Lord, that is to say, the day has already begun. We know from other scriptures that the man of sin will be revealed for who he really is, at the abomination - right? Well, that is well INTO the day of the Lord. So we can say that is one of Paul's two events that MUST take place: To know for sure that the day of the Lord has come, the man of son MUST be revealed, i.e., the abomination must have taken place. The only other alternative is that when the 7 year agreement is made, it is done in public so all will know the parties present. However, I believe this will be done in secret.

Does this translation allow for Paul's theme of the gathering? Certainly it does. Does this agree with Paul's first letter? Certainly it does. We MUST NOT forget, the THEME of this whole passage was the "gathering!" So this fits the theme perfectly. Paul is telling us that the departure (the gathering) MUST come first, removing the restraining force, and THEN the man of sin can be revealed."

Another thought: after Paul's classic rapture verse in 1 Thes. he wrote, "therefore comfort one another with these words." If Paul had just taught that they would go through 4 or 5 years of tribulation, and then lose their head to the Beast, would this be much of a comfort? On the other hand, if Paul had taught them this was God's way to escape God's wrath on earth, it would be a great comfort.

I know some will argue about this. They will argue that the KJV is the best translation. However, by keeping close to the context, the apostasia must be the restrainer taken out of the way. I would ask then, can evil restrain evil? I say NO! It takes good to restrain evil. A falling away would be evil restraining evil. And it would not fulfil the theme of this passage.

One more note: this was not just any ordinary apostasia, for the Greek includes THE in front of the apostasia. It is not just a plain departure, it is a very special departure. If the meaning was not the rapture, which IS a very special departure, why would Paul include it?

LAMAD

[ENOCH2010]

And I thought all this time the church has been trying to point out to people what the anti-Christ spirit is, and now I find out the only way the church can make that happen is for the church to be raptured away.  Anybody else see how long and how wrong the above post seems. 

 

 

Apostasy = a falling away...... 3 little words.

[OldSchool2]

Oy Vey! This topic is never gonna end, will it? ...

Not as long as someone can make a quick buck by releasing yet another low-budget film about the rapture.

[rollinTHUNDER]

Anybody else see how long and how wrong the above post seems. 

 

 

Apostasy = a falling away...... 3 little words.

Yes, this is the pre-tribbers latest ploy. It looks like re-direction via changing the definition of some terms. Not to worry, though, they will know soon enough, when the seven year covenant is confirmed and they are still here along with the rest of us.

 

apostasy = departure = rapture   

 

I could see, maybe, where Israel departs from waiting for her true Messiah, and instead receives one who comes in his own name; or even many departing the faith when the covenant is confirmed and they are still here, but the falling away is definitely not the rapture.  

 

Or maybe, just maybe the law of gravity will be reversed and they will just fall into the clouds instead of being caught up or gathered by the angels.    

 

 

Cheers

[Giantbear7]

I believe a lot of sincere believers are taking the word rapture completely out of context. Jesus gave an example of what it will be like when someone is taken away. He said two will be in the field and one will be taken and the other left. He also likened the taking away or rapture as in the days of Noah where the flood came and took them away.

The context should be clear to people, but I don't understand why people can't understand that the context of taking away is bing taken out of this earthly existence by death itself.

Don't you think that death is what took those people who were eating, drinking and marrying in Noah's days?

Of course death took them away.

The one in the field who is taken away is highlighting that their earthly body dies.

Rationale thinking is what is required without brining in preconcieved beliefs of a pardoning away from death.

I think people have taken rapture to mean that first death is pardoned as if to say that they have a get out of death free pass.

Let me make it clear with scripture as the second witness, everyone must die, all men are destined to die once, even the very last remaining elect who are translated will have their earthly bodies dissolved in a flash.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Giantbear7

[hmbld]

Now fellas,

 

God has His purposes which He planned & we know will be carried out. Thus when you start talking about `WHY` God will do something then we can start to understand the details.

What "why" are you referring to? Why would God rapture us? Why would we be left behind?

I don't understand what purpose God would have to rapture us before the tribulation.