Is the Falling Away a false teaching ?

[Marcus O'Reillius]

There is an interesting tie in with Paul’s teaching on eschatology to the Thessalonians from Gabriel’s explanation in Daniel about “When they feel secure…” in verse 8:25.  The question of who feels secure by asking who ‘they’ refers to should note that that word is added in the translation.  The Hebrew only has “when prosperity.”  The word used has an interesting theological twist to how the Christian is to rely on God.  Security is elusive.  Being secure in a physical sense often leads to downfall.  There is actually a tie between being at ease in a related word, shelev, and delusion. –Brown, Driver and Briggs, p. 1017c.  True security can only be achieved through God, so any attempt to acquire security apart from God is a false condition or form of self-delusion, and often leads to disaster when God acts.  Thus self-reliance is a form of rebellion against God’s dominion.  This is backed up by the underlying word study on the word made to act as a verb in feel secure: shalwa:

“shalwa.  Quietness, prosperity.  A blessed character trait in anybody’s life (Ps 122:7; Prov 17:1).  Yet it can become an open door to disaster.  Note that one of Saodom’s sins was “abundance” of idleness (shaqat, Ezk 16:49).  It may produce “carelessness” (Prov 1:32).  And a political platform promising peace at all costs can be nothing more than a subterfuge and a personal expedient.—TWOT p.927

            This aspect of promising peace at all costs as an illusion was framed by Benjamin Franklin in his quote: “Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither.”  He recognized rightly the Christian tenet that security can only be found in God, and cannot be achieved in this world.  However, Satan will attempt to create heaven in this world.  His vanity and self-reliance ignores the fact that security comes from God, because he would supplant God as the center of worship.  So this security will be more like the tranquility found in a police state as the Antichrist attempts to control events in a very worldly sense.  Paul wrote about this as a corollary tie in to Gabriel’s explanation:

^{1TH 5:1}Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, ²for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. ³While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

            The Lord will come to those that are not looking for Him like a thief in the night, stealing in without their foreknowledge.  Jesus said much the same in His parable concerning His second coming in Matthew 24:45-51.  Here Jesus juxtaposes the faithful servant from the wicked servant.  The latter will be caught unaware:

⁴⁸But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, `My master is staying away a long time,' ⁴⁹and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. ⁵⁰The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of.

            So the people Paul is talking about in 1TH 5:2-3, are the people who are wicked.  It is they who are mouthing “Peace and safety” as a motto.  This warning to the Christian has an immediate applicability to the present war on terrorism.  Although the events of September 11, 2001 were horrific, the response of the United States Government in creating a new department of Homeland Security demonstrates man’s attempt to provide for his own security.  The means by which this endeavor are being instituted are diametrically opposed to following God and will further create a situation that will facilitate a general condition conducive to the rise of the Antichrist.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

    Shifting gears from the aspect of rebellion in general among the people to the acts of the ruler who will come, in a latter vision of Daniel, Antiochus is a launching point for describing the Antichrist.  Here In the last prophetic vision in Daniel from chapter ten until the end of Daniel’s book is a long explanation in which the “man dressed in linen” provides to Daniel in relation to his dream about a terrible war.  From Daniel 11:5-30 the Man in Linen describes a generational war  between Seleucus Nicator, the ruler over all the rest of Asia except lower Syria and Palestine; and Ptolemy, son of Lagus, the king of Egypt and Palestine which, all in all, spans about 160 years. 

The pivot point of dual focus centers on the passage describing the abomination and its immediate verses (31 through 35) can have dual applicability.  The lens of dual focus shifts the vision from Daniel's near-term to the far-term of the end times.  No part of the history of second century B.C. after Antiochus sets up of the abomination is described by the Man in Linen as he continues in verse 36. 

This portion of Daniel after the pivot point describes a ruler unknown in the annals of history and it is separated into two parts.  The first only describes the anti-Christ through in verses 36-39.  After that, the Man in Linen moves in a linear progression telling the story of conquest at the end of times which is how the opening of verse 40 puts it until verse 45 which brings the future account around in a loop to the midpoint of the one 'seven' with the anti-Christ poised to enter Jerusalem.  His end is not at that moment, yet will come because once 'who is like God' arises, the anti-Christ's doom is certain.

To compare this figure with the previous use of dual focus in chapter eight has several parallel aspects in the general description of the character of this ruler who will come and can be laid side-by-side:

DA 8:24He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy the mighty men and the holy people. 25He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.

DA 11:36"The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place. 37He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all. 38Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his fathers he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. 39He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price.

            The parallel between strength in chapter eight is described as his being able to do as he pleases.  There is no restraint upon him at this point.  The rebellion against God is summed up in the second sentence of verse 11:36.  The epitome of this selfishness will be manifested in the Antichrist setting himself up as God.  Both accounts have success as an attribute.  The stand this Antichrist takes against God is shown in Revelation chapter eleven as being aligned with a foreign god, a god of fortresses, which alludes back to the previous word study on feel secure that will typify the end times.  While the first description assures his destruction, the second use of dual focus adds more detail.  With the aid of this spiritual power outside of God, he succeeds and he doles out rewards not by merit, but by money so that everything is wholly corrupted.  Chapter eleven concludes with the assurance of this Antichrist’s destruction as a future certainty, though it is not accomplished at 11:45.  That end was probably part of Daniel’s dream that troubled him so much that he began a three week fast that preceded this explanation which gives the context for the “great war.”

            As an introduction to the Antichrist, these two portions of Daniel in chapters eight and eleven give the reader some clear description on this figure.  To describe him, the historical account of Antiochus IV Epiphanes serves as a template.  Besides turning away from God, this individual refutes God and literally is in opposition to Him.  What follows is the consequence for rebelling, and that is judgment, specifically, his destruction.  It is important to note that not all these attributes fall to Antiochus or his history.  But with his example, this figure will operate in much the same manner. 

[Marcus O'Reillius]

Moving on from the description of the man, specifically, to show how this Antichrist comes into power, God has revealed this in yet another vision in Daniel chapter seven with the account of the four beasts.  Picking up from where this analysis left off in the previous chapter setting up the nations, the fourth beast as depicted with the additional information from Revelation 13:2, is a combination of the previous three beasts.  Ruling over it are ten horns, or men who are given authority as kings to rule for one hour.  It is through these ten rulers or ministers of government that the Antichrist depicted in Daniel chapter seven as the little horn comes to power.

    ^{DA 7:8}"While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth that spoke boastfully.

While horns are symbols of power in the Bible, this figurative description of a “horn” goes beyond that.  In Revelation chapter 17, an Angel takes John aside and describes the seven-headed, ten-horned end-time beast of a nation/ruling system.  In that passage, the Angel explains what or more accurately who the ten “horns” are:

    ^{REV 17:12}"The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast.

When Daniel is speaking of “horns,” the vision he describes can be seen as powerful rulers which control the “beast” of a nation.  The use of “horn” then identifies a powerful person.  The figurative use of “horn” adds to ruler’s attributes rather than describing a separate person.

The Hebrew contains more shades of meaning on how the three kings in place for one hour are supplanted by the little horn.  The word for uproot in the Aramaic, ‘aqar, rq'[}, has the same meaning in Hebrew and the words are closely related in their respective writing with the Hebrew being: rq'[;.—TWOT p.1056.  The English word uproot carries an idea of being utterly pulled up and destroyed as uprooting a plant and so killing it.  And if this were the intent of Daniel, then to convey that meaning, the best Hebrew word would be natash, vt'n:: it has the meaning to root out, pluck up and is rendered once in the KJV in regards to cities as destroy and in the ASV as overthrow.–TWOT p.611.  But the Hebrew derivative of the Aramaic ‘aqar, has two definitions, one means to pluck up or root out, and the second means to hamstring.—TWOT p.692.  The use of ‘aqar as to hamstring is used in 2^nd Samuel 8:4, 1^st Chronicles 18:4, and Joshua 11:6 and is used in reference to horses.  Reading‘aqar as uproot as in the sense of gardening may not be the only valid translation that accurately describes the relation between the little horn and the other three.

The second time Daniel speaks of this uprooting of the three horns is to one who is standing there in the Heavenly realm in his vision.  (Daniel chapter seven has the same event written three times, once in receiving it, the second in question of it, and the third in answer by “one standing there” from Heaven within the vision)  Daniel relates the three horns which were uprooted before the little horn as falling before him in verse 7:20.  This word in the Aramaic, n^e pal is the same as the Hebrew, napal, and has a myriad of uses and connotations, and can be used as falling into one’s hands.  Because of the richness of the word like its English equivalent, no distinct rendering is possible.—TWOT p1045, 587

Daniel’s descriptive account of his vision in verse 7:8 is buttressed by the explanation given to him of the vision from one who was standing there.  The explanation this one gives Daniel adds another bit of evidence in the verb he uses to show how the Antichrist comes to power that can assist in rendering a proper translation of the previous word uproot.

^{DA 7:24}The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings.

            The other aspect has to do with how we read Daniel 7:24.  In it we read this little horn will “subdue three kings.”  In English we’re fairly confident in assessing a contest where a victor emerges, however in the Aramaic, the word Daniel uses does not have that same connotation.  Daniel uses sh^epat, meaning literally, judge.—TWOT p.1080.  It’s counterpart in the Hebrew is shapat, meaning judge, govern.

The primary sense of shapat is to exercise the processes of government.  Since, however, the ancients did not always divide the functions of government, as most modern governments do, between legislative, executive, and judicial functions (and departments) the common translation, “to judge,” misleads us.  For, the word, judge, as shapat is usually translated, in modern English, means to exercise only the judicial function of government.  Unless one wishes in a context of government—civil, religious, or otherwise—consistently to translate as “to govern or rule,” the interpreter must seek more specialized words to translate a word of such broad meaning in the modern world scene…

Hence the following analysis of use of this basic word for exercise of government appears.

1.  To act as a ruler…(The other three definitions center on the judicial aspect of the word centering on shopet.)…

shapat, with its derivative noun mishpat, is the commonest word to designate the function of government in any realm and in any form.  It apparently differs from the rarer din (verb and noun) chiefly in being the more formal and technical term while din is more poetic.—TWOT p.947-8.

            Translating sh^epat as subdue with its connotation following the primary definition of conquering by force, does not fit the word sense of judging.  However the alternate definition of subdue, to bring into submission does fit a general sense of shapat, the Hebrew equivalent, in that governing has superior and inferior roles.  Furthermore Webster defines subdue as “to bring under control, esp. by an exercise of the will”—3^rd New International Dictionary p.2274 also allows for a reading sh^epat in the sense of governing. 

Combining Daniel’s reference to the little horn as governing, with the aspect of subdue as bringing under control then leads credence to the uprooting of three kings whereby they are rendered ineffective as in being hamstrung rather than utterly destroyed as they give their power to govern to this last little horn.  This concept changes the nature of the political struggle slightly; the ten are not in opposition to the little horn.  Indeed, they have the same aim as revealed by Jesus to John:

^{Rev 17:13}They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast. ¹⁴They will make war against the Lamb…

[Marcus O'Reillius]

...Indeed, they have the same aim as revealed by Jesus to John:

^{Rev 17:13}They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast. ¹⁴They will make war against the Lamb…

The ten member ruling council is not opposed to the anti-Christ; they are in competition with him.  Both interests are opposed to God, and also are in opposition to the Catholic Church as well, which as the body which encompasses the mother-son worship of Babylon is portrayed as a Harlot, much as rebellious Israel was described as a prostitute in the Old Testament.  Both the ten horns, or ministers and the little horn or anti-Christ will be aligned against Christianity and may be like secular humanists which is closely akin to the Hellenistic Greeks.

So the nature of the struggle whereby the three are replaced by this little horn is usually viewed as an adversarial process gained in open conflict as in war, going into the word study reveals a Machiavellian political process within the highest governmental of this super-state, the terrible fourth beast.  This puts it in perfect resonance with the dual focus description of the Antichrist as “a stern-faced king, a master of intrigue” as he was described in Daniel 8:23.  The picture that should emerge is one where conditions have to be made right for this one; this little horn with the eyes of a man speaking boastfully can then take charge.  This is backed up in the Revelation account God though Jesus gives John:

^{REV 13:2b} The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority.

            Notice the devil is giving the fourth terrible nation his power after it is formed.  Out of it from the account in Revelation proceeding in linear fashion, one of the heads, the one that is present during the seventieth ‘seven,’ becomes prominent.  The beast in REV 13:5 is that head or man.  This character is described in Revelation:

    ^{REV 13:5}The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise his authority for forty-two months. ⁶He opened his mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven.

Like Daniel’s little horn in chapter seven, this man has the ability to speak and like the dual focus descriptive account from Daniel chapter eleven, he speaks against God.  So the nature of the fourth terrible beast which initially has ten rulers only to have one man come up and hamstring three and govern over them after the super-state of Rome is put into place is matched with the account in Revelation whereby the nation out of the sea has great power and then one person comes to rule in opposition to God.  The nature of the Antichrist as master of intrigue is preserved through the word study and he operates in the background until his time is ripe.  To see how this figure performs and is finally revealed as Paul notes with his characterization of him as the Man of Lawlessness, propels the analysis forward into the seventieth ‘seven.’ 

[brakelite]

4 minutes ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

Ah!  So what you are railing against is not a simple concept found in the Bible, but a whole matter of interpretation!  Futurism is your great satan.

Well, my friend, I know no Jesuits, and I take a plain, literal reading of the Word.  
This very manner of interpretation is not wrong!  It is but one of four different ways people can approach end-time prophecy.

So just because I have a different perspective than you, does not mean I am wrong.  Nor does it make you wrong.

But what I will rail about are those who are on a mission to discount a whole class of eschatology because it is not to their way of thinking.

So accuse all you like, but I think you're way off with your condemnations of the literal, futuristic rendering of end-time prophecy.

No. My hope is that in recognizing through the prophetic eyes of historicism people will reject the Roman Antichrist and turn from idolatry to the true Christ. It is the Papal system that has usurped the authority and the prerogatives of Jesus Christ as Head of His church. That makes the RCC system the Antichrist. Simple.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

1 hour ago, brakelite said:

No. My hope is that in recognizing through the prophetic eyes of historicism people will reject the Roman Antichrist and turn from idolatry to the true Christ. It is the Papal system that has usurped the authority and the prerogatives of Jesus Christ as Head of His church. That makes the RCC system the Antichrist. Simple.

Let me know how that works out for you.

[brakelite]

7 hours ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

Let me know how that works out for you.

There shall be no need for me to remind you of these messages. When the Pope is established as the head of the NWO  with the support of the apostate Protestant churches in the US, and the US government, after which the religion of Rome shall be made a mandatory obligation globally, you will remember what I have said.

[Last Daze]

21 hours ago, Marcus O'Reillius said:

On the other hand, he is a man, who is limited to the normal lifespan of a man.

The son of perdition existed in Jesus' day.    Something to think about.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

6 minutes ago, Last Daze said:

The son of perdition existed in Jesus' day.    Something to think about.

I've thought about it and I don't think as you do.  In fact, I think quite contrary to your way of thinking.

Paul WROTE about the "son of perdition".  I will color code like things.

2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 

These are the TWO things which the Thessalonians are awaiting: His Coming - which is on the Day of Christ, or the Day of the Lord, and our gathering together unto Him - which is the Rapture.  AND they are linked in sequence order by the conjunction "and".  We can expect one and then the other.  

Paul will go on tell the Thessalonians that they can still expect what they thought they had missed.

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.

Paul is essentially telling them it has not come to pass - that's why they were worried.  They thought they had been left behind.

Now Paul will set TWO PRIOR conditions which must come to pass before the first two, SO IF they DON'T see these: then they haven't "missed" Jesus.  These two events must come first.  This is established by the use of the word: EXCEPT.  The two pairs of events are worded backwards.  In the Greek, the most important things come first in a sentence; they don't use our syntax.  Here in the opening of this chapter, Paul gets to the good part before he gets to the prerequisite bad part.

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;  KJV

Basic reading comprehension is required.  The sequence of events surrounding the Rapture goes like this based on the language Paul uses:

1. Falling away
2. Son of Perdition revealed
3. The coming of Jesus Christ
4. Our gathering to Him.

That is the LOGICAL order given by what Paul writes.

Many misconstrue it, and you are free to spin it around to your liking as well - I very much doubt this will ever get you to change your mind.  I write only for those with an open mind.

[Marcus O'Reillius]

2 hours ago, brakelite said:

There shall be no need for me to remind you of these messages. When the Pope is established as the head of the NWO  with the support of the apostate Protestant churches in the US, and the US government, after which the religion of Rome shall be made a mandatory obligation globally, you will remember what I have said.

The current Pope is a fool.  According to one "prophecy" - he is also the LAST Pope.

I will bet dollars to donuts that he will not be at the head of fourth terrible beast.  As politically-oriented to the left as he is, he is still a symbol of God, and the powers-that-be hate that.

Remember: the beast torments the harlot.  The harlot may "ride" the beast, but she does not rule it.