2 Thes 2.3 and 1 Tim 4.1

[MisterE]

Yes, consider the link I provided Mr. E above, which shows that the primary use of the word in the NT is in relation to abandoning the faith.

[quote:]
New Testament:
The term is used only one other time in the New Testament, which means a religious departure:

Septuagint:
Four Times: Joshua 22:22; 2 Chronicles 29:19; 1 Maccabees 2:15; Jeremiah 2:19.
Every time it means apostasy or rebellion in a religious or political sense—never used as a spatial or physical sense.
[unquote]

Are you intentionally overlooking what I have said out here before. The word APOSTASIA does NOT, repeat does NOT mean a departure FROM THE FAITH. The phrase "from the faith" has to be ADDED to give APOSTASIA a context. If APOSTASIA does not have a qualifying phrase it does NOT mean "from the faith" or "from Moses."

I tell you what I'll do. Why don't you show me one instance where APOSTASIA is used WITHOUT a qualifying phrase AND it means "from the faith" or "from Moses."

I know before you start looking that there is no instance of such a usage. But I want you to see it for yourself. Look up every instance of APOSTASIA and see if you can find one example in which APOSTASIA by itself means FROM THE FAITH. Best of luck in your search. I am hoping you can find one instance so I can adjust my theology accordingly.

 

[RandyK]

Are you intentionally overlooking what I have said out here before. The word APOSTASIA does NOT, repeat does NOT mean a departure FROM THE FAITH. The phrase "from the faith" has to be ADDED to give APOSTASIA a context. If APOSTASIA does not have a qualifying phrase it does NOT mean "from the faith" or "from Moses."

I tell you what I'll do. Why don't you show me one instance where APOSTASIA is used WITHOUT a qualifying phrase AND it means "from the faith" or "from Moses."

I know before you start looking that there is no instance of such a usage. But I want you to see it for yourself. Look up every instance of APOSTASIA and see if you can find one example in which APOSTASIA by itself means FROM THE FAITH. Best of luck in your search. I am hoping you can find one instance so I can adjust my theology accordingly.

Did you read the article? The word is frequently used in the context of a departure from the faith, as opposed to a spatial departure. I've already agreed with you that words, apart from their context, can be flexibly applied. So it is context that matters.

But the word matters too. We generally use words that others will understand as normally applied in certain contexts. In this case, apostasia would be the word meaning "departure" as normally used for a departure from the faith, and not a departure from a particular place.

You may not find that significant, but I do. And that's why I submitted the link, because it explains that very well.

 

[RandyK]

As I said earlier, APOSTASIA does not mean to depart from the faith. To say that in 2 Thes 2.3 APOSTASIA means to depart from the faith can not be demonstrated with a Greek Lexicon. Note that Paul adds "from the faith" in 1 Tim 4.1 since the naked word AFISTAMAI does not imply that.

A verb is a different form of the related noun, and was used more flexibly than in the more technical application of an event. Since apostasy was largely used for the event indicating a departure from the faith, a verbalized form of the word can refer either to a departure from the faith or a departure from any condition, depending on the context.

Let me give you a purely imaginary example, using another word to show you how nouns and verbs can be different and yet convey a similar thing.

Let's say the word "deliverance" is used almost exclusively in a book for an escape from a prison or trap. But when the verb form of "deliver" is used in the same book it can be used for either deliverance from a trap or for deliverance from anything, maybe a storm.

The verb form has more variation in its regular usage in the book than the noun form.

This was a purely imaginary example. But it may serve to show you that noun and verb forms are different. And though the verb form may be more varied in its application, it doesn't mean the use of the verb form implies a different kind of context than the noun form may imply.

 

[RandyK]

Neither the noun form of apostasia nor its cognate verb form demands a certain context. Words are flexibly applied by the user and are dependant on the context.

But in the case of 2 Thes 2 apostasia has a context indicating a departure from the faith, and apostasia would be the appropriate word used in that context. Arguing that apostasia can be used in other contexts is irrelevant if the context is already indicated and clear.

The argument that "apostasia" is not clear in 2 Thes 2 is an opinion, but not widely held by scholars, with the exception of those whose agenda it is to argue for a Pretribulation Rapture. But it makes no sense to me personally to read "the Rapture-Coming of Christ for his Church will not take place until the Rapture-Apostasia occurs 1st." That would be a meaningless statement on Paul's part.

 

[Rondmon]

I have never spoken with a Christian who has failed to clearly see the progressive falling away from the faith within denominations as well as the residual post-falling away apostasy remaining within the still standing dead carcass of the denomination today.
The Spirit clearly having ability to unmask any errant application of terms for the faithful

I wrote a blog quoting Thomas Ice and others on this years ago, Mister E is correct, go reread the 2 Thess. 2 passage, where is it ever speaking about FAITH? But in verse 1 it speaks about the Gathering unto Christ Jesus. The Departure is the Church from its standing on this earth. Why was Departure used in the first 7 English translation, and for 1000 years in the Latin Vulgate via the word discessio which means departure. So, why did the KJV translators change the word to a "falling away"? Many think it has to do with the rivalry between the RCC and the Church of England and the CoE were simply using this to try and take a swipe at the RCC.

 

[Rondmon]

The point I was making is the APOSTASIA does NOT mean a departure from the faith by itself. There must be a qualifying phrase, such as "from the faith" or in its only other use "from Moses." APOSTASIA by itself does not mean departure from the faith. It only means departure from __________. The qualifying phrase does not appear in 2 Thes 2.3.

Here you go MrE, my blog from years ago quoting Thomas Ice and others. People only se what they want to see, use this any time you need to.

Is the "Falling Away" a false teaching/bad translation?

I have evolved with much study on this. I used to argue to all that there had to be this great Falling Away also. All because of this one passage. 2 Thessalonians 2:3. I do agree that the world gets far more evil towards the end (now), as foretold in Romans chapter 1, and as Peter said, there will be scoffers in the last days etc. etc. But I do not think the true Church can "Fall Away", either you are of Christ/God or you are not, and will get left behind by the Bridegroom. Anyway, here is my understanding of 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

“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…” – 2 Thessalonians 2:3 (NASB) This verse is used by many and they say it implies a "Falling Away" from the faith(Apostacy). But a guy named Tommy Ice has shed some exceptional light on this passage.

Mr. Ice has pointed out that the Greek noun, apostasia, is used only twice in the New Testament. The other occurrence is in Acts 21:21 where it states that an accusation was made against Paul that he was “teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake [apostasia] Moses.”

The word is used in verb form a total of 15 times in the New Testament, and only three of these have anything to do with a departure from the faith (Luke 8:13, 1 Timothy 4:1, and Hebrews 3:12). In other settings, the word is used for departing from iniquity (2 Timothy 2:19), departing from ungodly men (1 Timothy 6:5), departing from the temple (Luke 2:27), departing from the body (2 Corinthians 12:8), and departing from persons (Acts 12:10 and Luke 4:13).

This insight about the use and meaning of the word was certainly compelling, but the argument Mr. Ice presented that was most convicting was his revelation that the first seven English translations of the Bible rendered the noun, apostasia, as either “departure” or “departing.”

They were as follows:

1.The Wycliffe Bible (1384)

2.The Tyndale Bible (1526)

3. The Coverdale Bible (1535)

4. The Cranmer Bible (1539)

5. The Great Bible (1540)

6. The Beeches Bible (1576)

7. The Geneva Bible (1608)

Mr. Ice also noted that the Bible used by the Western world from 400 AD to the 1500s — Jerome’s Latin translation known as “The Vulgate” — rendered apostasia with the Latin word, discessio, which means “departure.” The first translation of the word to mean apostasy in an English Bible did not occur until 1611 when the King James Version was issued. So, why did the King James translators introduce a completely new rendering of the word as “falling away”? The best guess is that they were taking a stab at the false teachings of Catholicism.

One other point Mr. Ice made that I think is significant is that Paul used a definite article with the word apostasia. The significance of this is emphasized by Daniel Davey in a thesis he wrote for the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary:

Since the Greek language does not need an article to make the noun definite, it becomes clear that with the usage of the article, reference is being made to something in particular. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 the word apostasia is prefaced by the definite article which means that Paul is pointing to a particular type of departure clearly known to the Thessalonian church.

In light of this grammatical point, Tommy observed that “the use of the definite article would support the notion that Paul spoke of a clear, discernible notion.” And that notion he had already identified in verse 1 when he stated that he was writing about “our gathering together to Him [Jesus].” This interpretation also corresponds to the point that Paul makes in verses 6 and 7 where he states that the man of lawlessness will not come until what “restrains” him “is taken out of the way.”

And what it is that restrains evil in the world today? The Holy Spirit working through the Church. I think when the Church Departs, the Anti-Christ will be free to come to power.

I do not think this has anything to do with a Falling Away from the faith, at all, faith is never even mentioned in the passage at all. It is the Church Departing before the Anti-Christ is brought forth. The King James Bible changed the known understanding that had been around for 1500 some odd years, playing petty church politics.

 

[RandyK]

I wrote a blog quoting Thomas Ice and others on this years ago, Mister E is correct, go reread the 2 Thess. 2 passage, where is it ever speaking about FAITH? But in verse 1 it speaks about the Gathering unto Christ Jesus. The Departure is the Church from its standing on this earth. Why was Departure used in the first 7 English translation, and for 1000 years in the Latin Vulgate via the word discessio which means departure. So, why did the KJV translators change the word to a "falling away"? Many think it has to do with the rivalry between the RCC and the Church of England and the CoE were simply using this to try and take a swipe at the RCC.

Just the word "departure" does not signify "Rapture." Departure from what? Departure from the Faith!

We know that because we are being told what must *preceed* the Departure of the Church. And it is the Departure from the Faith, or the "Apostasy."

It is the rise and revelation of Antichrist who will position himself as if he is God, trying to lead in a mass exodus from Christianity, probably in Europe, where the 4th Kingdom of Dan 2 and 7 was born.

So Christ's coming for the Church *follows* the revelation of Antichrist, and takes place in order to *defeat the Antichrist!* This is self-explanatory for any but the most biased Pretribulationists.

 

[Rondmon]

Just the word "departure" does not signify "Rapture." Departure from what? Departure from the Faith!

True, which is why the overall context must be taken into consideration. Remember, Paul had no idea his letters would be Canonized as scriptures, thus when he wrote a [time consuming] letter he no doubt wrote only what he needed to, so later in his letter when he says "remember I told you this when I was with you before" this points to Paul going over these things with them at another point in time, so he would not need to write out the full statement, "The Departure of the church" instead he just told them not to fear that they were in the DOTL, because two things have to both happen before the DOTL can come upon the world, the "Departure" [of the Church] was an already discussed point, no need writing it out in full for no reason, and the Man of Sin must show up, not the east which happens at the same time as the DOTL, but the Man of Sin is mentioned, because both the Departure and the Man of Sin are basically locked hand in hand to one event, the 70th week Agreement between the AC (Man of Sin) and Israel.

The gist is this, people way overthink this, here is what will go down, Israel will join the E.U. and the Anti-Christ will be the President, its that simple. At that very moment in time the 70th week happens AND the Pre 70th week Rapture happens. That is why Paul said both these things must come to pass before the Wrath of God falls on you Thessalonians, so stop fearing that you are in the DOTL. Israel never makes an agreement with a man they think is the New Messiah, that comes from not understanding John 5:43, that was about the Pharisees who lived in Jesus time only. They indeed rejected Jesus them later, knowing Rome was the Fourth Beast (they were intelligent, just not spiritually intelligent) so they put forth a couple of men as the Messianic figure, whom the all saw as a political/warrior/leader, not a Lamb of God.

We know that because we are being told what must *preceed* the Departure of the Church. And it is the Departure from the Faith, or the "Apostasy."

Nowhere does it say what you put forth my friend, reread it, I can go verse by verse if needed. It says that both the Departure and the Man of Sin must come before the DOTL, which is God's Wrath, not Jesus' Second Coming. No one would fear the Second Coming right?

It is the rise and revelation of Antichrist who will position himself as if he is God, trying to lead in a mass exodus from Christianity, probably in Europe, where the 4th Kingdom of Dan 2 and 7 was born.

The Church is long gone, he tries to kill all the Jews, if Satan can stop the Kingdom Age he makes God a liar. This has been his goal with every Beast from Egypt, to Greece to Rome. He tried to wipe out all the Jews via Hitler. The Anti-Christ like Antiochus Epiphanes thinks he is god, but of course like AE4 he will be killed WITHOUT HAND, by the presence of Jesus' 2nd coming.

So Christ's coming for the Church *follows* the revelation of Antichrist, and takes place in order to *defeat the Antichrist!* This is self-explanatory for any but the most biased Pretribulationists.

Your timing is off brother. Both the Departure and the Man of Sin are in the picture BEFORE the Wrath of God falls. That is all it means.

 

[RandyK]

True, which is why the overall context must be taken into consideration. Remember, Paul had no idea his letters would be Canonized as scriptures, thus when he wrote a [time consuming] letter he no doubt wrote only what he needed to, so later in his letter when he says "remember I told you this when I was with you before" this points to Paul going over these things with them at another point in time, so he would not need to write out the full statement, "The Departure of the church" instead he just told them not to fear that they were in the DOTL, because two things have to both happen before the DOTL can come upon the world, the "Departure" [of the Church] was an already discussed point, no need writing it out in full for no reason, and the Man of Sin must show up, not the east which happens at the same time as the DOTL, but the Man of Sin is mentioned, because both the Departure and the Man of Sin are basically locked hand in hand to one event, the 70th week Agreement between the AC (Man of Sin) and Israel.

The gist is this, people way overthink this, here is what will go down, Israel will join the E.U. and the Anti-Christ will be the President, its that simple. At that very moment in time the 70th week happens AND the Pre 70th week Rapture happens. That is why Paul said both these things must come to pass before the Wrath of God falls on you Thessalonians, so stop fearing that you are in the DOTL. Israel never makes an agreement with a man they think is the New Messiah, that comes from not understanding John 5:43, that was about the Pharisees who lived in Jesus time only. They indeed rejected Jesus them later, knowing Rome was the Fourth Beast (they were intelligent, just not spiritually intelligent) so they put forth a couple of men as the Messianic figure, whom the all saw as a political/warrior/leader, not a Lamb of God.


Nowhere does it say what you put forth my friend, reread it, I can go verse by verse if needed. It says that both the Departure and the Man of Sin must come before the DOTL, which is God's Wrath, not Jesus' Second Coming. No one would fear the Second Coming right?


The Church is long gone, he tries to kill all the Jews, if Satan can stop the Kingdom Age he makes God a liar. This has been his goal with every Beast from Egypt, to Greece to Rome. He tried to wipe out all the Jews via Hitler. The Anti-Christ like Antiochus Epiphanes thinks he is god, but of course like AE4 he will be killed WITHOUT HAND, by the presence of Jesus' 2nd coming.


Your timing is off brother. Both the Departure and the Man of Sin are in the picture BEFORE the Wrath of God falls. That is all it means.

Well, respectfully I disagree. Your terminology betrays a complete twisting of what the passage is actually saying.

Quite simply, it is saying that the Departure of the Church, which takes place at Christ's Coming, cannot take place until after the reign of the Antichrist. Christ comes only for the Church at the destruction of the Antichrist.

You can take me verse by verse if you wish. I memorized the entire letter back in around 1972. Your reference to the "Day of the Lord" is revised to include things that it never included in Christian history. This is Dispensationalism and its terminology.

For nearly 1800 years nobody read 2 Thessalonians 2 the way you and Dispensationalists do. There is a reason for that. The terminology has to be changed for it to mean something different.

And the Early Church Fathers viewed the fulfillment of Daniel's "70th Week" as being immediately after the 69th Week, in the time of Christ's earthly ministry, followed by the destruction of Jerusalem and Israel.

They saw the "Abomination of Desolation" as the Roman Army surrounding Jerusalem, or that general idea--not the Antichrist. Only a couple of Church Fathers saw the AoD as the Antichrist--I think Irenaeus and Hippolytus.

You'll have to follow your own convictions. I certainly have mine. God bless.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I'm more of a theology person than a biblical languages person, but your question seems pretty basic. "Afistamai" would refer very generally to any kind of departure from a location, whereas "apostasia" would refer to a "forsaking," as in forsaking a moral standard.

I don't think "afistamai" is attached to "the Tribulation" any more than "apostasia" is attached to the Antichrist. The particular word is chosen based on whether a general departure from a place is meant or a general abandonment of a standard is meant.

When Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gasthemane, his disciples "all forsook him and fled", that's a preview of the end time apostasy.

 

[RandyK]

When Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gasthemane, his disciples "all forsook him and fled", that's a preview of the end time apostasy.

Whether aphistemai or apostasia is used in the context of a departure from the faith, or some kind of negative departure, then both words can be applicable to an end time apostasy. In this case, the abandonment of Jesus by his disciples may illustrate how others, in the end times, abandon Christianity.

Just keep in mind that whereas Jesus' Disciples abandoned him for only a short time and then returned to him, in the end time apostasy there will be many who abandon Jesus entirely, to follow the Antichrist.

 

[Rondmon]

Well, respectfully I disagree. Your terminology betrays a complete twisting of what the passage is actually saying.

Quite simply, it is saying that the Departure of the Church, which takes place at Christ's Coming, cannot take place until after the reign of the Antichrist. Christ comes only for the Church at the destruction of the Antichrist.

No, that's you assuming the Day of the Lord is the 2nd coming, you guys never take into consideration others full opinions, which is that the DOTL is God's Wrath that falls for 1260 days and then the 2nd coming happens, and Jesus showing up (at the 7th Vial) finishes off this wrath. My terminology is correct, yours points to something not even in the context of the passage, nowhere is faith ever spoken about in 2 Thess. 2 but the gathering together (Rapture) is spoken about. You simply do not understand eschatology if you do not understand why the church is not here during the 70th week.

You can take me verse by verse if you wish. I memorized the entire letter back in around 1972. Your reference to the "Day of the Lord" is revised to include things that it never included in Christian history. This is Dispensationalism and its terminology.

However you do not understand it, memory and an actual understanding are two different things entirely. The context is easy to understand once one understands the way they wrote things in a much different manner and by looking at the context. My blog destroyed your whole thesis, yet you still want to deny it, that is because you have a preconceived notion you will never allow to be in error, even though it is. God calls it being stiff necked.

For nearly 1800 years nobody read 2 Thessalonians 2 the way you and Dispensationalists do. There is a reason for that. The terminology has to be changed for it to mean something different.

Something you repeat from other MEN, this has been disproven a 1000 times and you guys still repeat this schtick. Paul wrote it, and we can see via documented writing the early church believed in a pre trib. rapture.

They saw the "Abomination of Desolation" as the Roman Army surrounding Jerusalem, or that general idea--not the Antichrist. Only a couple of Church Fathers saw the AoD as the Antichrist--I think Irenaeus and Hippolytus.

You'll have to follow your own convictions. I certainly have mine. God bless.

The AoD will happen soon. You are allowed to be wrong, but it still makes you wrong. I do not trust anything via Eschatology when a person can not get the simple Raptures Timing correct. Im astonished Christian men can be led down that road tbh.

 

[RandyK]

No, that's you assuming the Day of the Lord is the 2nd coming, you guys never take into consideration others full opinions, which is that the DOTL is God's Wrath that falls for 1260 days and then the 2nd coming happens, and Jesus showing up (at the 7th Vial) finishes off this wrath.

Of course I've considered your opinion, that the Day of the Lord encompasses the entire "Tribulation Period." I just reject it as unbiblical.

The Day of the Lord is the day of Christ's Return to bring an end to Antichrist's Kingdom, and to bring God's Wrath to all the earth that followed the Antichrist. It is also the day that many die and enter into God's judgment over their lives.

There are some elements of "God's Wrath" during the Reign of Antichrist. Obviously, God is not going to bless the "Beast." However, God's Wrath has remained over all the ungodly over the last 2000 years. But it is not called the "Day of the Lord."

My terminology is correct, yours points to something not even in the context of the passage, nowhere is faith ever spoken about in 2 Thess. 2 but the gathering together (Rapture) is spoken about. You simply do not understand eschatology if you do not understand why the church is not here during the 70th week.

Yes, we are in disagreement. But I do understand biblical eschatology quite well.

However you do not understand it, memory and an actual understanding are two different things entirely. The context is easy to understand once one understands the way they wrote things in a much different manner and by looking at the context. My blog destroyed your whole thesis, yet you still want to deny it, that is because you have a preconceived notion you will never allow to be in error, even though it is. God calls it being stiff necked.

I call it being honest with my conscience, and honest before God. It's truly sad when Christians cannot discuss an arguable subject without getting hostile or suspicious. But we'll have to let God work it out.

 

[Rondmon]

Of course I've considered your opinion, that the Day of the Lord encompasses the entire "Tribulation Period." I just reject it as unbiblical.

Sorry if I was a little blunt/snippy, went to the E.R. a few days back and still not feeling too well.
I will look over this later brother Randy. Some of those meds makes me kind of jacked up, lol.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Whether aphistemai or apostasia is used in the context of a departure from the faith, or some kind of negative departure, then both words can be applicable to an end time apostasy. In this case, the abandonment of Jesus by his disciples may illustrate how others, in the end times, abandon Christianity.

Just keep in mind that whereas Jesus' Disciples abandoned him for only a short time and then returned to him, in the end time apostasy there will be many who abandon Jesus entirely, to follow the Antichrist.

Well from what I've heard there're outlooks in opposite directions, those who see a glass half full predict a global revival, a "latter rain" of the Holy Spirit when the two witnesses rise up and preach the gosepl to everyone on earth; others who see a glass half empty are a bit pessimistic as they warn about this global apostasy, the removal of the "restrainer" which is the Holy Spirit. Maybe both are true, it has been reported that Chritianity is declining in western europe and north America while underground churches are burgeoning in China, middle east, southeast Asia and most remarkable of all, Jewish communities, that's the fulfilment of the fig tree parable.

 

[RandyK]

Sorry if I was a little blunt/snippy, went to the E.R. a few days back and still not feeling too well.
I will look over this later brother Randy. Some of those meds makes me kind of jacked up, lol.

It's okay. I have up and down attitudes, as well. We're all human. My prayers are with you that all turns out with your situation...

 

[RandyK]

Well from what I've heard there're outlooks in opposite directions, those who see a glass half full predict a global revival, a "latter rain" of the Holy Spirit when the two witnesses rise up and preach the gosepl to everyone on earth; others who see a glass half empty are a bit pessimistic as they warn about this global apostasy, the removal of the "restrainer" which is the Holy Spirit. Maybe both are true, it has been reported that Chritianity is declining in western europe and north America while underground churches are burgeoning in China, middle east, southeast Asia and most remarkable of all, Jewish communities, that's the fulfilment of the fig tree parable.

Yes, I've heard the same. I've heard for many years that the greatest revival is still ahead. In fact I heard it again the other day from Sid Roth on "It's Supernatural." He apparently had a dream that he interprets this way.

But I don't really know. I know there's the belief that God is following the agricultural year in a kind of "spiritual history." The "early rain" came at Pentecost and the Early Church. And the "latter rain" comes just before Christ's Return.

Again, I don't know. I personally feel that the International Church is following the same path that national Israel did at the time of Christ's 1st Coming. They fell into abject apostasy and their nation was thrown into chaos and judgment.

I think the same thing is happening to European Christianity. They've turned away from the Lord and back to paganism. And they will repeat disaster, I should think?

The Nominal Church is falling apart, spiritually, having compromised. I think the Catholic Church is facing the same, and likely the Orthodox Church, as well.

So if there is a spiritual revival coming, I think it will be pretty limited, and encompass a relatively small group of people, even if at an international level.

Biblically, I don't think the Restrainer is the Holy Spirit, nor do I think it is the Rapture of the Church. Historically, the Church Fathers saw the Restrainer as the Roman Empire, which as long as it remained united as an empire could not yet allow for Antichrist to appear.

But Daniel indicated Antichrist will come after the Empire had fragmented into at least 10 kingdoms. Then Antichrist will come to defeat 3 of the kings, ruling over 7 heads and 10 horns, which are 7 political leaders and 10 nations.

Obviously, the Roman Empire has already fragmented into many nations. The Empire in the West fell in 476 AD, but was rekindled in the Holy Roman Empire. In the East, the Empire did not fall until 1453 AD. But the imperial tradition was perpetuated in various kingdoms that claimed imperial status.

It's been relatively recent in history that nations have given up on imperial status. The one hold-out, perhaps, may be Russia. We'll see about that?

Then I think things will continue pretty much as they are going. We may see more spiritual movement in what remains of the believing, practicing Church. We'll see on that too?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Yes, I've heard the same. I've heard for many years that the greatest revival is still ahead. In fact I heard it again the other day from Sid Roth on "It's Supernatural." He apparently had a dream that he interprets this way.

But I don't really know. I know there's the belief that God is following the agricultural year in a kind of "spiritual history." The "early rain" came at Pentecost and the Early Church. And the "latter rain" comes just before Christ's Return.

Again, I don't know. I personally feel that the International Church is following the same path that national Israel did at the time of Christ's 1st Coming. They fell into abject apostasy and their nation was thrown into chaos and judgment.

I think the same thing is happening to European Christianity. They've turned away from the Lord and back to paganism. And they will repeat disaster, I should think?

The Nominal Church is falling apart, spiritually, having compromised. I think the Catholic Church is facing the same, and likely the Orthodox Church, as well.

So if there is a spiritual revival coming, I think it will be pretty limited, and encompass a relatively small group of people, even if at an international level.

Biblically, I don't think the Restrainer is the Holy Spirit, nor do I think it is the Rapture of the Church. Historically, the Church Fathers saw the Restrainer as the Roman Empire, which as long as it remained united as an empire could not yet allow for Antichrist to appear.

But Daniel indicated Antichrist will come after the Empire had fragmented into at least 10 kingdoms. Then Antichrist will come to defeat 3 of the kings, ruling over 7 heads and 10 horns, which are 7 political leaders and 10 nations.

Obviously, the Roman Empire has already fragmented into many nations. The Empire in the West fell in 476 AD, but was rekindled in the Holy Roman Empire. In the East, the Empire did not fall until 1453 AD. But the imperial tradition was perpetuated in various kingdoms that claimed imperial status.

It's been relatively recent in history that nations have given up on imperial status. The one hold-out, perhaps, may be Russia. We'll see about that?

Then I think things will continue pretty much as they are going. We may see more spiritual movement in what remains of the believing, practicing Church. We'll see on that too?

The identity of the "restrainer" depends on how your bible version puts it in the key verse of 2 Thess. 2:7. Usually in the NT all mentions of the holy trintiy have capped initials, so in this case, if the "he" is capped, then it's intended to be none other than the Holy Spirit. If not, then it's open to interpretation.

Note that "removal of the Holy Spirit" is possible, Jesus threatened the Ephesian Church: "Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent." The fire in the lamp symbolizes the Holy Spirit, its removal means removal of the Holy Spirit. In the parable of the unclean spirit, when a house, the body temple is emptied out of the Holy Spirit, the unclean spirit who was previously evicted now returns with seven other unclean spirits, and the person is worse than before.

"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. "

 

[RandyK]

The identity of the "restrainer" depends on how your bible version puts it in the key verse of 2 Thess. 2:7. Usually in the NT all mentions of the holy trintiy have capped initials, so in this case, if the "he" is capped, then it's intended to be none other than the Holy Spirit. If not, then it's open to interpretation.

Note that "removal of the Holy Spirit" is possible, Jesus threatened the Ephesian Church: "Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent." The fire in the lamp symbolizes the Holy Spirit, its removal means removal of the Holy Spirit. In the parable of the unclean spirit, when a house, the body temple is emptied out of the Holy Spirit, the unclean spirit who was previously evicted now returns with seven other unclean spirits, and the person is worse than before.

"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. "

The capitalization of "He" is not the inspired text--it was capitalized by men who wished to insert their interpretation. So we should remove the capitalization and look at things objectively, recognizing that the inspired text does *not* capitalize "He."

It is true that God may remove His presence from a people in order to show that He has broken His covenant with them, in order to destroy them. That is what the book of Ezekiel shows.

The glory of God gradually is removed from God's Temple, indicating that God's covenant of peace is being broken. Ultimately, the Babylonians destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem.

But I don't believe the Restrainer is the Holy Spirit. It is a possible interpretation, but not the one I favor. To me, such an interpretation seems like an injection of something into the passage.

The only thing we have in the passage is a covert inference that Paul had already taught on this. This indicates to me that there was something in Scriptures that made the point already clear.

The only Scripture passage that treats the Antichrist in any detail is Dan 7. And the only thing that restrains the appearing of Antichrist there is the rise of 10 kings out of the 4th Kingdom.

That's why I agree with the Church Fathers that the Restrainer is the Roman Empire in its unified state. Once that Empire has been completely fragmented, then 10 nations will appear in Europe. That's when I believe the Antichrist can appear.

You have to draw your own conclusions. I just don't see the Holy Spirit involved in the Restrainer? Maybe you do?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The capitalization of "He" is not the inspired text--it was capitalized by men who wished to insert their interpretation. So we should remove the capitalization and look at things objectively, recognizing that the inspired text does *not* capitalize "He."

It is true that God may remove His presence from a people in order to show that He has broken His covenant with them, in order to destroy them. That is what the book of Ezekiel shows.

The glory of God gradually is removed from God's Temple, indicating that God's covenant of peace is being broken. Ultimately, the Babylonians destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem.

But I don't believe the Restrainer is the Holy Spirit. It is a possible interpretation, but not the one I favor. To me, such an interpretation seems like an injection of something into the passage.

The only thing we have in the passage is a covert inference that Paul had already taught on this. This indicates to me that there was something in Scriptures that made the point already clear.

The only Scripture passage that treats the Antichrist in any detail is Dan 7. And the only thing that restrains the appearing of Antichrist there is the rise of 10 kings out of the 4th Kingdom.

That's why I agree with the Church Fathers that the Restrainer is the Roman Empire in its unified state. Once that Empire has been completely fragmented, then 10 nations will appear in Europe. That's when I believe the Antichrist can appear.

You have to draw your own conclusions. I just don't see the Holy Spirit involved in the Restrainer? Maybe you do?

It's not necessarily the Holy Spirit, but it can't be the Roman Empire either. Roman Empire was the beast from the sea with a lion's mouth, leopard's body and bear's feet, a patchwork of the previous empires; it receives a deadly wound on the head, but with the help of the beast from the earth, it rises again, and all nations on earth will yield their power and authority to it, eventually it would be like a re-enactment of the tower of babel. This would be the new Roman Empire, and it's more like the restrainEE than the retrainer. I trust the bible translators, and I do believe the restrainer is the Holy Spirit, at least it's the rule of law that keeps society in order. In the past several hundred years of history, you have Napoleon, Hitler, Musoulini, Franco, Stalin, Mao, all these are prototypes of the final Antichrist, and they were all results of violent civil unrest where law and order were removed, and I'm afraid this kind of history is repeating itself in America. In the end, this would be staged and replayed on a global scale.