> Concerning the falling away found in 2 Thessalonians 2:3
>
> I had heard somewhere that there is a controversy surrounding this scripture.
> Some seem to believe that this means post-rapture do to the fact that the
> greek word used here can also mean departure. I am a greek scholar, so I
> thought I would consult some.
>
> I know that there actual translations that read departure here. The
> following is a short list:
cut
I'm not sure what your point is, but I'll bite anyhow. I feel the passage
rules out the possibility of a pre-trib rapture. If some argue for a
post-trib rapture because of a "departure" rendering of APOSTASIA, then
you might have an argument. I argue for a post-trib rapture
interpretation from this passage for other reasons.
The very least that can be said is this: if the coming of the Lord and our
gathering together unto Him (v. 1) refer to the coming of the day of
the Lord (v. 2), then the APOSTASIA must come first and the man of
lawlessness must be revealed (v. 3). Apparently the man of lawlessness is
revealed when he commits the abomination of desolation (v. 4) which
is the event triggering the great tribulation.
The point is that it doesn't matter what you do with APOSTASIA. If you
take it as departure meaning the rapture, then you end up with double talk
and nonsense. Paul would then be saying something like this: now
concerning the coming of the Lord and our gathering together unto Him,
that will not take place unto the rapture takes place first. Huh? If you
say the APOSTASIA is departure from the faith, and refer it to departure
already going on, or already past, then you still have the problem with
the man of lawlessness being revealed first.
Some, of course, try to say that the events in v. 1 are separated by a 7
year period of time, so that our gathering together unto Christ comes
first, then the coming of the day of the Lord 7 years later. First of
all, that contradicts what pretribs say because they almost all say the
rapture starts the day of the Lord. At any rate, it would not make any
sense to see Paul positing two separate comings in v. 1.
Paul Dixon