>pauld@iclnet.org
First of all, I mean't pre-trib, not post-trib. Sorry for the confusion.
You wanted to know what the basic idea was on how the pre-trib view was
imposed in this verse.
First, let me empasize my lack of Greek understanding, very basic. Also, I
am unfamiliar which groups teach this on a consistent basis. Not to get into
an argument, I won't mention which group I had heard this view from (unless
you downright insist).
Here it goes...
2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 (Tyndale)
We beseech you brethren by the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in that
we shall assemble unto him, that ye be no suddenly moved from your mind, and
be no troubled, neither by spirit, neither by words, nor yet by letter which
should seem to come from us as though the day of Christ were at hand. Let no
man deceive you by any means, for the Lord cometh not, except there come a
DEPARTING first, and that sinful man be opened, the son of perdition which is
an adversary, and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is
worshipped: so that he shall sit as God in temple of God, and shew himself
God.
(Geneva)
1. Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
by our assembling unto him,
2. That ye be not suddenly mooved from your mind, nor troubled neither by
spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as it were from us, as though the day the
of Christ were at hand.
3. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except
there come a DEPARTING first, and that that man of sin be disclosed, even the
son of perdition.
4. Which is an adversary, and exalteth himself against all that is called
God, or that is worshipped: so that he doeth sit as God in the Temple of God,
shewing himself that he is God.
(An Expanded Translation by Kenneth S. Wuest)
Now, I am requesting you, brethren, with regard to the coming and personal
presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, even our being assembled together to Him,
not soon become unsettled, the source of this unsettled state being your
minds, neither be thrown unto confusion, either by a spirit [a believer in
the Christian assembly claiming the authority of divine revelation and
claiming to give the saints a word from God], or through a word [received
personally] as from us or through a letter falsely alleged to be written by
us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come is now present. Do not
begin to allow anyone to lead you astray in any way, because that day shall
not come except the aforementioned DEPARTURE [of the Church to heaven] comes
first and the man of lawlessness is disclosed [in his true identity], the son
of perdition, he who sets himself in opposition to and exalts himself above
everyone and everything that is called a god or that is an object of worship,
so that he seats himself in the inner sanctuary of God, proclaiming himself
to be deity.
I typed all that so you could help see for yourself what the idea was. In a
nutshell, the Church has to be taken out of the way before the antichrist can
reveal himself. The Church being the hinderance.
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: pauld@iclnet.org (Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church)
To: CEP7@aol.com
CC: ILKVM@aol.com, b-greek@virginia.edu
Date: 97-02-19 23:10:24 EST
> <<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.>>
>
> I think your first post-trib should be pre-trib, at least I think that's
what
> you mean. While I do not think APOSTASIA refers to the rapture (I think it
is
> explained in 2:10-12), that view is not as nonsensical as you seem to make
it
> if the timing of the rapture is not clear in the Thessalonians minds.
Second,
> most pretribs do not teach that the rapture begins the day of the Lord or
the
> seven year tribulation. They see it as beginning with the signing of the
> covenant in Daniel 9:26-27 or the first seal of Rev 6. The rapture does
have
> a relationship to the Day of the Lord because it is bound with the
Parousia,
> but not necessarily as the beginning of the DOL.
>
No, I meant post-trib there. But, its not important.
What you say is interesting. While I attended DTS ('71-'75) I know that
the predominant view was that the rapture started the day of the Lord. If
the pretribs have changed, then it certainly indicates they acknowledged
the problems with it.
Would you care to summarize for me your pretrib understanding of the these
verses (v. 1-4)? Much thanks.
Psst, oh yeah. Be sure to throw in some Greek, so nobody on the Greek
list gets his nose out of joint.
Paul Dixon