1. 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 in spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ [the Lord] is at hand. 3. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come <\/span>a falling away <\/span>first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition<\/span> (2 Thes. 2:1-3).<\/span><\/p>\n \n T<\/span>he great rapture passage of 1 Thes. 4:13-18 was fresh on the believers\u2019 minds when the apostle Paul encouraged them not to be shaken in their minds nor troubled by false information about the timing of the rapture.\u00a0 In this second epistle he beseeches them regarding \u201cour gathering together unto him\u201d (lit. <\/span>epi-sunag<\/span>?<\/span>g<\/span>?<\/span>s<\/span>, our \u201cup-gathering\u201d).\u00a0 With increased persecution as well as false teaching, it was natural for them to think the tribulation (the day of the Lord, not of Christ) had begun (\u201cis at hand\u201d a perfect tense, \u201chad already come\u201d).\u00a0 The \u201cday of the Lord\u201d is a common term used throughout the Bible for the end time event of the coming of Messiah.\u00a0 Whereas the \u201ctribulation\u201d refers specifically to Daniel\u2019s 70th week of seven years (and sometimes \u201cgreat tribulation\u201d to the last half of that time), the day of the Lord begins with the judgment of that seven years and includes the glorious return of Christ and His millennial reign.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Paul assures them that that day could not have begun for two reasons:\u00a0 first, a falling away must take place; and second, the man of sin must be revealed.\u00a0 In verses 7 and 8 he adds that the Restrainer, the Holy Spirit, must also first be removed.\u00a0 The subject of this article concerns the first reason, the nature of \u201cthe falling away.\u201d\u00a0 It must happen before\u00a0 the day of the Lord can begin. <\/span><\/p>\n The second reason (a brief comment is in order) is that the man of sin must be revealed before the day begins. Mid and post tribulationalists must place this revealing at the half-way point in the tribulation, specifically the abomination of desolation (Matt. 24:15).\u00a0 However, there is no reason to think that the antichrist will not be \u201crevealed\u201d as soon as the church is raptured out before the tribulation.\u00a0 His covenant with Israel (Dan. 9:26) will reveal him even if all do not recognize him for who he is; the restraint of the Holy Spirit and the church will be eliminated so that nothing can hinder his rise to power; Rev. 6:2 says he will be going forth conquering and to conquer, starting his political and military campaign early in the tribulation; verse 8 says that he will be revealed as soon as the Holy Spirit is gone.\u00a0 Herman Hoyt wrote, \u201cThe first move on the part of Christ to take possession of the earth will be the release of Antichrist by the tearing away of the first seal (Rev. 6:1-2).\u201d<\/span>1<\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n A third reason why the day of the Lord could not have begun already could be that the Holy Spirit has not yet been removed (vss. 7-8).\u00a0 For purposes of this article, if the \u201cfalling away\u201d is actually the rapture, then the removing of the Holy Spirit will take place simultaneously with that and is, therefore, the same as the first reason.\u00a0 If the \u201cfalling away\u201d is a religious apostasy, this becomes a third reason why the day of the Lord has not begun.\u00a0 By either interpretation, a great proof for a pretribulational rapture is here given (vss. 7-8).\u00a0 The Holy Spirit cannot be separated from the church.\u00a0 He is the church\u2019s seal until the day of her redemption.\u00a0 If He leaves the church, the earnest is broken (Eph. 1:13-14).\u00a0 Therefore, if the Holy Spirit is removed before the tribulation, the church must go with Him. <\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The present question is whether the \u201cfalling away\u201d mentioned in verse three refers to a religious apostasy (the common view) or whether it refers to the rapture of the church as a \u201cdeparture.\u201d\u00a0 The departure view was revived by E. Schuyler English in 1954 in his book <\/span>Re-Thinking the Rapture<\/span>.\u00a0 In a single footnote he brought the view to prominence again by pointing out that five English versions from the sixteenth century translated the Greek word <\/span>apostasia <\/span>as \u201ca departynge\u201d or departure.<\/span>2<\/sup><\/span> The versions are Tyndale (1526), Coverdale (1535), Cranmer (1539), the Geneva Bible (1557), and Beza (1565, who translates it \u201cdeparting\u201d).\u00a0 English\u2019s point was that \u201c\u2019The departure\u2019 is assuredly an acceptable translation of <\/span>hee apostasia<\/span>.\u201d<\/span>3<\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Since then, the view has gained attention and greater acceptance.\u00a0 Just two years later Kenneth Wuest proposed the same interpretation and credited English for it: \u201cDr. E. Schuyler English, to whom the author is deeply indebted for calling his attention to the word \u2018departure\u2019 as the correct rendering of <\/span>apostasia <\/span>in this context …\u201d (he then cites the five English versions).<\/span>4<\/sup><\/span> In 1973, Leon J. Wood, then professor of Old Testament Studies and Dean of the Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary wrote <\/span>The Bible & Future Events<\/span>, in which he discusses 2 Thes. 2:3, using virtually the same arguments as English and Wuest for translating <\/span>apostasia <\/span>as \u201cdeparture\u201d referring it to the rapture.<\/span>5<\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Interestingly, in 1978 J. Vernon McGee released his commentaries in which he recognizes the \u201cdeparture\u201d view and adds his own indomitable twist that the word refers to both a departure of the \u201corganized church\u201d from the faith followed by a departure of the \u201ctrue church\u201d from the earth.<\/span>6<\/sup><\/span> In the years interceding other pretribulationalists have written articles and added additional thoughts.\u00a0 For example, Dr. Bernard E. Northrup, who taught at both Baptist Bible College, Clarks Summit, PA. and at Central Seminary, Minneapolis wrote an article for <\/span>The Biblical Evangelist<\/span> titled \u201cThe Rapture in Second Thessalonians.\u201d\u00a0 In it he defends the \u201cdeparture\u201d view.<\/span>7<\/sup><\/span> In 2002, Dr. Myron Houghton, Senior Professor of Systematic Theology at Faith Theological Seminary in Ankeny, IA wrote an article in the <\/span>Faith Pulpit<\/span> titled \u201cThe Rapture in II Thessalonians 2:1-10\u201d in which he strongly endorsed English and the \u201cdeparture\u201d view.<\/span>8<\/sup><\/span> Here Houghton gave four reasons why he believes in this view, adding two additional reasons: the style of the writing in chapter two, and the purpose in writing the letter altogether.\u00a0 In 2005 Midnight Call printed an article by Kenneth Wuest titled, \u201cThe Rapture\u2014Precisely When?\u201d\u00a0 Here Wuest repeated his arguments from 1956 and expanded on the position.<\/span>9<\/sup><\/span> I\u2019m sure there have been other fine articles as well.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n According to the apostle, a \u201cfalling away\u201d must take place before the day of the Lord can begin.\u00a0 As has already been noted, this word can (and perhaps should) be translated \u201cdeparture.\u201d\u00a0 In this verse we have the noun, <\/span>apostasia<\/span>, which easily transliterates (or transfers) into the English word \u201capostasy\u201d which usually means, to an English reader, a religious falling away from the faith.\u00a0 But, as English and others point out, \u201cIt is from the verb that we obtain the root meaning of a noun.\u201d<\/span>10<\/sup><\/span> The verb form of this word, <\/span>aphistemi<\/span>, looks and sounds entirely different and doesn\u2019t prejudice the English reader as to its meaning. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The noun, <\/span>apostasia<\/span>, only appears five times in the New Testament.\u00a0 Three of those times it is translated \u201cdivorcement\u201d (Matt. 5:31, 19:7; Mk. 10:4) which, by its basic meaning, has more to do with a physical departure (of one person from another) than with a religious apostasy.\u00a0 Besides our text the other place where the noun is used is Acts 21:21 where it does refer to religious apostasy when Paul was accused of persuading the Jews \u201cto forsake Moses.\u201d\u00a0 So three of the other four uses of the noun mean a physical departure and only one refers to a religious departure.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The verb (<\/span>aphistemi<\/span>) appears fifteen times in the New Testament.\u00a0 In the KJV it is translated \u201cdepart\u201d or \u201cdeparted\u201d in eleven of those places.\u00a0 Once (Lk. 8:13) it is translated \u201cfall away\u201d (the only other time it is translated thus) referring to believers who fall away from the faith like seeds that die among rocky soil.\u00a0 In Acts 5:37 Judas of Galilee \u201cdrew away\u201d people after himself and in vs. 38 Gamaliel advises to \u201crefrain\u201d from such people.\u00a0 In 1 Tim. 6:5 Paul advises Timothy to \u201cwithdraw\u201d himself from evil men.\u00a0 In Heb. 3:12 it does speak of some \u201cdeparting\u201d from the living God.\u00a0 Interestingly, in 1 Tim. 4:1, \u201csome shall depart from the faith,\u201d a definite place where religious apostasy is meant with the word \u201cdepart,\u201d Paul adds the qualifier, \u201cfrom the faith,\u201d evidently because the word could not give that definite meaning on its own.\u00a0 In addition, Houghton says that in the LXX (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), the word sometimes does mean a religious departure, \u201cHowever, either the context or a descriptive phrase is used to indicate that\u00a0 a religious apostasy is meant.\u00a0 Therefore it might be argued that the word itself was more general.\u201d<\/span>11<\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The point is easily seen that the root meaning of the word most often means a physical departure, and only a few times indicates a religious departure.\u00a0 Kenneth Wuest, being a well-known Greek scholar, writes,<\/span><\/p>\n The author is well aware of the fact that apostasia <\/span>was used at times both in classical and koine <\/span>Greek in the sense of a defection, a revolt, in a religious sense, a rebellion against God, and of the act we today call apostasy.\u00a0 Liddell and Scott give the above as the first definitions of the word.\u00a0 Moulton and Milligan quote a papyrus fragment where the word is used of a rebel.\u00a0 But these are acquired meanings of the word from the context in which they are found, not the original, basic, literal meaning, and should not be imposed upon the word where the context does not qualify the word by these meanings.12<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n In other words, \u201cdeparture\u201d is a good translation of <\/span>apostasia <\/span>in 2 Thes. 2:3.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n If <\/span>apostasia <\/span>is translated \u201cdeparture\u201d it becomes immediately clear that Paul is referring to the rapture of the church, placing it definitely before the tribulation period.\u00a0 This is not to deny that a religious apostasy will also take place (as seen in 1 Tim. 4:11) but gives better assurance to the readers why they were not in the day of the Lord at that time.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n All interpreters who take <\/span>apostasia <\/span>to be the rapture (the \u201cdeparture\u201d) point out that in the Greek text this noun has a definite article.\u00a0 It is therefore <\/span>he apostasia<\/span>, \u201cthe departure.\u201d\u00a0 Since it is a well-known rule of grammar that the definite article points out something definite, it is obvious that whatever <\/span>he apostasia <\/span>refers to, it was something known to the Thessalonians and something most likely mentioned by Paul already in his letters to them.\u00a0 This is critical to the discussion because the rapture has been specifically mentioned in Paul\u2019s first letter (1 Thes. 4:13-18) and already in his second letter (2 Thes. 2:1) but Paul has not mentioned an apostasy, i.e. a religious falling away, at all.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Writers who do not believe in a rapture readily admit this function of the article and yet persist in talking of a religious departure as if it is in the context.\u00a0 John Eadie the Scottish Presbyterian of a century ago, for example, says, \u201cThus <\/span>apostasia<\/span>, so signalized by the article <\/span>he<\/span>, is something so far familiar to them, and on which they had enjoyed previous instruction. See verse 5.\u201d Yet in the next sentence\u00a0 he says, \u201cIt is a spiritual falling away . . .\u201d<\/span>13<\/sup><\/span> But his only proof is that Paul must have taught the Thessalonians the words of Christ during his first visit, thus the reference to vs. 5, \u201cRemember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?\u201d But this is merely conjecture on his part. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n So to what does the definite article point?\u00a0 Leon Wood says,<\/span><\/p>\n In later books (e.g., 1 Tim. 4:1,2; 2 Tim. 3:1-9; 4:3,4), Paul does refer to the last days as a time when men will forsake the faith; but he has made no mention of that idea in either First or Second Thessalonians, and these were the first he wrote.\u00a0 So, then, as the Thessalonians would have read this usage of the word apostasia<\/span>, they would have no background for understanding it as a departure from the faith.\u00a0 Also, since Paul does not refer to the idea of last-day defection from the faith in any of his books, until the last he wrote, it is not likely that it was a subject of which he spoke orally to churches this early in his ministry.\u00a0 Further, when Paul does present the idea in his last books, he does not employ the word apostasia <\/span>in doing so, which suggests that, even then, Paul did not particularly associate this word with the idea.\u201d14<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n Thus we must agree with the \u201cdeparture\u201d view writers such as Wuest when he writes, \u201cIn 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, Paul had given these saints teaching on the Rapture, and the Greek article here points to that which was well known to both the reader and the writer, which is another use of the Greek definite article.\u201d<\/span>15<\/sup><\/span> Therefore the most natural meaning of <\/span>apostasia <\/span>with this \u201cexplicit article\u201d<\/span>16<\/sup><\/span> used by Paul is the rapture of the church to heaven, here called \u201cthe departure.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n All writers of the \u201cdeparture\u201d view point out the purpose for which Paul was writing.\u00a0 These believers were being persecuted for their faith, a persecution which began under Claudius (41-54 AD), and which was now in full swing.\u00a0 Could this be the dreaded day of the Lord which Paul had explained?\u00a0 Could they have missed the rapture which was so plainly taught to them?\u00a0 \u201cPaul is, accordingly, writing this letter to straighten out their misunderstanding.\u00a0 Paul\u2019s answer, in a word, is that this predicted time of trouble which begins the Day of the Lord was still future.\u00a0 The persecutions they were undergoing were the normal persecutions that can be experienced by all Christians throughout the church age.\u201d<\/span>17<\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n But a further reason for understanding <\/span>apostasia <\/span>to be the departure of the church is given by Myron Houghton, that is, Paul, consistent with his style, repeats the two reasons given in vs. 3 again in vss. 6-9. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n In verse 3, Paul states that two events must occur before the day of the Lord can come, namely (1) the \u2018falling away,\u2019 and (2) the revealing of the man of sin.\u00a0 Paul\u2019s reference to this second event seems to be more fully described in verses 8-9.\u00a0 If, indeed, this is Paul\u2019s style, then verses 6 and 7, which describe the removal of the Holy Spirit and the church, would be a more detailed explanation of the first event in verse 3 (the \u2018falling away\u2019).18<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\nThe \u201cdeparture\u201d view revived<\/span><\/h2>\n
\u201cDeparture\u201d is a good translation<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n
The definite article makes the departure definite<\/span><\/h2>\n
Paul\u2019s purpose and style in writing<\/span><\/h2>\n