In 2Th 2:3 Paul clearly tells us that the Day of Christ will not come unless two things first take place. The apostasia happens followed by the son of perdition being revealed.
2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2Th 2:2 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.
2Th 2:3 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;
The word interpreted as a falling away in the King James version is the Greek word apostasia. Bible translators unfortunately have translated this Greek word as the English word Apostasy which means to “fall away” as in falling away from the faith. The word apostasia actually means to physically depart from someone or something. Also the words “that day shall not come” is in italics in English Bible translations because these words are not in Greek text. Apparently the Bible translators were trying to fill in the blanks. However, in this case doing so made the translation more confusing.
This translated passage would better read “Do not let anyone deceive you in any way, because that Day will not come unless first comes the departure, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition”.
All Bible translations that say falling away, rebellion, revolt, or anything similar are just trying to define the word apostasy for you but the context does not suggest the English word apostasy should even be used. One of the best short studies I have seen on this is done by Dr. Gary Gulan. I highly recommend that critics of this departure interpretation read his arguments.
Dr. Guland is not alone in his interpretation. Dr. Andy Woods does a complete study on 2Th 2:3 in this hour-long Video. Dr. Woods also believes that Paul is talking about the departure of the Church in the Rapture. Dr. Thomas Ice and other scholars have come to the same conclusion. The article I linked to and the Woods video will give you all the technical information about the passage. Parsing out all the fine details is over my head so I will just stick to a few common sense arguments for this not talking about a general apostasy from the faith.
The latter-day idea that there will be a great apostasy from the Christian faith hinges on the dubious translation of the single word apostasia. Also, if apostasia is to interpreted as the scholars I referenced suggest, it could lend overwhelming evidence for a pretribulation Rapture. By saying apostasia means a falling away from the faith, a false end times theology could be being advanced and it could also be degrading another. Should any questionable word have such power?
We were warned that in the last days there would come wolves in sheep clothing, wicked vile people and those embracing false doctrines. However, this is not the same as a general apostasy from the faith. These people might call themselves Christians but they never were in the faith. There certainly is false Christianity that has another gospel then the one once delivered. They probably are even the majority in Christendom. Since the dark ages that seems to be the case. Nevertheless, harlot religions like Roman Catholicism apparently was not the fulfillment of what some think Paul said in this passage or they would not still be looking for some latter-day greater apostasy. The Harlot has been around big time since the dark ages so why define false Christianity in our time or even at a later time as the fulfillment of this great apostasy supposition? If Paul actually meant a departure from the faith in this passage, it has been with us since he died. Then why even list it an observable sign that occurs just before the Day of Christ?
The Church Age is defined by Jesus in the seven letters to the seven churches in Revelation. Five of the visible church types during the Church Age receive correction from Jesus but overcomers are found in all of them. All people born of the Holy Spirit are overcomers. In Revelation we are told that some of the visible Church on earth is near dead or grows lukewarm. We can observe that in history and see it in Christendom today but that never was generally true everywhere on earth and is not likely to become true everywhere on earth before the Rapture. Much of the Church from now until the end can be identified with Philadelphia and Philadelphia is faithful and promised to be kept out of the tribulation. Obviously Philadelphia endures until the Rapture. So we know there is no general apostasy among Bible believers who are waiting for the Lord’s coming.
At what point can we say that this apostasy from the faith is fulfilled? And if we cannot define what becomes general apostasy why would Paul even give it as something we should know? It’s not logical.
The mystery of the Rapture of the Church was revealed by Paul in 1st Thessalonians so it only makes sense that in his second letter to them he is building on what he already taught them. He even says so. The Thessalonians were shaken by a forged letter saying they were already in the tribulation. Therefore, it makes sense for Paul to be reminding them that they could not be in the Day of the Lord because the Church had not departed yet. The context also supports that premises because the following verses tell us that someone is restraining the revealing of Son of Perdition and the most logical conclusion to that is the one doing the restraining is the Holy Spirit within the Church. Therefore, the Day of Christ cannot come before the Rapture of the Church.
The notion that Paul was telling the Thessalonians that there first had to be a falling away from the faith would have made no sense to the people he wrote the letter to. There would have to have been a third letter to the Thessalonians to define what in the world Paul was talking about. The fact that no instruction was needed implies that they understood what Paul was saying. The Rapture Theology had already been defined in Paul’s first letter. How would the Thessalonians even be aware of a general apostasy from the faith in the world? They could not. So why mention it to them without giving any rational explanation about that apostasy?
Throughout the Church Age on earth there are those that departed from true Christianity because they were not of us. However, Christians born of the Spirit do not depart from the faith. Paul obviously was talking to mostly believers and it actually made no sense for Paul to be telling mostly believers that they were not yet in the tribulation because they have not yet observed any general departure from what they believed.
When does such an observable apostasy happen where you can say this apostasy is now fulfilled? There were the Gnostic heretics of the second century but obviously they did not qualify to fulfill what some think Paul is saying. There was the Christian dark ages but obviously that did not qualify as the apostasy. Roman Catholicism with all of its heresy did not qualify. Protestantism with all its liberalism did not qualify. Now there are other heresies and abominations but True Christianity marches on in spite of all the false Christianity.
Are we really to believe that Christians will apostatize from the faith in these last days before the Holy Spirit completes the fullness of the Gentiles that make up His Church? Scripture teaches that when the fullness of the Gentiles comes in the Church age ends. The great deception comes on the world after the Church is removed and the Antichrist is revealed, not before. If there were a great apostasy before the Antichrist, why would the religious world even need a false Christ to deceive them?
Is this supposed great apostasy coming all over the world at the same time or is it just in the West? I say that because today we see many conversions to the true faith taking place in nations where there is persecution. Is it just the rejection of true Christianity in the Western nations that qualifies to fulfill the supposed apostasy from the faith?
There is a fundamental concept involved here. Does the Holy Spirit lose the ability to draw people to Christ in these last days or does the Church stay on the offensive until Jesus comes? Does the Church display that the gates of hell cannot prevent the gospel from going out? Or is the great commission agenda defeated by Satan so God has to remove the Church. The fundamental concept is who is sovereign?
We can all weigh the arguments about 2Th 2:3 and decide for ourselves what view makes the most sense. A great apostasy from the faith just before the Antichrist or a Rapture just before the Antichrist? The first view makes it difficult for confessing Christian to even expect to stay saved until the Rapture, but the second view tells us what occurs immediately after the body of Christ is removed. I think it is much more likely that Paul was talking about the departure of the Church in the 2Th 2:3 passage. If that is the case, we need no more proof that the Rapture will take place before the tribulation because Paul in the 2Th 2:3 passage has clearly defined the timing of the departure of the Church for us.
Hello Don,
Once more your acute perception of the Word of God has confirmed, what I had suspected all along, I was always doubtful about the “falling away and apostasy” which many were teaching and there is no clear definition for us to understand. The King James Version has many such translation errors, thank you for the insight, this is one more confirmation from the Word of God, that we will not face the tribulation. (By the way I am a King James Version Bible only person)
John.
Bangalore.
India.
Hi Don, I agree with your opinion on the correct interpretation of Second Thessalonians 2:3. As you state, it makes way more sense than a falling away from the faith. It is one of the scriptures that I have wrestled with in the past as I can’t see true christians falling away from the faith. (OSAS is what I know the bible teaches).
I have “The New Testament An Expanded Translation” by Kenneth Wuest, a past Greek Scholar. I looked up the scripture and this is how he put it:
“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 the lawlessness is disclosed” ….
Thanks Don for a very good explanation. I’ve studied and at time struggled with this in the past, but Thomas Ice is someone I have great respect for. I finally came to agree that the word was an improper one selected by the translator, perhaps as a way to manipulate the church back then, or rather members of the church.
The clincher is always Context. And you made that abundantly clear. The denominations today, who appear to be in Apostasy, are really, only changing to fit in with a politically Correct society. Those leaders were never of the true body of Christ.
There are way more supporting passages that support “departing” as in rapture, than a great apostasy at the end of the Church age.
Hi Don,
I’m in agreement with you and the above commenters. Taken in context, a physical “departure” makes much more sense. I agree also that there would be no way for the Thes. church to know if a “spiritual” departure was going on around the world. The trouble is, too many people think the US is the apple of God’s eye. My feeling is, if you are a true Christian, you can’t depart from the faith. Jesus said he will lose none, and I believe none means none.
Post-tribbers love to use 2 Thess. 2 Verse 3 to dispel any notion of a pre-tribulation rapture by saying “apostasia” means spiritual departure from the faith rather than a physical departure from Earth. We can blame the KJV translators for this.
Even in Paul’s days, spiritual disclension was taking place so apostasy isn’t a sign that Jesus is returning to Earth soon.
Things like this always make me wonder why God didnt hold the hands of the translators to make sure they got it right. My only thought is that some things God has intended to remain hidden until the time is right.
It makes my blood boil when post-tribbers attribute John Nelson Darby and Margaret MacDonald as the creators of the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine.
By the way, does Don prescribe to Perry Stone’s partial rapture theory?
Hi all,
The early Church probably had this passage interpreted correctly but later people’s theology influenced scripture interpretation. Augustian allegory had influenced Christian leadership to discard any literal interpretations of Bible prophecy. By the time of the reformation, the Roman Catholics believed the falling away was those departing from their church and the Protestants believed that Rome was the fulfillment. Then in later centuries people started using the passage to explain all the heresy that they saw rising. It remained that way until these new insights, but even with correction some erroneous thinking in Christendom dies hard.
Hi Leo,
Yeah, the early Church was looking for the return of Christ not the Antichrist. Darby just restored what the Bible literally actually taught.
I believe all in the Body of Christ will go in the Rapture. Of course many of those that identify with Christianity have never been born of the Spirit so they won’t be going. Many of these are not enemies of the kingdom so they will get a chance to become true believers during the great trial that will come to all on earth.
I like this post Don, thanks. I read a presentation 15 or so years ago, by someone (memory fails me) that made this same point about the word apostasia and I believed then and still do. You very succinctly point out the other interpretation has a lot of weakness. Anyway thank you. People need to be reminded of the fact that the Rapture can happen anytime.
Hi Phil,
That is another good point. The scripture teaches that believers should expect the Lord at any time. How is that immanency possible if it occurs after some apostasy and the revealing of the Antichrist? A post millennial rapture of the Church is simply not what Paul taught.
Be Blessed Mister…..love the way you are passionate with handling the TRUTH of Gods Word…..possibly not always hitting the mark, but trying harder than most of us.
Thank you for this post, Don, especially the detailed explanations of why “falling away” does not fit the context of the letter.
A few years ago I came across a teaching by Patrick Heron on this Scripture and he also believed it meant a physical departure (the Rapture) and not apostasy as many believed. It was the first time I’d heard this teaching and it was an eye opener.
Patrick referenced Bibles older than the King James version (Tyndale being one, I think?) and they all translated the word apostasia as physical departure or removal.
You bring out some excellent points. Thanks for taking on this issue
I am not a theologian or biblical scholar. If anything I probably know less about the Bible than most people on this site, but I’m always reading and trying to learn. My naive thought on the falling away was that true believers would literally leave the church, not leave their belief in Jesus Christ, but leave the corrupt churches. I think we’re in a time of great unmasking, not only in our government but within the church as well. I think the unmasking of the rampant homosexuality and pedophelia within the Catholic Church has been Gods way of drawing out the people from this corrupt church so that they may know Jesus Christ. I left the Catholic Church almost 40 years ago and never really knew the Lord until I left. There are people who have left and will continue to leave. Hopefully this will give them the chance to learn the truth. I always thought most of the churches would become so corrupt that it would be like listening to a foreign language when listening to the preacher or pastor. True believers wouldn’t even be able to understand what is being said because the message will have been so corrupted and in turn true believers would fall away, leaving only those who never believed in the first place. I think I may be off the mark, but thought I’d share this anyway.
I agree with the departure.
Have you changed your previous view of Michael being the restrainer?
Hi Adriana,
You touched on a point that needs to be expanded on. If the Church leaves the church building and its institutions for good cause, the members that are leaving would not be in Apostasy. This will occur in the Western nations at the rate the church is buying into worldly ways but it is not happening where Christians are being persecuted and have to separated from the world. It seems Christianity prevails in certain areas of the world until satanic wolves in sheeps clothing and hirelings rise to the top and subvert it. Then the Spirit moves on to more fertile ground. As long as the Holy Spirit is working through Christians toward His end there cannot be a general Apostasy.
I also grew up Catholic and I agree that they do not teach the true gospel of salvation. Any Catholics that find the true gospel of Salvation did in spite of offical Catholic doctrine.
Hi George,
I think the most reasonable view is that the restrainer is the Holy Spirit within the Church. Some years ago I wrote the article about Michael being the restrainer. It was written to stimulate debate. I wanted to see if anyone could destroy my arguments. That did not happen. I am not dogmatic about the restrainer.
I use the argument for the Church being the restrainer here because almost all thinking there will be an Apostasy also believe the restrainer is the Holy Spirit within the Church. The vast majority of evangelicals that believe this then should also see that a physical departure here is much more logical than a falling away from the faith.
Hi,
Presuming the matter of departure is settled (here, that is), then my attention turns to timing, as the text (2TH 2:3) suggests an order, although one might state that it could suggest timing (I would go with the former, not the latter).
But I (we) do have an interest in timing, of course.
I finally got through the attached 8 page PDF (the last 3 pages were references, though) — I noticed it was copyrighted 1986, and it still reads as if it could have been written yesterday.
Blessings, Craig
Excellent article Don, I would say it is the final nail for me. Been sitting on the fence.
Don, thanks for this…like others it’s been a bit hazy. It makes much more sense using that definition of the word.
I looked up up the Strongs Greek Concordance (646 and 647) and it is rather dismaying that 646 is translated “falling away” — ‘apostasia’ is given, but it is directly re-translated as ‘apostacy’.
I used to think I could trust going to the strongs concordance for my in-depth study, but now I have to rethink the whole source. Frustrating.
Interesting and coincidental.
Several years ago my son told me he believed the “falling away” meant a physical departure i.e. the Rapture of the Church. However, because of all the teaching about a departure from faith I I wasn’t certain. I am now, thank you.
Last week I made the mistake of conversing with a group of KJV onlyism on face book. According to them the KJV is the only pure and true Word of God. All other translations are corrupted and demonically inspired because of Westcott and Hort. They won’t even listen to a Bible teacher who claims there is an error in a translated word in the KJV. And I am deceived.
It was a disturbing experience to my peace so I left the thread and have no intention of involving myself again. They are acting boarder line cultish from my perspective.
As mentioned above
Most of the early English bibles ( if not all ) before the KJV was translated departure was used in the verse of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 instead of falling away. The earlier versions make more since to me IMO.
Wycliffe Bible (1384)
Tyndale Bible (1526)
Coverdale Bible (1539)
Cranmore Bible (1539)
Breeches Bible (1576)
Beza Bible (1583)
Geneva Bible (1608)
Read them for yourself and decide.
Hi George,
True, and no explanation was ever given why the translation change was made. Maybe the King James translators wanted to believe that the Catholics had fallen away from the faith. By the way, the Catholic version also translated apostasia as departure.
Its strange the beliefs we just accept without serious study. I used to think apostasy was the laodicea church that is becoming more prominent. However I forgot that much of the “church” had already fallen away long ago. A rapture reference makes much more sense. I wonder what other traditional beliefs we got all wrong.
Don had a question about your previous reply above which I have copied below so you/others don’t need to go find it:
“Hi George,
I think the most reasonable view is that the restrainer is the Holy Spirit within the Church. Some years ago I wrote the article about Michael being the restrainer. It was written to stimulate debate. I wanted to see if anyone could destroy my arguments. That did not happen. I am not dogmatic about the restrainer.
I use the argument for the Church being the restrainer here because almost all thinking there will be an Apostasy also believe the restrainer is the Holy Spirit within the Church. The vast majority of evangelicals that believe this then should also see that a physical departure here is much more logical than a falling away from the faith.”
I think that my belief is that this is the church. My question is how can we consider this restrainer to be the Holy Spirit? It says that the restrainer will be removed. Maybe I believe incorrectly, but rapture happens, church is gone. People as you have stated, “Not enemies of God” will get the chance to know Him and make that decision. There will be a huge revival in the tribulation. It is hard for me to imagine that those believers will not be indwelled with the Holy Spirit. If he is indwelling those believers he is not removed. He might no longer be preforming the job of restraining, but He is not removed. Is the Holy Spirits job restraining through the church, but not His job through the saints in the tribulation allow for this definition of removed? Perhaps I am missing something else or there is some other mistranslation like we have been discussing?
Hi Luke,
I think you have it almost correct. The Holy Spirit indwells the Church that is restraining Satan through spiritual warfare. Or else God’s angels are doing the restraining in answer to believers prayers. That was my Michael conjecture. They really amount to almost the same thing.
In either case the Holy Spirit will no longer be restraining through the Church after the Rapture takes place. Nobody could be saved at all if the Holy Spirit were removed from the earth. That is not even possible since God is everywhere and holds all things together.
In other words, the Church is restraining Satan’s global agenda but after the Church is remove, Satan will be allowed to have his way on earth for a defined time.