Author

I’m reading a passage from Arethas (Fragm. in Epist. II ad Thess, 661.15): “SUNUPAKOUETAI TAUTA TOIS PROKEIMENOIS· MHDEIS hUMAS EXAPA THSHi hOTI ENESTHKEN hH hHMERA PRIN TAUTA GENHTAI TOTE THN APISTIAN TWN ANQRWPWN hO DIABOLOS EISHGEN”

I wanted to compare it with 2Thes 2,2: “hWS hOTI ENESTHKEN hH hHMERA TOU CRISTOU”

Is ENESTHKEN in both cases a proleptic Perfect ? That means the events are still future.

My other question is the exact meaning of “SUNUPAKOUETAI TAUTA TOIS PROKEIMENOIS” – I can’t handle the semantics and the syntax.

Isn’t this simply, in the case of 2 Thess 2:2 a proposition that is being set forth by others (that “the day of Christ is here now”) and that Paul disputes? And in the case of the Arethas, it’s a direct citation of the passage from 2 Thess. The enclosing hOTI should make it clear that this is a citation, I think.

I think this is simply saying, “This (TAUTA) is consistent with/in accordance with/implicit in (SUNUPAKOUETAI) what has been set forth previously (TOIS PROKEIMENOIS — PROKEIMAI serving as the perfect passive for PROTIQHMI).

I would tend to the view that in Re 1.3 that is precisely what is intended.

Μακάριος ὁ ἀναγινώσκων καὶ οἱ ἀκούοντες τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας καὶ τηροῦντες τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ γεγραμμένα, ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς.

MAKARIOS hO ANAGINWSKW KAI hOI AKOUONTES TOUS LOGOUS THS PROFHTEIAS KAI THROUNTES TA EN AUTHi GEGRAMMENA, hO GAR KAIROS EGGUS.

The departure in 2Thes is the the Greek noun, apostasia It is used only twice in the New Testament in 2 THESSALONIANS 2:3 and 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 lit. to depart from] 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, andHebrews 3:12). In other settings, the word is used for departing from inquity (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 andLuke 4:13).

This insight about the use and meaning of the word was certainly compelling, but the argument most convicting comes 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)
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.
Also quite important for us is the fact that Paul used a definite article with the word apostasia. 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, it is observed that the use of the definite article would support the notion that Paul spoke of a clear, discernable 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.”

Discussion

30 comments

  1. Troy Day says:

    One problem with the Michael-ceasing-restraint argument is context. It makes little sense to say that “Michael will stop defending your people; the angel who defends your people,” when the context is that Israel will be saved through the tribulation. Compare Dan 12:1Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) with Matt 24:15-16Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 21-22Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) and Rev 12:6-8Open in Logos Bible Software (if available).

    Michael isn’t “standing aside” at all. He is fighting against the dragon.

    And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. And the dragon and his angels waged war Rev 12:7Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)

    Posttribulationist Robert Gundry disagrees with pretribulationism regarding the removal of the church during the 70th week of Daniel. Yet in The Church and the Tribulation (pp 122-128) he cogently argues why the Restrainer can only be the Holy Spirit.

    Ironically, Gundry even states that: “The charge of novelty against this view [Holy Spirit as Restrainer]…does not survive investigation.” We might say the same about the alleged “novelty” of pretribulationism.

    Another issue associated with Michael is his capacity (or authority) to restrain Lawlessness, and the Man of Lawlessness (Jude 1:9Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). While Michael is Israel’s protector, he is never assigned the role of restraining lawlessness in general.

    Renald Showers has shown that the Holy Spirit acts as restrainer of lawlessness. Such was the case before Noah’s flood (Gen 6:3Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). Showers notes that the word “strive” means to govern. It embodies the idea of God’s sovereign government in every realm through God the Holy Spirit.

    F. F. Bruce, Robert L. Thomas, and Gordon Fee generally agree that the timing of the revelation of the Antichrist and the Apostasy (rebellion) are coincident. It is the cessation of the restraint of lawlessness which gives rise to the Man of Lawlessness (2 Thess 2:7-8Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)).

    The idea that the revelation of the Man of Sin occurs at the midpoint of the 70th week is not required of 2 Thess 2:4Open in Logos Bible Software (if available). It is an appositional phrase describing what he does. If we assume the first seal of Revelation represents the Antichrist riding out and conquering, then that strongly suggests the restraint of lawlessness has already ceased at that point.

    • Troy Day
      We say it’s at the Mid point because of the abomination of desolation happens at the Mid point.

      Do not let anyone ·fool [deceive] you in any way. That day of the Lord [v. 2] will not come until the ·turning away from God [great rebellion; apostasy; Matt. 24:11–12; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1–5; 2 Pet. 2:3; Jude 18] happens and the Man of ·Evil[a] [Wickedness; L Lawlessness; C probably the Antichrist; 1 John 2:18; Rev. 13], ·who is on his way to hell [L the son of destruction; John 17:12], appears. 4 He will ·be against [defy; oppose] and ·put himself above [exalt himself against] any so-called god or ·anything that [any object that; or any place where] people worship [Is. 14:13–14; Ezek. 28:2–9; Dan. 11:36] ·and [or so that] he will even go into the Temple of God and sit there and ·say that he is [present himself as] God.

    • Troy Day
      In Rev 12:7-9
      It clearly describes Michael Being in heaven at the time of the War.
      Which would mean he is not on earth.

      Then there was a war in heaven. Michael [C an archangel and protector of God’s people; Dan. 10:13, 21; 12:1; Jude 9] and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But the dragon was not strong enough, and he and his angels lost their place in heaven
      The ·giant [great] dragon was ·thrown down [cast; hurled] out of heaven. (He is that ·old snake [ancient serpent] called the devil or Satan [Gen. 3:1, 15], who ·tricks [deceives; leads astray] the whole world.) The dragon with his angels was ·thrown down [cast; hurled] to the earth.

    • Troy
      After the abomination of desolation is the 5th seal.
      So in the Tribulation we start immediately at the Fifth seal then, is that correct?

    • Troy Day says:

      Daniel Finlay THE problem with the Michael-ceasing-restraint argument is context. It makes little sense to say that “Michael will stop defending your people; the angel who defends your people,” when the context is that Israel will be saved through the tribulation.

    • Troy Day 144k will be saved, the rest that refuse to take the mark will be put to death.

    • At that time Michael, the great prince [C angel] who ·protects [L stands by] your people [10:13, 21], will ·stand aside.

      Edited.

      No it makes sense.

    • Mind you they are not sealed until after the sixth seal.

    • That Translation you are using there has that problem, it doesn’t make sense with the Chapter, or even the verse.

  2. So a better understanding of apostasia is meaning the Rapture correct?

    • Troy Day says:

      This insight about the use and meaning of the word was certainly compelling, but the argument most convicting comes 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)
      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.”

  3. ◄ 646. apostasia ►
    Strong’s Concordance
    apostasia: defection, revolt
    Original Word: ἀποστασία, ας, ἡ
    Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
    Transliteration: apostasia
    Phonetic Spelling: (ap-os-tas-ee’-ah)
    Definition: defection, revolt
    Usage: defection, apostasy, revolt.
    HELPS Word-studies
    646 apostasía (from 868 /aphístēmi, “leave, depart,” which is derived from 575 /apó, “away from” and 2476 /histémi, “stand”) – properly, departure (implying desertion); apostasy – literally, “a leaving, from a previous standing.”
    https://biblehub.com/greek/646.htm

    • Troy Day says:

      Μακάριος ὁ ἀναγινώσκων καὶ οἱ ἀκούοντες τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας καὶ τηροῦντες τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ γεγραμμένα, ὁ γὰρ καιρὸς ἐγγύς.

      MAKARIOS hO ANAGINWSKW KAI hOI AKOUONTES TOUS LOGOUS THS PROFHTEIAS KAI THROUNTES TA EN AUTHi GEGRAMMENA, hO GAR KAIROS EGGUS. The departure in 2Thes is the the Greek noun, apostasia It is used only twice in the New Testament in 2 THESSALONIANS 2:3 and 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 lit. to depart from] 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, andHebrews 3:12). In other settings, the word is used for departing from inquity (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 andLuke 4:13).

      This insight about the use and meaning of the word was certainly compelling, but the argument most convicting comes 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)
      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.”

    • So departure should be understood as the rapture correct?

  4. Clint Packer says:

    The Roman Empire/Emperor was the restrainer.

  5. Brent Payne says:

    I have looked at this one a number of times but I could not ever get a complete answer. It might be the Church, dunno. When you reach past Rev 4 you don’t see the Church anywhere. It’s like she is gone with the bridegroom. Is there some relation to being the salt of the earth? Matthew 5:13-16

  6. Craig O'Dell says:

    There are two different questions that should be asked: “Who is the Restrainer?” and “What is restraining?” God is the restrainer and what is restraining (the 2nd Coming) is the fulness of Gentiles—aka God’s plan to reclaim the nations. 2 Thessalonians 2 hooks back into Isaiah 66 and ties it together linguistically.

  7. The Roman empire had to divide into 10 kingdoms 476ad before the Little Horn could come up among them.
    Dan.7:8

  8. Troy Day says:

    David Allen Stryker your comment here is OFF topic but just to entertain the notion Did Gibbon have access to any sources that we no longer have access to? I recall reading or maybe seeing someone use an excerpt of his work that brought up questions of where he came up with that particular information or how he may have come to a conclusion concerning leaps of sizable magnitudes. I’ve never been able to find a competent answer to this question in my brief searches, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

    Do you believe Christianity is to blame for the fall or ROME and Gibbon worked backwards to prove it, it’s still an important but very outdated historical work. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was written in the late 1700s. How accurate is the book today? Have any major archeological discoveries changed our understanding of the empire since his book was written?

    But yes, Gibbon was a master of 18th century prose but that can still be very boring for a lot of people. Using Decline and Fall as your first Roman history is sort of like trying to learn to drive using a Model T. Then again, I never finished Lord of the Rings, so what do I know? https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/nebuchadnezzar-dream-and-interpretation-daniel-229-45/

  9. Troy Day says:

    Daniel Finlay No translation used just the plain Greek Bible Proves the Restrainer is the CHURCH and no other agent or angel can replace it That’s really all thats to it