Article by Keith Sherlin, ThD; PhD; © Christicommunity
TOPIC: RAPTURE & 2 THESSALONIANS (ESCHATOLOGY)
QUESTION: “Does 2 Thessalonians 2:3 discuss the rapture of the church or the final spiritual rebellion of the church? I have been told that this is one of the clearest and most direct statements on the pre-trib rapture if the Greek is properly translated. But some tell me that the Bible never gives a clear statement on a pre-trib rapture. I’m confused.”
ANSWER: You have asked one of the best questions on this subject. Remember that a lot of those teaching the Bible today do not take the time to do the hard work of laboring in the original languages to learn it. Though a person does not have to know Greek or Hebrew to grasp the main themes of Scripture and to live a godly life (something no language scholar ought to suggest), it does help in some places to clear up confusion on debated texts. In many cases a better understanding of the Greek or Hebrew behind the English or secondary translation provides insight in the text that resolves some of the apparent discrepancies or perceived problems. This text is one of those texts as it seems to me.
But, before I begin, I want to qualify one matter on this subject. I agree with the pre-trib rapture position. Yet I also realize this is not an “A” level truth. I will not break fellowship with those who differ with me. I agree with the Dispensationalists Drs. Tim LaHaye, Richard L. Mayhue, and Wayne Brindle who stated, “the timing of the rapture is not a cardinal doctrine that should divide God’s people, but those who interpret the Bible literally find many strong reasons to believe that the rapture will be pretribulational” (The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy, eds. Tim LaHaye and Ed Hindson, p. 289). A difference on the exact timing of Christ’s coming, so long as we all affirm a future, visible, and actual physical 2nd Coming, does not constitute heresy (full preterism would be heresy however). Christians who separate from others over this matter fail to live in the fruit of the Holy Spirit of love.
Now, to my point on this matter. Most of the modern translations possibly err here. Just as so many people have mistranslated Matthew 5:32b, and consequently creating an enormous amount of confusion on the status of a divorced woman, so too some translations may have erred here and chosen to translate this text with a modern term instead of the more ancient term for the Greek word ἀποστασία (apostasia).
For over 200 years the earliest English translations translated this verse differently than the modern versions do today. The modern verse reads, “Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion (ἀποστασία) comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction . . . .” (ESV). However, the earliest English translations did not translate ἀποστασία as “rebellion” (ESV) or as a “falling away” (NKJV), which are two of the most common translations now. The New American Standard Bible, a very literal translation, avoids defining this term in English and simply transliterates it as apostasy.
However, the following shows how the earlier English translations handled this term.
1384 Wycliffe Bible, “Departynge first.”
1526 Tyndale Bible, “Departynge first.”
1535 Coverdale Bible, “Departynge first.”
1539 Cranmer Bible, “Departynge first.”
1576 Breeches Bible, “Departing first.”
1583 Beza Bible, “Departing first.”
1608 Geneva Bible, “Departing first.”
Not until the 1611 King James version did the new idea of “a falling away of the faith” take root in the secondary translations, especially the English versions from the KJV onward. Those translations prior to the 1611 ought to cause someone to pause before ignoring this perspective offered here. “In view of this history. . . . the earliest translations used the neutral term of ‘departure’ in translating apostasia, either translating the term with a verb or a noun and not indicating what was intended by the term, whether departure from the faith or departure in a spatial sense” (Wayne House, “Apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3,” in When the Trumpet Sounds, p. 270).
Additionally, we would do well to examine the entire context of this book 2nd Thessalonians as well as 1st Thessalonians. As Dr. David Olander rightly says, “No other book of Scripture details the exact beginning of the day of the Lord except Second Thessalonians” (The Greatness of the Rapture, p. 115). I would say that no other book gives the exact specificity on this matter like 2nd Thessalonians. This book makes it absolutely clear that two events MUST (not may but must) occur before Christ returns to this earth. As Dr. Olander says again, “The construction of these verses in Second Thessalonians is very clear. The day of the Lord cannot possibly begin unless the apostasy begins first. Then after the apostasy, and only after the apostasy, is it possible for the man of sin to be revealed” (Ibid, p. 116).
Furthermore, when we examine 1st Thessalonians we see too that this book outlines major themes about the coming of Christ and our departure or deliverance from this world to dwell with Christ. Dr. Wayne House, a preeminent scholar, affirms the view above that the translation ought to read “departure,” i.e. (1) the church departs from this earth first, (2) then the man of sin is revealed leading to the day of the Lord, and (3) the subsequent coming of Christ to earth. Dr. House has solid credentials behind him. He has a B.A. in Classical and Hellenistic Greek from Hardin-Simmons University; a M.A. in Biblical and Patristic Greek from Abilene Christian University; a M.Div. in Pastoral Studies from Western Seminary; a Th.M. in Biblical Studies Western Seminary; a Th.D., Exegetical Theology from Concordia Seminary in St. Louis; and a J.D., Law from Regent University School of Law. That does not mean, for sure, that he is right just because he is well educated. That is not my point. But it is to suggest that solid scholarship supports this option for this text. He is no lightweight theologian. His article, “Apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3: Apostasy or Rapture,” covers the linguistic evidence, historical evidence, and contextual evidence on this matter with precision.
As Dr. House says of this matter, “Almost every chapter of 1 Thessalonians has a direct reference to the departure of the church. [In]1:9-10a, the apostle indicates that they had turned from idols and waited on God’s Son from heaven to rescue (rhuomenon) them from the coming wrath. In 2:19, Paul indicates that the Thessalonians provide him with his hope and joy at the coming of Christ. Chapter 4 provides the most complete statement of Christ’s coming (parousia) for believers. In verses 13-17, Paul speaks of the dead rising first and the believers being caught up together (harpagesometha) to meet Christ in the air. In 5:1-11, the apostle says that believers obtain salvation (soterias), referring back to the same ideas developed in the preceding chapter. Last of all, the verses immediately preceding 2:3 speak of the coming of Christ and our gathering together with him, ideas that summarize the entire emphasis on Christ’s coming given in 1 Thessalonians (When the Trumpet Sounds: Today’s Foremost Authorities Speak Out on End-Time Controversies, eds. Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy, p. 275).
A variety of scholars have accepted the more literal rendering of apostasia as a spatial departure (MacRae, English, Wood, Lineberry, and Wuest). Dr. Gordon R. Lewis (PhD Syracuse University) and Dr. Bruce A. Demarest (PhD University of Manchester) who both teach at Denver Seminary have also stated this about the text:
“a literal spatial departure provides a better parallel with the supporting argument that follows (2 Thess. 2:5-8). . . . After the body of Christ is ‘taken out of the way’ the lawless one will then be revealed. Furthermore, the other alternatives do not fit as well with the purposes of the Epistle–to comfort the Thessalonians regarding the day of the Lord’s vengeance. Only a literal physical departure (apostasia) coheres with constant watchfulness and avoiding date setting. On the posttribulational interpretation constant watchfulness for Christ is unnecessary until a future global apostasy and the appearance of the man of lawlessness. . . . Taken together, these points indicate that a physical departure is more probable than a doctrinal defection. After the removal of the restrainer (v. 7)–the rapture of the church–the man of lawlessness will be revealed (2:3,8), set himself up in the temple and call himself God (2:4), and finally will be overthrown (2:8). Although the church will continue to suffer from the evil world until the rapture, we are promised deliverance from the period of divine wrath on the ungodly” (Integrative Theology: Historical, Biblical, Apologetic, Practical, Vol. 3 p. 421).
Lastly, keep this in mind. A lot of teachers today not only neglect the study of Greek or Hebrew, but they are also ignorant of church history. Uneducated people in the areas of eschatology say all kinds of wild, fanciful, and unsubstantiated things about how the doctrine of the rapture did not originate until J.N. Darby or Margaret MacDonald (or others in the 1600, 1700, or 1800s). Those who say ignorant things like that show how little they have read in this field, or at worse it shows their dishonesty as much literature has been produced to show otherwise. But like parrots repeating what their others say so too some teachers do not dig deep on these matters and they give parrot like sermons and teachings merely repeating what some biased professor or pastor taught them in classrooms or another sermon, usually by some covenant Calvinist who had a disdain for Dispensational theology.
I have always been amazed at those who make such claims. I often will ask them this. Can you name for me 5 to 7 or so works in your library from a substantive, solid, and scholarly Dispensational perspective that deals with this topic? Most answer me that they cannot do so. Why not? Because, as stated above, so many only know what they have been told. They have not invested the time, energy, and resources into actually reading first hand resource material on these issues. Some of them do not even own one book on Dispensationalism or a systematic theology from that tradition. Yet they think they are qualified to teach others why they should avoid Dispensationalism.
Could you imagine walking into a medical doctor’s office and him saying to you: “John you need to try and avoid getting this new disease that has surfaced.” And you ask him, “can you explain that disease to me and how one gets it?” And he replies to you, “not really as I have read no literature in that field.” You would not appreciate that. However, this is how many pastors and professors handle many matters of theology. They want people to avoid it but they have spent very little time interacting and studying what they condemn. It is sad. To be fair, some scholars have produced good works to challenge this view, for which I am grateful. I have no animosity or ax to grind towards those who read scripture, labor in the work of good exegesis, and study the respectable teachers of this tradition and yet arrive at different conclusions (so long as the other views embrace a future coming of Christ). But many still have no idea what Dispensationalists actually teach because they spend more time reading what others say about Dispensationalism than actually reading solid Dispensationalists for themselves.
My professor Dr. Charles C. Ryrie (a Dispensationalist) told us something in class that has always stuck with me. He taught us that we were not ready to oppose any view until we were so well versed in that opposite view that we could argue for it as if we really believed it and could convince others we held that view. Truly educated people examine carefully the views they oppose. Sadly many do not do that today. I do not say that to suggest everyone who does so will still believe what we do on the rapture as so stated above. This issue is a legitimate debate, even among us dedicated premillennialists.
But in my years of study (now 25 years in this field), I see many solid reasons why this position has merit. For one, context determines the meaning of words. In hermeneutics class I remember this phrase we heard often, “context is king.” Words mostly have meaning not in isolation, but rather instead in the context as linked to other words and thoughts to form an idea. I think the best translation here of departure captures the authorial intent because of the purpose Paul had in mind to comfort the saints. How much comfort would it be for Paul to say to these saints who thought they were in the Day of the Lord that what they had to look forward to was the utter ruin of the body of Christ through spiritual defection and the revelation of the man of sin, the antichrist, who likely would kill many of the true believers?
That does not make for an encouraging message. Of course, if it were true then we ought to believe that no matter how it makes us feel. But the purpose of this letter seems to offer a different way to understand the 2nd Thessalonians 2:3 text. Paul stated he did not want them to be “quickly shaken” from their “composure” or “disturbed” (2:2). And the immediate context speaks of “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together with him” (2:1). These clues seem strongly to suggest that the rapture/coming of Christ dominated Paul’s thought process. So with that context it makes sense to see Paul explaining in 2:3 that they did not need to experience distress because before the antichrist is revealed the departure (rapture) of the body of Christ would occur. Now that sends a comforting message, a theme that Paul had taught earlier as to the purpose of this doctrine in 1 Thessalonians 4:18.
That does not make for an encouraging message. Of course, if it were true then we ought to believe that no matter how it makes us feel. But the purpose of this letter seems to offer a different way to understand the 2nd Thessalonians 2:3 text. Paul stated he did not want them to be “quickly shaken” from their “composure” or “disturbed” (2:2). And the immediate context speaks of “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together with him” (2:1). These clues seem strongly to suggest that the rapture/coming of Christ dominated Paul’s thought process. So with that context it makes sense to see Paul explaining in 2:3 that they did not need to experience distress because before the antichrist is revealed the departure (rapture) of the body of Christ would occur. Now that sends a comforting message, a theme that Paul had taught earlier as to the purpose of this doctrine in 1 Thessalonians 4:18.
But whatever position one adopts on this text, I do say these points to you, and others, so as to strongly encourage in depth education. Many who attack, critique, and oppose the pre-tribulation rapture view as taught in this article (and in Dispensationalism in general) do so without a credible foundation. Many teachers preach and teach against it and yet they have almost no scholarly works in their personal library that even teaches the view that they oppose. That highlights their naivete theological knowledge. So do not be fooled or scared when you run across those making outlandish claims like that. The idea of a rapture before the Day of the Lord (the wrath of Revelation 6-19) has support in the biblical text. We believe God shared this truth to us so as to bring comfort, joy, peace, and encouragement to the saints.
Hope this helps. Thanks for asking.
Keith Sherlin, ThD; PhD