Second Thessaloinians 2:5-7 The Restrainer & the Man of Lawlessness:

So we're in 2 Thessalonians chapter two, five through seven. Fast, really quick. Do you not remember, verse five, that while I was with you, I was telling you these things? And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. Verse seven, for the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.

And this is a big section, one through 12 versus one through 12 are its own section. So what Bob presented last week is in this mix too, you can't really separate it so much because it's one. one subject. But last week he presented what I'm going to call interpretation one for this word apostasy, apostasia.

And he did a great job. Only he, I guess I didn't, when I emailed him, I thought that he was in the interpretation two camp. that the apostasy was a departure uh from the earth and he wrote back i think this is correct bob but you said no it's uh i really like uh the way ryrie and schaefer and darby and all these um guys presented and Constable and all those people, right?

Yeah, I think with additional study, Andrew, that was my conclusion. Yeah, and I'm glad. I hope you're still in that camp because we're going to look at both of those this morning. And it's a big subject, and I think if we study this a little more and then put it to bed until next year when it comes The proponents of this first one are Ryrie, Schaefer Darby, all the Brethren, I looked up all the Brethren writers on STEM publishing, and none of them have an issue with the apostasy of falling away from the faith, Schofield.

Keithley, I'm putting in parentheses because I think he's... I read his what he said and I agree with what he says and constable he so but we'll get to that later. My guide Dwight deepened us. He purposely avoids position. on it, and Bob. So, Interpretation 2, and that's the minority view, is James Swigert, who we'll look at today. Kathy told me about Andy Wood, I ordered his stuff, I haven't gone to yet, so I don't know. I'll be interested to read that. Wiest, Wiest is in the Interpretation 2 camp, that the apostasia is a falling away from the earth, or a departure from the earth.

J. Vernon McGee, and these guys I don't know, Lamp, Lydell, Scott. There's also a guy named Frutenbaum. Oh, okay, great. He just changed. He just actually, it's interesting, he just republished a book and changed in 2013.

Good, because that's the problem I'm having too. So, and Roger and I, and Kathy, we'll put her in. So hopefully the goal this morning is to pull Margaret from Camp Interpretation 1 into Camp Interpretation 2. Yeah. I like both positions. Leave Bob where he is. And then... You're such a topster. He'll get kicked out of the house and Jean will kick me out of our house and Bob and I can get an apartment together. Well, the real estate is a little pricey here. I've already had five children, Andrew. Yeah, maybe Port Morgan. Anyway, here's the majority view.

Paul is using the Greek word apostasia as a falling away, a rebellion from the faith in Jesus Christ, and it comes before the man of lawlessness is revealed. And the son of perdition declares himself to be God in the temple at Jerusalem during the tribulation period, also known as Daniel's 70th week or time of Jacob's trouble. So that's the brief view of interpretation one. um and they say this apostasy will be great and profound um now it's interesting there is a great apostate of course in the tribulation as soon as we're raptured there's uh that's all there is is apostasy um But the other camp asks the question, apostasy from what? As you see, from the faith is supplied by the reader. So if you're reading, they've supplied that. because that's not in the text of the language there in the Greek. So, the minority view, Interpretation 2, is that the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and by that they supply, Interpretation 2 supplies the preposition from the earth, the falling away, a departure from the earth. The Holy Spirit is then, by necessity, also taken away as each indwells each believer in Christ.

Therefore, Paul, they say, is talking about the rapture of the saints in 1 Thessalonians 4.17. So that's minority view interpretation. Number two, the word apostasia is a specific apostasia because there is a definite article in the Greek text, meaning Paul's readers should know exactly which apostasy to which he refers. Interpretation 2 says that there's a lack of context of a rebellion from the faith, like in Acts 21, which Bob covered last week.

Hebrews 6.6 talks about a falling away from the faith, and then all sorts of Old Testament passages, which Bob presented last week. have apostasy, that concept in it.

The apostasy Paul refers to in 1 Timothy 4.1 though, interestingly, is he says it's an apostasy in later times and not the day of the Lord.

And other interesting thing is, and this supports the interpretation 2 camp, the second camp guys and men and women, is that in 1st Timothy 4.1, the word is not apostasia, it's ephistomy. But ephistomy is the word everyone wants the word to be in this 2nd Thessalonians passage. but Paul uses apostasia, and that's the great mystery.

Nothing mysterious here, Andrew. Oh, what? Nothing mysterious here. No, no. Yeah, and when you look at it, you're left with more questions than there are answers as to what assumptions the Thessalonians knew and what assumptions Paul had about what they knew. It's really interesting.

So anyway, I think the crux of the issue between the two camps, Interpretation 1 and 2, is Interpretation 1 is a departure And they can use departure too because they can say, well, they're departing from the faith. They're using that, they're assuming it's from a concept or a belief or a viewpoint or a shared common set of mind among people or a faith. their, that's where they are, that's their viewpoint. Interpretation two, as the Zweigart guy will say, is it's not a departure from things of the mind, but spatially, it's a physical departure. It has physical implications and that's the crux of the matter in the two camps. Both are valid depending on your choice of what assumption you make, whether it's a conceptual or a setting of the mind or it's physical. So it's a presupposition unit.

And then right now we're going to look at this James, John Swigert's position paper on the matter. And that's what, that's what I, a couple weeks ago I wrote to Roger and just said, what are we going to do when we come to this verse? And then he said, oh, this is a good paper. So anyway, so it's James Swagger and it's, and I want you not to be prejudiced. It's not Jimmy Swagger. So don't let that. The paper you have is available to anybody that's interested. Yeah, yeah, and you consent or I consent. I wish that Roger had said it to you so you could do it. Okay. I certainly, I would like to have. Okay, yeah, I'll get it to you, Kathy. So 10 points from this.

And we covered this already, there are no prepositional phrases among or modifiers telling the reader departure from whom or from what, or falling away from whom or from what. The departure, falling away, or rebellion from the faith has been the prevailing interpretation for centuries, but Sweigart said it's, that's assumed.

There's a definite article in front of apostasia, point three, point four is There are no other passages in Paul's writings that speak of a great apostasy. In fact, except if you look at that First Timothy one, but it's a different timeframe. In fact, he expects the Thessalonians and he encourages the Ephesians and everyone that they should endure steadfast in the faith. and he commends people for enduring steadfast in the faith, and he doesn't warn about falling into apostasy. Often ignored, Scribert says, are the cognates of apostasia, the closely related words to that word, like ephistomy that we looked at in the other slide in the First Timothy passage. Christ used a word about two people getting a divorce, a certificate of divorce, and that is apostasyon. You see that word there with an T-A-S-I-O-N at the end. And it means, oh, it's a word for bill of divorcement.

And Swigert argues that there's a falling away in the mindset and faith between two spouses And that's interpretation one. But there's also when people get divorced, there's a physical separation. In fact, during that time, the husband would kick the wife out of the house and strip all her clothes away and then get her out of the house. And there's a physical aspect to it too.

So that's a closely related word to apostasy. What Zweiger and the others are arguing is that apostasy and its cognates have a long precedent of being used not only as religious political separation, a departure, but spatial separation as well, as I'm remaking that point there in point six. Point, oh, and here's where it gets really interesting, and point seven and eight, and then it's about done, but these are, this is the good crux of his argument. And I'll just read what I'm quoting, this Karl Conrad, which Zweigart has in his paper.

He's a classical Greek scholar, and he says, for what is worth, the background on this word apostasia is the political usage of that word we saw in the other slide, aphistimine. meaning to remove or depart from. And aphistome is earlier Greek, that's a different Greek word. And then you see this aphist me is used in uprooting a person or community from their fixed habitation. As in the case of forced immigration, there's that word again, is used instead of, is used of uprooting oneself and going elsewhere.

I recall, he says, one vivid text in which Demosthenes, a Greek writer, were a suppliant seated on the altar is asked to and a word for apostasy, and leave the altar and his stance of supplication and accept the reconciliation offered to him. So if you read that, maybe later on, on your own, you'll be clear.

But those words I have in parentheses in the blue, I just cut and paste from his paper. And those were in Greek, so I didn't know what they are. But Word, 365, my auto spell check thing, transliterated them automatically, and it was really cool. But that's the, in blue, is how they were automatically transliterated. So that's why I can't pronounce them, and they're all different. But if you read the paper, you see the actual Greek words.

So anyway, he's saying that He's saying that it could be referred to a person or community, leaving their fixed habitation in classical Greek. Point eight, this Carl Conrad makes, he says it may be used of a group leaving a homeland to establish a new colony elsewhere. And that's the way Pasteros, a Greek writer, and another one, Elliptus, used the verb in this play called Birds, which Aristophanes wrote. And in this play, Birds, They leave Athens and they establish a trouble-free colony in the sky.

So you can see why I bolded that in red and made, you can see how he gets to this conclusion. So this writer, Aristophanes, lived in the 5th and 4th century BC, was one of the principal authors from the Grecian Golden Age. His plays were widely performed for several hundred years in the Grecian world by the time Paul had reached Thessalonica. So I just kind of put a period on this with point number 10. Therefore, the Greek-oriented Thessalonians would have had this common shared knowledge of this play and this concept of apostasia in their mind that Paul would have been describing. And they would have thought about it as departing the earth and going to be with Christ.

So that's the crux of, and he makes more arguments, he makes more, but it gets really technical about, he presents the logic of it and the fact that it's a chiasm, a mirror image in writing and how it has to follow. But that gets really technical, because it's kind of technical already, isn't it?

So what's the correct interpretation? Is it a departure of the saints and the Holy Spirit to another trouble-free colony off the earth into the personal presence of the Lord Jesus Christ or his parousia? That's camp interpretation number two. Or is it a great apostasy of the church before the day of the Lord?

My conclusion, after a lot of back and forth, is, and I'll get to that next week, so. Both, in a way. And here's a couple of my findings. I found there's not, when I read the other guys, the proponents, I found that If you think of it, if they're in this camp where they're, let's see, what do I say here?

The proponents of Interpretation 1 have a timestamp orientation of viewing this passage in 2 Thessalonians as one second after the rapture of the church, meaning there's going to be this they're in the tribulation period. Interpretation 2's timestamp when they're looking at this is they're viewing the passage as one second prior to the rapture of the church. When you look at it that way, then both interpretations make sense. So, interpretation 2's time, or viewpoint is, hey, what about the rapture? So, they're before the rapture and they're saying, hey, there's no great apostasy here. But Interpretation 1 camp's timestamp is they're already in there after the rapture of the church. It has happened.

So, if you view the two interpretations from this time point of view, both interpretations seem valid. It is a question of defining what assumptions and definitions you take to make the case for interpretation. The proponents of Interpretation 1 are mentally within the Day of the Lord as a whole unit. We are discussing the apostasy of Revelation 17, the harlot and the Babylon, the mystery religion, and things like that in Revelation as a unit, as if they were in the Day of the Lord in Daniel's 70th week. and the seven year tribulation program.

Paul could be writing about it this way too. without concern to the sequence of things. You know, first this, then this. Like, Roger, you've been presenting the sequential resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15, and you made a point of it being first, then, then, and you made a big point about it being then, right?

This word then, and there's no real thens in this passage. So, but I found that the people in the camp interpretation one never support a rapture of the church within the tribulation, and they view the rapture as pre-tribulation, pre-apostasy. They don't have the rapture in mind at all, and only the day of the Lord. So there's really no divide in that way between the two camps.

So there's my, it just depends on how you look at it, I think. That's my answer for now, for today, and I'm sticking to it. So Andrew, just a couple of points. Number one, all of us who study the Word of God can turn to multiple commentators and come up with a different, you know, interpretation. So the people you've listed in the interpretation one and two are all credible people. I mean, so the idea there is not picking your favorite person, but picking how you view the Word of God.

Secondly, it doesn't make a hood of difference to us, does it? Right. It doesn't. This is meaningless to us as believers in the church age. Yeah, right. And in fact, Paul tells them that in first Thessalonians, he says, as to the times and seasons of this day of the Lord, you don't have to be concerned with it. Because, you know, you'll, and in second Thessalonians, he says, you'll be at rest. And there's no there's none in there's none instance of or a question of salvation in this or anything like that right um so there's no difference or the person of jesus christ or his you know humanity or deity so it's so yeah it's sort of uh But it's in, it's, it's, Paul dedicates a chunk of, you know, text to it, doesn't he? Plus we have all of Revelation, which is all for our benefit, but, you know, so it's important, but it's not, if you don't want to worry about it, you don't have to, I guess.

I guess it's like the Yankees and athletics game tonight, right? What's going on with that? Oh, nothing. It's just that I'm just using that as an example. Who's going to win tonight, right? It doesn't make any difference. There's no definite article in front of that game, huh? No, but I think the important thing is we all study the Word of God and want to rightly divide the Word of Truth. There's no question about that. That's true of Roger and you and me and everybody else in this room.

So there's no, but this kind of area that, you know, you have to outline, you know, 10 points to make, you know, interpretation two correct. I mean, we probably could list 10 points to make interpretation one correct. Exactly. And each has their, each has their, yeah, each has their strengths, you know, it's really interesting.

So let me just read the list. Yeah, go ahead. Indra, I think what I really appreciate about your teaching today is that it's bringing peace between the two views. Oh, yeah. I think that's a very, very important thing. Yeah, and yeah, that's, yeah, and because I was firmly in camp two, but now I see camp one, I see their point of view too. That wasn't my intent, I wanted everyone to arm wrestle. And I especially wanted to pull Margaret off. Let's leave Margaret out of this. You know, I'll take your picture down from the dartboard now we're good.

Okay, let me read this translation of just this whole section we're in, because it's pretty clear. it kind of amplifies it. So verse one through four, now I'm requesting you, brethren, with regard to the coming and personal presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, even our being assembled together with him, not soon to become unsettled, the source of this unsettled state being your minds, neither thrown into confusion either by a spirit or through word, 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 and 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, and he adds, of the church into heaven. That's what he has. And then I put the view number one, departure, rebelling, apostasy. Unless this aforementioned departure comes first and the man of lawlessness is disclosed in his true identity, the son of perdition, he who sets himself in opposition 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 to be deity. And then verse five, do you not remember that when I was still with you, I kept on telling you these things? six and seven, and now you know with positive insurance that that which is preventing is being disclosed in his strategic appointed time for the mystery of the aforementioned lawlessness is now operating. Only he, and he adds the Holy Spirit, who is holding, and he adds the lawlessness, who is holding the lawlessness down, who will do so until he goes out from the midst of humanity. And the red is what he adds in parentheses to make it clear.

So that is where we are at and that's where we're gonna be next week too into verses eight and 10. So it's a big chunk of, and I'm taking it all as kind of one chunk, you know? instead of doing a verse-by-verse, word-by-word kind of look at it. Oh, so we saw from the Wyss translation in the previous slide that the identity of the Restrainer, and that's our big topic for today, is the Holy Spirit. Throughout the course of the centuries, and here's another, we have a surprise, there have been other interpretations as to the Restrainer's identity.

And that should be no surprise with this word apostasia. So, the varying positions has been the Roman Empire. Some said it was human government. Some expositors said it's the law. Others said it was the church as the restrainer. And then one guy said it was Satan himself. He said, why does it have to be a positive thing? Why can't it be a negative thing? Satan restraining the revelation of the man of lawlessness.

So, as to the law and human government in the Roman Empire, God has obviously throughout history always ordained other authorities to restrain and to check evil, mainly laws and human governments and even the Roman Empire. So that's something that he's always done. The church is seen as salt, which is a preserver, and light, which is a purifier of things on earth. So that's the argument for the view that the church is the Restrainer.

The argument that Satan is the Restrainer this guy, and I forgot his name, he is perhaps biding his time, preparing for the final apex of lawlessness before he reveals his Antichrist, his man. However, Satan, the argument is made against this guy's position, why would Satan remove himself out of the way? Because the Restrainer is going to be removed out of the way. Plus, it's argued that Satan doesn't have this kind of power.

And then you see in all of the above, entities in blue, the Roman Empire, human government, the law, the church, and Satan himself, that God, the Spirit of God, ultimately controls all of those and has ultimate authority. And here's a verse in Isaiah 59, 19. so shall so shall they fear the name of the lord from the west and his glory from the rising of the sun when the enemy shall come in like a flood the spirit of the lord shall lift him shall lift up a standard against him and you can also interpret that verse so it reads the spirit of the lord shall restrain him because i guess that When you lift up a standard against someone in the Old Testament times, that's a, I guess it's like a banner or a flag and, you know, you aren't coming past this army, I think is the sort of idea. So it's pretty clear that it's the Holy Spirit who's the restrainer. Now let's look at verse 5 really briefly of 2 Thessalonians chapter 2. And it's a very simple, it requires no great exegesis does it?

He's simply saying, apparently Paul gave him all of this information when he was with Thessalonians. about the Holy Spirit and his ministry of restraining evil until the 70th week of Daniel. He gave them information about the apostasia, the Antichrist, the Antichrist exalting himself in the temple, which is called the abomination of desolation. And he gave them all this information. He's simply reminding them of those facts. And we definitely know that Paul instructed them on that they were to be snatched away or carried off by force into the air to be present with Christ because he talks about that in 1st Thessalonians 4 and verse 17.

Now this concept of the mystery of lawlessness in verse 7 is a parallel to Matthew 13's, the parable of the wheat and the tares. These are sons of the evil one in the present age, in the present church age, and they are destined for wrath at the tribulation. Those are the tares. So, and you remember the parable There's a field and wheat's coming up, but there's some tares and the workers want to go out and root out the tares and Christ, the owner of the field says, no, let the tares grow up with the wheat and then we'll take care of the tares later. So, the idea is that this lawlessness is already at work in this present age. And again, it supports Interpretation 1's viewpoint there. The mystery of lawlessness is also compared to leaven in bread in Matthew 13, 33 through 35. A very little leaven goes a long way, doesn't it? A little of it goes a great deal, goes far in as far as going in its corrupting power. A little evil goes a long way with the idea.

And here, I think this is my last point, but a very recent example of restraining power of anything is the power of 2,500 US troops or less in Afghanistan, and the effect that when they're taken out of the mists of Afghanistan, quickly, instantaneously, what happens? It's kind of a tribulation. So, that's a very, I think that's a very parallel thought there. So, that's it there.

And then we'll go on to the Antichrist next week and things like that in the rest of the passage. And that is that there is an angel for each of the nations. Okay. And in Daniel we have a definite teaching about that. Yeah. Daniel prayed it was a great delay because the angel that revealed to him the future events was delayed by warfare in heaven. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Apparently, there... advocating that position, I'm saying that that's another possibility. Yeah. And who is that, Roy? Who takes that position?

I don't remember where I read it with you, but I read it in regards to this passage, not being the Holy Spirit, but because of the masculine pronoun, he, being used as well as the Oh, okay. And I'll try and look at this for next week, I'll look at this one thing I saw about a demon and his involvement with the Antichrist and things. something kind of related to that. I'll try and find that again and we can look at that a little more.

But Roy, what's your, where do you come out on the apostasia side? I was interested in what you thought. If it is that, the culture of us, what effect would that have on the world, being so small whatever the apostasy is, and two, whatever the false Christ is, that's what he's focusing on.

Right, yeah. And those things have to happen before he's revealed. That's what the text actually says. without having your presuppositions on it. he mentions the rapture very briefly in verse one, our gathering together with him, but then he goes on and maybe he takes it as a whole lump of dough, and he's hitting the points of, he hits the beginning of the tribulation, he hits the midpoint, and then he hits the end of the tribulation, so he just hits beginning, middle of end, So he, and he's not going into detail, but his concern is, yeah, the Antichrist and the... This man, this text, you asked me, he is identifying, are they in the day of the Lord? No, they're not.

Right. That's what the text says. Yeah. Yeah. This is prophecy, right? Yeah. Yes, and thanks. That's their error, okay, was that they thought they were the dead Lord. Right. And he's correcting that. Yeah, and thanks for that, because I wanted to say, I agree with that. I think what he's trying to say is, the crux of what Paul's trying to say is, do Thessalonians, do you see this man of lawlessness? No, you don't. Do you see him setting himself up in the temple? No, you don't. Do you see the restrainer removed? No, you don't see these things, so you're not in the day of the Lord, is his point, right?

Right. Yeah, and I came to that too. I didn't put that in my slides here, but yeah, that's where I'm at too. And one of the things that we need to be careful about is derogatory statements between believers over this are warranted. Really. Yeah. Rosenthal made some pretty drastic statements about creatures and people in his review of the coming of the Lord. And he caused a great deal of stir among Yeah, I noticed that William Kelly will call out people, but that was 150 years ago, but yet he does call out people who differ from him. So I'm sorry, Bob, for all those things I said about you. You're forgiven, Andrew, but I didn't hear anything negative said about me. It's just my interpretation, right? But I think Roy put good words on this.

Oh, yeah. I mean, the instruction to the church was the day of the Lord's not here, right? Right. Yeah, that's important. Number two, Since there are so many views on this, and again, I think we just aren't sure, are we? I mean, but nevertheless, I think we can look at this as the word of God and have, by the way, that wouldn't be our only question when we get to heavenly places permanently, right?

So anyway, but it's good. Your teaching's been wonderful. Thank you. You're a great teacher. Thank you. Oh, thank you. Well, yeah, I was hoping it would be a little clear. I just, it's hard to make it clear, but hopefully it did come out that way. So thanks. Okay, we better skedaddle here and I'll pray. Heavenly Father, thank you for this time that we had in fellowship in your word this morning and be with us throughout the week and we pray these things in Jesus' name. Amen.