Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ HE WHO HINDERS

[Justaned]

Ed said, V.2-5 Paul is saying Jesus will not come until there is a great rebellion against God and the man of lawlessness is revealed. He said this man will defy everything that people call god. That suggests to me that people that still believe in God is still here, in other words the church is still here.

Wrong. It doesn't imply the Church is still here. Not even if you have a wild imagination. Read again. Desperate argument.

Desperate argument? Okay you made the statement please tell me why. To have a god you must have some form of religion, so if this man defies everything that people call a god (including false gods and God the creator) there has to be some people present that believe in God (or there would be nothing to defy) You sure can't defy the god of atheist now can you?

Ed, No one is doubting there will be people present on earth during the tribulation. These people all have gods whether it is Buddha or their golf game. That doesn't prove the Church is still on Earth.

It also doesn't prove the church isn't still on earth. But when we consider the remark of Jesus saying unless the time was cut short even the very elect would be deceived it seems that is talking of the same thing and the church is in fact here.

But the time is cut short. It's called the pre-trib rapture.

Or the time is cut short by the return of Jesus which is what Jesus is talking about when He said this.

[Ironman]

Whether or not the Church is called "she" really has little bearing on the question of the Hinderer. Paul described the Hinderer as both "what is hindering" and "who is hindering" in 2 Thess. 2; it is both a person and a thing.

I agree with the editors of the New King James who chose to capitalize the pronoun in the text as "He who now restrains", making it refer to Deity. The Third Person of the Trinity now restrains (that's who is hindering) and He does so through the Church on earth (that's what is hindering). Who else but God could possibly be responsible for preventing the forces of hell to be unleashed in full fury through the Man of Sin?

The phrase "taken out of the way" is not a mysterious phrase as to its meaning . . . it is widely used throughout Greek literature. It refers to taking some person or thing which is blocking the way, out of the way -- whether by removal or death.

The Holy Ghost is not the hinderer because when the church is taken out of the world, He remains on the Earth. He wont be taken away? So, if the church is taken away and the Holy Spirit remains, it stand to reason that the church is the hinderer.

Earlier you asked;

"Where in scripture do you see it tell us that many will be saved during the tribulation that occurred after the church is caught up to meet the Lord."

It is stated in Rev. 14:9-12 that every person without exception who takes the mark of the beast and worships him will be damned to eternal Hell. If every person on Earth must either take the mark of the beast and worship the Antichrist or be killed, as taught by many, and if everyone who does take it is confined eternally to Hell when Christ comes, as stated in Rev. 14:9-11, who then will be left on Earth for Christ and the righteous resurrected saints to reign over in the Millennium and forever? It is certain according to Psalms 2; Isa. 2:2-4; 9:6, 7; Zech. 14:16-21; Dan. 2:44; 7:13, 14, 18, 27; 12:12, 13; Rev. 1:4-6; 2:26, 27; 5:10; 11:15; 20:1-10 and many other scriptures that all nations will be ruled by Christ and the saints forever, so if all who do not take the mark are to be killed by the Antichrist, or otherwise be sent to Hell by Christ if they do, from where are these nations to come that will populate the Earth whenChrist comes to reign?
The only conclusion si that the Antichrist will be limited in his power over only a part of the Earth and that there will be plenty of people who will not be under him and who will not take the mark of the beast and worship him. It is these people who will be left here for Christ and the saints to reign over.

[Justaned]

Whether or not the Church is called "she" really has little bearing on the question of the Hinderer. Paul described the Hinderer as both "what is hindering" and "who is hindering" in 2 Thess. 2; it is both a person and a thing.

I agree with the editors of the New King James who chose to capitalize the pronoun in the text as "He who now restrains", making it refer to Deity. The Third Person of the Trinity now restrains (that's who is hindering) and He does so through the Church on earth (that's what is hindering). Who else but God could possibly be responsible for preventing the forces of hell to be unleashed in full fury through the Man of Sin?

The phrase "taken out of the way" is not a mysterious phrase as to its meaning . . . it is widely used throughout Greek literature. It refers to taking some person or thing which is blocking the way, out of the way -- whether by removal or death.

The Holy Ghost is not the hinderer because when the church is taken out of the world, He remains on the Earth. He wont be taken away? So, if the church is taken away and the Holy Spirit remains, it stand to reason that the church is the hinderer.

Earlier you asked;

"Where in scripture do you see it tell us that many will be saved during the tribulation that occurred after the church is caught up to meet the Lord."

It is stated in Rev. 14:9-12 that every person without exception who takes the mark of the beast and worships him will be damned to eternal Hell. If every person on Earth must either take the mark of the beast and worship the Antichrist or be killed, as taught by many, and if everyone who does take it is confined eternally to Hell when Christ comes, as stated in Rev. 14:9-11, who then will be left on Earth for Christ and the righteous resurrected saints to reign over in the Millennium and forever? It is certain according to Psalms 2; Isa. 2:2-4; 9:6, 7; Zech. 14:16-21; Dan. 2:44; 7:13, 14, 18, 27; 12:12, 13; Rev. 1:4-6; 2:26, 27; 5:10; 11:15; 20:1-10 and many other scriptures that all nations will be ruled by Christ and the saints forever, so if all who do not take the mark are to be killed by the Antichrist, or otherwise be sent to Hell by Christ if they do, from where are these nations to come that will populate the Earth whenChrist comes to reign?
The only conclusion si that the Antichrist will be limited in his power over only a part of the Earth and that there will be plenty of people who will not be under him and who will not take the mark of the beast and worship him. It is these people who will be left here for Christ and the saints to reign over.

Ironman
You state your case and then make the statement

The only conclusion si that the Antichrist will be limited in his power over only a part of the Earth and that there will be plenty of people who will not be under him and who will not take the mark of the beast and worship him. It is these people who will be left here for Christ and the saints to reign over.

But that is not the only conclusion. Another conclusion is we have the Millennium wrong, as we do the Tribulation. It is very possible that these events are an on going series of events taking place in the church age.

Everyone has the Millennium defined on the a thousand year period but scripture in the Greek is using the term to define a long period. The mark of the beast is never really defined and is speculated on many ways. The tribulation does not in itself contain a time line. The time line only occurs when people apply the 70th week of Daniel to it, and there is absolutely nothing in scripture that suggests such a thing be done. There is no mention of rapture in scripture nor is there any hint of what may be the hindered of the Antichrist.

So all of this is built on conjecture, and ideas people have come up with. Again if Scofield had not been publishing his Bible which contained this concept of Eschatology we would not be talking about it now.

While you may believe this conjecture is right, fact is it is still conjecture built on the weakest of evidence, but knitted together to make a convincing story.

[titus213]

Everyone has the Millennium defined on the a thousand year period but scripture in the Greek is using the term to define a long period. The mark of the beast is never really defined and is speculated on many ways. The tribulation does not in itself contain a time line. The time line only occurs when people apply the 70th week of Daniel to it, and there is absolutely nothing in scripture that suggests such a thing be done. There is no mention of rapture in scripture nor is there any hint of what may be the hindered of the Antichrist.

"In the Greek" the words are "a thousand years", used 6 times in Rev. 20.2-7. THAT is why the Millennium is defined as a thousand year period. The Greek isn't "using the term to define a long period". It is using the term to define "a thousand years". Now, it is true that some folks don't like that and prefer to take this as a non-literal "long period", but that isn't because the Greek language is telling anyone to do so. It's because people prefer to come to the Bible with a scheme in mind and then squeeze what is so clear ("a thousand years") into their scheme ("a long period").

Jesus must have been confused when He applied the 70th week of Daniel to the Tribulation, and gave it a time line.

And many have already proven that the rapture is clearly mentioned in Scripture, along with the hinderer of Antichrist.

I have no idea what point is being made by just beating the same old drum on the same old themes on a DAKE discussion board, whose members are obviously not interested in hearing one of many possible spins on what the Bible, taken non-literally, can possibly teach.

Fact is, you can stretch it to say whatever you want once you depart from interpreting it in a natural way, taking it at face value. What gives whatever your particular take on these things actually is, any more validity than the hundreds of other views proposed by non-literal interpretation of Scripture?

[Justaned]

Everyone has the Millennium defined on the a thousand year period but scripture in the Greek is using the term to define a long period. The mark of the beast is never really defined and is speculated on many ways. The tribulation does not in itself contain a time line. The time line only occurs when people apply the 70th week of Daniel to it, and there is absolutely nothing in scripture that suggests such a thing be done. There is no mention of rapture in scripture nor is there any hint of what may be the hindered of the Antichrist.

"In the Greek" the words are "a thousand years", used 6 times in Rev. 20.2-7. THAT is why the Millennium is defined as a thousand year period. The Greek isn't "using the term to define a long period". It is using the term to define "a thousand years". Now, it is true that some folks don't like that and prefer to take this as a non-literal "long period", but that isn't because the Greek language is telling anyone to do so. It's because people prefer to come to the Bible with a scheme in mind and then squeeze what is so clear ("a thousand years") into their scheme ("a long period").

Jesus must have been confused when He applied the 70th week of Daniel to the Tribulation, and gave it a time line.

And many have already proven that the rapture is clearly mentioned in Scripture, along with the hinderer of Antichrist.

I have no idea what point is being made by just beating the same old drum on the same old themes on a DAKE discussion board, whose members are obviously not interested in hearing one of many possible spins on what the Bible, taken non-literally, can possibly teach.

Fact is, you can stretch it to say whatever you want once you depart from interpreting it in a natural way, taking it at face value. What gives whatever your particular take on these things actually is, any more validity than the hundreds of other views proposed by non-literal interpretation of Scripture?

Ah but it is you that have taken it from the literal interpretation. Since scripture never mentions rapture nor hints of it. Nor does scripture even remotely suggest we are to apply Daniel 70th week as a time line for Revelation.
As for your Greek let us say this topic has been discussed endlessly and the word used in the Greek is better translated a long period of time rather than a specific period of time.

As to why I keep bringing it up is people keep saying I'm wrong offering no new proof, so I quote what scripture really says and they get mad. Sorry!

So please don't suggest I do no take scripture literal unless you are prepared to show me in scripture the word Rapture and where it says Daniel 70th week is the time line for the Tribulation. Until then it is I that is doing the literal interpretation and it is you that is interpreting by applying theories from outside sources.

[titus213]

As for your Greek let us say this topic has been discussed endlessly and the word used in the Greek is better translated a long period of time rather than a specific period of time.

Do you know Greek? I suspect you don't, since the there isn't a single Greek word being used.
The Greek WORDS are "a thousand years" -- chilioi etos. Those two words are no better translated "a long period of time" in Greek, than they are in Englilsh.

So please don't suggest I do no take scripture literal unless you are prepared to show me in scripture the word Rapture

The word "rapture" is just the English way of expressing the Latin rapiemur, and it is found in the Latin translation (the Vulgate) in 1 Thess. 4:17 right here:

"deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur * illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper * Domino erimus"

In our common English Bibles, that word is usually translated "caught up". So the tired old claim that the word "rapture" isn't in the Bible is totally bogus. It's a Latin word, found in the Latin Bible, describing the rapture in the passage we all connect with the rapture doctrine. English translators simply preferred expressing it as "caught up".

. . . and where it says Daniel 70th week is the time line for the Tribulation

Matthew 24:15ff.
WHEN ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, SPOKEN OF BY DANIEL THE PROPHET, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

ForTHEN SHALL BE GREAT TRIBULATION, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

And EXCEPT THOSE DAYS SHOULD BE SHORTENED, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake THOSE DAYS SHALL BE SHORTENED.

[Justaned]

As for your Greek let us say this topic has been discussed endlessly and the word used in the Greek is better translated a long period of time rather than a specific period of time.

Do you know Greek? I suspect you don't, since the there isn't a single Greek word being used.
The Greek WORDS are "a thousand years" -- chilioi etos. Those two words are no better translated "a long period of time" in Greek, than they are in Englilsh.
{/Quote}
Are you saying that Chilioi etos can't be correctly translated Thousands of years?

So please don't suggest I do no take scripture literal unless you are prepared to show me in scripture the word Rapture

The word "rapture" is just the English way of expressing the Latin rapiemur, and it is found in the Latin translation (the Vulgate) in 1 Thess. 4:17 right here:

"deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur * illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper * Domino erimus"

In our common English Bibles, that word is usually translated "caught up". So the tired old claim that the word "rapture" isn't in the Bible is totally bogus. It's a Latin word, found in the Latin Bible, describing the rapture in the passage we all connect with the rapture doctrine. English translators simply preferred expressing it as "caught up".

Okay now we are going to use the Latin or Catholic Bible done by the same people you say are Antichrist to prove a word?
What does the orignal say? Does it have any mention of Rapture?
I think the Greek word is harpagesometha which does mean shall be caught away.
Secondly there is no way of telling is this passage talking of a Pre second comming Rapture or of the second coming itself. Where is it very likely Jesus will gather together the living and dead saints in air as he makes his way to His second coming.

. . . and where it says Daniel 70th week is the time line for the Tribulation

Matthew 24:15ff.
WHEN ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, SPOKEN OF BY DANIEL THE PROPHET, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)

ForTHEN SHALL BE GREAT TRIBULATION, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

And EXCEPT THOSE DAYS SHOULD BE SHORTENED, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake THOSE DAYS SHALL BE SHORTENED.

No where is any of these passages does it remotely speak of a using Daniels 70th week or that it is to be applied to Revelation as a timeline now does it?

The only commonally is the abominations of Desolation spoken to in Daniel.
Which may or may not be the Antichrist and could very well be a practice such as blood sacrifices that were made desolate by the dead of Jesus.

It also says the days will be shortened for the elect's sake. If the elect is raptured then there is no need to shorten the days. If it is talking of those saved during the trib it says they will be martyred so again no need to shorten the days. No if anything this passage is clearly saying the church the elect will be on earth and it could be deceived had not God cut the days short.

That is the literal translation to conclude anything else you must add to it and then it is no longer literal but your understanding.

[titus213]

Are you saying that Chilioi etos can't be correctly translated Thousands of years?

That's right. The adjective 'chilia' is only plural in Revelation 20 because it has to modify the plural noun "years". It is simply wrong to try to say "thousands of years". We might just as well go to the same plural use in Rev. 11:3 and translate "a thousands two hundred and sixty days", or the same plural word in Rev. 12:6 where the woman would flee into the wilderness for "thousands two hundred and sixty days". It isn't valid to do a switcheroo when it comes to Rev. 20 after the same plural adjective is correctly translated earlier in the same book as "a thousand" and not "thousands".

Okay now we are going to use the Latin or Catholic Bible done by the same people you say are Antichrist to prove a word?

First of all, I never said Catholics are Antichrist.
Second, for the entire Church up until the Reformation (and even after) the Latin Bible WAS as close to the original as anyone had. And it has the word "rapture".

What does the orignal say? Does it have any mention of Rapture?

Yes. The Latin word means to carry off by force, to snatch. The Greek word is 'harpazo' and means the same thing.

No where is any of these passages does it remotely speak of a using Daniels 70th week or that it is to be applied to Revelation as a timeline now does it?

Not applied to the Revelation; but your comment said it is never applied to the Tribulation. Jesus does just that, specifically.

The only commonally is the abominations of Desolation spoken to in Daniel.
Which may or may not be the Antichrist and could very well be a practice such as blood sacrifices that were made desolate by the dead of Jesus.

Both Daniel (in his several mentions of the abomination) and Jesus make it obvious it could not be the practice of Jewish sacrifices coming to an end with the death of Jesus.

It also says the days will be shortened for the elect's sake. If the elect is raptured then there is no need to shorten the days. If it is talking of those saved during the trib it says they will be martyred so again no need to shorten the days. No if anything this passage is clearly saying the church the elect will be on earth and it could be deceived had not God cut the days short.

The elect referred to are the Jewish elect; the entire chapter is Jewish: temple, fleeing on the Sabbath, abomination in the Temple, Daniel who received a vision pertaining to his people and his city, etc. Nothing about the Church there at all.

As I said before, when one reads the words in their natural sense, the correct interpretation is found. Begin to fudge on them and you run into trouble.

[Ironman]

Justaned. You wrote;

"Since scripture never mentions rapture nor hints of it."

.

I believe all these Scriptures give much more than a hint that the saints will be taken out of the world by Jesus Christ Himself before not yet arrived, but the coming tribulation!

The rapture is a distinct event in itself and takes place at least seven years before the second coming of christ. The rapture takes place before the tribulation, and the second coming after the tribulation. The rapture is the time when Christ comes FOR the saints (1 Thess. 4:13-17), and the second coming is when He comes back to the Earth WITH them (Zech. 14:1-5; Jude 14; Rev. 19:11-21). At the rapture, Christ takes the saints to heaven (1 Thess. 3:13; 4:16; Col. 3:4), and at the second coming He Leaves Heaven with them (Rev. 19 11-21). At the rapture Christ does not come to Earth (1 thess.4:16) but at the second coming He does (Zech.14:14; Matt. 24:29-31). Since Christ does not come to earth at the rapture, it cannot be called the second coming of Christ.

The rapture must and does take place before the fulfilment of Rev. 4-22, which describes the tribulation period and the Millennium and the New Earth after the Millennium. According to 2 Thess. 2:7-8 it is stated that "the Hinderer of lawlessness will be taken out of the way," "And Then shall the wicked be revealed" and since the wicked is here for the last seven years of this age, according to Dan. 9:27, the hinderer must be removed before the Antichrist comes and before the tribulation that he will cause when he comes. The hinderer refered to in 2 thess 2:7-8 is the church, and also that the Antichrist cannot possibly be revealed until after the church us taken out of the way. Now comes the question of whether the Antichrist will be revealed at the beginning or at the middle of the Week, then it can also be proved that the church is raptured before the beginning and not the middle of the Week as the manchild. In Dan. 9:27 we have one indisputable argument that he is revealed at the beginning of the Week, for he makes a covenant for seven years with Israel and not for three and one half years. The breaking of the covenant in the middle of the Week is not a revelation of him on the scene of action, but an unfolding of what he is to do in the middle of the Week, three and one half years after his revelation. This passage gives one of the scriptural marks by which we may know who the Antichrist is and when he is to be revealed. If the church is raptured in the middle of the Week there would be a definite time set for the rapture and we should quit looking for the rapture at any other time and look for the events which mark the appearance of the seventieth Week. But if the Church goes through the terrible events of the seals and trumpets, then the promise of Jesus that true believers shall "escape all these things" is contradicted and Paul's teaching that the church is caught up before the revelation of the Antichrist is also contradicted, for the Antichrist is here three and one half years before the middle of the Week. Therefore, once we understand that the church can be raptured any day and that there is no definite time set for that event, then we can conscientiously teach others that they should be ready for the rapture at any and all times. In Thess. 5:1-11 we have another definite promise assuring us that the saints will escape the wrath which precedes the day of the Lord. "God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation [deliverance from this wrath] by our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him." The second advent marks the beginning of the day of the Lord. This wrath is revealed in Matt. 24-25; luke 21; Rev. 6:1-19:21 and is to be fulfilled during the Seventieth Week. If the saints escape this wrath, the church must be raptured before the Week or in Rev. 4:1. Prophetical date Setting (Matt. 24:36-25:46) It is definitely stated and illustrated in these verses that no man will know the day or the hour of the second coming of Christ to the Earth. All we may know is "the times and seasons" which prove the nearness of the second advent (1 Thess. 5:1-9). To keep His disciples from speculating as to the day and hour of His coming, Christ gives a comparison showing a similarity between the days of Noah and the days just before His coming and states that men before the flood "knew not untill the flood came and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Matt. 24:37-39; 1 Thess. 5:1-3; Jude 14.

[Justaned]

Are you saying that Chilioi etos can't be correctly translated Thousands of years?

That's right. The adjective 'chilia' is only plural in Revelation 20 because it has to modify the plural noun "years". It is simply wrong to try to say "thousands of years". We might just as well go to the same plural use in Rev. 11:3 and translate "a thousands two hundred and sixty days", or the same plural word in Rev. 12:6 where the woman would flee into the wilderness for "thousands two hundred and sixty days". It isn't valid to do a switcheroo when it comes to Rev. 20 after the same plural adjective is correctly translated earlier in the same book as "a thousand" and not "thousands".

I think you know as well as I do Translators, Greek experts anmd scholars are almost equally split on this. I can produce many experts that insists the only correct translation is thousands of years or a long period of time as you can produce that say a thousand years.

Fact is we can't be sure which is correct and only God know for sure of course we will when Christ returns. So let us not be dogmatic either of us.

Okay now we are going to use the Latin or Catholic Bible done by the same people you say are Antichrist to prove a word?

First of all, I never said Catholics are Antichrist.
Second, for the entire Church up until the Reformation (and even after) the Latin Bible WAS as close to the original as anyone had. And it has the word "rapture".

What does the orignal say? Does it have any mention of Rapture?

Yes. The Latin word means to carry off by force, to snatch. The Greek word is 'harpazo' and means the same thing.

Okay perhaps you never said the Catholic Church is the Antichrist but many who visit this site have. To contribute it to you was wrong and I apologize to you.

That said, I think you have to agree that with the exception of the Latin the only place we see the word Rapture is in non scripture books and writtings.
The word was latched on to by someone and people repeated it. So yes it is in the latin but does not appear anywhere in the Greek nor is it hinted at as to when it occurs.

No where is any of these passages does it remotely speak of a using Daniels 70th week or that it is to be applied to Revelation as a timeline now does it?

Not applied to the Revelation; but your comment said it is never applied to the Tribulation. Jesus does just that, specifically.

Again nothing, nowhere does scripture or anything else suggest, hint or even imply we are to appply Daniels 70th week as a time line for revelation.

[The only commonally is the abominations of Desolation spoken to in Daniel.
Which may or may not be the Antichrist and could very well be a practice such as blood sacrifices that were made desolate by the dead of Jesus.

Both Daniel (in his several mentions of the abomination) and Jesus make it obvious it could not be the practice of Jewish sacrifices coming to an end with the death of Jesus.

How so since Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. Jewish sacrifice continued non stop from the time of Jesus' death and resurrection until the temple was destroyed. So what you are saying here is not exactly the facts.

[It also says the days will be shortened for the elect's sake. If the elect is raptured then there is no need to shorten the days. If it is talking of those saved during the trib it says they will be martyred so again no need to shorten the days. No if anything this passage is clearly saying the church the elect will be on earth and it could be deceived had not God cut the days short.

The elect referred to are the Jewish elect; the entire chapter is Jewish: temple, fleeing on the Sabbath, abomination in the Temple, Daniel who received a vision pertaining to his people and his city, etc. Nothing about the Church there at all.

As I said before, when one reads the words in their natural sense, the correct interpretation is found. Begin to fudge on them and you run into trouble.

When Jesus said this there were only Jews and Gentiles.And you make my argument there is nothing about the church here at all so why use it as proof that the church is raptured? Which is exactly what you did and why I mentioned it in my rebuttal.

The literal would read Revelation without any time line, the literal would read 1 thes 4:13-18 in context and read it as Jesus catching up his people as He returns to earth second time.

The literal reading of Rev20:2 would a long time or thousands of years.

That is literal reading. What you are doing is applying your basis reducing down a term normally understood to mean thousands of years or long time to Millennium, Daniel's 70 th week as a time line for Revelation and taking a passage talking of the return of Christ and making it into a pre return event called the Rapture a word that is only found in the Latin translation of the Greek text.