The Restrainer is the Holy Spirit, Not Michael the Archangel

[mark s]

Hi Orange Mailman,

If you read this sentence in English:

And now, the thing that is holding, you have come to know, unto the revealing of him, in his own time.

Would you think that "now" is referring to "the thing that is holding"?

I wouldn't.

So, why would someone reading ancient Greek think any differently?

Besides, as I said before, if Paul wanted "now" to refer to "the thing that is holding," he would have had to place the word "now" in a different position...............

...................preferably as follows:

καὶ …………………………………………………………and
τὸ...............................................the
νῦν …………………………………………………………now
κατέχον …………………………………………….....holding [thing]
οἴδατε …………………………………………………….you have come to know
εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν …………………unto the revealing of him
ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ ……………………………….in his own time

HI watching,

The article and the noun are a unit, to katechon. Putting nun between to and katechon would be poor grammar. So nun, as an adverb, is correctly placed before to katechon, a participle verb standing as a noun.

In English, we move the adverb to after the article, so we read, "the now holding (thing)", but this in no wise means that the Greek should have been written in that order for the English to be read in that order. This is a very proper translation.

When translating Koine Greek, you need to keep in mind what the syntactic units are, and treat them accordingly.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[watching]

The article and the noun are a unit, to katechon. Putting nun between to and katechon would be poor grammar. So nun, as an adverb, is correctly placed before to katechon, a participle verb standing as a noun.

In English, we move the adverb to after the article, so we read, "the now holding (thing)", but this in no wise means that the Greek should have been written in that order for the English to be read in that order. This is a very proper translation.

Well, then Matthew and Mark must have been using some bad grammar, because here are just a few examples where other words can go between the article τὸ and the word serving as a noun.

But it's probably not just Matthew and Mark who were using this bad grammar. However, that's only as far as I got, because I don't have time to look at all 1,694 entries of the word τὸ in the New Testament.




In any case, here are just a few examples:

Matthew 12:43 ὅταν δὲ τὸ ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα ἐξέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου διέρχεται δι' ἀνύδρων τόπων ζητοῦν ἀνάπαυσιν καὶ οὐχ εὑρίσκει.

the unclean spirit
τὸ ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα

But the unclean spirit, when he is gone out of the man, passes through waterless places, seeking rest, and doesn't find it.

Matthew 13:37 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν• ὁ σπείρων τὸ καλὸν σπέρμα ἐστὶν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου,

the good seed
τὸ καλὸν σπέρμα

He answered them, "He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man,

Matthew 18:20 οὗ γάρ εἰσιν δύο ἢ τρεῖς συνηγμένοι εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα, ἐκεῖ εἰμι ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν.

the my name
τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them."

Matthew 20:10 καὶ ἐλθόντες οἱ πρῶτοι ἐνόμισαν ὅτι πλεῖον λήμψονται καὶ ἔλαβον τὸ ἀνὰ δηνάριον καὶ αὐτοί.

the one denarius
τὸ ἀνὰ δηνάριον

When the first came, they supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise each received a denarius.

Matthew 20:23 λέγει αὐτοῖς• τὸ μὲν ποτήριόν μου πίεσθε, τὸ δὲ καθίσαι ἐκ δεξιῶν μου καὶ ἐξ εὐωνύμων οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμὸν [τοῦτο] δοῦναι, ἀλλ' οἷς ἡτοίμασται ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός μου.

the indeed cup my
τὸ μὲν ποτήριόν μου

He said to them, "You will indeed drink my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with, but to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it is for whom it has been prepared by my Father."

Matthew 25:24 προσελθὼν δὲ καὶ ὁ τὸ ἓν τάλαντον εἰληφὼς εἶπεν• κύριε, ἔγνων σε ὅτι σκληρὸς εἶ ἄνθρωπος, θερίζων ὅπου οὐκ ἔσπειρας καὶ συνάγων ὅθεν οὐ διεσκόρπισας,

the one talent
τὸ ἓν τάλαντον

"He also who had received the one talent came and said, 'Lord, I knew you that you are a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter.

Matthew 26:41 γρηγορεῖτε καὶ προσεύχεσθε ἵνα μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς πειρασμόν• τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα πρόθυμον ἡ δὲ σὰρξ ἀσθενής.

the indeed spirit
τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα

Watch and pray, that you don't enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Mark 4:5 καὶ ἄλλο ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ τὸ πετρῶδες (καὶ) ὅπου οὐκ εἶχεν γῆν πολλήν, καὶ εὐθὺς ἐξανέτειλεν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν βάθος γῆς•

because of the not having depth
διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν βάθος

Others fell on the rocky ground, where it had little soil, and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of soil.

Mark 4:6 καὶ ὅτε ἀνέτειλεν ὁ ἥλιος ἐκαυματίσθη καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ῥίζαν ἐξηράνθη.

because of the not having root
διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ῥίζαν

When the sun had risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.

Mark 7:18 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς• οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε; οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι

the outward thing that is entering into the man
τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον

He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Don't you perceive that whatever goes into the man from outside can't defile him,

When translating Koine Greek, you need to keep in mind what the syntactic units are, and treat them accordingly.

That's right.

The syntax is as follows:

And now...................you know

Just as it would be in English.




By the way, you never answered my question:

mark s wrote: That which is being restrained is the secret working of lawlessness, and when that restraint ceases, the wicked one will be revealed.

Where does it say this in the scripture?

[mark s]

The article and the noun are a unit, to katechon. Putting nun between to and katechon would be poor grammar. So nun, as an adverb, is correctly placed before to katechon, a participle verb standing as a noun.

In English, we move the adverb to after the article, so we read, "the now holding (thing)", but this in no wise means that the Greek should have been written in that order for the English to be read in that order. This is a very proper translation.

Well, then Matthew and Mark must have been using some bad grammar, because here are just a few examples where other words can go between the article τὸ and the word serving as a noun.

But it's probably not just Matthew and Mark who were using this bad grammar. However, that's only as far as I got, because I don't have time to look at all 1,694 entries of the word τὸ in the New Testament.

Hi watching,

The examples you've listed are for adjectives, not adverbs. I did not say that adjectives cannot be placed between an article and its noun. Nun is an adverb, not an adjective. An adjective would be correctly placed before the noun, and after the article, these forming a syntactical unit.

What I wrote was that "nun" does not grammatically belong between the article and the noun.

When translating Koine Greek, you need to keep in mind what the syntactic units are, and treat them accordingly.

That's right.

The syntax is as follows:

And now...................you know

Just as it would be in English.

I disagree. Nun before to katechon belongs to it, "the [thing] now holding/keeping". Nun does not join with a conjunction, kai, and, "and now". Were that to be what was being said, nun would appear with oidate, "and the [thing] keeping now you know".

By the way, you never answered my question:

mark s wrote: That which is being restrained is the secret working of lawlessness, and when that restraint ceases, the wicked one will be revealed.

Where does it say this in the scripture?

If we can't agree on how to translate, how will we agree on this?

Love in Christ,
Mark

[watching]

The examples you've listed are for adjectives, not adverbs. I did not say that adjectives cannot be placed between an article and its noun. Nun is an adverb, not an adjective. An adjective would be correctly placed before the noun, and after the article, these forming a syntactical unit.

What I wrote was that "nun" does not grammatically belong between the article and the noun.

Hi mark,

Can you show me an example in the scripture where an adverb modifying a participle serving as a noun is placed before the participle rather than after the participle?

I would just like to see some examples, please; if you don't mind.

By the way, if it is common to place the adverb before the verbal noun in the Greek, then why didn't Paul do this again in verse 7?

2:7 τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται

For the mystery already is at work of iniquity only the one who is holding now until out of the middle he becomes

So, why did Paul place the adverb "now", which was modifying the participle ὁ κατέχων (the one who is holding), after the participle ὁ κατέχων in verse 7???

Why not be consistent?

It would seem to me that, if it were common to place the adverb "now" before the verbal noun τὸ κατέχον , that Paul would have again phrased it this way, for verse 7, in order for his writing style to be consistent, and grammatically correct.

So why didn't Paul write verse 7 as follows?

2:7 τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας μόνον ἄρτι ὁ κατέχων ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται

For the mystery already is at work of iniquity only now the one holding until out of the middle he becomes.

Wouldn't "now" more easily be understood to be referring to "the one who is holding" if adverbs were commonly placed before the verbal noun..................

..............especially since, according to your understanding, "now" was so easily understood to be referring to τὸ κατέχον in verse 6?

So, why didn't Paul phrase it this way again, in order to be consistent, and, therefore, not create any confusion, not to mention, be grammatically correct?

[mark s]

Hi watching,

Since this is a different word we're looking at here, I'll need to wait until I'm home with sufficient time to check my Greek Grammars. I was looking specifically at "nun", not "arti"

I am drawing from my New Testament Greek class, but more from my New Testament Greek Grammar books to keep me fresh on the rules of Koine Greek.

On the other hand, to tell the truth, I'm not so much inclined towards a protracted debate on this particular point at this time.

If you are interested in researching Koine grammar, I can point you in a couple of directions. I've most recently been trying to digest some from Smyth, but, wow, his is pretty detailed, and I tend to glaze after not too long!



Love in Christ,
Mark

[shorttribber]

I'm sufficiently "glazed" at this point "it's all Greek to me"

[watching]

Hi mark s,

You need to be able to back up your claims. You cannot just say, "Well, I don't feel like debating anymore."

It could be that the reason an adverb cannot go between the article τὸ and the verbal noun κατέχον, is because AN ADVERB CANNOT PRECEDE A VERBAL NOUN TO BEGIN WITH.

Consider my last example, which is very similar in nature to 2 Thessalonians 2:6 in terms of the grammar issue in question, except for the fact that an adjective is being used to modify a verbal noun rather than an adverb:

Mark 7:18 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς• οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε; οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι



the outward thing that is entering into the man
τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον

He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Don't you perceive that whatever goes into the man from outside can't defile him,

So, let's try substituting an adverb instead of the adjective "outward" in the above sentence.

For example, let's just try the word "quickly" and see how that sounds.

So, here is the sentence in Greek.

καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς• οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε; οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι

And here is how this sentence would translate literally:

He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Don't you perceive that whatever the outward thing that is entering into the man can't defile him,

Okay, so let's try substituting an adverb in the place of the word "outward."

Let's just try the word "quickly," for example, just to see how that sounds in the English.

He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Don't you perceive that whatever the quickly thing that is entering into the man can't defile him,

So, as you can see, that does not make any sense, even in the English.

However, let's try placing the word "quickly" after the verbal noun.

He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Don't you perceive that whatever the thing that is entering quickly into the man can't defile him,

So, as you can see, placing the adverb after the verbal noun, does not present any problems in the English.

MY PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE SAME RULE APPLIES IN THE GREEK, AS WELL!!!!

The Greek word for "quickly" is ταχύ. So, I am going to try to place the word ταχύ, which means "quickly" in place of the word ἔξωθεν, which means "outward" in Greek.

So, let's just try this to see how it sounds.

καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς• οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε; οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν ταχύ τὸ εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι

He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Don't you perceive that whatever quickly the thing that is entering into the man can't defile him,

So, would the above sentence be grammatically correct?

Or would the one below be more correct?

καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς• οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε; οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ εἰσπορευόμενον ταχύ εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι

He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Don't you perceive that whatever the thing that is entering quickly into the man can't defile him,

[morpheus]

There is a time and place for Greek and Hebrew analysis, but come on guys - this is getting out of hand. The solution to these questions do not lie in better translation analysis. One can go down that path forever using your current technique and never find a definitive solution. The answer is found not in zooming in at the leaves, but zooming out and looking at the forest.

In fact I'll go out on a limb here. I do not know of any doctrinal issue that rises or falls on this type of language analysis. Not to say good analysis doesn't help. It does. Don't think I say this analysis doesn't have a time and place. But I do not know of one instance where there isn't a more clear passage-to -passage comparison that answers the questions better. Any significant question that is. I think language guys greatly overestimate the weight of their evidence and the ability to solve problems. When one's a hammer, all the world is a nail.

The hermeneutical principle is the more clear interpret the less clear. In this instance, they will strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. How so? Try this camel.

Numerous times in Scripture Michael is stated as doing something significant at this time and place. He is said to "amad" - "stop doing what he is doing" (Daniel 12). What was he doing? Standing up for Israel. He goes to Heaven and kicks Satan and the fallen angels to earth. Satan comes down and the worst time in history takes place. (Rev 12) No amount of zooming in changes these facts. Nobody debates these facts. When we look at the details in 2 Thess, we need to let Scripture explain the less clear details, not our limited language analysis of a ambiguous reference change the clear big picture.

"Out of the middle he comes" - does anybody disagree this is talking about the middle of the seventieth seven of Daniel? In Daniel and Revelation we have a specific name - Michael. In 2 Thess 2 we have a reference to somebody who we are suppose to already know about. The HS is never mentioned in all of Scripture as doing something significant at the midpoint of the 70th seven. Michael is numerous times. The more clear explains the less clear. Michael is therefore the restrainer.

Not only is there good evidence Michael is the restrainer, but there is no evidence to the contrary. Is Michael strong enough to restrain? Michael is plenty strong enough to fight Satan and evil and hold it back. He has been contending with Satan since at least Moses' time. (Jude) We know he wins in Daniel and in Revelation. Why not Michael? Again, time , place, and function all match. And no evidence to the contrary.

Paul talks about the HS plenty of times in the NT. If Paul was referring to the HS in 2 Thess 2, then why not just say it? Paul even talks of governments (Rom 13), if that is what he was referring to then why not just say it? Paul would not need to further explain these players. But never once does Paul mention Michael by name in any epistle. Mentioning Michael by name in 2 Thess 2 introduces a whole new rabbit trail Paul would need to explain to a lot of people. So he finds a way to avoid getting bogged down, skips by it and stays on track. So there is even a good reason why Paul does not mention a name in 2 Thess 2.

Again, this last line of reasoning is not the main proof but it gives an explanation why Paul did what he did. The HS and government are understood by all. Michael was not. Therefore Paul's beating about the bush makes sense. So not only do the facts match of person, place, and weapon, but we have motive too. This is a key fact in convicting a criminal in court. One should explain a motive. Now we have one. We also have shown the other possible answers do not explain a motive.

A good detective could can figure out what cards are in the middle of the game of Clue. Michael in the 70th seven room, with the sword.

[mark s]

Numerous times in Scripture Michael is stated as doing something significant at this time and place. He is said to "amad" - "stop doing what he is doing" (Daniel 12). What was he doing? Standing up for Israel. He goes to Heaven and kicks Satan and the fallen angels to earth. Satan comes down and the worst time in history takes place. (Rev 12) No amount of zooming in changes these facts. Nobody debates these facts. When we look at the details in 2 Thess, we need to let Scripture explain the less clear details, not our limited language analysis of a ambiguous reference change the clear big picture.

Simpler still. The one who stands for Israel will do just that - stand.

At the time Satan is most aggressive against Israel.

At the time that much of Israel is being protected by God in the wilderness.

The one who protects them will do just that.

Why should we question this? Why should we think Michael deserts those he is assigned to protect?

Love in Christ,
Mark

[drdos]

Not to be sarcastic or anything, but 4 pages and a gazillion posts does it matter who the restrainer is?? Just glad that God is restraining, and one day Christ will return.

[Jay Ross]

Not to be sarcastic or anything, but 4 pages and a gazillion posts does it matter who the restrainer is?? Just glad that God is restraining, and one day Christ will return.

What an

You really have to at his observation

And agree with him

[mark s]

Not to be sarcastic or anything, but 4 pages and a gazillion posts does it matter who the restrainer is?? Just glad that God is restraining, and one day Christ will return.

What an

You really have to at his observation

And agree with him

Gotta love it!!!

[The Orange Mailman]

Hey Watching-

I've probably added about as much as any Orange Mailman can add to a conversation. But I did want to ask, since you have been pretty thorough about providing answers and wanting to defend your thesis, what do you make of my comments concerning Paul's use of the perfect tense for "know"? You stated that it is best translated "have come to know", indicating that it functions somewhat like a past tense with results in the present. But you know Greek better than me. If Paul states in his letter that "you have come to know", then wouldn't a present tense adverb have to be modifying something else since the "have come to know" is definitely not in the present tense? Paul would have been conveying that "you have come to know" meaning that they knew at the time that Paul penned the letter, not hypothetically later as they read the letter. So there is the question of whether "now" could refer to "have come to know" or the restraining. If one option has been eliminated, the other option is now the obvious choice.

Also, I mentioned that I'm really struggling with the idea that the man of sin was the restraining in the first century. You have stated that the man of sin is the restraining, but how can this be? The man of sin obviously didn't exist in the first century. How could he be the restraining as Paul wrote? "Only he who now restrains...", according to your view, Paul was writing about the man of sin like he was alive and restraining at the time that he wrote.

Thanks in advance.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

[watching]

Hi Orange Mailman,

Good to hear from you!

But I did want to ask, since you have been pretty thorough about providing answers and wanting to defend your thesis, what do you make of my comments concerning Paul's use of the perfect tense for "know"? You stated that it is best translated "have come to know", indicating that it functions somewhat like a past tense with results in the present. But you know Greek better than me. If Paul states in his letter that "you have come to know", then wouldn't a present tense adverb have to be modifying something else since the "have come to know" is definitely not in the present tense? Paul would have been conveying that "you have come to know" meaning that they knew at the time that Paul penned the letter, not hypothetically later as they read the letter. So there is the question of whether "now" could refer to "have come to know" or the restraining. If one option has been eliminated, the other option is now the obvious choice.

First of all, I didn't know adverbs have tenses.

If they do, I have never heard of such a thing.

But, in any case, concerning the word οἴδατε...............

The word οἴδατε, basically means "you have seen."

But "see" can also mean "know" just as it would in English.

Do you "see" what I mean?

So, basically, Paul is saying, "And now you've seen what is holding.........."

or

"And now, what is holding, you have seen................

So, have you seen, what I mean?????

If the answer is yes, then I guess it would be safe for me to say.......

And Now, you have seen what I mean.

Haven't you?

So, is there anything wrong with saying, "And now you have seen.........." in English?

Or would you need to use a past tense adverb?

Sorry, if I'm sounding cynical.

I'm really not trying to be.

I'm just trying to help you understand.

So, have you seen what I mean yet?


*******************************************************************************************************************************

Edit:


I almost forgot about the second part of your question:

Also, I mentioned that I'm really struggling with the idea that the man of sin was the restraining in the first century. You have stated that the man of sin is the restraining, but how can this be? The man of sin obviously didn't exist in the first century. How could he be the restraining as Paul wrote? "Only he who now restrains...", according to your view, Paul was writing about the man of sin like he was alive and restraining at the time that he wrote.

1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

[The Orange Mailman]

Hello Watching-

But "see" can also mean "know" just as it would in English.
Do you "see" what I mean?
So, basically, Paul is saying, "And now you've seen what is holding.........."
or
"And now, what is holding, you have seen................
So, have you seen, what I mean?????
If the answer is yes, then.......
Now, you have seen what I mean.
Haven't you?

No, I saw what you meant before you even posted. Just kidding. That's a fair enough response. Not that it sways me though. I still see the restraining NOW as opposed to the future when he will be revealed in his time.

But as far as the second issue in quoting First and Second John, that isn't going to fly with me. John specifically states that there will be one future antichrist as opposed to the many antichrists, I John 2:18. And Paul was writing about that one future antichrist in particular, not about the many antichrists. So the idea of the one future antichrist being present tense in Paul's day seems completely incongruous with the surrounding passage in II Thess. 2. There will only be one man of sin that sits in the temple proclaiming to be God. You yourself see a specific future rebellion for the apostasy. That goes hand in hand with the one future man of lawlessness committing the abomination of desolation. So again...

Only he (the man of sin in your view) who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.

I just can't grasp this as a possible reading for the passage.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

[watching]

Hi Orange Mailman,

I was editing my post as you were posting.

Anyway, if it were your stated goal, that you would not retire until your great grandson was born; however, you have not had any children yet; then could you reasonably say the following?

"And now you know what is keeping me from retiring.....
............only he who is keeping me from retiring now, will do so, until the moment that little........whatever you want to call him.....pops out!

Would it matter that your great grandson hasn't been born yet?

[watching]

Hi OM or anyone else who might be interested,

Okay, it’s really gotten quiet around here. So how about another post?

I just wanted to say, that if there is anything about 2 Thessalonians 2 that has me stumped, it would be the latter part of verse 7.

Not that I don’t find the whole passage to be enigmatic, to a certain extent; because, obviously the whole passage is somewhat of a mystery, or can be if not properly understood, as has been evidenced by this thread. (I'm not saying that my understanding is correct; but there is a correct understanding, whatever it may be.)

But the part that I, personally, feel the most uncertain about, in terms of its meaning; imo, would be the latter part of verse 7.

Here is verse 7 in its entirety. However, I will highlight the part that has me confused:

2 Thessalonians 2:7
King James Version (KJV)
7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

The way this was written in the Greek is as follows:

7το γαρ μυστηριον ηδη ενεργειται της ανομιας μονον ο κατεχων αρτι εως εκ μεσου γενηται

And here is how the latter part, which I have high-lighted translates.

εως (until) εκ (out/from) μεσου (of the middle/the middle of) γενηται (he becomes)

The reason why this is confusing, to me, is because μεσου usually means the middle of something else, not just the middle.

I’m not sure what the correct terminology is, but the word “μέσου” is what I would call a possessive word.

Again, this is just my own terminology. I’m not sure what it’s really called. But, in any case, let me try to explain.

You see, when a word is modified so that it ends in “ου,” it usually means that it belongs to something/someone else; or that something/someone else belongs to it.

So, the word “μέσου” is actually a modified form of the word “μέσος,” which means: middle, midst, amongst.

See definition here:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Th&c=2&v=1&t=KJV#conc/7

So, basically, μέσος…………when it is in the form of, μέσου…………………actually means................OF the middle/midst...................or..................BELONGING TO the middle/midst.

Now see how the word “μέσου” is used elsewhere in the New Testament.

http://concordance.biblos.com/mesou.htm

So, as you can see, the word…………or maybe I should say……….the phrase………… ἐκ μέσου………………..usually means “from the midst OF……SOMETHING.”

That is because the word ἐκ means “from” or “out”..............

.............And the word μέσου is, as I said, what I would call a possessive word, so it usually belongs to something else, or something else belongs to it............

So μέσου means “the middle OF……” or “the midst OF……….SOMETHING”.................

.................Or it could mean “OF the middle” or “OF the midst.”

In other words, “something else could be BELONGING TO the middle.” However, when that is the case it is usually preceded by the word "τοῦ."

Now, here are some examples of how the word μέσου was used in the New Testament:

Matthew 13:49 οὕτως ἔσται ἐν τῇ συντελείᾳ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐξελεύσονται οἱ ἄγγελοι καὶ ἀφοριοῦσιν τοὺς πονηροὺς ἐκ μέσου τῶν δικαίων

So will it be in the end of the world. The angels will come forth, and separate the wicked from among the righteous,

ἐκ μέσου τῶν δικαίων
from the midst OF the righteous

So, another way to say, “from among the righteous,” would be, “from the midst OF the righteous.”

Acts 17:33 οὕτως ὁ Παῦλος ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν.

Thus Paul went out from among them.

ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν
from the midst OF them

Acts 23:10 πολλῆς δὲ γινομένης στάσεως φοβηθεὶς ὁ χιλίαρχος μὴ διασπασθῇ ὁ Παῦλος ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἐκέλευσεν τὸ στράτευμα καταβὰν ἁρπάσαι αὐτὸν ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν ἄγειν [τε] εἰς τὴν παρεμβολήν.

When a great argument arose, the commanding officer, fearing that Paul would be torn in pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from among them, and bring him into the barracks.

ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν
from the midst OF them

1 Corinthians 5:2 καὶ ὑμεῖς πεφυσιωμένοι ἐστέ καὶ οὐχὶ μᾶλλον ἐπενθήσατε, ἵνα ἀρθῇ ἐκ μέσου ὑμῶν ὁ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο πράξας;

You are puffed up, and didn't rather mourn, that he who had done this deed might be removed from among you.

ἐκ μέσου ὑμῶν ὁ
from the midst OF you

2 Corinthians 6:17 διὸ ἐξέλθατε ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν καὶ ἀφορίσθητε, λέγει κύριος, καὶ ἀκαθάρτου μὴ ἅπτεσθε κἀγὼ εἰσδέξομαι ὑμᾶς

Therefore, "'Come out from among them, and be separate,' says the Lord. 'Touch no unclean thing. I will receive you.

ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν
from the midst OF them


Now the next one is a little different:

Colossians 2:14 ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθ' ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ•

wiping out the handwriting in ordinances which was against us; and he has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;

ἐκ τοῦ μέσου
out OF the middle

Now let me try to explain why Colossians 2:14 is a little different from the others.

In Colossians 2:14, the middle “itself” is what has the ownership (for lack of a better way to explain this), because it says………… τοῦ μέσου

τοῦ μέσου………means…………….. BELONGING TO the middle………….or OF the middle

so “ἐκ τοῦ μέσου,” in a literal sense, means “out of” or “from what belongs to” “the middle”

So, basically, ἐκ τοῦ μέσου means “out of the middle.”

Because “ἐκ” means, “out” ……………. “τοῦ” means, “of the” or “belonging to the”……………….and “μέσου” means, “of the middle.”

Now for 2 Thessalonians 2:7…………….

2 Thessalonians 2:7 τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας• μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται.

For the mystery of lawlessness already works. Only there is one who restrains now, until he is taken out of the way.

ἐκ μέσου
from the middle OF

So, in 2 Thessalonians 2:7, it says says “from the middle OF………” or “from the midst OF..…,” but it doesn’t say from the middle of………..WHAT.

So, here is how 2 Thessalonians 2:7 would literally translate:

For the mystery is already at work of lawlessness only the one who is holding now until ἐκ “from” μέσου “the middle OF……” γένηται he becomes.

So, in this case ἐκ would mean "from." And μέσου would mean "the middle OF..........we don't know what."

However, I guess another way to interpret this would be, as follows:

For the mystery is already at work of lawlessness only the one who is holding now until ἐκ “out” μέσου “OF the middle” γένηται he becomes.

So, in this case, ἐκ would mean “out.” And μέσου would mean “OF the middle.”

So, I guess this is where the logic of “being taken out of the way” comes from.

However, there is just something about the way this was written in the original Greek, that just doesn’t seem to be entirely complete, to me.

Because, as I said, that is not how it was usually done in most cases. Because I have also looked at several of the entries of how this phrase was used in the Septuagint in the Old Testament, as well. And the phrase ἐκ μέσου, in almost every case that I looked at, was used to say “from the middle of………something,” not just………“out of the middle.”
See link here: http://lexicon.katabiblon.com/index.php?search=MESOU
(Btw, you can see how many I looked at.)

For it to say, "out of the middle" it seems, to me, that it should have been worded the way it was worded in Colossians 2:14, which was as follows:

ἐκ τοῦ μέσου

So, in short, in seems to me, that it should have been either ἐκ μέσου...........something""

Or "ἐκ τοῦ μέσου".

(However, even if the sentence were more thorough, it still wouldn't prevent it from being ambiguous; because it still could be understood in more than one way, due to the fact that the word γένηται could mean TO BECOME something from something else, or it could just mean TO BECOME, as in, "to come into existence.")

In any case, whatever the reason may be for some of these seeming gaps or seemingly missing words in the New Testament, I believe that it’s quite possible that the gaps in the original text, or the omissions of certain words in the text, could be just as important, in their omission, as are the words that are included in the text.

Of course, when the translators translate the text they have to fill in the gaps as much as possible, in order for the text to make sense to the reader.

However, when one is trying to get a deeper understanding of the scripture by looking into the text to see how it was originally written, they might find that these gaps or omissions may have a meaning of their own. In other words, they could have been intentionally left out for a reason.

Only God knows.

And only God knows how all of these prophecies will be fulfilled, to the letter, whenever they will be fulfilled, in time.

But, in any case, it may just be, that, in verse 3, for example, that the words “that day shall not come” were left out for a reason.

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;

Or, it could be, that in verse 7, that the words [will let] were not included in the text for a reason, as well.

2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way.

And finally, it could be that the latter part of verse 7 was intentionally written so that it could be understood in, at least, two different ways.

One way to understand it, or not understand it, would be:

For the mystery is already at work of lawlessness only the one who is holding now until “from” “the middle OF……something” or “from the midst OF ……..something” he becomes, i.e. comes into existence.

Edit: Or another combination of the above would be as follows:

For the mystery is already at work of lawlessness only the one who is holding now until "from" the middle OF........something" or "from the midst OF............. something" he becomes, i.e. is taken out of the way

Or another way would be:

For the mystery is already at work of lawlessness only the one who is holding now until “out” “OF the middle” he becomes, i.e. “taken out of the way.”

Edit: Or another combination of the above would be as follows:

For the mystery is already at work of lawlessness only the one who is holding now until "out" "OF the middle" he becomes, i.e. "comes into existence."

Or then again, it could be that it was meant to be understood in both combinations of ways; and that both ways will be fulfilled.

I really don’t know for sure.

And I’m really not trying to make any presumptions about what the text might mean.

I am, however, just trying to explain what the text actually says; or doesn’t say, at least, to the best of my understanding, anyway.

[watching]

Above post edited for clarity.

[benny balerio]

Hi OM or anyone else who might be interested,

Okay, it’s really gotten quiet around here. So how about another post?

I just wanted to say, that if there is anything about 2 Thessalonians 2 that has me stumped, it would be the latter part of verse 7.

Not that I don’t find the whole passage to be enigmatic, to a certain extent; because, obviously the whole passage is somewhat of a mystery, or can be if not properly understood, as has been evidenced by this thread. (I'm not saying that my understanding is correct; but there is a correct understanding, whatever it may be.)

But the part that I, personally, feel the most uncertain about, in terms of its meaning; imo, would be the latter part of verse 7.

Here is verse 7 in its entirety. However, I will highlight the part that has me confused:

2 Thessalonians 2:7
King James Version (KJV)
7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

The way this was written in the Greek is as follows:

7το γαρ μυστηριον ηδη ενεργειται της ανομιας μονον ο κατεχων αρτι εως εκ μεσου γενηται

And here is how the latter part, which I have high-lighted translates.

εως (until) εκ (out/from) μεσου (of the middle/the middle of) γενηται (he becomes)

The reason why this is confusing, to me, is because μεσου usually means the middle of something else, not just the middle.

I’m not sure what the correct terminology is, but the word “μέσου” is what I would call a possessive word.

Again, this is just my own terminology. I’m not sure what it’s really called. But, in any case, let me try to explain.

You see, when a word is modified so that it ends in “ου,” it usually means that it belongs to something/someone else; or that something/someone else belongs to it.

So, the word “μέσου” is actually a modified form of the word “μέσος,” which means: middle, midst, amongst.

See definition here:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Th&c=2&v=1&t=KJV#conc/7

So, basically, μέσος…………when it is in the form of, μέσου…………………actually means................OF the middle/midst...................or..................BELONGING TO the middle/midst.

Now see how the word “μέσου” is used elsewhere in the New Testament.

http://concordance.biblos.com/mesou.htm

So, as you can see, the word…………or maybe I should say……….the phrase………… ἐκ μέσου………………..usually means “from the midst OF……SOMETHING.”

That is because the word ἐκ means “from” or “out”..............

.............And the word μέσου is, as I said, what I would call a possessive word, so it usually belongs to something else, or something else belongs to it............

So μέσου means “the middle OF……” or “the midst OF……….SOMETHING”.................

.................Or it could mean “OF the middle” or “OF the midst.”

In other words, “something else could be BELONGING TO the middle.” However, when that is the case it is usually preceded by the word "τοῦ."

Now, here are some examples of how the word μέσου was used in the New Testament:

Matthew 13:49 οὕτως ἔσται ἐν τῇ συντελείᾳ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐξελεύσονται οἱ ἄγγελοι καὶ ἀφοριοῦσιν τοὺς πονηροὺς ἐκ μέσου τῶν δικαίων

So will it be in the end of the world. The angels will come forth, and separate the wicked from among the righteous,

ἐκ μέσου τῶν δικαίων
from the midst OF the righteous

So, another way to say, “from among the righteous,” would be, “from the midst OF the righteous.”

Acts 17:33 οὕτως ὁ Παῦλος ἐξῆλθεν ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν.

Thus Paul went out from among them.

ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν
from the midst OF them

Acts 23:10 πολλῆς δὲ γινομένης στάσεως φοβηθεὶς ὁ χιλίαρχος μὴ διασπασθῇ ὁ Παῦλος ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἐκέλευσεν τὸ στράτευμα καταβὰν ἁρπάσαι αὐτὸν ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν ἄγειν [τε] εἰς τὴν παρεμβολήν.

When a great argument arose, the commanding officer, fearing that Paul would be torn in pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from among them, and bring him into the barracks.

ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν
from the midst OF them

1 Corinthians 5:2 καὶ ὑμεῖς πεφυσιωμένοι ἐστέ καὶ οὐχὶ μᾶλλον ἐπενθήσατε, ἵνα ἀρθῇ ἐκ μέσου ὑμῶν ὁ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο πράξας;

You are puffed up, and didn't rather mourn, that he who had done this deed might be removed from among you.

ἐκ μέσου ὑμῶν ὁ
from the midst OF you

2 Corinthians 6:17 διὸ ἐξέλθατε ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν καὶ ἀφορίσθητε, λέγει κύριος, καὶ ἀκαθάρτου μὴ ἅπτεσθε κἀγὼ εἰσδέξομαι ὑμᾶς

Therefore, "'Come out from among them, and be separate,' says the Lord. 'Touch no unclean thing. I will receive you.

ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν
from the midst OF them


Now the next one is a little different:

Colossians 2:14 ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθ' ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ•

wiping out the handwriting in ordinances which was against us; and he has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;

ἐκ τοῦ μέσου
out OF the middle

Now let me try to explain why Colossians 2:14 is a little different from the others.

In Colossians 2:14, the middle “itself” is what has the ownership (for lack of a better way to explain this), because it says………… τοῦ μέσου

τοῦ μέσου………means…………….. BELONGING TO the middle………….or OF the middle

so “ἐκ τοῦ μέσου,” in a literal sense, means “out of” or “from what belongs to” “the middle”

So, basically, ἐκ τοῦ μέσου means “out of the middle.”

Because “ἐκ” means, “out” ……………. “τοῦ” means, “of the” or “belonging to the”……………….and “μέσου” means, “of the middle.”

Now for 2 Thessalonians 2:7…………….

2 Thessalonians 2:7 τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας• μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται.

For the mystery of lawlessness already works. Only there is one who restrains now, until he is taken out of the way.

ἐκ μέσου
from the middle OF

So, in 2 Thessalonians 2:7, it says says “from the middle OF………” or “from the midst OF..…,” but it doesn’t say from the middle of………..WHAT.

So, here is how 2 Thessalonians 2:7 would literally translate:

For the mystery is already at work of lawlessness only the one who is holding now until ἐκ “from” μέσου “the middle OF……” γένηται he becomes.

So, in this case ἐκ would mean "from." And μέσου would mean "the middle OF..........we don't know what."

However, I guess another way to interpret this would be, as follows:

For the mystery is already at work of lawlessness only the one who is holding now until ἐκ “out” μέσου “OF the middle” γένηται he becomes.

So, in this case, ἐκ would mean “out.” And μέσου would mean “OF the middle.”

So, I guess this is where the logic of “being taken out of the way” comes from.

However, there is just something about the way this was written in the original Greek, that just doesn’t seem to be entirely complete, to me.

Because, as I said, that is not how it was usually done in most cases. Because I have also looked at several of the entries of how this phrase was used in the Septuagint in the Old Testament, as well. And the phrase ἐκ μέσου, in almost every case that I looked at, was used to say “from the middle of………something,” not just………“out of the middle.”
See link here: http://lexicon.katabiblon.com/index.php?search=MESOU
(Btw, you can see how many I looked at.)

For it to say, "out of the middle" it seems, to me, that it should have been worded the way it was worded in Colossians 2:14, which was as follows:

ἐκ τοῦ μέσου

So, in short, in seems to me, that it should have been either ἐκ μέσου...........something""

Or "ἐκ τοῦ μέσου".

(However, even if the sentence were more thorough, it still wouldn't prevent it from being ambiguous; because it still could be understood in more than one way, due to the fact that the word γένηται could mean TO BECOME something from something else, or it could just mean TO BECOME, as in, "to come into existence.")

In any case, whatever the reason may be for some of these seeming gaps or seemingly missing words in the New Testament, I believe that it’s quite possible that the gaps in the original text, or the omissions of certain words in the text, could be just as important, in their omission, as are the words that are included in the text.

Of course, when the translators translate the text they have to fill in the gaps as much as possible, in order for the text to make sense to the reader.

However, when one is trying to get a deeper understanding of the scripture by looking into the text to see how it was originally written, they might find that these gaps or omissions may have a meaning of their own. In other words, they could have been intentionally left out for a reason.

Only God knows.

And only God knows how all of these prophecies will be fulfilled, to the letter, whenever they will be fulfilled, in time.

But, in any case, it may just be, that, in verse 3, for example, that the words “that day shall not come” were left out for a reason.

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;

Or, it could be, that in verse 7, that the words [will let] were not included in the text for a reason, as well.

2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way.

And finally, it could be that the latter part of verse 7 was intentionally written so that it could be understood in, at least, two different ways.

One way to understand it, or not understand it, would be:

For the mystery is already at work of lawlessness only the one who is holding now until “from” “the middle OF……something” or “from the midst OF ……..something” he becomes, i.e. comes into existence.

Edit: Or another combination of the above would be as follows:

For the mystery is already at work of lawlessness only the one who is holding now until "from" the middle OF........something" or "from the midst OF............. something" he becomes, i.e. is taken out of the way

Or another way would be:

For the mystery is already at work of lawlessness only the one who is holding now until “out” “OF the middle” he becomes, i.e. “taken out of the way.”

Edit: Or another combination of the above would be as follows:

For the mystery is already at work of lawlessness only the one who is holding now until "out" "OF the middle" he becomes, i.e. "comes into existence."

Or then again, it could be that it was meant to be understood in both combinations of ways; and that both ways will be fulfilled.

I really don’t know for sure.

And I’m really not trying to make any presumptions about what the text might mean.

I am, however, just trying to explain what the text actually says; or doesn’t say, at least, to the best of my understanding, anyway.

The answer is the following:

You seem to refuse to acknowledge that it is that Holy spirit that is taken out of the way.
So who was it that was restraining evil prior to the Day of Pentecost?...the answer is that it was the Holy Spirit who is omnipresent.
So!......If the Holy Spirit is omnipresent,..then why did the Lord send the Comforter?...is not the Comforter the Holy Spirit? How can you send someone who is already omnipresent?
The reason the Lord sent the Comforter was that He would indwell believers.
The Holy Spirit will not indwell a man unless he sincerely asks and Believes Jesus as his Lord and Savior.
The Holy Spirit will "only" seal a "true" believer with the promise of redemption.(God does not break promises)
And the result of being sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise is..."SAVED BY GRACE"

But those who enter Daniels 70th week and come to Jesus During those days,...Their salvation is conditional,...they must endure unto the end, and the same shall be saved.These are saved by faith that must be evidenced by their works of faith,...meaning that these were not saved by grace,...that these were not sealed of the Holy Spirit of promise when they first believed.
The reason why is because the Comforter no longer functions the same way as He did during the Church age,..Fore He was taken out of the way,..and since it is that the Holy spirit Indwells believers in the Church age,...then they too were caught up!(Taken out of the way)
The Holy Spirit did not indwell believers prior to the Day of Pentecost,..and as we can see,..the Holy Spirit will not be indwelling those who are left behind when the Rapture occurs.

[Abiding in His Word]

So!......If the Holy Spirit is omnipresent,..then why did the Lord send the Comforter?...is not the Comforter the Holy Spirit? How can you send someone who is already omnipresent?

The ministry of the Holy Spirit differs between the OT and the NT. The fullness of the Holy Spirit seems to have enabled special people for particular ministries in the OT (Num. 11:25; 1 Sam. 10:6; 2 Kings 2:15) whereas the fullness is available to all believers in the NT (Joel 2:28.)

[watching]

Hi benny,

I don’t believe that there is any way possible that the “restrainer,” as you call it, can be referring to the Holy Spirit, because…………..

1) The Holy Spirit would not be holding εἰς (TOWARD) the revealing of the man of sin.

2:6 καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ

2) I do not see any indication from 2 Thessalonians 2 that the revealing of the man of sin is being held back. In fact, the scripture plainly states that he will be revealed IN HIS OWN TIME.

2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

3) I do not see any indication from scripture that the mystery of lawlessness is being held back. In fact, the scripture plainly tells us that the mystery of lawlessness is ALREADY AT WORK, not being held back.

2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way.

4) If anything is being held back in the context of 2 Thessalonians 2, it is the day of the Lord, because Paul said, that if two things do not happen first, to not be deceived that the day of the LORD has come.

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 two things that we should not be deceived, that the day of the Lord has come, if they do not happen first are an “it” (the apostasy) and a “he” (that the man of sin might be revealed.)

That explains the mystery of the article changing back and forth.

The article always refers to something that is being mentioned, or that was previously mentioned, it does not change back and forth for no apparent reason.

When the Holy Spirit is being referred to in the context of the word πνεῦμα (spirit), then the article τὸ is used.

However, when the Holy Spirit is referred to in the context of the word παράκλητος (comforter), then the article ὁ is used.

But, I do not know of any incident in the New Testament, where the Holy Spirit is being referred, WITHOUT EVER BEING MENTIONED IN ANY WAY, and the article changing back and forth for no apparent reason; and based on that premise, we are supposed to ASSUME that the Holy Spirit is what is being referred to.

So, I’m sorry , benny, but I just do not see any way possible that τὸ κατέχον or ὁ κατέχων could be referring to the Holy Spirit, in the context of 2 Thessalonians 2, based on all of the above.

[morpheus]

First, there are two players in the Bible that do something significant at the middle of the 70th Seven of Daniel - Michael and the Antichrist. Nobody debates this do they? I think the Scripture is very clear on these two doing something significant and different then normal at this time.

Second point, nowhere else in Scripture does it mention a third player doing something significant at this time. There is no evidence for a third player. None. A reference to somebody doing something significant but not naming them directly should then come down to these two and only these two players first. Only if the evidence does not fit whatsoever do we bring in the possibility of a third player.

Therefore, in answering 2 Thess 2 questions, the first two persons who should be looked at are Michael and the antichrist. Only if neither of these two persons seem to fit only then we should look for a third player. The question then is do either of these two players fit. The answer is yes - overwhelmingly yes.

In fact, 2 Thess 2 is ambiguous enough that it can fit either of these two players. I really do not care which of the two "out of the middle he comes" is. You can make a good case for either of the two. But to deny these two players fit and to introduce a third player is crazy stupid. I know these are strong words, but that is how strong the evidence is against introducing a third player.

I guess the only reason why some people look so hard to introduce a third player is because it contradicts their eschatology. They are desperate to find any evidence anywhere for a pre-trib rapture. Therefore they introducing a third player - the HS. If one's eschatology is forcing you do do stupid things like this, then you need to throw out your eschatology and start over.

If one thinks human government is a possible answer then they not only introduce a third player but one the Scripture directly contradicts. (At least the HS as a solution doesn't contradict Scripture this badly.) We know the Antichrist is part of a human government. Ten horns give their power to him. Kingdom like a leopard, bear, and whatever the third animal was. The Bible clearly says human government will be around all throughout the 70th Seven. They even war against each other. Therefore, the third player cannot be the breakdown of human government. So that is a complete dead end.

When Scriptures make sense, seek no other sense. Is that not the main rule in hermeneutics? Why then, when either Michael or the antichrist fit the 2 Thess 2 passage, do we seek some other solution? The answer which of the two players is best decided by Greek analysis but not whether the HS is a possible player. The main rule of hermeneutics eliminates the HS from the get go.

So there is a reason here to do Greek analysis but not for the reasons most people are trying to use it here in this thread. Use the right tool for the job. Greek analysis is like a screwdriver. Nice tool - nothing wrong with it. But you don't use it to drive in a hammer. Neither do you use a hammer to drive in a screw. Use the right tool for the job.

Greek analysis should first make sure we have the right interpretation. Nobody really debates we get this big picture. We might have questions about some fine detail but not the big picture. Then the rules of hermeneutics kick in hard. We find our solutions comparing Scripture with Scripture. If everything makes sense then seek no other sense. That we have done. The HS is not on this short list.

But to then go back to Greek analysis and look for someway to overlook the two main players and find a third player here is to strain at a gnat while ignoring the camel. Ignoring the first and main rule of hermeneutics - for people here on this thread who are at this advanced level of Bible knowledge - is just plain stupid. It is obvious a lot of people know their Greek and Bible study well. How can you all make hermeneutic kindergarden mistakes?

When you can do calculus, how come you can't add and subtract well? I know mistakes happen. We are all human. But when confronted by somebody who points out an elementary mistake, how can one cling to their bad math?

Just because I don't get into the Greek details here does not mean I can't. It is just that it is not the right tool for the job here.

If you do not like me calling this mistake a stupid mistake I understand. People do not like to be called stupid. But sometimes the shoe fits and we need to call a spade a spade - or should I say a boot is a boot. Making an addition mistake while doing calculus is rightly called a stupid mistake. It is one people should have known and is well below their grade level. That is what I think is going on here. A mistake well below the grade level of the participants.

If you disagree with my logic then point out where I got off the rails. I will gladly apologize if I am wrong. I would feel awful for calling something stupid when it is not. I've had to eat humble pie before. But I am pretty sure 2 plus 2 doesn't equal 5. When things make sense seek no other sense.

So one can continue to do Greek analysis. There is a time and place for that. But not about who is the restrainer. The HS is not the restrainer. Only Michael fits the Biblical criteria and he fits it to a tee.

[burien1]

If you do not like me calling this mistake a stupid mistake I understand. People do not like to be called stupid. But sometimes the shoe fits and we need to call a spade a spade - or should I say a boot is a boot.

Not on this board , we don't.

1. Our number one rule is from our Lord Himself. We are to love each other, no matter how deeply we may disagree. If we can't even handle each other, how are we going to handle persecution? So, if it can't be said in love, don't say it.

We back up our case with scripture here, not derogatory labeling of each other's theories.

[mark s]

It's difficult for me to imagine what has not already been said in this long discussion.

Does anyone have a new argument?

A relevant point to make?

A good reason why not to close this discussion and move on?

Love in Christ,
Mark

[jgilberAZ]

[watching]

Hi mark,

A good reason why not to close this discussion and move on?

I'm sure that I could come up with a lot more things to say, unless I'm boring everyone.

[morpheus]

Well, I stated my reasons why I feel a stupid mistake is being made. So far nobody has once addressed the reasoning I brought up why this is so. Total silence. Is it because people are rude or because they have no answer? Or is there another reason I haven't thought of? Are people too tired and I came to late to the picnic?

I know some people are looking for a way to swing their Greek sword around a bit. It gets rusty just sitting on the shelf. But I think the Greek analysis is being misused and stated why.

Sometime stupid mistakes are made not because we are totally dumb, but because we loose focus and out-smart ourselves. Just look at all the Scientists who believe evolution. Are they smart or are they stupid? The Law of Biogenesis and Laws of Heredity shut evolution down. All evidence to date contradicts macro-evolution. With this strong of evidence against evolution it is just stupid to hold to Darwinism. Yet many people do.

Instead evolutionists will get technical with all their "Science Greek" and hope to win the debate by impressive vocabulary. Say big enough words that other side doesn't understand and their opponent has to get silent less they show they cannot follow the debate. They hope to win by intimidation.

Now there are others on this board who are up to the Greek challenge. They immediately fight back with their Greek sword and we get to see sparks fly. We might even learn some new things along the way. I do have to say the battle has been a gentlemen's game here. Very loving and kind - all Christian like.

But are we here to just spar a little or are we here to really resolve issues? Sorry if I seem so direct. My training in hand-to-hand combat and warfare leaves me a little battle-hardened. I see too many people going through the motions of life in all areas and not serious about actually solving issues and learning. Why waste time straining at gnats?

But a little Sun-Tzu comes in here. Choose your battle ground and don't just let the opponent choose where to make a stand. Force them to fight where they do not want to go. Attack their weakness. This is sound tactics whether on the battlefield or in debate. The Greek fight is not the battleground that best determines the outcome of this debate. It is elementary hermeneutics. That is where the weakness is.

In the opening of this thread one person repeated stated to show him the Scripture to support the conclusions being claimed. Nobody did. I think the silence was very telling. Eventually somebody opened the Greek thing and drowned the person calling for Scriptural support.

So I have attempted to shift the focus of the battle back to the main issue. I have not only waited on defense but have taken the offense. I have stated the Scripture and simple logic by which the proper conclusion is found. I have said it is stupid to use calculus and differential equations to solve a 2+2 arithmetic question. That is what we have here. A basic hermeneutic question that does not need zooming in but zooming out. Show the Scripture. Quote the Scripture.

One can take issue over my use of the word stupid but nobody has stated why this is not a correct summary of the issue so far. If I am so wrong, then show me an error that makes this issue complex, why it really is not a simple hermeneutic question, and I will gladly correct my error and apologize. But until somebody answers, I stand here waiting.

Not only has the Scripture for the HS as restrainer not been shown, but Scriptures in support of Michael as the restrainer have been shown. In the past, I have told people the issue is really simple and easy and have had people get all upset about this claim. But they have also came back years later and admitted I was right. The rapture timing debate is simple. It is only complex to those who are confused.

I know this because I used to be confused too. I read and studied and was taught all this stuff. In fact, I thought the issue so confusing I had almost given up hope to ever finding a solution. I had people tell me the issue was simple and I scoffed at them too. Years later I find out they were not being rude or mean. They were just telling the truth and the truth hurt at the time.

Jesus meant us to to understand eschatology. In fact, he wants us to understand all of Scripture. He did not make it so hard that the normal person cannot understand without Seminary training and a couple divinity degrees. The average person does not need Greek and Hebrew. We have good enough translations. Mistakes that are being made are being done in logic and English.

[morpheus]

Mark,

As moderator you wrote

It's difficult for me to imagine what has not already been said in this long discussion.

Does anyone have a new argument?

A relevant point to make?

A good reason why not to close this discussion and move on?

If you read through the thread you will see I made relevant points and raised new arguments about things that have not already been said. Nobody has responded yet. I came a little late to the party and got treated by a wall of silence so far. If nobody is interested in responding then the thread will die off on its own or at least I will lose interest.

But to say your rhetorical questions are good reasons to close this discussion and move on is hard to understand since they are not based on the facts. I would expect better from a Moderator. I would especially expect better of a Christian.

[mark s]

Hi morpheus,

You've asserted that the language analysis is unimportant to this discussion. Myself, I'd say that unless you actually understand what the passage is saying, and what the possible meaning(s) is(are), you're not even ready to compare it to other passages.

You've asserted the "amad" argument towards this being Michael. This is not a new argument. And I did reply to this. You want to keep it simple, I made it simple. You choose to not respond.

You've asserted that "out of the middle" refers to the middle of the 70th week. I'll confess, that's a new one for me. What would be your Scriptural support for that assertion? You've given none. And without that, the conclusions that flow from that particular point are unsupported, including the assertion that "since the Holy Spirit isn't named as doing something during the middle of the 70th week, it has to be Michael. That short little conclusion is based upon numerous logical fallacies.

You've asserted that "no where speaks of a third player". You've proposed two persons, Satan and Michael, and claimed none other are involved, citing this as evidence. This is circular reasoning, citing the conclusion in the proof.

You've called the lot of us "stupid".

You've accused us of being so desperate that we've become intellectually dishonest.

You've made the blanket - and unsupported - accusation of "hermeneutic kindergarten mistakes".

To tell the truth, the only thing I can find in your posts that are the basis for your blanket accusations is your presupposition that the Holy Spirit cannot be the restrainer. Because your have arrived at that from a combination of an argument from silence (specifically that the Holy Spirit is not named elsewhere as being the restrainer) and a selection of false alternatives (another logical fallacy - here are your choices, if not this one, then in must be that one). This is not a solid foundation.

You compare us to die-hard evolutionists. You state that we are just in it for the fight.

And on a personal level, you chose to denigrate me in particular as both a Moderator and a Christian. Wouldn't it be enough to simply answer my questions? This is one of those "ad hominem" attacks, yet another logical fallacy.

Morpheus, perhaps people's unwillingness to engage with you in the debate is that you, to all appearance, come in swinging a club, putting us all down, not bringing a solid argument yourself (though I know some will agree with aspects of what you said).

That's not the way we run this forum. As a moderator, I'm seeing this thread deteriorate rapidly. I have no wish to simply shut it down. If there is valid discussion to be had, let's have at it. If - IF - it can be conducted in a loving and respectful manner.

So far, I'm not being convinced that this thread will produce the fruit that we are looking for.

If I can distill down the essence of what you are saying, it's that Michael is the one who's portrayed as warring against Satan, and Michael is said to cease from his protection of Israel, so therefore Michael is the restrainer. Simple.

To this, you add, all of our analysis of the Greek language can add nothing to this simple conclusion, and we all use it to our detriment, to the point of stupidity.

To this I reply, Michael is the protector of Israel, who "stands for Israel", and Scripture says he will do just that. The one who stands for Israel will stand. Not that he ceases to stand, that is, "stands still", but the simplest meaning of the verse, he will do what he does. The one who stands for Israel will stand.

We know that many of Israel will flee to the wilderness where the antichrist can't touch them. I expect you are aware of the passages in Scripture that teach this, I do not know if you disagree. But this being the case, why should we think that Michael will not be protecting them?

Israel is protected in the wilderness, and Michael is named as Israel's protector. Simple. Michael will continue to fulfill his role as stated in the Scripture.

Add to this the Septuagint (LXX). The Jews, in about 250 BC or so translated Daniel's words this way:

"And in that time shall rise up Michael, the great ruler, the one standing for the sons of Israel"

There is no hint here of your proposed meaning to that verse. They just didn't see it that way.

Add to this the fact that the restrainer is called by both masculine and neuter genders, add to that the fact that angels are never in Scripture called by neuter genders. That rules out Michael. Oh, but there's that pesky Greek again. It is also validated in the Old Testament.

OK. So where to from here?

A reasoned, reasonable, respectful discussion?

Love in Christ,
Mark

[benny balerio]

Mark,

As moderator you wrote

It's difficult for me to imagine what has not already been said in this long discussion.

Does anyone have a new argument?

A relevant point to make?

A good reason why not to close this discussion and move on?

If you read through the thread you will see I made relevant points and raised new arguments about things that have not already been said. Nobody has responded yet. I came a little late to the party and got treated by a wall of silence so far. If nobody is interested in responding then the thread will die off on its own or at least I will lose interest.

But to say your rhetorical questions are good reasons to close this discussion and move on is hard to understand since they are not based on the facts. I would expect better from a Moderator. I would especially expect better of a Christian.

Well no,..you did not present new arguements,...you should have read my first responce to OM

Also...You Quote:
We know the Antichrist is part of a human government. Ten horns give their power to him. Kingdom like a leopard, bear, and whatever the third animal was. The Bible clearly says human government will be around all throughout the 70th Seven. They even war against each other. Therefore, the third player cannot be the breakdown of human government. So that is a complete dead end.

My Reply:
Not a dead end,....The antichrist cannot receive his kingdom from the ten kings,...that is,...not until the Day of the Lord has begun.
And we know the Bride is caught up to meet the Lord in the air,..slightly prior to the beginning of the Day of the Lord.

Mark is a good Moderator,...and I do not believe that you have read through all the threads.

[benny balerio]

Hi benny,

I don’t believe that there is any way possible that the “restrainer,” as you call it, can be referring to the Holy Spirit, because…………..

1) The Holy Spirit would not be holding εἰς (TOWARD) the revealing of the man of sin.

2:6 καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῷ

2) I do not see any indication from 2 Thessalonians 2 that the revealing of the man of sin is being held back. In fact, the scripture plainly states that he will be revealed IN HIS OWN TIME.

2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

3) I do not see any indication from scripture that the mystery of lawlessness is being held back. In fact, the scripture plainly tells us that the mystery of lawlessness is ALREADY AT WORK, not being held back.

2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way.

4) If anything is being held back in the context of 2 Thessalonians 2, it is the day of the Lord, because Paul said, that if two things do not happen first, to not be deceived that the day of the LORD has come.

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 two things that we should not be deceived, that the day of the Lord has come, if they do not happen first are an “it” (the apostasy) and a “he” (that the man of sin might be revealed.)

That explains the mystery of the article changing back and forth.

The article always refers to something that is being mentioned, or that was previously mentioned, it does not change back and forth for no apparent reason.

When the Holy Spirit is being referred to in the context of the word πνεῦμα (spirit), then the article τὸ is used.

However, when the Holy Spirit is referred to in the context of the word παράκλητος (comforter), then the article ὁ is used.

But, I do not know of any incident in the New Testament, where the Holy Spirit is being referred, WITHOUT EVER BEING MENTIONED IN ANY WAY, and the article changing back and forth for no apparent reason; and based on that premise, we are supposed to ASSUME that the Holy Spirit is what is being referred to.

So, I’m sorry , benny, but I just do not see any way possible that τὸ κατέχον or ὁ κατέχων could be referring to the Holy Spirit, in the context of 2 Thessalonians 2, based on all of the above.

You Quote:
don’t believe that there is any way possible that the “restrainer,” as you call it, can be referring to the Holy Spirit, because…………..

1) The Holy Spirit would not be holding εἰς (TOWARD) the revealing of the man of sin.

My Reply:
Sure He would,..and Does....Praise God!
Lawlessness is at work,.......Governments,..christians and even unbelievers are influenced by the Holy Spirit.
If it were not for the Influence by the Holy Spirit,..The Jew would not exist today.
But evil today is still held in check,...and is even allowed to increase in it's lawlessness that progresses towards it's destiny
of prophetic fulfillment.Once He is taken out of the way,..Then It is when He ceases to influence in hindering Evil,..then the antichrist at that time will be in his own element,...and will step into his appointed destiny.

[watching]

So far, I'm not being convinced that this thread will produce the fruit that we are looking for.

Hi mark,

If you had a fruit bearing tree in your back yard, and one of the branches was not producing any fruit, would you cut down the whole tree?

Or are you saying that my posts, or anyone else' posts here, prior to the post where morpheus decided to call me, and most everyone else here "stupid," were not fruitful?

Wouldn't that be like a teacher making the whole class stay inside for recess, because one kid was misbehaving?

[mark s]

Hi watching,

It seems to me that we've been going in circles for a while now.

I have no problem leaving the thread open so long as everyone behaves themselves, but is there really anything to add?

Love in Christ,
Mark

[watching]

Hi morpheus,

I do not see this as a battle field.

I am not here to fight anyone.

That is not what I consider a debate to be.

I am only here to learn, and to try to teach others, from the things that I might know.

I am not out to win anything by these debates.

That is not what I am here for.

I am only here to learn and seek the truth with others, who are also seeking the truth.

[watching]

Hi mark,

I feel that there is a lot more that I could say or elaborate on, if the opportunity presents itself.

What if Orange Mailman has another question?

And I still have not responded to benny's last post yet.

Why would you want to close the whole thread down, just because one person is misbehaving?

[drdos]

The sky is Blue!
No it's not it's baby blue!
(God made the sky, and it's beautiful)

That Cheese is Yellow!
No it's not it's Orange!
(Ahhh That yellowish orange cheese is good)

[mark s]

The sky is Blue!
No it's not it's baby blue!
(God made the sky, and it's beautiful)

That Cheese is Yellow!
No it's not it's Orange!
(Ahhh That yellowish orange cheese is good)

Um . . . I had white cheese this morning.

[drdos]

The sky is Blue!
No it's not it's baby blue!
(God made the sky, and it's beautiful)

That Cheese is Yellow!
No it's not it's Orange!
(Ahhh That yellowish orange cheese is good)

Um . . . I had white cheese this morning.

[Jay Ross]

Hello,

I must be stupid because I do not look in the same pond of muddy water as most people do expecting to be able to see the bottom of the prophetic pond while looking through the stirred up mud that discolours the water in the pound.

I must be stupid because I prefer to look deeply into the pond of prophetic understanding and be able to see the tapestry of time on which the prophetic words found in scripture have been laid upon.

I must be stupid because when I warn people that there is no city franchise over which to "rule" when the Kingdom of God is established, I am ignored as the people continue working at being righteous enough to earn their franchise to rule from their master but not from God.

I must be stupid because I do not understand everything that has been veiled within the prophetic words given and I understand that I will not understand everything that has been hidden within God's provided prophetic words of what is to come.

I do know that we, who Call Jesus Lord, are called to a princely role as Priests within the Kingdom of God during the "Messianic" Rule of Christ, to be as a light to those around us to show the people who can see us the way to the Lord, to be like salt that seasons God's truth and brings healing to the people and helps to preserve them, to be as a lowly servant to do the meaningless things of the Kingdom of God not expecting high office as other who claim that that is their destiny.

I do know that when this role of being a Priest comes to the fore that things will have changed and that Israel will have repented from their four thousand odd years of idolatrous worship and that God will have renew His marriage covenant with them and that an everlasting covenant of peace will exist between Israel and God.

I do know that at this present time, God's wrath is still against the nation of Israel. That they have joined together and that the following prophecy is unfolding before our very eyes: -

but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action. And those among the people who are wise shall make many understand, though they shall fall by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder, for some days. When they fall, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery; and some of those who are wise shall fall, to refine and to cleanse them and to make them white, until the time of the end, for it is yet for the time appointed.

And I know that many prophecies will be fulfilled during this time: -

"In those days and in that time, says the Lord, the people of Israel and the people of Judah shall come together, weeping as they come; and they shall seek the Lord their God. They shall ask the way to Zion, with faces turned toward it, saying, 'Come, let us join ourselves to the Lord in an everlasting covenant which will never be forgotten.'
"My people have been lost sheep; their shepherds have led them astray, turning them away on the mountains; from mountain to hill they have gone, they have forgotten their fold. 7 All who found them have devoured them, and their enemies have said, 'We are not guilty, for they have sinned against the Lord, their true habitation, the Lord, the hope of their fathers.'

I do know that Israel is trying to make a covenant with God on their terms and that they believe that if they can rebuild the temple and that then they will be able to reach out to God and ask for forgiveness. However, Israel has been warned that they will not be allowed to build another temple and will become the laughing stock of the people and nations of the world. God's complaint against the nation of Israel is that they are still a stiff necked people. God is waiting for them to understand that He is therefore them waiting for them to humble themselves and repent of all of their iniquities so that He can hear their cries and act to redeem them. Is it not written: -

When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command the locust to devour the land, or send pestilence among my people, then if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

In the Book of Job, I wonder who was the restrainer? Now does the same apply today?

Shalom

Jay Ross

[The Orange Mailman]

To this I reply, Michael is the protector of Israel, who "stands for Israel", and Scripture says he will do just that. The one who stands for Israel will stand. Not that he ceases to stand, that is, "stands still", but the simplest meaning of the verse, he will do what he does. The one who stands for Israel will stand.

We know that many of Israel will flee to the wilderness where the antichrist can't touch them. I expect you are aware of the passages in Scripture that teach this, I do not know if you disagree. But this being the case, why should we think that Michael will not be protecting them?

Israel is protected in the wilderness, and Michael is named as Israel's protector. Simple. Michael will continue to fulfill his role as stated in the Scripture.

Hi Mark S.-

You seem to think this is a worthwhile point, so I will take the time to address it. I don't know if you have read my posts in their entirety, but this does not affect my reasoning. Michael has a special role in protecting the nation of Israel. But when the midpoint of Daniel's 70th week occurs, there will be a war in heaven at which time Michael will thrust Satan out from the heavenly stronghold that he has. This will result in the manifestation of a ten nation alliance headed by the antichrist. It's the beast of Revelation 13 as an empire and as a person.

So why is Michael not protecting the nation of Israel as the dragon seeks to attack the woman and those that follow her commandments through the persecution of the beast? It is obvious that God will allow the little horn of Daniel 7 to prevail against the saints. And it is obvious that Satan's next move after being cast out of heaven is to utilize a governmental framework which persecutes the people of God, Israel included. This is why the two witnesses are killed and lay in the streets of Jerusalem. So according to your logic, where is Michael when the two witnesses are killed? Where is Michael when the saints are being conquered by the beast, Revelation 13:7? The 144,000 Israelites are not sealed until just before the Day of the LORD as the great tribulation (time of Jacob's trouble) is ending. So Israel will be in the time of Jacob's trouble suffering. Jeremiah 30:7-9 shows Israel in the midst of the time of Jacob's trouble, but God will deliver her out of it leading directly into the reign of the Davidic Messiah.

The intrinsic reason why this doesn't affect my argumentation is that Michael restrains evil through the governmental systems of this world. Once Michael stands, this will lead into the time of Jacob's trouble, see Daniel 12:1. According to your view, why would Michael standing up result in a time of trouble for the nation of Israel? My position shows that Michael is connected in two different places with the restraints being thrown off and trouble for the nation of Israel beginning. The 1260 days that the woman is in the wilderness is the same time period as the 42 months of the beast's war on saints. So the woman (believing remnant of Israel) cannot rely any longer on the governmental frameworks backed by angelic power to restrain evil. The ten nation alliance will be a throne of iniquity, see Psalm 94 for the emotion behind war on God's people. Psalm 94 also contains the resolution. It will be a time of lawlessness in relation to God's law. The governments of this world will no longer be enforcing the Noahic covenant which means it's time for the Messiah to show up in person to judge the world in righteousness, see Psalm 96 (which as a sidenote Psalm 92-97 is all one psalm with one theme).

So I really don't see a problem.

Have fun and stay busy - Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

[morpheus]

Mark,

You've asserted that the language analysis is unimportant to this discussion. Myself, I'd say that unless you actually understand what the passage is saying, and what the possible meaning(s) is(are), you're not even ready to compare it to other passages.

This does not accurately state my position. Yes, we need to understand what the passage is saying and the possible meanings are before we compare passages. On this we agree. However, I think the translations we have and the analysis that has been done meet this criteria. We need to move on to comparing Scripture with Scripture. That is the main point I have been making.

When a passage is equivocal, the solution to the problem must lie elsewhere. That is by definition of what equivocal means. Two equal meanings. If the local evidence decided one interpretation over the other, it would no longer be equivocal and there would be nothing to resolve. Thus in examining the possible meanings, there has to come a point where you must stop with the analysis, even when you do not have complete solutions, and start to compare Scripture with Scripture.

That is not to say we don't look back on the translation issue occasionally as we continue to compare Scripture with Scripture. But the solutions to eschatology lie not in Greek and Hebrew analysis. They lie well within the realm of Hermeneutics and English for us. This is my main point. I think people overrate language studies. They are needed, but there comes a time where the translation is done and the synthesis begins.

Synthesis involves zooming out, not in. Yet I have observed over thirty years of study most people keeping trying to zoom in to solve problems, not out. Zooming in on the language translation starts off being the right tool, but at some point becomes the wrong tool. The tool itself is not bad; it is our use of the tool. Synthesis is where the mistakes are happening. Synthesis is what we lack.

So I am not knocking all language study. But after 2000 years I think we should have the language down pretty good. If not, how many more years do we need? I realize everybody is at a different level in their study. We are not all born with Greek and Hebrew knowledge. But if we cannot come to agreement on this after 2000 years, then we should be ashamed. From this perspective, isn't it stupid that we are still doing much language study at all? I think so.

You've asserted that "out of the middle" refers to the middle of the 70th week. I'll confess, that's a new one for me. What would be your Scriptural support for that assertion? You've given none. And without that, the conclusions that flow from that particular point are unsupported, including the assertion that "since the Holy Spirit isn't named as doing something during the middle of the 70th week, it has to be Michael. That short little conclusion is based upon numerous logical fallacies.

My Scriptural basis for "out of the middle he comes" is because 2 Thess 2 is talking about the revealing of the Antichrist at the Abomination of Desolation, is it not? This is clearly what it states. Everybody I have ever heard agrees this takes place at the mid point of the 70th Seven of Daniel 9. This is only one of the biggest events in eschatology. Jesus himself in the Olivet Discourse told us to make sure we understand this. It is what we watch for and what signals for those in Jerusalem and Judea to flee in a hurry. To link this "out of the middle he comes" to the Antichrist at the AoD is not some stretch at all. It should be the first thing we think of. Since this makes perfect sense, then we should seek no other sense.

I am surprised if this is new to you. Also, why do you ask for Scriptural support when these are the most known Scriptures and events in eschatology? I did not state Scripture support because I thought it would be obvious to all. This is the synthesis that I refer to. I am not reaching for some little know facts and some unknown Greek interpretation. I am taking the biggest clues and piecing them together.

If you need even more synthesis of Scripture I can continue but don't want to take the time if not needed. Let me know.

You've asserted the "amad" argument towards this being Michael. This is not a new argument. And I did reply to this. You want to keep it simple, I made it simple. You choose to not respond.

I do not know of anything you wrote to me about this. I will check back through the thread and see if I overlooked something. As to the issue itself, of course Michael is the one who "amad". That is because Daniel 12 states exactly that. I am not tying two different passages of Scripture together here. Daniel 12 says as clear as day

"At that time shall the great prince Michael, who AMAD for the sons of your people, will AMAD..."

Michael does amad and then the Great Trib happens. Do you agree the Great Trib starts at the mid point, at the AoD? So Michael "amads" at exactly the same time the Antichrist is revealed. I must be misunderstanding your point here because this is as straight forward as it interpretation gets.

Do you think Michael doesn't amad? Or that it doesn't happen at the midpoint? Do you agree the AoD happens at the midpoint? Do you agree the Antichrist is revealed at the AOD?

You've asserted that "no where speaks of a third player". You've proposed two persons, Satan and Michael, and claimed none other are involved, citing this as evidence. This is circular reasoning, citing the conclusion in the proof.

Circular reasoning? I stated Michael and the antichrst are two people mentioned in Scripture who are said to do something significant at the mid point of the 70th Seven. Do you agree with this? Then I stated that nowhere else in Scripture is a third player introduced as doing something significant at this time. Do you agree with this statement? (About the only other players could be the two witnesses but I haven't heard anybody bringing them up as possible candidates.) I then states that we should try to match up the actions of the significant players in 2 Thess 2 with the ones that Scripture states do something significant at this time. Is that not as logical as it can get? Then I said, if these players match up and make sense, seek no other sense. This is basic hermeneutics.

I do not see any flaws in this logic and most definitely do not see circular reasoning. If my reasoning is wrong you have to show one of the following:

1. Michael does not do something significant at the mid point of the 70th seven.
2. The antichrist does not do something significant at the mid point of the 70th seven.
3. Somebody else does something significant at the midpoint of the 70th seven.
4. The actions of the players in 2 Thess 2 do not match up with the actions of Michael or the antichrist.

Only point 4 is really open for debate. Do the actions line up? In 2 Thess 2 one person restrains and another is revealed.
Can we agree the antichrist is the one who is revealed? I would think we all agree on this. The only question is who is the restrainer.

There is not enough info in this passage to determine that. We know there is a restrainer or restraining, but who or what it is we do not know. So we look for another major player who does something significant at this time, preferably from another major prophetic author. Michael is the only one in Scripture and his actions match up enough. He is the one who fights for Israel. He fights against Satan in Jude and in Revelation. In fact in Revelation we find he goes to heaven and fights against Satan and kicks him out of heaven, thus starting the Great Trib. Sure seems he qualifies as a restrainer.

Nobody debates Michael being active in Dan 12 or Rev 12. Why not then in 2 Thess 2:7? Even if somebody doesn't want to admit the restrainer is Michael, they still would have to admit that Michael does something very significant at this time. They would also have to admit this something Michael does is probably one of the most significant events in the history of the world - and the history of heaven. I kind of think kicking Satan out of heaven qualifies as a big deal. Even Rev. tells the heavens to rejoice yet of the woe to those on earth because of this event.

As for stupid, we all know people make stupid mistakes - including smart people. I still think this is a stupid mistake - one well below the people's here normal level of intelligence. What I do not understand is why, when confronted by the evidence, one doesn't correct their mistake? It is no longer a stupid mistake, like a failure to zoom out and instead to zoom in, but a purposeful mistake.

As for a fight, I practice physical fighting all the time. We go hard at each other but there is no ill will involved. For people who are not warriors they cannot understand this. To them everything is personal. But that is just the nature of war. To those of us experienced, it is mostly technical.

And guess what, when I practice fighting I sometime make stupid mistakes. They happen and I admit it and go on. I learn from it.

In fact, I think it was a mistake to use the word stupid. I am sorry. Not that I think I was wrong in the least in the judgement itself. The mistake was saying it. I just used emotive language and hurt rather than helped the debate. So accept my apology for saying it is a stupid mistake. Let me take that back and say instead it is an elementary and fundamental mistake. Not that a person likes that conclusion either but hopefully it does not offend like the other did.

[mark s]

In the Book of Job, I wonder who was the restrainer? Now does the same apply today?

Shalom

Jay Ross

Hi Jay,

This is an interesting point indeed!

Love in Christ,
Mark

[mark s]

Michael has a special role in protecting the nation of Israel. But when the midpoint of Daniel's 70th week occurs, there will be a war in heaven at which time Michael will thrust Satan out from the heavenly stronghold that he has. This will result in the manifestation of a ten nation alliance headed by the antichrist. It's the beast of Revelation 13 as an empire and as a person.

Hi OM,

I've not read all your posts . . . could you give me in a nutshell the passages that show this connection? How do we know the 10 nation alliance won't exist before Satan is cast to the earth?

So why is Michael not protecting the nation of Israel as the dragon seeks to attack the woman and those that follow her commandments through the persecution of the beast? It is obvious that God will allow the little horn of Daniel 7 to prevail against the saints. And it is obvious that Satan's next move after being cast out of heaven is to utilize a governmental framework which persecutes the people of God, Israel included.

I think the best understanding of this is that those who obeyed are protected, and those who do not are not. Jesus warned them, flee to the wilderness.

This is why the two witnesses are killed and lay in the streets of Jerusalem. So according to your logic, where is Michael when the two witnesses are killed?

Michael is said to stand for the group, but no indication that he protects every individual Israelite. These I think are in harm's way for a reason.

Where is Michael when the saints are being conquered by the beast, Revelation 13:7? The 144,000 Israelites are not sealed until just before the Day of the LORD as the great tribulation (time of Jacob's trouble) is ending. So Israel will be in the time of Jacob's trouble suffering. Jeremiah 30:7-9 shows Israel in the midst of the time of Jacob's trouble, but God will deliver her out of it leading directly into the reign of the Davidic Messiah.

We have different timing ideas on this point, so I'll leave it aside for now.

The intrinsic reason why this doesn't affect my argumentation is that Michael restrains evil through the governmental systems of this world.

Again, in a nutshell, can you point me to the support passages? Where is this taught?

According to your view, why would Michael standing up result in a time of trouble for the nation of Israel?

Cause and effect? Or happening at the same time? What does the Scripture actually state? That it will be at the same time, but not that one causes the other.

Love in Christ,
Mark

[shorttribber]

I do not know of anything you wrote to me about this. I will check back through the thread and see if I overlooked something. As to the issue itself, of course Michael is the one who "amad". That is because Daniel 12 states exactly that. I am not tying two different passages of Scripture together here. Daniel 12 says as clear as day

"At that time shall the great prince Michael, who AMAD for the sons of your people, will AMAD..."

Michael does amad and then the Great Trib happens. Do you agree the Great Trib starts at the mid point, at the AoD? So Michael "amads" at exactly the same time the Antichrist is revealed. I must be misunderstanding your point here because this is as straight forward as it interpretation gets.

Do you think Michael doesn't amad? Or that it doesn't happen at the midpoint? Do you agree the AoD happens at the midpoint? Do you agree the Antichrist is revealed at the AOD?

If we are to lay aside the Greek and Hebrew to arrive at the meaning why do you emphasize "amad" so much?

I believe Michael is....a/the.....primary restrainer as pertains to Israel but in my opinion watching has made the strongest case for the understanding of the text under debate in 2 Thes.

[mark s]

Mark,

You've asserted that the language analysis is unimportant to this discussion. Myself, I'd say that unless you actually understand what the passage is saying, and what the possible meaning(s) is(are), you're not even ready to compare it to other passages.

This does not accurately state my position. Yes, we need to understand what the passage is saying and the possible meanings are before we compare passages. On this we agree. However, I think the translations we have and the analysis that has been done meet this criteria. We need to move on to comparing Scripture with Scripture. That is the main point I have been making.

Hi morpheus,

I don't see where we've (others in this thread) have reached agreement on what the passage is actually saying. Without that, how do we progress to the next level?

When a passage is equivocal, the solution to the problem must lie elsewhere. That is by definition of what equivocal means. Two equal meanings. If the local evidence decided one interpretation over the other, it would no longer be equivocal and there would be nothing to resolve. Thus in examining the possible meanings, there has to come a point where you must stop with the analysis, even when you do not have complete solutions, and start to compare Scripture with Scripture.

The problem is, as I see it, is that we cannot agree on the rules of grammar to follow. So we can't even agree whether the passage is equivocal or not. That was partly why I suggested we were going in circles.

That is not to say we don't look back on the translation issue occasionally as we continue to compare Scripture with Scripture. But the solutions to eschatology lie not in Greek and Hebrew analysis. They lie well within the realm of Hermeneutics and English for us. This is my main point. I think people overrate language studies. They are needed, but there comes a time where the translation is done and the synthesis begins.

I think all of these things are very important, and many deep disagreements over interpretations and doctrines are solved by looking into the original languages.

So I am not knocking all language study. But after 2000 years I think we should have the language down pretty good. If not, how many more years do we need? I realize everybody is at a different level in their study. We are not all born with Greek and Hebrew knowledge. But if we cannot come to agreement on this after 2000 years, then we should be ashamed. From this perspective, isn't it stupid that we are still doing much language study at all? I think so.

Why would it be stupid???

Yes, collectively, mankind has had 2000 years, but you and I, and watching, and OM, and the others, what of us? Should we not seek to enhance our personal understanding? Do you think that nothing can be added to the English translations?

OK, I have to stop for now to go chop melons for our potluck, but I'll come back when I can to continue my response.

One more thing, though, that I don't want to leave until later . . .

In fact, I think it was a mistake to use the word stupid. I am sorry. Not that I think I was wrong in the least in the judgement itself. The mistake was saying it. I just used emotive language and hurt rather than helped the debate. So accept my apology for saying it is a stupid mistake. Let me take that back and say instead it is an elementary and fundamental mistake. Not that a person likes that conclusion either but hopefully it does not offend like the other did.

Thank you!!!

. . . emotive language uses feeling words . . . and I disagree about it being a mistake, nonetheless . . .

To be continued . . .

Love in Christ,
Mark

[morpheus]

The reason why I emphasis the word AMAD is because I see many people misunderstand this word. It means "to stand." It can also mean "to sit". So what gives with a word that seems to mean opposite things? Amad can best mean "to change" or "stop doing what you were doing." If you were sitting then you stand up. If you were standing up then you sit down.

While Michael is the one who stands up for Israel, he said to amad - he does something different at the mid point of the 70th Seven. Everybody debates whether at the midpoint Michael fights or not. Does he defend Israel and fight back, or is Israel in trouble because Michael ceases to fight back? Amad is important because it show Michael changes what he is doing.

Whether Michael fights is not the only issue. Rev. 12 shows Michael does indeed fight. But instead of fighting on earth, he goes to heaven and fights Satan there. So if one wants to say Michael does indeed fight, the question is where. And where he is fighting, there is a place where he is not fighting. I assume Michael is not omniscient so that he is not in two places at once. So if he is fighting for Israel now on earth, he is not in heaven fighting Satan. When he rises up or Amads, he stops doing what he does here, and starts doing it in heaven. Once he is in heaven, he is no longer here on earth. Therefore when Satan gets kicked out of heaven, Satan goes to work on the elect here. What follows is the worst time in history.

So whether you say Michael fights or stops fighting, the question becomes where and against who. The Bible clearly puts Michael on earth in the few places he shows up in the OT. But at the mid point of the 70th seven, he changes location and fights in heaven. Scripture is silent about his work and location until the rapture at the 6th seal. There we see his loud voice and a trumpet as the angels gather the elect.

Another side trail here is who is the angel of the Lord that appears throughout the OT to Joshua and others? There is no way to be definitive but it very well could be Michael. If so, he is a much more prominent player in history, especially as the one who fights for Israel. I would never be dogmatic on this but the Bible does seem to give Michael a pretty big role. And it may be much bigger then commonly thought.

So when it comes to 2 Thess 2:7, Michael as restrainer is not without evidence. That does not mean it is him necessarily. But there are no other entities in the Bible who are said to change what they are doing, change a location, or do something significant at the midpoint of the 70th Seven. The short list is really just one - Michael.

The other two possibilities I have heard are government and the HS restrainer. The HS is said to convict the world of sin. So the HS does have some merit to make the short list. But there is nothing at to time, place, or change at the midpoint of the 70th Seven to provide evidence the HS is the restrainer. Again with this lack of detail evidence for the HS and abundance of detail evidence for Michael, why not just go with Michael? Again, when the Scripture make sense, seek no other sense. There is just no details for the case of the HS being the restrainer.

Now about government, Romans 13 indicates they are set up by God for the restraint of evil. So maybe they can make the short list in 2 Thess 2:7. Are there any details about breakdown in government around the midpoint of the 70th Seven? That is not an easy answer. We know there are wars and changes in government throughout the 70th Seven. But I do not see anywhere in Scripture mentioning a significant change of government at the midpoint of the 70th Seven. If there are Scriptures, then I would put government on the short list with Michael as possible candidates for the restrainer. But seeing as there is no time data linking government changes to the midpoint, then government falls off the short list. That leaves Michael as default as the only person who has the time, place, and action that match.

What about the Apostacy, the falling away? Well 2 Thess 2 is not the only place in prophecy this is mentioned. It is mentioned all throughout the OT prophets and in the Olivet Discourse too. Family breaks down with brother against brother, parents against kids, and kids against parents. The love of many will grow cold.

The Olivet DIscourse places this time after the AoD and during the Great Trib. This loss of love is one reason why the Great Trib is so bad. The Great Trib is so bad that there is a loss of love. It is both cause and effect. This makes sense with what we would expect to happen during times of great pressure and tribulation.

Satan and the antichrist also persecute the elect. The fifth seal is the martyrs who are killed during this time. 2 Thess 2 states the DOTL and the rapture cannot happen until the Apostasy and the AoD happen. This clearly places the church here on earth until some time after the halfway point in the 70th seven. So both pre-trib and mid-trib rapture positions are out.

I think the only reason why people debate 2 Thess 2 so much is because the pre-tribbers are desperate for evidence. I mean Rev 4 John "come up hither" just does not fly. That is what I used to be taught. So I see them try to make the Apostasy or the restrainer into some evidence to support their rapture timing conclusion. But if it were not for this reason, why would anybody not think Michael is the restrainer? Yes, I do guess at a person's motives but are there any reasons other then pre-tribbers trying to find some evidence here or anywhere for this debate why Michael is rejected?

Stated this way, if Michael is indeed the restrainer and the Apostasy is the love growing cold, what contradictions result? Pre-tribber are found to be in error but no there is no contradictions of synthesis of Scripture.

I stand with the guys at the beginning of this thread - if the HS is the restrainer then show me the evidence in Scripture. I use to believe the pre-trib and that the restrainer was the HS. But after going through the whole Bible and finding no evidence to support this, and in fact, evidence to the contrary, I had to switch conclusions. So when I state there is no Scriptural support, I know because I did the research myself.

I once though prophecy was so hard to understand but it was only because I was making so many mistakes. Once I found the combination to the lock, things got a lot easier and clearer. In fact, down right simple. If you find prophecy hard, then you are trying to put the puzzle pieces together with the wrong box top. The Bible is not muddy; only people's false conclusions are muddy. It is not rocket science.

That is not to say we can know all the answers to every question. Scripture does not give us all the answers to every question we might have. But we should be able to find the answers to the questions we need. We need to follow conclusions to their proper point and pursue no further. The rest we just have to wait and see.

Jesus commanded we watch. It is not optional. He listed signs in the Olivet DIscourse. At the very least, make a list from the Olivet Discourse and compare it to the evening news. When things happen, check the item off the list. The beginning of sorrows is nothing new. That stuff has been going on for 2000 years. But when Jerusalem is surrounded, the AoD happens, the Great Trib happens, the apostasy, the persecution, the sun and moon go dark, then you know it is time. Michael is coming with his angels. See the sign of the son of man coming in the clouds of glory. Look up for your redemption draws nigh.

That is eschatology in a nutshell. It really is that simple. We can debate who the restrainer is but lets make sure we have the major points in order. Only once we have the big picture straight should we move onto the details like who is the restrainer.

[shorttribber]

Once I found the combination to the lock

Would that be the "combination" of, "prewrath Rapture" by Marvin Rosenthal and "Rapture Question Answered" by Robert Van Kampen?

They were helpful to me too......but the Word of God exposes some of their shortcomings also........prophecy is still not as "easy" as you have come to believe.

Prophecy is much greater and richer and past finding out than any of us can fathom.

You'll see.

[mark s]

The reason why I emphasis the word AMAD is because I see many people misunderstand this word. It means "to stand." It can also mean "to sit". So what gives with a word that seems to mean opposite things? Amad can best mean "to change" or "stop doing what you were doing." If you were sitting then you stand up. If you were standing up then you sit down.

Hi morpheus,

What do you think of the Septuagint translation in general? Of this verse?

Daniel 12:1 "And at that time Michael the great prince shall stand up, that stands over the children of your people,"

This is not "amad", this is Greek:

Dan 12:1 καὶ ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ ἀναστήσεται Μιχαηλ ὁ ἄρχων ὁ μέγας ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου·

This word is particularly to rise up to a standing position.

While Michael is the one who stands up for Israel, he said to amad - he does something different at the mid point of the 70th Seven.

Amad is equally to stand. Michael is not doing something different here. He's standing for Israel. It's what he does.

Whether Michael fights is not the only issue. Rev. 12 shows Michael does indeed fight. But instead of fighting on earth, he goes to heaven and fights Satan there. So if one wants to say Michael does indeed fight, the question is where. And where he is fighting, there is a place where he is not fighting. I assume Michael is not omniscient so that he is not in two places at once. So if he is fighting for Israel now on earth, he is not in heaven fighting Satan. When he rises up or Amads, he stops doing what he does here, and starts doing it in heaven. Once he is in heaven, he is no longer here on earth. Therefore when Satan gets kicked out of heaven, Satan goes to work on the elect here. What follows is the worst time in history.

And so Michael is not capable of returning to the earth? That seems counter-intuitive.

Another side trail here is who is the angel of the Lord that appears throughout the OT to Joshua and others? There is no way to be definitive but it very well could be Michael.

And entirely different study, but easily demonstrated that in at least many of the appearances of the angel of the Lord in the OT, it's God Himself.

Genesis 22:15-16
(15) And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven
(16) and said, "By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,

This is not Michael, it is God.

Jdg 2:1 Now the angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said, "I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into

the land that I swore to give to your fathers

. I said, 'I will never break my covenant with you,

This is not Michael, it is God.

Jdg 13:21 The angel of the LORD appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD.
Jdg 13:22 And Manoah said to his wife, "We shall surely die, for we have seen God."
Jdg 13:23 But his wife said to him, "If the LORD had meant to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering at our hands, or shown us all these things, or now announced to us such things as these."

If so, he is a much more prominent player in history, especially as the one who fights for Israel. I would never be dogmatic on this but the Bible does seem to give Michael a pretty big role. And it may be much bigger then commonly thought.

This, then, seems unsupported to me. We should not ascribe these appearances to Michael, they are identified for us as God Himself.

Again, I have to cut this short . . .

Love in Christ,
Mark

[morpheus]

I don't want to get sidetracked on the Angel of the Lord thing. I am not saying they can't be God, just some may not be. Just because someone thought they saw God does not mean they actually did. I know the evidence and ultimately we can't be dogmatic on this. (Though I do think some of these appearances were God himself) It really doesn't matter. We really do not have a lot of info about Satan, angels, heaven, the HS and such. It would seem from Scripture that Michael is more powerful than Satan. Whatever that means. I just brought this up to say Michael may figure in more than we realize.

Yes, Rosenthal and Van Kampen were gifts to the church. Just like Martin Luther was. But that does not mean they got everything right. Nobody is perfect. They helped us fix the beam in our eyes. I really do not see the point of knocking them for a speck somewhere in their own eye.

As for the Septuagint, there are two different versions that I recall. I think the translations are helpful. They use the word rise up for amad. However, I think Rev 12 gives us the most detail concerning this rising up or amad, in that Michael goes to heaven and wages war on Satan and kicks him out. So it seems Michael rises up from from the earth, goes to heaven and wages war. Daniel is the less clear, Revelation 12 the most clear.

The main issue I think is not as much what Michael does but where he does it at. It is this change in location that is the significant change. This change of location is what sets in motion the events that follow.

But do not overlook the war in heaven. Is Michael waging war now? Has he been doing so for the last 2000 years? If not, then one would have to admit that Michael does change to doing something different. I'd add my commentary on this issue to say it seems Michael finally gets to the heart of the problem. He goes on the offense rather than spending another 2000 years on defense.

The question is not whether Michael can come back to the earth after the war in heaven; the question is whether he does. Or better yet, when he does come back. Revelation 12 puts Michael in heaven at the midpoint of the 70th week. The next time we see him is the voice of the archangel at the rapture with all the angels coming to gather the elect. There is no evidence Michael comes back to earth between these two times. Of course, there is not any evidence saying he can't come and go either. What do we know know about angelic travel? (big ladder in the sky anyone?)

But it sure seems natural that he is restraining here on earth and that is why the man of lawlessness is held back. The second Michael seems to rise up and leave earth we get the antichrist, Satan, and the Great Trib here. Satan knowns his time is short and so gets to work destroying while he can. The second Michael comes back, the Great Trib is cut short and the elect delivered.

Again, I know I assume Michael is not omnipresent but don't you think this is a safe assumption? I am keeping Michael right where Scripture puts him. The opposite is to assume Michael is omnipresent and this opens a big can of worms I'd say. Or that Michael comes and goes but Scripture doesn't tell us about this at all.

I guess I'd like to ask one question, why not Michael as restrainer? Is he not powerful enough? Do the details not match up? If there is one good piece of evidence against Michael being the restrainer, what is it?

The same question can be asked of the HS as restrainer? He certainly is powerful enough but I don't think the details match up. There is no time, place specific data in Scripture. The main objection to the HS as restrainer is that there is this angel Michael that does match up in time, place and function detail in Scripture.

[shorttribber]

Yes, Rosenthal and Van Kampen were gifts to the church. Just like Martin Luther was. But that does not mean they got everything right. Nobody is perfect. They helped us fix the beam in our eyes. I really do not see the point of knocking them for a speck somewhere in their own eye.

I don't beleive I knocked them....I said they have been helpful.

I had the chance to go to the Van Kampen Scriptorium before it was moved away and Brother Van Kampen finished his race.....what a great collection and place to visit and learn.