How do you know it isn't?
Strong's definitions for each word in this compound word:
The question is, CAN this word mean something else? It is a compound word - "apo" and "stasia."
Here is what Strong's says about "apo:
of separation... ...of local separation,
...after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing,...
of separation of a part from the whole......where of a whole some part is taken
of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed
of a state of separation, that is of distance...physical, of distance of place
At the rapture, will some part of the entire population be taken? You know the answer is YES.
Will those taken be separated by DISTANCE? Again the answer is YES.
The other part of the compound word 'stasia" is where we get "stationary" or "not moving" from.
Putting these two words together then can certainly mean a part of a whole group suddenly moved from where they were to a new location, and it happen so fast, the rest of the whole group seems stationary - not moving.
But we cannot and should not form doctrine from one word, as in pulling it out of its context. We must determine its meaning IN its context.
Paul wrote this passage with parallels:
Verse 3: Apostasisa - the man of sin revealed
Verse 6: Something restraining - might be revealed
Verses 7-8: restraining force removed - the man of sin revealed
There can be NO DOUBT that Paul's intent in "Apostasia" has to do with the man of sin being revealed. Therefore it has to do with the restraining force being "taken out of the way.
Then Paul wrote: "And now you know what is restraining him [from being revealed at this time " (AMP)
Why would Paul write this UNLESS He had just told us what or who this restraining power was? In fact, Paul DID tell us, but did it in a cloaked manner, then wrote "now you know" so people would go back and read again and discover his meaning. Just guessing, because Paul did not tell us, but is it possible he wrote this in a manner that the only people who would really understand would be those who had read his first letter?
It is an absolute truth that in verse 3b, Paul shows us the man of sin revealed.
It is just as much truth that in verses 6-8 he explains the only way that could happen: the power restraining - that power we are suppose to know now - has been taken out of the way.
A good student of the bible should then ask: HOW Paul" HOW or WHERE do you show this restraining power "taken out of the way" somewhere in verse 3a?
Is a "falling away" (from what we can't tell) equal to "taken out of the way?"
Could a "falling away" possibly in any way be a restraining force preventing the man of sin from being revealed too soon?
I don't see how either of these is possible. Yet it seems that Paul's intent is that hidden in "apostasia" must be that power restraining being "taken out of the way" so that in 3b the man of sin is revealed.
Strong's definitions for each word in this compound word:
The question is, CAN this word mean something else? It is a compound word - "apo" and "stasia."
Here is what Strong's says about "apo:
of separation... ...of local separation,
...after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing,...
of separation of a part from the whole......where of a whole some part is taken
of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed
of a state of separation, that is of distance...physical, of distance of place
At the rapture, will some part of the entire population be taken? You know the answer is YES.
Will those taken be separated by DISTANCE? Again the answer is YES.
The other part of the compound word 'stasia" is where we get "stationary" or "not moving" from.
Putting these two words together then can certainly mean a part of a whole group suddenly moved from where they were to a new location, and it happen so fast, the rest of the whole group seems stationary - not moving.
But we cannot and should not form doctrine from one word, as in pulling it out of its context. We must determine its meaning IN its context.
Paul wrote this passage with parallels:
Verse 3: Apostasisa - the man of sin revealed
Verse 6: Something restraining - might be revealed
Verses 7-8: restraining force removed - the man of sin revealed
There can be NO DOUBT that Paul's intent in "Apostasia" has to do with the man of sin being revealed. Therefore it has to do with the restraining force being "taken out of the way.
Then Paul wrote: "And now you know what is restraining him [from being revealed at this time " (AMP)
Why would Paul write this UNLESS He had just told us what or who this restraining power was? In fact, Paul DID tell us, but did it in a cloaked manner, then wrote "now you know" so people would go back and read again and discover his meaning. Just guessing, because Paul did not tell us, but is it possible he wrote this in a manner that the only people who would really understand would be those who had read his first letter?
It is an absolute truth that in verse 3b, Paul shows us the man of sin revealed.
It is just as much truth that in verses 6-8 he explains the only way that could happen: the power restraining - that power we are suppose to know now - has been taken out of the way.
A good student of the bible should then ask: HOW Paul" HOW or WHERE do you show this restraining power "taken out of the way" somewhere in verse 3a?
Is a "falling away" (from what we can't tell) equal to "taken out of the way?"
Could a "falling away" possibly in any way be a restraining force preventing the man of sin from being revealed too soon?
I don't see how either of these is possible. Yet it seems that Paul's intent is that hidden in "apostasia" must be that power restraining being "taken out of the way" so that in 3b the man of sin is revealed.
Once all the components are on the table...postribs have the "force restraining" as anathema.
How silly