Does Apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Refer to a ‘Physical Departure’

[Last Daze]

 

2 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Oh brother... You guys can't even read proper English! Well, I've done my due diligence for those that read and want the truth. They can choose whatever they want to believe. I spoke the word of God, y'all spoke theories which for the life of I cannot understand the reason why there's such vitriol against the rapture.

 

On 11/18/2018 at 10:10 AM, Abdicate said:

Oh dude, you don't want the truth, you want to be right.

Whoever discovered psychological projection was really onto something.

[Diaste]

17 hours ago, Abdicate said:

I cannot understand the reason why there's such vitriol against the rapture.

This is a deflection.

There is no vitriol, cruel and bitter criticism, against the rapture, all of us, collectively, are eagerly awaiting this most profound hope and promise. This may be the one tenet we all agree on, Jesus is coming.

I don't really see cruel nor bitter criticism in this thread, those posts are deleted as someone always reports such behavior.

The focus is doctrinal and the tenets of that doctrine. I don't engage in ad homs nor vitriol, and hold no animosity toward any person. I do enage in 'weapons free' in opposition to erroneous doctrine and direct fire at specific tenets.

I think it unfair to ascribe group behavior to individuals, in all cases.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Diaste

[Diaste]

12 hours ago, SelahSong said:

 

 

1 Corinthians 15:52-56 King James Version (KJV)

52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

…

Jesus returns at the last trump. THE LAST TRUMP IS THE 7TH TRUMP.

Antichrist comes at the 6th Trump. (We will still be here.)

(Read Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21)

 

 

Respectedly submitted,

Selah

Quite right. The last trump of the 7 trumps of Revelation.

 

[Diaste]

22 hours ago, Last Daze said:

  I think Paul deserves more credit than that.

 

In that same vein I often wonder why some believe Paul meant something other than what he said. Saul of Tarsus is a top academic boasting a great deal of understanding even before the journey to Damascus. In some cases Paul's word is bond, and in others intent is manufactured, as opposed to discerned through Paul's carefully chosen words. 

The one that gets me is the belief Paul knew nothing about the end of the age because Jesus didn't give His Revelation until 95 AD. As if to say Paul's take on the end had more to do with Talmudic beliefs than hard evidence, and then in opposition to Revelation, and the Gospels, at critical points.

Stunning in light of the fact we are all called by Jesus name and profess trust and belief in Him, casting ourselves on His mercy, and hiding under the covering of His shed blood for the remission of our sins.

[Last Daze]

10 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Says the pot to the kettle...

Actually, it's a truth that Jesus taught.

• Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?  Matthew 7:3

But we have to be willing to look into that mirror honestly for it to be of any benefit to us.

[Revelation Man]

On 11/2/2018 at 11:07 AM, JoeCanada said:

Does Apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Refer to a ‘Physical Departure’ (i.e. the Rapture)

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;....2 Thes 2:3

 

Second Thessalonians chapter two has been the nemesis for pretribulationism. Or what I refer to as the 800-pound gorilla in the Bible of the pretribulationist.

This biblical passage has convinced more ex-pretribulationists that their pretrib theology is wrong than any other Bible passage. The reason for this is straightforward: The fundamental premise of pretribulationism is that there cannot be any prophesied events that will take place before the rapture, and consequently they believe in the novel idea of what has come to be called the “any moment” rapture (a.k.a. imminence).

Paul, however, gives an unambiguous statement in v. 3 that has lead many to reject imminence and thereby understand that there will be in fact at least a couple of key monumental events that will happen before the rapture.

Several pretrib teachers have attempted to get around the plain meaning of this Biblical text, but there has been one in particular that is indeed the most strained.

A few years back at a Bible prophecy  Conference I gave a series of lectures on Thessalonians. One of them was focused particularly on the pretrib argument that the Greek word behind “rebellion” (apostasia, ἀποστασία) can carry the meaning of a “physical and spatial departure,” thereby suggesting that Paul has the rapture in mind when he uses this word in this verse.

Some pretribulationists, such as Thomas Ice, argue that the word “rebellion” (apostasia, ἀποστασία) means “physical departure”and not a “religious departure,” thus denoting the rapture.

This view was first introduced in 1895 by J. S. Mabie and  popularized by E. Schuyler English in 1949

In their first appeal they try to support this argument by noting earlier versions

Pretrib proponents have pointed out that early English Bibles such as Tyndale, Coverdale, and Geneva have rendered rebellion in v. 3 as “departing.”

The implication of the English word “depart” is suppose to suggest a “physical departing” and thus the concept of the rapture was in the mind of these English translators.

But this is not correct for a couple of reasons:

Appealing to sixteenth-century English versions to understand the meaning of a Greek word is naïve at best and only pushes the question back a step further: What did the sixteenth-century English word “departing” mean? Since the English word can be spatial or non-spatial in meaning.

These same early English versions use “departing” at Hebrews 3:12. For example the KJV reads, “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.”

Here “departing” is clearly non-spatial.

Further, there is no evidence that these translators on this verse understood apostasia as a “spatial departure.”

A second appeal is to lexical evidence. But which side is the lexical evidence on?

Here is where the rubber meets the road.

Is there any lexical evidence that would prove that apostasia can carry the meaning of “physical departing,” let alone in 2 Thessalonians 2:3?

Word studies always begin with proximity and works its way outward:

Author -> NT -> Septuagint -> Koine (Pseudepigrapha Josephus, Philo) -> Classical Greek -> Patristic

New Testament:

The term is used only one other time in the New Testament, which means a religious departure:

and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake [religious apostasy] Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. –Acts 21:21

Septuagint:

Four Times: Joshua 22:22; 2 Chronicles 29:19; 1 Maccabees 2:15; Jeremiah 2:19.

Every time it means apostasy or rebellion in a religious or political sense—never used as a spatial or physical sense.

Koine Greek Literature:

In Moulton and Milligan’s, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources, it is demonstrated that this term is only used in the political or religious defection sense—again, never used in a spatial departure sense (pp. 68–9).

Further, even pretribulationist scholar Paul Feinberg admits, “If one searches for the uses of the noun “apostasy” in the 355 occurrences over the 300-year period between the second century B.C. and the first century A.D., one will not find a single instance where this word refers to a physical departure.”

He is correct.

Classical Greek:

The classical Greek Liddell and Scott lexicon lists the primary meaning of apostasia as “defection, revolt”; and “departure, disappearance” as a secondary meaning.

The only example of this secondary meaning of spatial departure is found five centuries later after the New Testament. It is sloppy and simply fallacious to read back, not only an obscure meaning but one that is five centuries after the New Testament!

Patristic Greek:

The standard Greek lexicon for Patristic Greek Lampe has the primary meaning of apostasia as “revolt, defection” and gives only one example of a spatial departure.

This one instance is found in a NT apocryphal work on the tradition of the Assumption of Mary. Again, outside of the Koine period dated to the later 5th century A.D.

So what do we make of all this lexical evidence?

Here are the documented lexical facts:

There were five Greek sources examined. The most weighty and important sources are in the Koine period, the New Testament and the Septuagint–not a single instance does apostasia carry the meaning of “physical departure.” Instead, every instance has the meaning of religious or political departure.

The last two sources—Classical and Patristic Greek—are the least weighty and important because they are the furthest removed from the New Testament.

There were only two instances from these  sources that have a physical departure meaning—and both of these examples are dated late well into the 5th-6th century.

This is why one will not find the “physical” (i.e. spatial) meaning in standard New Testament lexicons.

BDAG defines this word as “defiance of established system or authority, rebellion, abandonment, breach of faith”

BDAG‘s predecessor Thayer

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Kittel)

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Brown)

Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (Balz)

A third appeal to the cognate verb

So how does the pretribber respond to these lexical facts? This is where the desperate leap takes place.

We have done a responsible thorough examination of the noun apostasia demonstrating that the term does not carry a “physical-spatial” meaning in the Koine period.

The pretribber will make the leap by pointing to the cognate verb form of apostasia, which is aphistemi, which means “to withdraw, remove, depart, leave.” It is used 14 times in the NT and is used both in a spatial and non-spatial sense. This is where the leap happens by assuming that the verb meaning carries over to the noun meaning.

E. S. English succinctly states the pretrib reasoning: “since a noun takes its meaning from the verb, the noun, too, may have such a broad connotation.”

Davey goes further saying, “Since the root verb has this meaning of ‘departure’ from a person or place in a geographical sense, would not its derivatives have the same foundational word meaning.”

Enter the cognate and root fallacy.

Cognates and roots is not the way any responsible exegete determines word meanings (Imagine reading the newspaper this way. Or love letters!)

Instead, word meanings are determined by semantic range and its usage in context.

Even Feinberg rejects this naïve method when he comments on this specific word: “the meaning of derivative nouns must be established through their usage.” (emphasis his)

Perfect case in point: aphistemi

Apostasion is a cognate noun to this verb, which only means “divorce or some other legal act of separation.”

Apostater another cognate noun which means “one who has power to dissolve an assembly” or “to decide a question.”

Since these derivative nouns do not contain the meaning of a spatial or physical departure (as the pretribber will not argue), there is absolutely no basis to assume that our target noun apostasia does as well. In other words, the pretrib cannot have their lexical cake and eat it too. It is first rank special pleading.

The fourth appeal: context

Since the semantic range does not include “physical or spatial departure” it is moot to even evaluate context—unless someone wants to argue that this is the only instance within 500 years that the term means a “physical departure”!

Nevertheless, let’s argue context.

To interpret the word “rebellion” in v. 3 as the “rapture” does not comport with the context, and as we will see it makes Paul unintelligible, even humorous.

First, Paul is making a contrast of what precedes and what follows. The “gathering” (rapture) and parousia/day of the Lord is what follows (“For that day will not come unless”) the rebellion and revelation of the man of lawlessness. The pretrib view would have Paul in essence saying, “The rapture cannot happen until the rapture happens” But Paul is clearly marking certain events as signs or conditions that must take place before Christ’s return.

Second, Paul does not simply mention “rebellion” (apostasy) and leave it at that. But the verse begins with Paul’s exhortation, “Let no one deceive you in any way.” This is followed by “For,” which in this case is called an “explanatory hoti (ὅτι).” That is to say, Paul is connecting the exhortation not to be deceived with the fact of rebellion and the man of lawlessness being revealed.

In addition, some pretrib teachers have attempted to argue that since there is an article “the” before “rebellion” it indicates that the Thessalonians were familiar with some previous teaching by Paul. This is baseless, since they have to assume that it refers to the rapture. It is classic begging the question.

But what does the context show us?

Since this word in the Koine period always meant a “religious or political departure” should we then not be surprised that Paul makes references in this very context to “the truth” and “the Christian faith”?

Indeed, he does:

v. 2 “not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed”
v. 3 “Let no one deceive you in any way”
v. 10 “they refused to love the truth”
v. 11 “Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false”
v. 13 “through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth”
v. 15 “stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”

In addition, the rebellion and the revealing of the man of lawlessness are not two disconnected or unrelated events, but should be seen as a two-fold unifying event: “first” refers to both of the events that must happen before the day of the Lord.

And what is the connection between Antichrist and the apostasy/rebellion?

“The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false.” 2 Thessalonians 2:9–11.

I recognize that there are other viewpoints of who actually apostatizes:

(1) A conspicuous increase in godlessness (or rebellion) within the world? (but the definite article before “rebellion” would suggest a more specific discernible event)
(2) A significant apostasy within the professing church?
(3) True believers lose their salvation? (but see 2 Thess 2:13).
(4) Jewish in scope? (but the context here includes Gentiles)

My own position is #2 because I believe the immediate context in chapter 2 of the Antichrist’s activity informs us of the identity of the rebellion. Nevertheless, this is not particularly essential to my point in this article.

Here is the big picture: The pretribulational “Physical Departure” argument fails on all four levels:

It fails on appealing to early English versions
It fails on appealing to five bodies of Greek literature
It fails on appealing to its verbal cognate form
It fails on appealing to context.

Even the most noted pretibulational scholar John F. Walvoord did not take this “physical departure” interpretation:

In the first edition of his popular book The Rapture Question (1957) he defended the “Physical Departure” argument. But after considering some of these arguments put forth by Robert H. Gundry, Walvoord rejected this common pretrib argument which he notes in his second edition of The Rapture Question (1979).

Also, noted pretrib scholar Paul Feinberg writes, “there is no reason to understand Paul’s use of apostasia as a reference to the rapture” (When the Trumpet Sounds, 311).

https://www.alankurschner.com/2015/09/11/does-apostasia-in-2-thessalonians-23-refer-to-a-physical-departure-i-e-the-rapture/

For starters, 2 Thess 2, looked at either way does not say what the post tribbers claim. If it meant a falling away of FAITH had to come before the Anti-Christ AND Day of God's wrath could come upon the world so what ? The falling away from the faith would happen as in maybe today, and then the Anti-Christ would come afterwards as well as the DOTL so YOU (children of God) can't go through God's WRATH until all that happens first....the Rapture therefore is THE SUBJECT of verse one, which says that the brothers will be gathered unto Jesus, BEFORE either of these things can come to pass. Thus he was saying, HEY MEN.....Don't fear the Wrath of God coming upon you, that can't happen until the falling away from the faith happens, and then the Anti-Christ or Man of Sin is revealed BEFORE the DOTL or God's Wrath.

So in no way does it mean what the post-tribbers champion it to mean. But it actually means that the Church will depart first, the gates of hell can't prevail against the church Jesus told us that, thus the MORTAL WOUND of the Beast, we the Church, turned the Fourth Beast (Rome) from a Beast to a CONVEYOR BELT of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.......Thus the Mortal Wound........when we are Raptured, the Beast will be allowed to arise out of the Mediterranean Sea once again...................................Thus the Mortal Wound will be healed................................

 

Now you know WHAT WITHHOLDS the Man of Sin from coming forth.............Paul is telling them its the Church, just as he says he explained unto them in person when he was with them before.

FOURTH BEAST.....NO MORE............................................CHURCH AGE...........................RAPTURE.....BEAST ARISES. 

Edited November 24, 2018 by Revelation Man

[Diaste]

On 11/21/2018 at 1:51 AM, Revelation Man said:

Now you know WHAT WITHHOLDS the Man of Sin from coming forth.............Paul is telling them its the Church, 

No. The revealing of the beast precedes the day of the Lord and the gathering. The church is withholding nothing. 

[JoeCanada]

On 11/21/2018 at 12:51 AM, Revelation Man said:

Now you know WHAT WITHHOLDS the Man of Sin from coming forth.............Paul is telling them its the Church, just as he says he explained unto them in person when he was with them before.

 

Hi RM....

You are assuming that Paul is telling them WHO/WHAT it is that WITHHOLDS.

There is nowhere is Scripture that tells us WHO/WHAT the Restrainer that Withholds is. Nowhere!

There have been many guesses: The Church....The Holy Spirit....Michael the Archangel....etc.

Pick any one.....it will only be a guess!

 

[Revelation Man]

2 hours ago, Diaste said:

No. The revealing of the beast precedes the day of the Lord and the gathering. The church is withholding nothing. 

Sure..........the Rapture is all through the bible, its on you that you can't see it, it's on no one else. You guys use scriptures like this in illogical ways and still can't make a case for post trib. All one has to do is read Rev. 19 and they know the Church is Married in Heaven before Jesus returns to defeat the Beast on earth. Straining at a gnat is not going to change the facts brother. 

 

 

 

[Revelation Man]

15 hours ago, JoeCanada said:

Hi RM....

You are assuming that Paul is telling them WHO/WHAT it is that WITHHOLDS.

There is nowhere is Scripture that tells us WHO/WHAT the Restrainer that Withholds is. Nowhere!

There have been many guesses: The Church....The Holy Spirit....Michael the Archangel....etc.

Pick any one.....it will only be a guess!

 

No, I put things together guided by the Holy Spirit. Anyone that uses logic understands the Holy Spirit is not going to leave the earth during the 70th week or tribulation period, the Holy Spirit has to being the plagues of God upon mankind !! Paul tells them, I told you before when I was with you, This is why using Paul's "LETTERS" as holy writ I never got, sure it is word from God, but Paul had no clue they were going to canonize his writing's or he would have been MUCH CLEARER in many instances, of course, but while writing a letter, you don't want to repeat what has already been taught in long form handwriting, that would be a waste of time, so of course he just HINTED at what was spoken of between them, thus we have to be great detectives!! 

When did the FOURTH BEAST and all the Beasts CEASE ? (Head wound) When the Church was born it delivered a mortal wound to the Beast System. The gates of hell can't prevail against the Church. We keep the Beast System from forming, coming together, we have great power via prayer...Whatsoever ye bind on earth will be bound in heaven !! When we leave that binding power is GONE !! The world will again be set up to be taken over by the Beast with 10 Toes. We KEEP THE BEAST AT BAY !! We withhold the Beast. 

Just look at the Beast, its common sense.......FOUR BEASTS........2000 YEARS OF NO BEAST..........RAPTURE..........Beast Arises again.

 

 

Edited November 25, 2018 by Revelation Man