Jump to content
IGNORED

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


JoeCanada

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  74
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  1,238
  • Content Per Day:  0.55
  • Reputation:   669
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/26/2018
  • Status:  Online

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/

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  74
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  1,238
  • Content Per Day:  0.55
  • Reputation:   669
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/26/2018
  • Status:  Online

2 hours ago, Abdicate said:

The scriptures have multiple meanings and it's only those who don't listen to the Author who get into trouble. Why can't it mean both? We're seeing a great departure of the faith right now, today, especially on this site. And we will be taken out of the way. Those against the rapture reject the word of God. It's not their fault, it's the devil's work with all those date- setters that bring about the "second coming fatigued" prophesied about 2 Peter 3:4. He'll come when the time is appointed. The Lord came and the year He started His ministry was exactly 4,000 from creation.

Hi Abdicate,

Not sure what you mean by...."Why can't it mean both?" If it's about "apostacy" in 2 Thes 2:3, it can't be both a "falling away from the truth" and a "rapture". That would make no sense. I do see a rapture of the righteous along with a resurrection of the dead in Christ happening  after the great trib, between the 6th and 7th seal, just before the Lord's Wrath begins against all the ungodly of this world. 

I agree that there is a great departure from the faith happening right now. These "feel good mega-church preachers" are doing great harm to the body of Christ. And then there's the Pope, trying to meld the RCC with Islam and the Protestant Churches. "UNITY" he claims..... blah humbug! I'm shocked at what I'm seeing happening today. And it's only going to get worse. 

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  14
  • Topic Count:  66
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  6,599
  • Content Per Day:  2.00
  • Reputation:   2,355
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  03/17/2015
  • Status:  Offline

On 11/3/2018 at 9:55 AM, Abdicate said:

Sure it can. The Greek word just means departure. Today, we add to it "from the faith." So it can mean both: departure from the faith which is more true today with pseudo-mega churches, just as you said, and the departure of the saints from the planet. Departure is departure. Modern theology replaces a lot of out-of-the-box scriptural truths.

Except the pretrib mindset attempts to force a word into the scripture that is not used. Apostasia is the word that appears, not aphistemi. Don't need five pages of analysis to see this, if one is seeking the truth.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Non-Conformist Theology
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  48
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  2,139
  • Content Per Day:  0.69
  • Reputation:   796
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  10/20/2015
  • Status:  Offline

If according to pretribers the rapture can happen at any moment,why must anything happen first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  14
  • Topic Count:  66
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  6,599
  • Content Per Day:  2.00
  • Reputation:   2,355
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  03/17/2015
  • Status:  Offline

How do get from the definition here:

10 hours ago, Abdicate said:

defection, revolt, rebellion (especially in the religious sense: apostasy)

To the below?

10 hours ago, Abdicate said:

departure

Nothing in the word 'apostasia' suggests or implies 'leaving from one place to go to another', which pretrib demands be the case.

Sorry, no pretrib anything here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  31
  • Content Per Day:  0.02
  • Reputation:   53
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/10/2018
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  01/22/1949

JoeCanada. Thank you for this post. I'm a "pre-tribber" and have been for a long time. I really appreciate your post and find it very thought provoking and informative. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  74
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  1,238
  • Content Per Day:  0.55
  • Reputation:   669
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/26/2018
  • Status:  Online

23 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Time for some real truth.

Some of the oldest English versions state "depart".

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (Geneva)
Let no man deceiue you by any meanes: for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that man of sinne be disclosed, euen the sonne of perdition, 

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (Coverdale)
Let noman disceaue you by eny meanes. For the LORDE commeth not, excepte the departynge come first, and that that Man of synne be opened, euen the sonne of perdicion, 

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (Tyndale)
Let no ma deceave you by eny meanes for the lorde commeth not excepte ther come a departynge fyrst and that that synfnll man be opened ye sonne of perdicion 

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (WEB)
Let no one deceive you in any way. For it will not be, unless the departure comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of destruction, 

From Wyclifee bible (1384), Tyndale, Coverdale, Crammer, Breeches, Beeza, through to the Geneva bible (1608) all said "departing first" and it wasn't used as "falling away" until after the PROTESTANT REFORMATION! It was the Catholics that took Jerome's Latin Vulgate and translated it into Rheims Bible which broke from "departing" to "protestant revolt" to mean "departing from the faith" i.e. Catholicism!

Moreover, remember why Paul was writing this. The Thessalonians were lied to and they thought they were in the tribulation. Paul was setting the record straight that they were not because the man of sin (Antichrist) won't be revealed until the departure, the harpazo (rapture) he wrote of in 1 Thess 4:17 and to comfort one another with this good news! Without harpazo, what's the comforting words?

Furthermore, what "sign" would abandoning the faith be? We're so far from the truth in America that we've been killing babies since 1973! "Falling away" from the truth is the norm for over 100 years! That's not a sign. Even in Paul's day he was amazed how quickly the Galatians were removed from the truth. Paul wrote to them to encourage them to wait patiently for the Lord. They were being persecuted and if you're persecuted (and real) you're not going to depart from the faith.

The definite article before is ho as in "the departure" a singular event. As I've shown, abandoning the faith is a norm and gradual over time such as the norm over the last almost two millennia. Additionally, one must use the word in context. Paul is reassuring them they are not in the tribulation, and gives them signs. Just because the only other time the word is used accusing Paul of making Jews leave the faith doesn't mean it's the same meaning in 2 Thess. Think "Apple" which can mean, fruit, a specific computer, "Apple of one's eye", Adam's apple. The same applies to Greek words and even more so in Hebrew.

Liddel, Scott, and Jones Lexicon states:

ἀπο-στᾰσία , ἡ , late form for ἀπόστασις, defection, revolt, v.l. in D.H. 7.1 , J. Vit. 10 , Plu. Galb.

1 ; esp. in religious sense, rebellion against God, apostasy, LXX Jo. 22.22 , 2 Ep.Th. 2.3 .
2. departure, disappearance, Olymp. in Mete. 320.2 .
3. distinguishing, c. gen., Elias in Cat. 119.7 .
4. distance, Archim. Aren. 1.5 .

Lampe's Patristic Greek Lexicon states:

1. Revolt
2. Defection
3. Apostasy from paganism, Judaism, Christianity, etc.
4. Divorce
5. Departure
6. Standing aloof

Since it means "disappearance" or "departure" as what Paul referred to his harpazo! The Rapture!! Since "departure" or "disappearance" is found before (Liddle & Scott) and after (Lampe's Patristic Greek) the writing of the New Testament, the word applies to spacial separation.

Context: Paul started chapter 2 about our gathering together:

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and [by] our gathering together unto him, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of destruction,  That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.  Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a departure first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 

A physical departure! Paul is giving them his words from 1 Thess 4:17. The post context is found in these verses:

2 Thessalonians 2:5-8
Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? [In 1 Thess 4:17!!] And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time.  For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.  And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. 

The Holy Spirit and the Bride restrains evil. When He is removed we go with Him as He is the down payment of our salvation, Eph 1:13-14. Only God can restrain the devil's man, the Antichrist.

Next, aphistemi is the verb form of the noun apostesia, and four times is translated as spiritual departure, but 11 times are a physical departure. 

Toma ya!

Hi Abdicte,

"Furthermore, what "sign" would abandoning the faith be?

Paul never alluded to any "sign".

Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.......The Holy Spirit and the Bride restrains evil

You say the Holy Spirit and the bride restrains evil....and then you say "only God restrains the Antichrist"....We are not told anywhere in Scripture who the Restrainer is. We can only speculate.

Also, if Paul, under the direction/influence of the Holy Spirit, in writing...."Let no one deceive you in any way. For it will not be, unless the departure comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of destruction" .........if he had meant a rapture, he would have used "harpazo"..........but he didn't. He used "apostacia".

KJV Translation Count — Total: 2x
The KJV translates Strong's G646 in the following manner: to forsake (with G575) (1x), falling away (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
  1. a falling away, defection, apostasy

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
ἀποστασία apostasía, ap-os-tas-ee'-ah; feminine of the same as G647; defection from truth (properly, the state) ("apostasy"):—falling away, forsake.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  74
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  1,238
  • Content Per Day:  0.55
  • Reputation:   669
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/26/2018
  • Status:  Online

4 hours ago, george747 said:

JoeCanada. Thank you for this post. I'm a "pre-tribber" and have been for a long time. I really appreciate your post and find it very thought provoking and informative. Thank you.

Hi george747,

I have often posed this question to teachers and pastors who hold to the Pre-Tribulation Rapture position. Do you know of any verse or passage that states that the Lord will return before; Daniel’s 70th seven, the revealing of the Antichrist or the Great Tribulation? To date, no one has been able to produce such a verse. Yet many continue to hold to the Pre-Tribulation Rapture teaching in spite of the fact that they have no Word of God to support it......PNN News and Ministry Network

Dr. David Reagan (staunch pretrib rapture teacher) ADMITS:

“There is not one verse in the Bible which states that the Rapture will take place before the Tribulation.”

George....If you haven't had a chance to watch any of the short 10 minute videos of "Dawn of a New Day", I think you'd really enjoy them. Here is the link......  http://www.thegospelintheendtimes.com/dawnofanewday/

"Dawn of a New Day is an exciting new series of eight short, 10-minute videos which may offer the most up-to-date, convincing, and scripturally-sound arguments ever assembled regarding the Tribulation, Rapture timing, God’s Wrath, and preparing for Christ’s return. Many of us have based our understanding of End Time Events on long- outdated and disproven ideas. This video series will inspire you to consider new evidence.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  763
  • Topics Per Day:  0.34
  • Content Count:  6,897
  • Content Per Day:  3.09
  • Reputation:   1,976
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  02/15/2018
  • Status:  Offline

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

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

 

Falling away has happened at the fake church of Christianity / whore of babylon and the beast has been revealed already

https://www.worldslastchance.com/end-time-prophecy/revelation-17-prophecy-of-the-seven-kings-8th-king-identified.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  14
  • Topic Count:  66
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  6,599
  • Content Per Day:  2.00
  • Reputation:   2,355
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  03/17/2015
  • Status:  Offline

On 11/16/2018 at 3:16 PM, Abdicate said:

Sorry you don't get it. The dictionaries say "depart" not me. Therefore, we'll agree to disagree.

To which dictionaries are you referring?

The Greek dictionary in Strong's:

Strong's Concordance
apostasia: defection, revolt
Definition: defection, revolt
Usage: defection, apostasy, revolt.
 
Greek to English translators show apostasia = apostasy
Merriam Webster:

Apostasy

1: an act of refusing to continue to follow, obey, or recognize a religious faith

2: abandonment of a previous loyalty : DEFECTION

Dictionary.com

Apostasy

a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc.

Thefreedictionary.com

Apostasy 

 "Abandonment of one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause."

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 

"Abandonment of one's religious faith, party, a cause, etc"

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © Harper Collins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

"Renunciation or abandonment of one's religious faith or of an object of one's previous loyalty."

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

"Abandonment or renunciation of one's religion or morals."

Farlex Trivia Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.

"Relinquishing of a religious belief."

-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Check out the citations at Thefreedictionary.com, impressive group. So we have the pantheon of wordmasters defining apostasy as "renouncing religious belief", not "leaving form one place to go to another".

Even "aphistemi", the term on which pretrib loves to rely when defining the correct term in 2 Thess 2:3, is defined:

aphistémi: to lead away, to depart from
Definition: to lead away, to depart from
Usage: I make to stand away, draw away, repel, take up a position away from, withdraw from, leave, abstain from.
 
You'll grasp at 'to depart from' here but as you can see any departing is an individual act akin to divorce. Finish the study and check the lexicon to see the usage of this term by the authors. The preponderance of evidence in that usage reveals the truth. I'll just cite that usage for your consideration:
 
Thayer's Greek Lexicon

STRONGS NT 868: ἀφίστημι

Aphistemi

1. to make stand off, cause to withdraw, to remove; tropically, to excite to revolt: Acts 5:37  and in Greek writings from Herodotus 1, 76 down).

2.  to stand off, stand aloof, in various senses (as in Greek writings) according to the context: ἀπό with the genitive of person to go away, depart, from anyone, Luke 13:27 (from Psalm 6:9; cf. Matthew 7:23ἀποχωρεῖτε ἀπ' ἐμοῦ); Acts 12:10; Acts 19:9; 

3. to desert, withdraw from, one, Acts 15:38; to cease to vex one, Luke 4:13; Acts 5:38; Acts 22:29; 2 Corinthians 12:8; 

4. to fall away, become faithless, ἀπό Θεοῦ, Hebrews 3:12;

5. to shun, flee from, ἀπό τῆςἀδικίας, 2 Timothy 2:19. Middle, 

6. to withdraw oneself from: absolutely, to fall away,Luke 8:13; (τῆς πίστεως, 1 Timothy 4:1, cf. Winers Grammar, 427, 428 (398)); 

7. to keep oneself away from, absent oneself from, Luke 2:37 (οὐκ ἀφίστατο ἀπό (T Tr WH omit ἀπό) τοῦ ἱεροῦ, she was in the temple every day); from anyone's society or fellowship, 1 Timothy 6:5 Rec. 

It's a departing alright, departing from one's beliefs, not from earth to heaven or the clouds or the sky.

And I don't agree to disagree. I want all my brothers and sisters to hear the truth in our Lord and come to great knowledge and deep understanding; to trust and rely on our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to keep us safe even as we all cling to His many wonderful promises.

War is coming, best to carry the banner of the King of kings and stand behind His shield.

 

 
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...