Defense of the Pre Trib Rapture

[ARGOSY]

8 minutes ago, OldCoot said:

Well, let's look at daily use of "run".
 

Jane went on a "run" (noun)

See Jane "run" (verb)

Both have equivalent meanings.

The key in real estate is location, location, location.   In scripture hermeneutics, it is context, context, context.   And the context of 2 Thessalonians 2 as well as the general contest of both of Paul's letters to the Thessalonians is our uniting, gathering, union to the Lord.  Paul does not discuss one time in both letters about a departure from the faith or rebellion.  He does in other letters, but not in the same context as the 2 letters to the Thessalonians.

 

Sure some verbs and nouns retain aspects of the original meaning over time, other words develop and change their meaning over time. I'm stating the obvious. So to understand a word, you need to see how society used that word at that time. 

 

Regarding context,  new subjects are introduced into sentences all the time. We cannot disregard the meaning of words, just because a new subject comes up. 

Edited December 12, 2019 by ARGOSY

[OldCoot]

8 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

Regarding context,  new concepts are introduced into sentences all the time. We cannot disregard the meaning of words, just because a new subject comes up. 

And I addressed that with the post that included comments from Greek Scholars.  Prior to the NT period, apostasia could mean "departure" or "distance" in some contexts (Liddel and Scott).  After the NT period, apostasia can mean "departure" also in some contexts (Lampe).  There is no justification to assume that it doesn't carry the meaning of "departure" in the NT depending on context.

Only one time in the NT does the noun apostasia definitively mean a spiritual departure, Acts 21:21.  In 15 times, the verb form of apostasia, aphistemi, only 3 occurrences imply a spiritual departure.  75% of the time it refers to a spatial, distance, physical departure.   

Edited December 12, 2019 by OldCoot

[ARGOSY]

4 hours ago, OldCoot said:

And I addressed that with the post that included comments from Greek Scholars.  Prior to the NT period, apostasia could mean "departure" or "distance" in some contexts (Liddel and Scott).  After the NT period, apostasia can mean "departure" also in some contexts (Lampe).  There is no justification to assume that it doesn't carry the meaning of "departure" in the NT depending on context.

Only one time in the NT does the noun apostasia definitively mean a spiritual departure, Acts 21:21.  In 15 times, the verb form of apostasia, aphistemi, only 3 occurrences imply a spiritual departure.  75% of the time it refers to a spatial, distance, physical departure.   

Yeah occasionally in other time periods, your way of viewing the noun apostasia could be correct. Not quite game, set and match hmm? 

As for the verb, that has a different meaning and so it's usage is irrelevant. Just because it has the same root, and similar spelling, does not mean it is the verb form of the noun "apostasia". The meanings have diversified, the verb staying with the root meaning of physical departure, and the noun now relating to revolt, rebels, rebellions, political strife, and in a religious sense apostasy and defection.  The verb has moved too far away from the meaning of the noun, for it's usage to have any relevance to this chat. 

 

Yours is the view of unlikely possibilities, mine is the view of accepting the face value meaning of the Bible. If we stay in the realm of unlikely possible interpretations, we can get way off track. If we stick strictly to the most obvious face value meaning of any text, we can develop a wholesome and integrated viewpoint, difficult to find flaws. 

Edited December 12, 2019 by ARGOSY

[Mal'ak]

7 hours ago, OldCoot said:

You did an extensive treatise there and made some pretty bold claims regarding details.  Could you also please expand on that and make you case from the OT also?  After all, that is a requirement of the Torah and the Bereans in Acts 17 set the example of how that Torah requirement is put into practice.  The Torah says that a matter can only be established on the testimony of at least two witnesses.  The Bereans showed up how that is applied... they searched the scriptures (OT) daily to see if what Paul taught them was true.  Paul's teaching makes up a significant portion of the NT.  And they were praised for that setting that standard.  So, any matter, even eschatology, has to have corroborating evidence from both NT and OT on every detail you outlined.

I am convinced that the OT paints a different picture than you have.  Also, that many of the ancients also did not hold to what you are alleging.  Even a text from Gad the Seer, circa King David period, mentioned in the OT as early as 2 Samuel 24, approx 1000 BC, talks about the righteous escaping the great calamities that will come upon the earth in the latter days.  The scroll of Gad the Seer was found in the Qumran community scrolls.  Dr. Ken Johnson has recently published a full translation of the scroll.

And anyone who trusts in Yeshua (Jesus) is by default "scared" as you describe it.  They are escaping the judgement and punishment that all who reject Yeshua are going to get.  So even trusting in Messiah is essentially "escapism".  And I have no problem claiming that I  am at the front of the line and no one is going to knock me out of line.  I have trusted in Messiah and His redemption not only because I believe He is the one true God, but also that I can escape the the punishment due those who are guilty of His death and rejecting Him.  

And we are all guilty of His death.   In the Torah, a murderer is to be put to death by the next of kin.   But a person guilty of unintended murder, what we would call manslaughter, could flee to a city of refuge and be protected from the next of kin.   Yeshua said on the cross "they know not what they do", meaning we are guilty of manslaughter and not murder.  Yeshua is my city of refuge.  I have fled to Him so that I am forever protected from the wrath of the Father, the next of kin.  Those who do not flee to Yeshua... well, I think you get the picture.

Once one really appreciates what the ekklesia / church is and its relationship to the Messiah, then things about the time coming upon the earth seem to get a little clearer.  And what that tribulation period is all about and what it's intended purpose is and it does not have the redeemed ekklesia / church in view.

And that is really the crux of the matter.  The major disagreements about a rapture, when it happens, etc seem mostly to stem from a misunderstanding  of ecclesiology (study of the Church)  and not so much eschatology (study of future things).  

 

The two or more witnesses is important and needed, but that does not mean OT and NT, the two witnesses was Paul in 2 Thessalians and Jesus Christ in Matthew, but I have no problem bringing Torah into it and I would disagree it gives a different picture.

 

Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )

Matthew 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

 

The "king" in Daniel 11 is satan and not speaking of some flesh man back in OT times, as Jesus quoted Daniel as a reference to a prophecy of the great tribulation.  The first thing to point out that the temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt before satan comes, so when he does come he will rule the world from within the holy of holy chamber deep in the temple where the ark of the convenient use to be in the original temple. We are told the "daily sacrifice" will be taken away, so no more preaching the Word of God, since that would cause debates and conflicts about satan as he tries to deceive people.  But this is the "beginning" of great tribulation, but not the tribulation.  In Revelation 6 we see the different seals of tribulation, each having their own symbolic horse bringing it's own trials.

 

Daniel 11:32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.

Daniel 11:33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.

Daniel 11:34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.

Daniel 11:35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.

 

Revelation 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

Revelation 11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

Revelation 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.

Revelation 11:6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.

Revelation 11:7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.

Revelation 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

Revelation 11:9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.

 

Revelation 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Revelation 2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

 

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

 

In Daniel the prophecy states that there will be Christians here during the tribulation while satan is here, that will know their God and stay strong while doing exploits.  This matches with Revelation 11, where it speaks of the two witnesses (two churches from Revelation, two groups of people?)  doing great wonders and giving testimony.  There is imagery of the dying or being killed, but this is spiritual.  As we learn in Revelation 2, "the devil shall cast some of you in prison, that ye may be tried...be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life".  Same language from Daniel 11, "they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days. Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries. And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end:".  Both in Revelation 2 it is to "try" them, and in Daniel it is to "make them white".  There will be Christians that need to prove themselves during the tribulation, satan will be testing and lying to them to deceive them, if they stay strong to God they will be given a crown of life.  There is also the church of Philadelphia which will be guarded, we see also in "Revelation 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads."  The demons will be commanded by God to target everyone on Earth that does not have the seal of God on the forehead, so the elect will be here, but also the Christians who still have not earned the seal of God who need to be "made white" by being persecuted by satan himself.

 

Daniel 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

Daniel 11:37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

 

After the two witnesses of when satan will try to deceive the Christians that need to be made white, Daniel 11 goes on to say that satan will then "magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods".  After the two witnesses testify and are tested, in Revelations 11 it says that is the last trumpet when Jesus returns.  So it gives us a time line to follow, so we are prepared for the tribulation.

-Temple rebuilt in Israel

-Tribulation starts

-The devil shows up pretending to be Jesus

-Christians will be persecuted as satan tries to deceive them to believe he is Jesus.

-The devil declares himself above God

-Jesus returns

-Christians are gathered to Jesus

[OldCoot]

4 hours ago, Mal'ak said:

The two or more witnesses is important and needed, but that does not mean OT and NT, the two witnesses was Paul in 2 Thessalians and Jesus Christ in Matthew, but I have no problem bringing Torah into it and I would disagree it gives a different picture.

Except you didn't bring the Torah into it.  The passages you quoted are from the Tanakh.  Daniel is not in the Torah.

The OT and the NT are those two witnesses as exampled by the Bereans in Acts 17.  We can't just decide for ourselves who the two witnesses are to support any matter.

The passage from Daniel you use and with Matthew is correct.  I am convinced that they are addressed to Daniel's people, the Hebrews.  

4 hours ago, Mal'ak said:

After the two witnesses of when satan will try to deceive the Christians that need to be made white

Can you provide a verse from Revelation that mentions the Church after Chapter 3?  None except the final salutation by John in the Book. 

Christians don't need to be made white, they already are.  It is unredeemed that need to be made white, and that comes by belief and trust in the Messiah.

What makes Christians white?  By your assertion, it is what we do or have to go thru.  I would contend it is what Messiah has done.  A believer is made white by the blood of the Lamb. Anything else is some sort of purgatory type of view that is totally unscriptural.   Like we have to prove we are worthy.  Well, the scripture says none of us is worthy and none of us can make ourselves worthy.  That would be a works based righteousness.  Only the Messiah who can cleanse the individual and make them white.  It is because we are unworthy and only He can save that we run to Him. 

It goes to my point in an earlier post that determining the Ekklessia / Church in relation to the Great Tribulation period is a matter of ecclesiology more so than eschatology.  If one does not have a clear understanding of who the church is in relationship to the Messiah, then it can lead to all sorts of distortions.

The outline of Revelation is laid out in Chapter 1....

Revelation 1:19 (NKJV) Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this.

What John had seen was the vision of the Son of Man, and then was told to write.

What John wrote about regarding the things which are is the churches.   Never mentioned again after Chapter 3.

So the "things which take place after this (these)"  meta houtus is tied to Revelation 4:1 "After these things" meta houtus.  

The letters are not only to real individual churches in John's day, but the order in which they are presented in Chapters 2 and 3 seem to lay out the history of the church.  Each one a description of the major characteristic of a period of church history while still all the churches of each period exhibiting some features of all the churches mentioned.

Will there be believers after the ekklesia / church is removed?  Of course!  There have been believers since the dawn of man on this planet.  But they are not all the ekklesia / church / body of Messiah / the royal priesthood etc.  They are all redeemed the same way, but that doesn't mean they are in the same group.

In chapter 4, the 24 elders are shown at the throne room of God, sitting on thrones of their own. The only other mention of 24 in scripture is when David divided the priesthood into 24 divisions in 1 Chronicles 24.   1 Peter 2:9 states that we in the body of Messiah are a royal priesthood [ kings and priests ], a holy nation,  His own special people.  

Isaiah 26 is about as clear as it gets that the righteous, both dead and living at the time, will be removed and hidden in their chambers that I believe are being prepared by Yeshua now (John 14) in the House of His Father [ heaven ].  And they are hidden there before the Lord comes out of His place to punish the inhabitants of the earth.  The Isaiah 26 passage, the timing of these events is the great tribulation period when it ties into the Jeremiah.  The focus of the entire period is national, corporate Jacob / Israel.  Not the church.  The two witnesses are not of the church. The 144,000 are not of the church, they are of Jacob/Israel.  

Isaiah 26:17 (NKJV) As a woman with child
Is in pain and cries out in her pangs,
When she draws near the time of her delivery,
So have we been in Your sight, O Lord.

Jeremiah 30:6-7 (NKJV) Ask now, and see,
Whether a man is ever in labor with child?
So why do I see every man with his hands on his loins
Like a woman in labor,
And all faces turned pale?
7 Alas! For that day is great,
So that none is like it;
And it is the time of Jacob's [ Israel ] trouble,
But he shall be saved out of it.

Matthew 24:21 (NKJV) For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Hosea 5:14-15 (NKJV) For I will be like a lion to Ephraim,
And like a young lion to the house of Judah.  
I, even I, will tear them and go away;
I will take them away, and no one shall rescue.
15 I will return again to My place
Till they acknowledge their offense.
Then they will seek My face;
In their affliction they will earnestly seek Me."

Matthew 23:37-39 (NKJV) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!'"

Yeshua (Jesus) cannot return until national, corporate Israel acknowledges its sin of rejecting Him, turns to Him, and petitions for His return. And it is the GT period that is what drives them to that point.  And the ekklesia / church is not even factored in.  The church is not the focus, even any who are redeemed during that time is not the focus.   it is national, corporate Jacob/Israel that is the focus.  In Daniel, Ezekiel, Revelation, Matthew 24, and on and on. 

I still contend that how we approach these things and how we line them up is a matter of ecclesiology as much or more than eschatology.  

Edited December 12, 2019 by OldCoot

[ARGOSY]

10 hours ago, OldCoot said:

do you actually read the scriptures posted?

Isaiah 26:20-21 (NKJV) Come, my people, enter your chambers,
And shut your doors behind you;
Hide yourself, as it were, for a little moment,
Until the indignation is past.
21 For behold, the Lord comes out of His place
To punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity;
The earth will also disclose her blood,
And will no more cover her slain.

the only thing I stated is that this entering their chambers has to occur before hand.  I also stated that we can debate the merits of a pre-trib, post-trib, or pre-wrath position, but the fact remains, before the indignation (judgements) come upon the earth, the righteous are hidden in their chambers being prepared by Yeshua as we write these things (John 14).  

How long before, look two posts preceding this one.

Hide yourself, as it were, FOR A LITTLE MOMENT,
Until the indignation is past.

 

Precisely how long is the "little moment." 2 hours? 7 years? 

 

If you are able to give precise biblical evidence of how long that particular little moment is, then we should be able to pinpoint what indignation is being referred to. If you are unable to give anything more than assumption, this could be referring to a period of a few hours, and the indignation of wrath of the great earthquake and Armageddon. 

[OldCoot]

32 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

Hide yourself, as it were, FOR A LITTLE MOMENT,
Until the indignation is past.

 

Precisely how long is the "little moment." 2 hours? 7 years? 

 

If you are able to give precise biblical evidence of how long that particular little moment is, then we should be able to pinpoint what indignation is being referred to. If you are unable to give anything more than assumption, this could be referring to a period of a few hours, and the indignation of wrath of the great earthquake and Armageddon. 

Addressed in previous post discussing 2 Thessalonians 2

[JoeCanada]

12 hours ago, OldCoot said:

This passage of 2 Thessalonians 2, the wording is not a "rebellion" or "falling away" as is shown in most translations since the KJV.  The "apostasia" in verse 3 simply means departure.  Without a subject to describe what is being departed from, it stands on it own.  As per....

2 Thessalonians 2:3 (1599 Geneva Bible) Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that man of sin be disclosed, even the son of perdition.

And Paul emphasized this further later...

2 Thessalonians 2:7-8 (NKJV) For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.

Every English translation prior to the KJV used departure.  Nothing about what is being departed from.  The context of the passage is laid out in verse 1....

2 Thessalonians 2:1 (NKJV) Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him,

that is the specific context.  In the general context of both 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians combined, Paul doesn't even discuss a rebellion, falling away, or similar.  In fact, every chapter of 1 Thessalonians concludes with a reference to our being joined with the Lord, especially in....

1 Thessalonians 1:10 (NKJV Strong's) and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come. 

Paul didn't really start to address falling away, departure from the faith, etc issues until later in his ministry.  The Thessalonians letters were early in his ministry.

But more on point....

The noun apostasia is only used twice in the NT.  In Acts 21:21, what is being departed from is shown... departing from the Torah (Moses).   

The verbal form of apostasia, "aphistemi" is used 15 times in the NT.  In all but 3 of them, it refers to a spatial, distance departure, not a spiritual departure.  75% of the time it refers to a spatial, physical departure.

Bibles that only use departure...

1560, 1599, 1608 Geneva Bible

1583 Beeza Bible

1576 Breeches Bible

1539 Crammer Bible

1535 Coverdale Bible

1526 Tyndale Bible

1384 Wycliffe bible

And even the Latin Vulgate (approx 400 AD) uses discessio, which is simply a departure with a implication of a spatial, distance departure not a spiritual one.

Many Greek Scholars concur with this analysis.  Dr. Kenneth Wuest, Dr. Ken Johnson, Dr. J. Dwight Pentacost, et al.  Dr. Andy Woods has stated that this passage is a confirmation of the pre-trib position... "game, set, match" (his words).

Also, there are several examples from the early church writers that imply a pre-trib position.  Even Gad the Seer, first mentioned in 2 Samuel, a scroll from him was discovered in the Qumran scrolls.  It has since been translated and published.  He implies a pre-trib removal of the righteous 1000 years before Yeshua came the first time.

Hi OC,

Interesting discussion here. If I may, I would like to present an article from .............. alankurschner.com

Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion (apostasia) comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction – 2 Thessalonians 2:3 ESV (some versions render “rebellion” as “apostasy” or “falling away”)

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).

[JoeCanada]

3 hours ago, OldCoot said:

Can you provide a verse from Revelation that mentions the Church after Chapter 3?  None except the final salutation by John in the Book. 

Hi OC,

Who are the recipients of the book of Revelation? Revelation 1:1 says, “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants (doulos) what must happen very soon” (Rev 1:1). The term used is “servants” (doulos). It will be the servants within the professing church who will endure persecution for their faith. The message is for them: Revelation 22:6 says, “Then the angel said to me, ‘These words are reliable and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must happen soon’” (Rev 22:6). It is the servants/true believers/saints/the elect of God/those who hold to the testimony of Christ who will endure struggle and persecution and be ultimately victorious.

The word “church” is also absent from Revelation chapters 19–20. Will the church not participate in rejoicing in heaven and the marriage supper of the Lamb? Moreover, the Bride of Christ is found in Revelation 19:7 but the word “church” is never mentioned. Is the Bride then not the church? 

The word “church” is absent from rapture passages: 1Thessalonians 4:13–17 and John 14:1–4.  Are we right to conclude that the church will not be raptured? Of course not! Further, by that reasoning, since the word “Israel” is not mentioned between Revelation 7:4 and 21:12, it must be raptured before Rev 7:4!

The word “church” is absent from the books of Mark, Luke, John, 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, and Jude. Does that mean those books do not pertain to the church? It is patently misguided to demand that the New Testament writers must only use the term “church” to discern if a passage applies to the church.

 

[Alive]

Very well done! You have expanded greatly in scope.

Thank you.