The false early rapture timing doctrine
- Thread starter BlessedCreator
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Paul's point in 2Th2 is to tell of the SEQUENCE...
WHAT must take place IN RELATION [time-wise] to what OTHER THING.
He's saying, in v.2, don't let anyone convince you that "the Day of the Lord IS PRESENT [perfect indicative]".
It wasn't, and Paul is explaining (to them) WHY.
However, they were not STUPID people (like the faulty interp's make them out to be ! )
They "understood" WHAT "the DOTL" is (the OT spoke of it, and Paul had mentioned it in the PREVIOUS letter)... and in fact, he had said in his previous letter that they "KNOW PERFECTLY" that it will ARRIVE like the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" comes UPON a woman with child/in labor... (1Th5:2-3). [note: Jesus didn't stop with the FIRST "birth PANG" but mentioned the PLURAL ones that FOLLOW ON FROM that FIRST "birth PANG"--"birth PANGS" work that way
]
But people tend to BLUR TOGETHER (into ONE) TWO distinct issues in this passage:
--the SUBJECT of VERSE 1 is "our Rapture" (BOTH PARTS of this verse 1);
--this isn't the Subject of VERSE 2 (which is what Paul is starting out with in v.3a); the Subject of v.2 is "the Day of the Lord" (that they are NOT to be persuaded by anyone trying to convince them that it "IS PRESENT [PERFECT indicative]"...
...meaning, basically, already arrived. This is NOT "Jesus' OWN arrival" nor "our Rapture's arrival" but the arrival of "the DOTL" EARTHLY time period [with its JUDGMENTS UNFOLDING upon the earth; which is consistent with their PRESENT NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES, 2Th1:4]--They understood WHAT it is, Paul is telling of the SEQUENCE--the "ONE THING" that must take place *FIRST* before it can be present to unfold upon the earth WITH its "man of sin" and all that he will DO)
CONFLATING these TWO DISTINCT ITEMS [v.1 and v.2] (as most do) has a person starting off on the wrong path, in interpreting this passage, just as you are doing with it (one issue among several, of this passage, very oft-misinterpreted). Don't skip over (or leave OUT) v.2 when ascertaining what v.3a is referring to!
WHAT must take place IN RELATION [time-wise] to what OTHER THING.
He's saying, in v.2, don't let anyone convince you that "the Day of the Lord IS PRESENT [perfect indicative]".
It wasn't, and Paul is explaining (to them) WHY.
However, they were not STUPID people (like the faulty interp's make them out to be ! )
They "understood" WHAT "the DOTL" is (the OT spoke of it, and Paul had mentioned it in the PREVIOUS letter)... and in fact, he had said in his previous letter that they "KNOW PERFECTLY" that it will ARRIVE like the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]" comes UPON a woman with child/in labor... (1Th5:2-3). [note: Jesus didn't stop with the FIRST "birth PANG" but mentioned the PLURAL ones that FOLLOW ON FROM that FIRST "birth PANG"--"birth PANGS" work that way
]But people tend to BLUR TOGETHER (into ONE) TWO distinct issues in this passage:
--the SUBJECT of VERSE 1 is "our Rapture" (BOTH PARTS of this verse 1);
--this isn't the Subject of VERSE 2 (which is what Paul is starting out with in v.3a); the Subject of v.2 is "the Day of the Lord" (that they are NOT to be persuaded by anyone trying to convince them that it "IS PRESENT [PERFECT indicative]"...
...meaning, basically, already arrived. This is NOT "Jesus' OWN arrival" nor "our Rapture's arrival" but the arrival of "the DOTL" EARTHLY time period [with its JUDGMENTS UNFOLDING upon the earth; which is consistent with their PRESENT NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES, 2Th1:4]--They understood WHAT it is, Paul is telling of the SEQUENCE--the "ONE THING" that must take place *FIRST* before it can be present to unfold upon the earth WITH its "man of sin" and all that he will DO)
CONFLATING these TWO DISTINCT ITEMS [v.1 and v.2] (as most do) has a person starting off on the wrong path, in interpreting this passage, just as you are doing with it (one issue among several, of this passage, very oft-misinterpreted). Don't skip over (or leave OUT) v.2 when ascertaining what v.3a is referring to!
Everyone remember how I mentioned that an athiest boasted how he made a rapture thread to troll Christians here in cc and laughed at how easy we were to mess with and how we argued and attacked each other? This is exactly why such people do that, we are Christians called to love to be the light and the world laughs and mocks specifically because of how we treat each other.
We gave our hearts to God and in doing so we are to show who he is in our conduct and actions, if we cannot be in the world but not of it in such a simple thing as a debate then how are we any better than those who are of the world and in it?
Already things are getting out of hand only proving why the atheist boasted
We gave our hearts to God and in doing so we are to show who he is in our conduct and actions, if we cannot be in the world but not of it in such a simple thing as a debate then how are we any better than those who are of the world and in it?
Already things are getting out of hand only proving why the atheist boasted
I'm not sure what you consider "getting out of hand"...
would you consider the following description to be so? :
"[G1864] 1864 epagōnízomai (from 1909 /epí, "focused on" and 73 /agṓn, "a contest, competition") – properly, to contend (literally, "struggle upon, appropriately"), i.e. with skill and commitment in opposing whatever is not of faith (God's persuasion)."
I'm just curious... are you referring to the "back and forth," or perhaps do you perceive my "caps" as "YELLING" (tho not intended), or something other.... ? = )
would you consider the following description to be so? :
"[G1864] 1864 epagōnízomai (from 1909 /epí, "focused on" and 73 /agṓn, "a contest, competition") – properly, to contend (literally, "struggle upon, appropriately"), i.e. with skill and commitment in opposing whatever is not of faith (God's persuasion)."
I'm just curious... are you referring to the "back and forth," or perhaps do you perceive my "caps" as "YELLING" (tho not intended), or something other.... ? = )
There is a difference being a civil debate and just bickering, there is even a sticky on the bdf that speaks about being civil and there is a proper way to debate but if we allow ourselves to get heated and begin to lash out at each other then it is no longer a debate it is just arguing with each other trying to prove what we think is
The key word in your description is properly and I was not trying to cause problems or anything but we both know how it is a slippery slope to another war thread. So you can take my advice or not
The key word in your description is properly and I was not trying to cause problems or anything but we both know how it is a slippery slope to another war thread. So you can take my advice or not
Also for the record it is true I said everyone but that was just because I wanted also say it to everyone but it wasn't your post I was referring to it was this
Before I was saved it was typical. After salvation, I learned to walk in the Spirit and censor all thoughts and imaginations that come from lust. So it's a temptation I don't allow to turn into sin. How's your walk?
Not as good as yours. Sounds like you’ve already been made perfect.
We can disagree but we shouldn't be condescending to each other
Before I was saved it was typical. After salvation, I learned to walk in the Spirit and censor all thoughts and imaginations that come from lust. So it's a temptation I don't allow to turn into sin. How's your walk?
Not as good as yours. Sounds like you’ve already been made perfect.
We can disagree but we shouldn't be condescending to each other
If you are speaking of my posts in particular (and this post of yours seems to hint at this being your intended direction, correct me if I am wrong), I would appreciate it being specifically pointed out anywhere (you perceive) that I have gotten "heated" or "lashed out at" another, so I can correct such. Again, I'd appreciate it.
For the readers who've not yet seen the article (related to the Subject under present discussion), posted in the past:
[quoting]
"[Kenneth S. Wuest is a member of the Faculty of the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois, and author of numerous books on New Testament Greek.]"
"The Rapture: Precisely When?" - Kenneth S Wuest
"The answer to these questions will only be convincing to the reader if it is based upon the rules of Biblical exegesis. [...<snip>...] That interpretation which is based upon the above rules is to be regarded as correct until it can be shown by the reapplication of the same rules that an error of human judgment has crept in.
"There is such a thing, therefore, as a scientific method of studying the Word. The student who follows the rules of an experiment in chemistry brings that experiment to a successful conclusion. The student who does not ends up with an explosion. Just so, the student who conducts his study of the Bible along the scientific lines noted above arrives at the correct interpretation, and the student who does not at the wrong one. The exegetical method the student uses in answering the question with reference to the time of the rapture will determine whether he believes in a pretribulational or a posttribulational rapture.
[...]
"The words "a falling away" are the Authorized Version rendering of apostasia. The verbal form afistamai from which it comes is present middle of afisthmi, the root verb, which we will study. The simple verb Jisthmi [histemi] in its intransitive sense means "to stand," the prefixed preposition means "off, away from," and the compound verb, "to stand off from." The word does not mean "to fall." The Greeks had a word for that, piptw. Afisthmi, in its various uses, is reported by Thayer as follows: "to make stand off, cause to withdraw, to stand off, stand aloof, to desert, to withdraw from one"; in contexts where a defection from the faith is in view, it means "to fall away, become faithless." The verb is rendered by the translators of the Authorized Version "to depart," in Luke 2:32; Luke 4:13; Luke 13:27; Acts 12:10; Acts 15:38; Acts 19:9; Acts 22:29; 2 Corinthians 12:8; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 2:19; Hebrews 3:12. In Luke 8:13 it is translated "fall away," in Acts 5:37, "drew away," and in Acts 5:38, "refrain." Had they translated the word here instead of interpreting it, they would have rendered it by the word "departure." The reader will observe that the predominant translation of the verbal form is "to depart," also, that where it is translated "fall away," the context adds the idea of "falling away" to the verb, which action is still a departure.
E. Schuyler English, to whom this present writer is deeply indebted for calling his attention to the word "departure" as the correct rendering of apostasia in this context, also informs us that the following translators understood the Greek word to mean "a departure" in this context: Tyndale (1534), Coverdale (1535), the Geneva Bible (1537), Cranmer (1539), and Beza (1565), and so used it in their translations. Apostasia is used once more in the New Testament and is translated "to forsake" (AV), signifying a departure. The neuter noun apostasion in Matthew 5:31; Matthew 19:7; and Mark 10:4 is rendered by the Authorized Version, "divorcement," which word also signifies a departure, here, from antecedent relations.
The writer is well aware of the fact that apostasia was used at times both in classical and koine Greek in the sense of a defection, a revolt in a religious sense, a rebellion against God, and of the act of apostasy. Liddell and Scott in their classical lexicon give the above as the first definition of the word. Moulton and Milligan quote a papyrus fragment where the word means "a rebel." But these are acquired meanings of the word gotten from the context in which it is used, not the original, basic, literal meaning, and should not be imposed upon the word when the context does not qualify the word by these meanings, as in the case of our Thessalonians passage, where the context in which apostasia is embedded does not refer to a defection from the truth but to the rapture of the church. The fact that our word "apostasy" means a defection from the truth is entirely beside the point since we do not interpret Scripture upon the basis of a transliterated word to which a certain meaning has been given, but upon the basis of what the Greek word mean to the first century reader. The fact that Paul in 1 Timothy 4:1 uses this verb in the words "some shall depart from the faith" and finds it necessary to qualify its meaning by the phrase "from the faith" indicates that the word itself has no such connotation. The translators of the Authorized Version did not translate the word, but offered their interpretation of it. They should have translated it and allowed the student to interpret it in its context.
With the translation of the word before us, the next step is to ascertain from the context that to which this departure refers. We note the presence of the Greek definite article before apostasia, of which the translation takes no notice. A Greek word is definite in itself, and when the article is used the exegete must pay particular attention to it. "The basal function of the article is to point out individual identity. It does more than mark 'the object as definitely conceived,' for a substantive in Greek is definite without the article." This departure, whatever it is, is a particular one, one differentiated from all others. Another function of the article is "to denote previous reference." Here the article points out an object the identity of which is defined by some previous reference made to it in the context." Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 has just spoken of the coming of the Lord. This coming is defined by the words "our gathering together unto him," not as the second advent, but as the rapture. The Greek word rendered "and" can also be translated "even," and the translation reads, "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, even our gathering together unto him."
The article before apostasia defines that word by pointing to "the gathering together unto him" as that departure. This article determines the context which defines apostasia. The translators took the context of 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 as deciding the significance of the word, but they went too far afield, not grasping the function of the definite article preceding apostasia which points back to the rapture of 2 Thessalonians 2:1, not ahead to the refusal to believe the truth of 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12. The article is all-important here, as in many instances of its use in the Greek New Testament. In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, Paul had given these saints teaching on the rapture, and the Greek article here points to that which was well known to both the reader and the writer, which is another use of the Greek definite article. Thus, the departure of the church from earth to heaven must precede the great tribulation period [I would say, "must precede the [7-yr] tribulation period" to be more specific (for 'GREAT tribulation' refers only to the latter half of it)]. And we have answered our questions again. It might be added that the reason why Paul merely speaks of a pretribulation rather than a preseventieth week rapture is that he is addressing himself to the needs of the Thessalonian saints and is not explaining the particular place of the rapture in the prophetic program of God."
--Kenneth S Wuest, "The Rapture--Precisely When?", Bibliotheca Sacra, BSac 114:453 (Jan 57), p.60
[ www. galaxie . com/article/bsac114-453-05 ]
[end quoting that post; bold and underline mine]
[quoting]
"[Kenneth S. Wuest is a member of the Faculty of the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois, and author of numerous books on New Testament Greek.]"
"The Rapture: Precisely When?" - Kenneth S Wuest
"The answer to these questions will only be convincing to the reader if it is based upon the rules of Biblical exegesis. [...<snip>...] That interpretation which is based upon the above rules is to be regarded as correct until it can be shown by the reapplication of the same rules that an error of human judgment has crept in.
"There is such a thing, therefore, as a scientific method of studying the Word. The student who follows the rules of an experiment in chemistry brings that experiment to a successful conclusion. The student who does not ends up with an explosion. Just so, the student who conducts his study of the Bible along the scientific lines noted above arrives at the correct interpretation, and the student who does not at the wrong one. The exegetical method the student uses in answering the question with reference to the time of the rapture will determine whether he believes in a pretribulational or a posttribulational rapture.
[...]
"The words "a falling away" are the Authorized Version rendering of apostasia. The verbal form afistamai from which it comes is present middle of afisthmi, the root verb, which we will study. The simple verb Jisthmi [histemi] in its intransitive sense means "to stand," the prefixed preposition means "off, away from," and the compound verb, "to stand off from." The word does not mean "to fall." The Greeks had a word for that, piptw. Afisthmi, in its various uses, is reported by Thayer as follows: "to make stand off, cause to withdraw, to stand off, stand aloof, to desert, to withdraw from one"; in contexts where a defection from the faith is in view, it means "to fall away, become faithless." The verb is rendered by the translators of the Authorized Version "to depart," in Luke 2:32; Luke 4:13; Luke 13:27; Acts 12:10; Acts 15:38; Acts 19:9; Acts 22:29; 2 Corinthians 12:8; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 2:19; Hebrews 3:12. In Luke 8:13 it is translated "fall away," in Acts 5:37, "drew away," and in Acts 5:38, "refrain." Had they translated the word here instead of interpreting it, they would have rendered it by the word "departure." The reader will observe that the predominant translation of the verbal form is "to depart," also, that where it is translated "fall away," the context adds the idea of "falling away" to the verb, which action is still a departure.
E. Schuyler English, to whom this present writer is deeply indebted for calling his attention to the word "departure" as the correct rendering of apostasia in this context, also informs us that the following translators understood the Greek word to mean "a departure" in this context: Tyndale (1534), Coverdale (1535), the Geneva Bible (1537), Cranmer (1539), and Beza (1565), and so used it in their translations. Apostasia is used once more in the New Testament and is translated "to forsake" (AV), signifying a departure. The neuter noun apostasion in Matthew 5:31; Matthew 19:7; and Mark 10:4 is rendered by the Authorized Version, "divorcement," which word also signifies a departure, here, from antecedent relations.
The writer is well aware of the fact that apostasia was used at times both in classical and koine Greek in the sense of a defection, a revolt in a religious sense, a rebellion against God, and of the act of apostasy. Liddell and Scott in their classical lexicon give the above as the first definition of the word. Moulton and Milligan quote a papyrus fragment where the word means "a rebel." But these are acquired meanings of the word gotten from the context in which it is used, not the original, basic, literal meaning, and should not be imposed upon the word when the context does not qualify the word by these meanings, as in the case of our Thessalonians passage, where the context in which apostasia is embedded does not refer to a defection from the truth but to the rapture of the church. The fact that our word "apostasy" means a defection from the truth is entirely beside the point since we do not interpret Scripture upon the basis of a transliterated word to which a certain meaning has been given, but upon the basis of what the Greek word mean to the first century reader. The fact that Paul in 1 Timothy 4:1 uses this verb in the words "some shall depart from the faith" and finds it necessary to qualify its meaning by the phrase "from the faith" indicates that the word itself has no such connotation. The translators of the Authorized Version did not translate the word, but offered their interpretation of it. They should have translated it and allowed the student to interpret it in its context.
With the translation of the word before us, the next step is to ascertain from the context that to which this departure refers. We note the presence of the Greek definite article before apostasia, of which the translation takes no notice. A Greek word is definite in itself, and when the article is used the exegete must pay particular attention to it. "The basal function of the article is to point out individual identity. It does more than mark 'the object as definitely conceived,' for a substantive in Greek is definite without the article." This departure, whatever it is, is a particular one, one differentiated from all others. Another function of the article is "to denote previous reference." Here the article points out an object the identity of which is defined by some previous reference made to it in the context." Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 has just spoken of the coming of the Lord. This coming is defined by the words "our gathering together unto him," not as the second advent, but as the rapture. The Greek word rendered "and" can also be translated "even," and the translation reads, "the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, even our gathering together unto him."
The article before apostasia defines that word by pointing to "the gathering together unto him" as that departure. This article determines the context which defines apostasia. The translators took the context of 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 as deciding the significance of the word, but they went too far afield, not grasping the function of the definite article preceding apostasia which points back to the rapture of 2 Thessalonians 2:1, not ahead to the refusal to believe the truth of 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12. The article is all-important here, as in many instances of its use in the Greek New Testament. In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, Paul had given these saints teaching on the rapture, and the Greek article here points to that which was well known to both the reader and the writer, which is another use of the Greek definite article. Thus, the departure of the church from earth to heaven must precede the great tribulation period [I would say, "must precede the [7-yr] tribulation period" to be more specific (for 'GREAT tribulation' refers only to the latter half of it)]. And we have answered our questions again. It might be added that the reason why Paul merely speaks of a pretribulation rather than a preseventieth week rapture is that he is addressing himself to the needs of the Thessalonian saints and is not explaining the particular place of the rapture in the prophetic program of God."
--Kenneth S Wuest, "The Rapture--Precisely When?", Bibliotheca Sacra, BSac 114:453 (Jan 57), p.60
[ www. galaxie . com/article/bsac114-453-05 ]
[end quoting that post; bold and underline mine]
As I said before it wasn't your post I was speaking of it was the conduct between dave and john but I said everyone just as a genral reminder to everyone to stay civil. As I said you and I both know it is a slippery slope to a war thread and it starts with conduct like this then becomes lashing out at each other in the heat of debates.
To add to that point ^ (in my Post #96 ^ ) :
[from BibleHub]
G646 - apostasia - [recall, Liddell and Scott's "apo stasis"]
Word Origin
from aphistémi
[end quoting]
____________
[see again Acts 12:10 - a "geographical / spatial" departure / departing: "and forthwith the angel departed [aphistemi] from him." kjv]
_____
[and]
See also Hebrews 9:8-9a -
G4714 - stasin/stasis is used in a NEGATIVE sense, in 8 of its 9 occurrences (and there meaning [or, usages], "a rebel, revolutionist,...an insurrection, dissension, strife, uproar, a popular uprising, controversy");
but HERE, in its 9th occurrence ONLY, is NOT [negative], but means "A STANDING"
(in the context of a verse stating "the first tabernacle [the one in the wilderness, per context] yet having A STANDING [G4714]: Which is A PARABLE for the PRESENT TIME..." - Heb9:8-9a)
[from BibleHub]
G646 - apostasia - [recall, Liddell and Scott's "apo stasis"]
Word Origin
from aphistémi
[end quoting]
____________
[see again Acts 12:10 - a "geographical / spatial" departure / departing: "and forthwith the angel departed [aphistemi] from him." kjv]
_____
[and]
See also Hebrews 9:8-9a -
G4714 - stasin/stasis is used in a NEGATIVE sense, in 8 of its 9 occurrences (and there meaning [or, usages], "a rebel, revolutionist,...an insurrection, dissension, strife, uproar, a popular uprising, controversy");
but HERE, in its 9th occurrence ONLY, is NOT [negative], but means "A STANDING"
(in the context of a verse stating "the first tabernacle [the one in the wilderness, per context] yet having A STANDING [G4714]: Which is A PARABLE for the PRESENT TIME..." - Heb9:8-9a)
