Documentary—7 Pretrib Problems and the Prewrath Rapture

  • 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.

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,234
3,575
113
[from one of the links I referenced earlier in this thread]

"[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 [TDW: 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, though I find that most ppl mis-label this also)]. And we have answered our questions again."

--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; bold mine]
The author makes a good case for "departure" as being the best translation of apostasia. I have no argument there.

However, he claims the definite article "the" before apostasia proves a connection somehow back to "our gathering together unto Him" in verse 1. This simply isn't true. For the sake of argument however let's say he's right, you still have the problem of the nonsensical "the rapture can't come unless the rapture comes first."
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,112
113
^ The sentence in verse 3 would NOT be saying "the rapture can't come unless the rapture comes first"...



...the speakers in the OP video repeat this falsity like a mantra (saying that this is what "pre-tribbers" would have it be saying, provided you substitute "departure [/rapture]" where the word "apostasia" is used [v.3], as we point out).

Note that PRE-TRIBBERS are NOT the ones saying that "departure/rapture" is mentioned TWO TIMES in v.3. We're saying it is used ONE TIME in verse 3. THAT is the verse we are pointing out...

What the makers of the OP video are trying to do, is NOT translate VERSE 3's SENTENCE, but to pull out three IDEAS from three VERSES and smash those together into THEIR OWN "MADE UP" sentence, just to say, "that is NONSENSICAL!!" (of course it is... but THEY made up that sentence, they did NOT derive it FROM VERSE 3... the verse WE are pointing out! WHY DO THEY DO THIS??)




______________

[and all of that is ASIDE from the the other issue... that their idea of when "the DOTL" commences does not comport with Scripture and what IT says about that ;) ]
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,112
113
^ meant to say "departure" (referring to rapture)...



... was in too big a rush to post... = P
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,112
113
[ @ResidentAlien 's Post #261 ]



[quoting from Wuest's article in my Post #258]

"[...] 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, [...]"

[end quoting; bold and underline mine]




Where do you detect a problem with this ^ (especially the bold... and perhaps the underlined in view of the bold :D )?
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,234
3,575
113
^ The sentence in verse 3 would NOT be saying "the rapture can't come unless the rapture comes first"...



...the speakers in the OP video repeat this falsity like a mantra (saying that this is what "pre-tribbers" would have it be saying, provided you substitute "departure [/rapture]" where the word "apostasia" is used [v.3], as we point out).

Note that PRE-TRIBBERS are NOT the ones saying that "departure/rapture" is mentioned TWO TIMES in v.3. We're saying it is used ONE TIME in verse 3. THAT is the verse we are pointing out...

What the makers of the OP video are trying to do, is NOT translate VERSE 3's SENTENCE, but to pull out three IDEAS from three VERSES and smash those together into THEIR OWN "MADE UP" sentence, just to say, "that is NONSENSICAL!!" (of course it is... but THEY made up that sentence, they did NOT derive it FROM VERSE 3... the verse WE are pointing out! WHY DO THEY DO THIS??)




______________

[and all of that is ASIDE from the the other issue... that their idea of when "the DOTL" commences does not comport with Scripture and what IT says about that ;) ]
I'm not saying that in v. 3 it's said twice. I'm saying the rapture is mentioned in v. 1: "our gathering together with Him." Then in v. 3, if departure is taken to mean rapture.

You're making an argument against something I'm not even saying.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,234
3,575
113
[ @ResidentAlien 's Post #261 ]



[quoting from Wuest's article in my Post #258]

"[...] 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, [...]"

[end quoting; bold and underline mine]




Where do you detect a problem with this ^ (especially the bold... and perhaps the underlined in view of the bold :D )?
Okay, but this author is totally ignoring the correct meaning of apostasia and the nonsense it makes of the passage if it does refer back to v. 1. He's making a faulty interpretation to make it say something it doesn't. I don't care if Moody Bible Institute is attached to his name, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Or even worse, he does know and just doesn't care.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,112
113
[ @ResidentAlien 's Post #265 ]

The claim is that "pre-tribbers" are having the sentence to be saying something "nonsensical"... but then they go on, not to explain WHAT VERSE 3 ACTUALLY STATES (per their view) but, to PUT TOGETHER [not the SENTENCE WHICH IS IN SCRIPTURE, v.3!] but one of their OWN ASSEMBLING... almost in the same way that (as the joke goes) "Judas hung himself; go thou and do likewise".
WHY IS THAT "PUT TOGETHER" LIKE THAT?! That ("put-together idea") is not what either sentence is actually conveying, right?? :rolleyes:


I want to hear VERSE 3 (according to your view--if one were to accept the placing of "departure" in where the word "apostasia" is, in that verse).

If you do this, you will NOT come up with the notion of putting "rapture" [/departure]" TWO TIMES there [in verse 3's sentence]. And... it will NOT result in the "nonsensical" meaning (as suggested), whatsoever!
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,234
3,575
113
[quoting from another old post]

Dr David Hocking showed Marv Rosenthal (I believe it was) about the manuscript evidence (re: Rev5:9-10; with v.9 saying "US" ['hast redeemed US']) had to acknowledge "agreement" [that David Hocking was right and Scripture does say that, per the manuscript evidence Hocking pointed out], but then Rosenthal proceeded to publish his already-written "pre-wrath book" anyway, despite being informed of these facts:


[see @ this vid (approx 9-min vid total):





--note also in this video that he mentions something Geo E. Ladd [...] had said about this passage/esp verse 9]



(I think the reference to "Rosenthal" is in the extended version of this video... the above video is simply a shortened CLIP of the overall longer message)
This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Even if it is "us," there's no indication whatsoever from the text that these are raptured saints.

"And they sang a new song, saying:
'You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
And have made us kings and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth.' "—Revelation 5:9-10​

Where does it say or even imply that these are raptured saints. We know there are saints in heaven who have fallen asleep before us. This is just another example of making the text say what someone wants it to say.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,112
113
^ That's where the rest of the studies come into play (as well):

--"stephanon/crowns"--Paul said he will be awarded one "IN THAT DAY" (and not to him only)... this is NOT referring to the day/time of Paul's DEATH (when he would indeed "be present with the Lord" ['absent from the body']);

--5:4's word "WAS FOUND" (as a result of a "searching judgment" having already taken place; as is also used in the latter chpts of Acts regarding Paul being brought before their [human / earthly] BEMA );

--"crowns" and "clothed in white raiment" had already been mentioned in chpt 3 as "future" promises (in the section of "the things WHICH ARE"; whereas 1:1/1:19c/4:1 is referring to the "FUTURE" aspects of the Book, as "things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]," by contrast--that is, chpts 4-5 fall into the "FUTURE" aspects of the Book [i.e. referring to the 7 yr Trib... especially when one traces out the correlations of this elsewhere--won't go into that here]);

--more... (but I gotta go EAT! lol)
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,234
3,575
113
[ @ResidentAlien 's Post #265 ]

The claim is that "pre-tribbers" are having the sentence to be saying something "nonsensical"... but then they go on, not to explain WHAT VERSE 3 ACTUALLY STATES (per their view) but, to PUT TOGETHER [not the SENTENCE WHICH IS IN SCRIPTURE, v.3!] but one of their OWN ASSEMBLING... almost in the same way that (as the joke goes) "Judas hung himself; go thou and do likewise".
WHY IS THAT "PUT TOGETHER" LIKE THAT?! That ("put-together idea") is not what either sentence is actually conveying, right?? :rolleyes:


I want to hear VERSE 3 (according to your view--if one were to accept the placing of "departure" in where the word "apostasia" is, in that verse).

If you do this, you will NOT come up with the notion of putting "rapture" [/departure]" TWO TIMES there [in verse 3's sentence]. And... it will NOT result in the "nonsensical" meaning (as suggested), whatsoever!
Watermark, I get it. You're a true believer in the pre-tribulation rapture. But I sincerely hope you'll stop listening to the false teachers you've been listening to and examine the scriptures for yourself with an open mind. I was once a pre-tribber who came to understand the truth and hopefully you will too.

It's not so much a matter of one's belief about the timing of the rapture for one's salvation so much as it is a matter of how much can we trust people who have lied so blatantly about something like the pre-tribulation rapture. If they're wrong about that, what else are they wrong about?

Our trust shouldn't be in a person or a theology but in truth. That's all that matters.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,112
113
^ ResidentAlien, I get it... you cannot tell me WHAT VERSE 3's SENTENCE would say when substituting "DEPARTURE" in place of "apostasia"... so you will continue to listen to the likes of the OP speakers who ALSO could not READ THE SENTENCE IN VERSE 3! Oh well.




[for the readers of this thread: the word "departure [/apostasia]" is used ONLY ONE TIME in verse 3 (the verse under discussion)... NOT TWO TIMES, as they suggest with their own "made up" nonsensical sentence-from-nowhere-but-their-own-imagination! ;) Why they try to convince ppl into thinking it would be in that sentence TWICE is BEYOND ME!!]
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,691
113
I looked up on BLB the word "departure [noun]" (as this word in v.3 is a noun) and I only see that word occurring one time (though the word "departure" shows up TWO times in the Bible, once as a "verb" [in the OT]); of course, it is not the word "apostasia" (in either of these two cases).

So much for the word "departure" being "used often in the Bible". My search does not show that to be the case, actually. :D





Besides that... we are discussing the meaning of the word "apostasia [/apostasis - noun]," rather than some other Greek word that might happen to be translated "departure" (which word shows up 1x, in the NT, that I can see).
Various forms of departure are used in the New Testament: depart, departed, departure. There are many examples to chose from.

If you look these words up, you'll notice that none of the instances of depart, departed, and departure use G646 apostasia. The only other time G646 occurs in the New Testament, aside from 2 Thess. 2:3, is in Acts 21:21 where it is used in context of commiting apostasy against Moses.

You're looking for an entirely different word to describe a moving from one spatial geographical location to another. 2 Thess. 2:3 doesn't support a pre-tribulation departure [of the church] to the Lord.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,112
113
Various forms of departure are used in the New Testament: depart, departed, departure. There are many examples to chose from.
Wait a minute... so you're saying, the only time it is OKAY to refer to the "verb forms" (rather than sticking strictly with the noun-form found in v.3, as some suggested should be the way we figure these things out [OP vid]) is when you are scolding the likes of me... right? lol
 
Aug 20, 2021
1,863
310
83
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.What that have to do with rapture thing?
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,112
113
[ @rayzor ] When used with the definite article (as it is in 2Th2:3) it points BACK to something PREVIOUSLY referred to in the text.

What would "the departure" [he apostasia] be referring to (having already been mentioned PREVIOUSLY in the text), in this case?
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,887
2,112
113
Various forms of departure are used in the New Testament: depart, departed, departure. There are many examples to chose from.
Try looking at this one, for example (see the word "departed" and then hover your cursor over that word to see the "pop-up definition"):

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/12-10.htm



____________

Then see again:

HELPS Word-studies:

646 apostasía (from 868 /aphístēmi, "leave, depart," which is derived from 575 /apó, "away from" and 2476 /histémi, "stand")



[the word I bolded ^ is the one from Acts 12:10, at top]
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,691
113
Wait a minute... so you're saying, the only time it is OKAY to refer to the "verb forms" (rather than sticking strictly with the noun-form found in v.3, as some suggested should be the way we figure these things out [OP vid]) is when you are scolding the likes of me... right? lol
I don't necessarily agree with everything the video says.

What I am saying is that there can't be a departure unless someone or something will depart or has departed. A departure is just the people or thing that will depart or has departed.