Eschatology: The "Left Behind" narrative is unbiblical

[Clare73]

Clare, you are partially correct. Apostasia has five definitions, but the two main definitions will serve our purposes.
In the Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon, apostasia's first two definitions are (1) defection/revolt, and (2) departure/disappearance. Please note that "departure" in definition #2 is associated with "disappearance." Now, we know what "disappearance" means, therefore, "departure" can only mean "physical departure." This is not my opinion. These are facts of Greek translation to English.
Now, definition #1 does relate to "falling away." Therefore, we need to consult the text where "apostasia" is found, to see which definition is applicable.

Let's run through 2 Th 2:1-3 in older Bibles:
2 Th 2:1 (Geneva Bible): Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our assembling unto him,
In that verse, Paul is merely raising the topic of the rapture. The reason he had to do that is, his Thessalonian flock had received a fraudulent letter, making it appear to be from Paul, stating that they had missed the rapture and the trib had started.

That makes no sense.
Paul is uncertain about what is disturbing the Thessalonians, so he uses a general expression: "some prophecy (spirit), report or letter" easily unsettling or alarming them (2 Th 2:2).
There is no statement that the Thessalonians received a fraudulent letter (appearing to be from Paul) that they had missed the rapture.
For that would mean that Paul, was on earth to write 2 Thess and, therefore, Paul had missed the rapture, too!
That the Thessalonians thought Paul, the apostle, had missed the rapture is absurd.

Rather, 2 Thess was the result of Silas and Timothy reporting back to Paul the continuing misconception (regarding the return of Jesus) which their delivery of 1 Thess did not squelch. So if the Thessalonians continued to believe, after receiving 1 Thess (which meant Paul was still around) that the rapture had already occurred, that would mean they thought Paul had been left behind also. That is preposterous.

So Paul was not writing to correct their view that the rapture had occurred, but to correct their view that the rapture was imminent (2 Th 2:3), as is clearly seen by his emphasis on what must occur (2 Th 2:3-8) before there will be a rapture (2 Th 2:1), and his exhortation to get back to work instead of idly waiting for an imminent rapture (2 Th 3:10-12).

Please verse 2 below.2 Th 2:2 (NLT): Don’t be so easily shaken or alarmed by those who say that the day of the Lord has already begun. Don’t believe them, even if they claim to have had a spiritual vision, a revelation, or a letter supposedly from us.
Those are Paul's words about how his flock had been deceived. Let's look at verse 3.
2 Th 2:3 (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.

"That day" mentioned in verse 3 concerns "the day of the Lord" mentioned in verse 2. The DOL (Day of the Lord) starts with the Trib. Paul then said "that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, .."

The Day of the Lord, or the last day, refers to the second coming at the end of time.
Keeping in mind that NT apostolic teaching authoritative to the people of God (as distinct from prophetic riddles, Nu 12:8) locates the rapture at the end of time:

Jesus locates the resurrection in the last day (John 6:39).
Paul locates the resurrection with the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:16).
Jesus locates the rapture with the second coming (Matthew 24:39-41).
Jesus locates the second coming with the judgment of the sheep and goats at the end of time (Matthew 25:31-33).

So in terms of the time of their occurrence, the rapture occurs at the end of time:

the last day (end of time) = resurrection = second coming = rapture = final judgment of sheep and goats (all mankind)

(And also let me point out that the resurrection being in the last day with the judgment of the sheep and goats--all mankind,
thereby makes only one resurrection. . .of all mankind).

 

[Jeffrey Bowden]

That makes no sense.
Paul is uncertain about what is disturbing the Thessalonians, so he uses a general expression: "some prophecy (spirit), report or letter" easily unsettling or alarming them (2 Th 2:2).
There is no statement that the Thessalonians received a fraudulent letter, appearing to be from Paul, that they had missed the rapture.
For that would mean that Paul, was on earth to write 2 Thess and, therefore, Paul had missed the rapture, too!
That the Thessalonians thought Paul, the apostle, had missed the rapture is absurd.

Rather, 2 Thess was the result of Silas and Timothy reporting back to Paul the continuing misconception (regarding the return of Jesus) which their delivery of 1 Thess did not squelch. So if the Thessalonians continued to believe, after receiving 1 Thess (which meant Paul was still around) that the rapture had already occurred, that would mean they thought Paul had been left behind also. That is preposterous.

So Paul was not writing to correct their view that the rapture had occurred, but to correct their view that the rapture was imminent (2 Th 2:3), as is clearly seen by his emphasis on what must occur (2 Th 2:3-8) before there will be a rapture (2 Th 2:1), and his exhortation to get back to work instead of idly waiting for an imminent rapture (2 Th 3:10-12).

The Day of the Lord, or the last day, refers to the second coming at the end of time.
Keeping in mind that NT apostolic teaching (as distinct from prophetic riddles, Nu 12:8) locates the rapture at the end of time:

Jesus locates the resurrection in the last day (John 6:39).
Paul locates the resurrection with the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:16).
Jesus locates the rapture with the second coming (Matthew 24:39-41).
Jesus locates the second coming with the judgment of the sheep and goats at the end of time (Matthew 25:31-33).

So in terms of the time of their occurrence, the rapture occurs at the end of time:

the last day (end of time) = resurrection = second coming = rapture = final judgment of sheep and goats (all mankind)

(And also let me point out that the resurrection being in the last day with the judgment of the sheep and goats--all mankind,
thereby makes only one resurrection. . .of all mankind).

The rapture is prophesied to occur as the next prophesied event.

Before KJV came along, the world of English Bibles was doing fine with "departure" or "departing" in 2 Th 2:3. These are verses from before KJV. Please note how they prove my account of what troubled the Thessalonians, is in Scripture:

2 Th 2:1 (Geneva Bible): Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our assembling unto him,

2 Th 2:2 (NLT): Don’t be so easily shaken or alarmed by those who say that the day of the Lord has already begun. Don’t believe them, even if they claim to have had a spiritual vision, a revelation, or a letter supposedly from us.

2 Th 2:3 (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.

 

[Jeffrey Bowden]

That makes no sense.
Paul is uncertain about what is disturbing the Thessalonians, so he uses a general expression: "some prophecy (spirit), report or letter" easily unsettling or alarming them (2 Th 2:2).
There is no statement that the Thessalonians received a fraudulent letter, appearing to be from Paul, that they had missed the rapture.
For that would mean that Paul, was on earth to write 2 Thess and, therefore, Paul had missed the rapture, too!
That the Thessalonians thought Paul, the apostle, had missed the rapture is absurd.

Rather, 2 Thess was the result of Silas and Timothy reporting back to Paul the continuing misconception (regarding the return of Jesus) which their delivery of 1 Thess did not squelch. So if the Thessalonians continued to believe, after receiving 1 Thess (which meant Paul was still around) that the rapture had already occurred, that would mean they thought Paul had been left behind also. That is preposterous.

So Paul was not writing to correct their view that the rapture had occurred, but to correct their view that the rapture was imminent (2 Th 2:3), as is clearly seen by his emphasis on what must occur (2 Th 2:3-8) before there will be a rapture (2 Th 2:1), and his exhortation to get back to work instead of idly waiting for an imminent rapture (2 Th 3:10-12).

The Day of the Lord, or the last day, refers to the second coming at the end of time.
Keeping in mind that NT apostolic teaching (as distinct from prophetic riddles, Nu 12:8) locates the rapture at the end of time:

Jesus locates the resurrection in the last day (John 6:39).
Paul locates the resurrection with the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:16).
Jesus locates the rapture with the second coming (Matthew 24:39-41).
Jesus locates the second coming with the judgment of the sheep and goats at the end of time (Matthew 25:31-33).

So in terms of the time of their occurrence, the rapture occurs at the end of time:

the last day (end of time) = resurrection = second coming = rapture = final judgment of sheep and goats (all mankind)

(And also let me point out that the resurrection being in the last day with the judgment of the sheep and goats--all mankind,
thereby makes only one resurrection. . .of all mankind).

Paul was more than certain what was troubling the Thessalonians: He raises the topic of the rapture in 2 Th 2:1 (KJV): Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

There is no "gathering together unto him" related to the 2A (2nd Advent). You might cite Matt 24:31, but please tell me where that gathering ends up. It is therefore NOT a gathering UNTO Him.

Furthermore, the pre-Trib rapture is prophesied to be the next return.

 

[tdidymas]

2 Peter 3:10 (NIV): But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. ----- The Day of the Lord is over several years. It starts with the Trib.

2 Th 2:2 (NLT): Don’t be so easily shaken or alarmed by those who say that the day of the Lord has already begun. Don’t believe them, even if they claim to have had a spiritual vision, a revelation, or a letter supposedly from us. ----- Don't be fooled that the Trib has started: the Day of the Lord (Trib).

2 Th 2:3 (GNV): 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. ----- The Trib will not come, as the rapture will occur first.

Those verses truly mean what I wrote. Read them and you will see.

No, I don't agree with your conclusions. The "left behind" idea is going to be a serious stumbling block to people who are expecting to "disappear" secretly before the trib, if that doesn't happen. It will be exactly like what Paul was correcting in 2 Thes. 2.

It clearly puts the coming of the Lord AND our gathering to Him as the same event, AFTER the Antichrist is revealed. You have to cut and paste parts of it in order to get what you say, so to me your conclusion is a pretext.

 

[tdidymas]

Your premise is faulty because 2 Th 2:1-3 are about the pre-Trib rapture. Even 2 Th 2:1 starts with mention of the rapture: Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our assembling unto Him.

In the 2A, there is no "assembling unto Him." Also, Matt 24:31 does not say "assembling unto him." It is unknown where that gathering goes. There isn't any "assembling unto Him" until the gatherings in Matt 25:35-46.

In Mat. 24:31, just what do you think the "gathering" is about then?

But the context of 2 Th. 2 puts the coming of the Lord AND our gathering to Him as a single event. And this event is AFTER the antichrist rises up.

 

[tdidymas]

Using the same methodology he used, I could probably "prove" that Jesus was crucified twice. All I need to do is reference one passage that mentions the Lord was crucified, and then reference another text that He was crucified, and claim two different crucifixions.

The more obvious and natural reading, however, is that all mentions of our Lord's death on the cross refer to that one and single moment where our Lord was nailed to the cross, bore our suffering, and died for our sins. Once and for all.

Likewise, the most obvious and natural reading of Scripture shows us that all references to our Lord's coming, His Parousia, is the one and same event, not two, not three, not fifteen, but one.

Which is, of course, what literally all Christians have believed since the beginning--right up until some in modern times began to believe certain doctrines, invented out of thin air, in the 1800's, and then later Christians--already believing these things--tried to find proof-texts to support their position. Not unlike the way that Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and other sectarians have tried to come up with a doctrine, and then mine the Bible for prooftexts (ignoring context and all common sense).

I'm not saying those who believe in the "left behind" stuff are the same as Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons; but it's the same methodology of ignoring the plain meaning of Scripture and trying to make the Bible say what they want it to say. It's a terribly common problem among many Christians across many different backgrounds, and even the most well-meaning student of the Bible can fall into that trap. Which is why we must always--all of us--be vigilant and diligent in applying good hermeneutical and exegetical principles to our study and analysis of God's word.

-CryptoLutheran

Right. I'm just trying to get a pre-trib expert to correctly exegete the scripture, but it seems like trying to pull teeth. Some well-respected pastors hold to the pre-trib idea, and they have very convincing arguments and tons of scripture to back up their idea (like Randy Rice, Charles Ryrie, Grant Jeffrey, Dave Reagan, and many others. But then there is 2 Thes. 2... hmm, not so easy to accept it. The reason why I got into this in the first place is because my own pastor and some elders hold to that eschatology, but they won't (so far) discuss this verse of scripture with me. They got their teaching from Dallas Theol. Sem., and they seem so convinced of it. But a group I'm in has been studying Jeremiah's book "The Book of Signs," and I've been asking some difficult questions for them, which they can't answer. I came across several statements Jeremiah made that appear to conflict with scripture and pointed them out, but no one wants to touch it with a 10-foot pole. I've written emails to the sources asking the questions and got no response. The elder who is the leader of that study admits he can't answer those questions. Practically the whole church considers that elder an expert in prophecy, and he is very knowledgeable; but considers me a contender because I point out scriptures that conflict with statements he makes. We've had some dialog, but when it gets to how I read the scripture, he never responds to that. It seems much like some of the responses in this forum, where they just keep repeating the same things over and over, and never address the questions, because there is no exegesis of scripture.

But since you mention the pre-trib idea coming in the 1800s, what do you think of this article:

Early Church Teaching on PreTribulation Rapture | Paw Creek Ministries

 

[The Liturgist]

The "left behind" narrative appears to conflict with scripture. It places the "rapture" before the antichrist is revealed, but 2 Thes. 2:3 clearly places the "rapture" (1st resurrection) AFTER the antichrist is revealed.

This issue came up when I read a statement by (the very respected and knowledgeable) David Jeremiah: "No, the Bible does not tell us who the Antichrist will be. In fact, Paul tells us in the second chapter of [2] Thessalonians that this coming world ruler will not be revealed until after the Rapture of the church. 'So if you ever reach the point where you think you know who he is, that must mean you have been left behind.'" (quoting Tim LaHaye, and agreeing). Quoted from "The Book of Signs," p. 248.

But that scripture clearly states the opposite (2 Thes. 2:3) "Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed..."
"That day" is referring to v. 1 "the coming of our Lord and our gathering together to Him" (i.e., the "rapture", or the 1 Cor. 15 resurrection.
"the man of lawlessness" is obviously referring to The Antichrist (which is the beast of Rev. 13).

Before vs. after - can anyone explain this conflict?

I'm a skeptic when it comes to constructed chronologies of eshcatology. I would like to believe in the Pre-trib idea, but I'm having a rough time with it. I haven't found anything anywhere that adequately explains this conflict. All I've seen so far is assertions and opinions. Can anyone help?

It is unbiblical, but for more reasons than what you have asserted. The entire premise is based on premillenial dispensationalism, which was unknown in the Church before one of the founders of the Plymouth Brethren (if I recall, the “Closed Brethren” rather than the “Open Brethren”) John Nelson Darby, introduced it in the 19th century, from which other innovative preachers outside of the mainstream of Christian thought disseminated it widely, so that at a certain point in the 1970s it became ubiquitous among both Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians, even in relatively traditional denominations such as the Presbyterians and United Methodists, so that only the most traditional liturgical churches such as the Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox, Catholics and Assyrians have entirely rejected it.*

In addition to this, the anti-Christ figure “Nicolae Carpathia”, who is allegedly Romanian despite having only the most common Romanian name, is extremely offensive from a Romanian Orthodox perspective. There was an obvious allusion to the Communist dictator, but Carpathians are a different group of Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Christians, also known as Ruthenians or Carpatho-Rusyns, and so the name managed to offend them also. And the idea that the anti-Christ would come from the country with the second highest number of Orthodox Christians, who along with the Russians, Ukrainians, Georgians and Armenians endured the worst degree of persecution of Christianity in any European country aside from Albania under the Communists, and additionally also suffered under Islam, having been a part of the Turkish province of Roumelia until the 1870s when they were finally liberated, while not impossible, comes across as offensive and jingoistic given the American authorship of the work. It would have been much more convincing to have the anti-Christ come from a country much more widely understood. One gets the sense they went for Romania because of the extra-scriptural belief that the anti-Christ will try to re-establish the Roman Empire before declaring himself God (which is possible but I think rather unlikely), and because Romania is a country that was an enemy of the US during the Cold War and has an unfairly negative association in the popular consciousness, since Transylvania was once ruled by Vlad the Impaler (who the Romanians refer to as “Vlad Dracul”, Dracul commonly translated as “Dragon” but actually “Dragon” and “Devil” are synonymous in the Romanian language, as in many languages, which is one reason why I find the enthusiasm for fire-breathing dragons in fantasy such as Game of Thrones to be highly disturbing.

However, it is a fact that Vlad the Impaler was not a vampire, that the Orthodox Church prohibited the superstitious belief in vampires and under its canon laws, anyone who desecrates a corpse by shoving a wooden stake through it based on the stupid superstition of vampirism would be subject to a penance of exclusion from the Eucharist for a time, and Vlad was a Hungarian and most likely a Roman Catholic, furthermore (and so was the most iconic actor to play Dracula, Bela Lugosi). While not a vampire, he was a war criminal, committing atrocities against an invading Ottoman army in a successful attempt to discourage a subsequent invasion, which probably saved many Romanian lives but at a rather excessive cost, and the act was widely regarded as repulsive and was condemned by European Christians as well as by the Turks, and in the end they would invade and oppress the Romanians anyway, even if they were temporarily dissuaded.

Thus I see the entire character of Nicolae Carpathia as nothing more than a spectacular cheapshot at two of the most pious and long-suffering groups of Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Rite Christians in Europe, the Romanians and the Carpathians (Carpatho-Rusyns, Ruthenians, and the related Lemkos of Poland).

*There have been attempts at introducing it however, in particular, there was an attempted Protestant takeover of the Coptic Orthodox church around the time of the repose of Pope Shenouda, memory eternal, which my dear friend @dzheremi can confirm, and which I suspect my dear friend @Andrewn would be very interested in, if he is not familiar with already; this having been facilitated by the existence of large extra-diocesan areas without their own bishops (and in the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Pope is equal to every other bishop in power, being only First Among Equals, and president of the Holy Synod, but not Infallible or Supreme like the Roman Catholic Pope).

The solution, enacted by the Holy Synod under his successor Pope Tawadros II, was to take these extra-diocesan areas and turn them into dioceses with bishops who could not only ordain parish priests but also fire them if they taught false doctrine. This occurred in Egypt, in for example, the impoverished suburb of Cairo known as Muqattam, where the Coptic cathedral looked like a megachurch, with a stage instead of an altar, although this was rectified by the appointment of a lovable firebrand of a bishop, His Grace Abanoub, and in most of the United States, where only the South and Los Angeles had bishops, but now, there are dioceses for the entire country, and everywhere else.

 

[Clare73]

Clare, you are partially correct. Apostasia has five definitions, but the two main definitions will serve our purposes.
In the Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon, apostasia's first two definitions are (1) defection/revolt, and (2) departure/disappearance. Please note that "departure" in definition #2 is associated with "disappearance." Now, we know what "disappearance" means, therefore, "departure" can only mean "physical departure." This is not my opinion. These are facts of Greek translation to English.
Now, definition #1 does relate to "falling away." Therefore, we need to consult the text where "apostasia" is found, to see which definition is applicable.
Let's run through 2 Th 2:1-3 in older Bibles:
2 Th 2:1 (Geneva Bible): Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our assembling unto him,
In that verse, Paul is merely raising the topic of the rapture. The reason he had to do that is, his Thessalonian flock had received a fraudulent letter, making it appear to be from Paul, stating that they had missed the rapture and that the Trib had started. Please verse 2 below.
2 Th 2:2 (NLT): Don’t be so easily shaken or alarmed by those who say that the day of the Lord has already begun. Don’t believe them, even if they claim to have had a spiritual vision, a revelation, or a letter supposedly from us.
Those are Paul's words about how his flock had been deceived. Let's look at verse 3.
2 Th 2:3 (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.
"That day" mentioned in verse 3 concerns "the day of the Lord" mentioned in verse 2. The DOL (Day of the Lord) starts with the Trib. Paul then said "that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, .."
With verse 1 citing the rapture, the context of rapture continues through verse 3. Therefore, of the first two definitions of apostasia, only definition #2 applies: departure/disappearance.

In 2 Th 2:1-3, Paul was factually talking about the pre-Trib rapture.

Actually, 2 Th 2:1-3 is in regard to the second coming: "Concerning the coming (presence) of our Lord Jesus Christ (second coming) and our being gathered to him (rapture). . ."

However, this is only clear in early Bibles that have never been corrupted. The KJV came out in 1611 as the first Bible to use definition #1 of apostasia in 2 Th 2:3. That's what started all the Bible versions since then, using definition #1 of apostasia, which factually does not fit the context.
Paul had prior writings on the rapture: 1 Th 1:10, 1 Th 4:16-17 and 1 Th 5:9. Paul had never spoke about a 'falling away" in his prior letters. He repeatedly spoke of the rapture.

So?. . .what rule requires the time when Paul must speak of a doctrine?
He also never spoke of death coming to all men (Ro 5:12) until a few years after he spoke of some never mortally dying (1 Co 15:51).
That hermeneutic is self-tailored.

Lastly, the "falling away" in the Bible occurs in Matt 24:10. If you research where that verse falls on the timeline, it's well into the Trib,

This assumes your interpretation of prophetic riddles, not spoken clearly (Nu 12:8) and subject to more than one interpretation, is correct.
Any interpretation not in agreement with apostolic teaching authoritative to God's people is not correct.

Mt 24 answers two questions:
1) when will this (v.2, end of OT age) happen, and
2) the sign of your coming and of the end of the (NT) age (v.14)?

As the preaching of the gospel is characteristic of the whole NT age (v. 14), so the tribulation is characteristic of the whole NT age (vv. 9-12). That being the Biblical case, the "tribulation" is the whole church age.
The apostasy of Mt 24:10 occurs at the end of the NT church age (Mt 24:3) just as it does in 2 Th 2:3.

 

[ViaCrucis]

But since you mention the pre-trib idea coming in the 1800s, what do you think of this article:

Early Church Teaching on PreTribulation Rapture | Paw Creek Ministries

It's a copy-and-paste of misinformation that one can find in a lot of places on the internet.

For example in the article it talks about something St. Ephraem wrote in the 4th century. Well, St. Ephraem was alive in the 4th century, but he didn't write what they claim he wrote. They are referring to a text that has been attributed to Pseudo-Ephraem. When a work is written under a pseudonymous name, we often append "Pseudo". So, for example, we have the authentic epistles of St. Ignatius written during his forced travel in chains from Antioch to Rome; but we also have a later collection of letters attributed to St. Ignatius of Antioch, since these are not the authentic works of Ignatius, we would say they are the Pseudo-Ignatian letters. The work in question is Pseudo-Ephraemic, not written by the real St. Ephraem.

Continuing on the discussion of Pseudo-Ephraem, there are two works of note here attributed to him, both have been given the name "Apocalypse of Ephraem" but better called "Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraem". One, written in Syrian, dates the late first millennium, around 7th-8th centuy; and it is very clearly talking about the Muslim conquests which were very recent at the time it was written. But it presents itself as a text predicting the Muslim conquests from the time of St. Ephraem hundreds of years earlier. It speaks of the Muslim Conquests as a prelude to the end of the world, a view that was very common at the time as historically Christian regions were being conquered by an invading heretical force. I say heretical, because from the view of contemporary Christians of the time, Islam was not regarded as an entirely separate religion, but was more often viewed as a Christian heresy, Muhammad was regarded as a heretic rather than a founder of a brand new religion. So, surely, from the view of those at the time, the Muslim Conquests probably looked like the powers of the Antichrist on the rise, and surely then the world would be coming to an end. That didn't happen, but we have the benefit of hindsight.

There is yet another work called the Apocalypse of [Pseudo-]Ephraem. Written in Latin. This is the work which, in its English translation by Cameron Rhoades, is appealed to by Pre-Tribulationist apologists.

Specifically this quote:

"All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see the confusion which is to overwhelm the world because of our sins."

That, read through a Pre-tribulationist lens, looks like what Pre-tribulationists believe will happen.

The problem? This is how the text concludes:

"And when the three and a half years have been completed, the time of the Antichrist, through which he will have seduced the world, after the resurrection of the two prophets, in the hour which the world does not know, and on the day which the enemy of son of perdition does not know, will come the sign of the Son of Man, and coming forward the Lord shall appear with great power and much majesty, with the sign of the wood of salvation going before him, and also even with all the powers of the heavens with the whole chorus of the saints, with those who bear the sign of the holy cross upon their shoulders, as the angelic trumpet precedes him, which shall sound and declare: Arise, O sleeping ones, arise, meet Christ, because his hour of judgment has come! Then Christ shall come and the enemy shall be thrown into confusion, and the Lord shall destroy him by the spirit of his mouth. And he shall be bound and shall be plunged into the abyss of everlasting fire alive with his father Satan; and all people, who do his wishes, shall perish with him forever; but the righteous ones shall inherit everlasting life with the Lord forever and ever."

It describes here the conclusion of Antichrist's reign, when Jesus returns in Judgment, at which point the dead rise and meet Jesus. It is identifying the 1 Thessalonians meeting between the resurrected and the Lord Jesus at Christ's return of Judgment where He destroys the Antichrist.

There are more problems than just this, for a much more rigorous analysis of the Latin Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraem, feel freed to read here:

Did pseudo-Ephraim believe in the Rapture? Some notes on the manuscripts, the passage and its Greek origins

There is a Latin text from the early Dark Ages which some believe teaches the “Rapture”; the idea that, before the Tribulation described in Revelation, the saints will all be caught up in the air b…

www.roger-pearse.com

This isn't the only source Pre-Trib apologists use, another common one (though I did not see it in the article you gave me) is an isolated quote from St. Irenaeus of Lyons' five volume workd Agaisnt Heresies. Unlike the former example, this does use the authentic work of St. Irenaeus; but just like the former example it is an intentional isolation of a passage devoid of considering the entire text.

For we could consider, for example, look to see what Irenaeus does believe:

"And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, "There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be." [Matthew 24:21] For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, Ch. 29)

Ireneaus understands the Church as undergoing tribulation at the end of time, through which the Church overcomes and is crowned; the catching up of the Church is not prior to, but having gone through, tribulation.

And this is, when one looks at such copy-and-paste jobs, routine. Old sources are pillaged looking for something that looks like it might fit, but no consideration is given to a critical analysis, and in cases there is blatant (though perhaps at times unintentional) deception such as attributing a work to the 4th century Ephraem when it is, in fact, a pseudonymous work from a later period.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

If the KJV is perfect in their translation,

Not what I said. I said that the KJV did a perfectly fine job here in translating apostasia as "falling away". And you don't have a valid argument against that; for one, this is hardly unique to the KJV; it is only a problem for your own personally held interpretation.

"unless the rebellion comes first" - ESV

"unless the apostasy comes first" - NASB

"until the rebellion occurs" - NIV

"until there is a great rebellion against God" - NLT

"unless the rebellion comes first" - NRS

"except the falling away come first" - ASV

"unless the rebellion comes first" - CEB

"until the final Rebellion takes place" - GNT

"[unless] a revolt takes place first" - GWT

"unless there come a revolt first" - Douay-Rheims

Apostasia has five definitions. Per the Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon, the two main definitions are (1) defection/revolt; and (2) departure/disappearance. There is no question that the first definition relates to "falling away." In the second definition, "departure" is associated with "disappearance." Therefore, in Greek, "apostasia" as "departure" means "physical departure," as in "disappearance."

You didn't even bother to stop and ask in what sense would it mean "departure" or "disappearance". You latched onto the possible definition that tickles your ears, and then rode your horse all the way to conclusionville without even bothering to see if you could.

In what way could this word mean "defection/revolt" and "departure/disappearance"? Well for that we'd need to actually look to see how the word is used in situ.

Now using the Liddel-Scott as found over at Perseus-Tufts (Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, ăpostăsĭa), I was able to look at the use of apostasia in several works. And while I have been unsuccessful in seeing a usage that would mean "departure" except in the sense of dereliction of duties, or a departure by way of revolting, rejection, etc; I have seen a continued and consistent usage to refer to acts of treachory, rebellion, revolt, defection, etc.

Here is it being used in Plutarch's Life of Galba (Chapter 1.1)

"But the house of the Caesars, the Palatium, in a shorter time than this received four emperors, the soldiery ushering one in and another out, as in play. But the suffering people had one consolation at least in the fact that they needed no other punishment of the authors of their sufferings, but saw them slain by one another's hands, and first and most righteously of all, the man who ensnared the soldiery and taught them to expect from the deposition of a Caesar all the good things which he promised them, thus defiling a most noble deed by the pay he offered for it, and turning the revolt from Nero into treachery. "

"ἡ δὲ τῶν Καισάρων ἑστία, τὸ Παλάτιον, ἐν ἐλάσσονι χρόνῳ τέσσαρας αὐτοκράτορας ὑπεδέξατο, τὸν μὲν εἰσαγόντων ὥσπερ διὰ σκηνῆς, τὸν δ᾽ ἐξαγόντων. ἀλλ᾽ ἦν γε παραμυθία τοῖς κακῶς πάσχουσι μία τὸ μὴ δεηθῆναι δίκης ἑτέρας ἐπὶ τοὺς αἰτίους, ἀλλ᾽ ὁρᾶν αὐτοὺς ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν φονευομένους, πρῶτον δε καὶ δικαιότατα πάντων τὸν δελεάσαντα καὶ διδάξαντα τοσοῦτον ἐλπίζειν ἐπὶ μεταβολῇ Καίσαρος ὅσον αὐτὸς ὑπέσχετο, κάλλιστον ἔργον διαβαλὼν τῷ μισθῷ, τὴν ἀπὸ Νέρωνος ἀποστασίαν προδοσίαν γενομένην"

Let's take a look at Flavius Josephus' Wars of the Jews, Book VII, Chapter 4.2

"So when a great part of the Germans had agreed to rebel, and the rest were no better disposed, Vespasian, as guided by Divine Providence, sent letters to Petilius Cerealis, who had formerly had the command of Germany, whereby he declared him to have the dignity of consul, and commanded him to take upon him the government of Britain;"

"πολλοῦ δὲ μέρους ἤδη τῶν Γερμανῶν τὴν ἀποστασίαν ἀνωμολογηκότος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων οὐκ ἄνδιχα φρονησάντων, ὥσπερ ἐκ δαιμονίου προνοίας Οὐεσπασιανὸς πέμπει γράμματα Πετιλίῳ Κερεαλίῳ τὸ πρότερον ἡγεμόνι Γερμανίας γενομένῳ, τὴν ὕπατον διδοὺς τιμὴν καὶ κελεύων ἄρξοντα Βρεττανίας ἀπιέναι."

Again, feel free to do your own looking at how the word is used, contextually in many places:

Word Frequency Information

Consistently, the word is used to describe rebellion, revolt, defection, etc.

To "depart" in this sense is to abandon, to turn away from and leave.

You simply don't have the weight of evidence on your side here. You have a desire for the text to mean what you want it to mean, but you only have straw to grasp upon.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

The rapture is prophesied to occur as the next prophesied event.

I do not take my doctrine from personal interpretation of prophetic riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:8).
I take it only from apostolic teaching authoritative to God's people.

 

[The Liturgist]

I do not take my doctrine from personal interpretation of prophetic riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:8).
I take in only from apostolic teaching authoritative to God's people.

I take mine from the Patristic interpretation of that apostolic teaching as found in the writings of the Church Fathers, the acts and canons of the Ecumenical Councils, and most importantly, in the ancient prayers of the early church, for example, the second century Divine Liturgy of St. Mark, also known as the Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril, basically, the liturgy of Alexandria, which remains in regular use among the Coptic Orthodox and occasional use among the Eastern Orthodox, and other prayers of antiquity.

Actually i recently downloaded a very good PDF in the public domain “Prayers of the Early Church”, which is surprisingly old, but which includes a selection of prayers from all of the ancient liturgical texts I love so much, albeit arranged as a prayer book, topically, which was rather nice.

 

[Clare73]

Paul was more than certain what was troubling the Thessalonians: He raises the topic of the rapture in 2 Th 2:1 (KJV): Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

There is no "gathering together unto him" related to the 2A (2nd Advent).

There is apostolic teaching of such in 1 Th 4:16:
"For the Lord himself will come down from heaven (second coming),
with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God,
and the dead in Christ will rise first (before the rapture),
after that, we who are still alive and left (at the resurrection) will be caught up together (harpazo) with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

Did you miss the following in my previous post?

Jesus locates the resurrection in the last day (John 6:39).
Paul locates the resurrection with the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:16).
Jesus locates the rapture with the second coming (Matthew 24:39-41).
Jesus locates the second coming with the judgment of the sheep and goats at the end of time (Matthew 25:31-33).

So in terms of the time of their occurrence, the rapture occurs at the end of time:

the last day (end of time) = resurrection = second coming = rapture = final judgment of sheep and goats (all mankind)

You might cite Matt 24:31, but please tell me where that gathering ends up. It is therefore NOT a gathering UNTO Him.

The "gathering" ends up with Jesus in the air, and accompanies him down to earth (parousia, coming--as in Jesus' entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, where they went out to meet him and accompanied him back into the city) for the Final Judgment.

Furthermore, the pre-Trib rapture is prophesied to be the next return.

Keeping in mind that I do not take my doctrine from personal interpretation of prophetic riddles not clearly spoken (Nu 12:8), but only from NT apostolic teaching authoritative to God's people, and have demonstrated above the NT teaching on the rapture occurring at the second coming for the resurrection.

 

[Clare73]

Clare, this my write-up on why the pre-Trib rapture will be the next prophesied event. Please let me know what you think. Thanks!
In the 2A (2nd Advent), Jesus fulfills a descension from Heaven to Earth. A main feature of that descension is it will be in full view of the people on Earth (Matt 24:30 and Rev 1:7). There will be billions of unbelievers on Earth who will see Jesus, and they will mourn (Matt 24:30). Jesus will also not be by Himself (Matt 24:31).

Acts 1:11 holds a very important guideline for the NEXT coming of Jesus Christ. Here is the complete verse 11 (ESV): and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”

". . .a cloud received him from the eyes of them (took him out of their sight)." (Ac 1:9)
So as all eyes saw him ascend to heaven on a cloud, would not all eyes also see him descend from heaven on a cloud?

Acts 1:11 is about how ("the same way") that the NEXT return of Jesus will occur. That return must follow the reverse-sequence of His ascension. The ascension started when Jesus was in the view of believers, only (His disciples) (Acts 1:9).

Would he not be in view of all who were there?

He ascended by Himself. He was then behind clouds, then in Heaven.
The reverse-sequence will dictate the way of His NEXT return. Jesus will descend from Heaven by Himself, behind clouds (out of view of the wicked world below), then only into the view of believers.

Does the text not state that a cloud received him from the eyes of them (Ac 1:9)?
Would that not indicate a connection to the cloud, either on the cloud or in the cloud?
"Received him" does not seem to indicate disconnection as in behind a cloud.

That is the reverse-sequence that aligns with Acts 1:11. Again, Acts 1:11 is about "the way" Jesus ascended, not where from.

"This Jesus, having been taken up from you to heaven thus will come in the way you behold him going to heaven." (Ac 1:11)
His going was (up) into heaven, so his coming back will be in the same way.

Must not the "same way" include coming down, heaven, cloud(s) and beholding, or it is not in the same way, but only in a similar way?
So would the reverse not be
coming (brought down) from heaven on or in a cloud in the view of everyone?
". . .They (all the nations) will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven. . .his angels. . .will gather his elect from the four winds (rapture of all saints of all time), from one end of heaven to the other." (Mt 24:30-31).

It is impossible for that reverse-sequence to apply to the 2A. The 2A starts with Jesus ON CLOUDS and in full view of the whole world (Matt 24:30 and Rev 1:7).

However, would that necessarily exclude him coming from heaven, particularly in light of your "exact reverse sequence" which includes heaven?

Therefore, right at the start of the 2A, Jesus will not be in alignment with Acts 1:11. The full proof of His misalignment with Acts 1:11, Jesus will be ON CLOUDS (not behind clouds);

Keeping in mind that nowhere does the Greek text state "behind" a cloud.
It states that a cloud "received him" (Ac 1:9), which is being on a cloud.
So is there really a misalignment here?

He's not by Himself (Matt 24:31); and He will be in full view of billions of unbelievers. That's all perfect for the 2A, but it doesn't align with Acts 1:11. Therefore, it is Scripturally impossible for the 2A to be the NEXT return of Jesus Christ.

However, unless Ac 1:11 specifically excludes (which it does not) Jesus' coming from heaven at his second coming (parousia, 1 Co 16.22), we have no basis for excluding such in light of its words "taken from you into heaven."

Only the pre-Trib rapture fits the reverse-sequence of Acts 1:11. That reverse sequence would be: descension by Himself, behind clouds, then only into the view of believers.

In 1 Th 4:16, Jesus descends by Himself. Verse 16 very importantly makes it crystal clear that Jesus will descend by Himself because He ascended by Himself (Acts 1:9). In 1 Th 4:17, we won't see Jesus until we pass through clouds and meet Him in the air.

Again, unless 1 Th 4:16-17 specifically excludes (which it does not) our seeing Jesus in the air at his second coming and our rapture, we have no basis for excluding such in light of his words, "They (all the nations) will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky. . ." (Mt 24:30).

 

[Jeffrey Bowden]

In Mat. 24:31, just what do you think the "gathering" is about then?

But the context of 2 Th. 2 puts the coming of the Lord AND our gathering to Him as a single event. And this event is AFTER the antichrist rises up.

2 Th 2:1-3, when read by its original wording says the rapture comes before the Trib, and the Trib starts with the first revelation of the AC in Rev 6:1-2.

Paul's Thessalonian flock was deceived by a fraudulent letter they received, made to appear to be from Paul, stating that they had missed the rapture and were now in Trib. Paul then corrects his flock that the Trib won't come until after the rapture.

2 Th 2:1 (Geneva Bible): Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our assembling unto him,

2 Th 2:2 (NLT): Don’t be so easily shaken or alarmed by those who say that the day of the Lord has already begun. Don’t believe them, even if they claim to have had a spiritual vision, a revelation, or a letter supposedly from us.

2 Th 2:3 (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.

The ending words to verse 3 are about Rev 6:1-2. That is the first seal judgment and it starts the Trib. Therefore, in 2 Th 2:1-3, Paul is saying the rapture comes before the Trib, and then the Trib is started by Rev 6:1-2.

 

[Jeffrey Bowden]

2 Th 2:1-3, when read by its original wording says the rapture comes before the Trib, and the Trib starts with the first revelation of the AC in Rev 6:1-2.

Paul's Thessalonian flock was deceived by a fraudulent letter they received, made to appear to be from Paul, stating that they had missed the rapture and were now in Trib. Paul then corrects his flock that the Trib won't come until after the rapture.

2 Th 2:1 (Geneva Bible): Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our assembling unto him,

2 Th 2:2 (NLT): Don’t be so easily shaken or alarmed by those who say that the day of the Lord has already begun. Don’t believe them, even if they claim to have had a spiritual vision, a revelation, or a letter supposedly from us.

2 Th 2:3 (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.

The ending words to verse 3 are about Rev 6:1-2. That is the first seal judgment and it starts the Trib. Therefore, in 2 Th 2:1-3, Paul is saying the rapture comes before the Trib, and then the Trib is started by Rev 6:1-2.

There is apostolic teaching of such in 1 Th 4:16:
"For the Lord himself will come down from heaven (second coming),
with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God,
and the dead in Christ will rise first (before the rapture),
after that, we who are still alive and left (at the resurrection) will be caught up together (harpazo) with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

Did you miss the following in my previous post?

Jesus locates the resurrection in the last day (John 6:39).
Paul locates the resurrection with the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:16).
Jesus locates the rapture with the second coming (Matthew 24:39-41).
Jesus locates the second coming with the judgment of the sheep and goats at the end of time (Matthew 25:31-33).

So in terms of the time of their occurrence, the rapture occurs at the end of time:

the last day (end of time) = resurrection = second coming = rapture = final judgment of sheep and goats (all mankind)

The "gathering" ends up with Jesus in the air, and accompanies him down to earth (parousia, coming--as in Jesus' entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, where they went out to meet him and accompanied him back into the city) for the Final Judgment.

Keeping in mind that I do not take my doctrine from personal interpretation of prophetic riddles not clearly spoken (Nu 12:8), but only from NT apostolic teaching authoritative to God's people, and have demonstrated above the NT teaching on the rapture occurring at the second coming for the resurrection.

Clare, we are not going to agree. I love you as a sister in Christ, and I will give you a big hug upon the pre-Trib rapture. God bless!

 

[Jeffrey Bowden]

". . .a cloud received him from the eyes of them (took him out of their sight)." (Ac 1:9)
So as all eyes saw him ascend to heaven on a cloud, would not all eyes also see him descend from heaven on a cloud?

Would he not be in view of all who were there?

Does the text not state that a cloud received him from the eyes of them (Ac 1:9)?
Would that not indicate a connection to the cloud, either on the cloud or in the cloud?
"Received him" does not seem to indicate disconnection as in behind a cloud.

"This Jesus, having been taken up from you to heaven thus will come in the way you behold him going to heaven." (Ac 1:11)
His going was (up) into heaven, so his coming back will be in the same way.

Must not the "same way" include coming down, heaven, cloud(s) and beholding, or it is not in the same way, but only in a similar way?
So would the reverse not be
coming (brought down) from heaven on or in a cloud in the view of everyone?
". . .They (all the nations) will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven. . .his angels. . .will gather his elect from the four winds (rapture of all saints of all time), from one end of heaven to the other." (Mt 24:30-31).

However, would that necessarily exclude him coming from heaven, particularly in light of your "exact reverse sequence" which includes heaven?

Keeping in mind that nowhere does the Greek text state "behind" a cloud.
It states that a cloud "received him" (Ac 1:9), which is being on a cloud.
So is there really a misalignment here?

However, unless Ac 1:11 specifically excludes (which it does not) Jesus' coming from heaven at his second coming (parousia, 1 Co 16.22), we have no basis for excluding such in light of its words "taken from you into heaven."

Again, unless 1 Th 4:16-17 specifically excludes (which it does not) our seeing Jesus in the air at his second coming and our rapture, we have no basis for excluding such in light of his words, "They (all the nations) will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky. . ." (Mt 24:30).

You asked: Would he not be in view of all who were there?

Only two angels and the Apostles were there with Jesus, in Acts 6-11. Therefore, it is true: Jesus ascended in the view of believers, only. Therefore, Jesus will descend in the view of believers, only. Those are Scriptural facts, straight from the Bible (Acts 1:6-11 and 1 Th 4:16-17).

 

[Jeffrey Bowden]

". . .a cloud received him from the eyes of them (took him out of their sight)." (Ac 1:9)
So as all eyes saw him ascend to heaven on a cloud, would not all eyes also see him descend from heaven on a cloud?

Would he not be in view of all who were there?

Does the text not state that a cloud received him from the eyes of them (Ac 1:9)?
Would that not indicate a connection to the cloud, either on the cloud or in the cloud?
"Received him" does not seem to indicate disconnection as in behind a cloud.

"This Jesus, having been taken up from you to heaven thus will come in the way you behold him going to heaven." (Ac 1:11)
His going was (up) into heaven, so his coming back will be in the same way.

Must not the "same way" include coming down, heaven, cloud(s) and beholding, or it is not in the same way, but only in a similar way?
So would the reverse not be
coming (brought down) from heaven on or in a cloud in the view of everyone?
". . .They (all the nations) will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven. . .his angels. . .will gather his elect from the four winds (rapture of all saints of all time), from one end of heaven to the other." (Mt 24:30-31).

However, would that necessarily exclude him coming from heaven, particularly in light of your "exact reverse sequence" which includes heaven?

Keeping in mind that nowhere does the Greek text state "behind" a cloud.
It states that a cloud "received him" (Ac 1:9), which is being on a cloud.
So is there really a misalignment here?

However, unless Ac 1:11 specifically excludes (which it does not) Jesus' coming from heaven at his second coming (parousia, 1 Co 16.22), we have no basis for excluding such in light of its words "taken from you into heaven."

Again, unless 1 Th 4:16-17 specifically excludes (which it does not) our seeing Jesus in the air at his second coming and our rapture, we have no basis for excluding such in light of his words, "They (all the nations) will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky. . ." (Mt 24:30).

The Second Coming is the second time Jesus is seen by the world. It's not his only coming after his first. The next appearance of Jesus will be behind clouds, just as stated in 1 Th 4:17. We won't see Jesus until we pass through clouds. That alone proves Jesus is behind clouds during the entire rapture. Therefore, the rapture cannot be said to be His Second Coming. Even John 14:3 is where Jesus says, "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.

Jesus comes for the Church, and we are taken straight to Heaven. You see? That is a coming that is NOT seen by the whole world. Only the Second Coming is about the second time Jesus comes to Earth.

 

[Jeffrey Bowden]

Not what I said. I said that the KJV did a perfectly fine job here in translating apostasia as "falling away". And you don't have a valid argument against that; for one, this is hardly unique to the KJV; it is only a problem for your own personally held interpretation.

"unless the rebellion comes first" - ESV

"unless the apostasy comes first" - NASB

"until the rebellion occurs" - NIV

"until there is a great rebellion against God" - NLT

"unless the rebellion comes first" - NRS

"except the falling away come first" - ASV

"unless the rebellion comes first" - CEB

"until the final Rebellion takes place" - GNT

"[unless] a revolt takes place first" - GWT

"unless there come a revolt first" - Douay-Rheims



You didn't even bother to stop and ask in what sense would it mean "departure" or "disappearance". You latched onto the possible definition that tickles your ears, and then rode your horse all the way to conclusionville without even bothering to see if you could.

In what way could this word mean "defection/revolt" and "departure/disappearance"? Well for that we'd need to actually look to see how the word is used in situ.

Now using the Liddel-Scott as found over at Perseus-Tufts (Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, ăpostăsĭa), I was able to look at the use of apostasia in several works. And while I have been unsuccessful in seeing a usage that would mean "departure" except in the sense of dereliction of duties, or a departure by way of revolting, rejection, etc; I have seen a continued and consistent usage to refer to acts of treachory, rebellion, revolt, defection, etc.

Here is it being used in Plutarch's Life of Galba (Chapter 1.1)

"But the house of the Caesars, the Palatium, in a shorter time than this received four emperors, the soldiery ushering one in and another out, as in play. But the suffering people had one consolation at least in the fact that they needed no other punishment of the authors of their sufferings, but saw them slain by one another's hands, and first and most righteously of all, the man who ensnared the soldiery and taught them to expect from the deposition of a Caesar all the good things which he promised them, thus defiling a most noble deed by the pay he offered for it, and turning the revolt from Nero into treachery. "

"ἡ δὲ τῶν Καισάρων ἑστία, τὸ Παλάτιον, ἐν ἐλάσσονι χρόνῳ τέσσαρας αὐτοκράτορας ὑπεδέξατο, τὸν μὲν εἰσαγόντων ὥσπερ διὰ σκηνῆς, τὸν δ᾽ ἐξαγόντων. ἀλλ᾽ ἦν γε παραμυθία τοῖς κακῶς πάσχουσι μία τὸ μὴ δεηθῆναι δίκης ἑτέρας ἐπὶ τοὺς αἰτίους, ἀλλ᾽ ὁρᾶν αὐτοὺς ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν φονευομένους, πρῶτον δε καὶ δικαιότατα πάντων τὸν δελεάσαντα καὶ διδάξαντα τοσοῦτον ἐλπίζειν ἐπὶ μεταβολῇ Καίσαρος ὅσον αὐτὸς ὑπέσχετο, κάλλιστον ἔργον διαβαλὼν τῷ μισθῷ, τὴν ἀπὸ Νέρωνος ἀποστασίαν προδοσίαν γενομένην"

Let's take a look at Flavius Josephus' Wars of the Jews, Book VII, Chapter 4.2

"So when a great part of the Germans had agreed to rebel, and the rest were no better disposed, Vespasian, as guided by Divine Providence, sent letters to Petilius Cerealis, who had formerly had the command of Germany, whereby he declared him to have the dignity of consul, and commanded him to take upon him the government of Britain;"

"πολλοῦ δὲ μέρους ἤδη τῶν Γερμανῶν τὴν ἀποστασίαν ἀνωμολογηκότος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων οὐκ ἄνδιχα φρονησάντων, ὥσπερ ἐκ δαιμονίου προνοίας Οὐεσπασιανὸς πέμπει γράμματα Πετιλίῳ Κερεαλίῳ τὸ πρότερον ἡγεμόνι Γερμανίας γενομένῳ, τὴν ὕπατον διδοὺς τιμὴν καὶ κελεύων ἄρξοντα Βρεττανίας ἀπιέναι."

Again, feel free to do your own looking at how the word is used, contextually in many places:

Word Frequency Information

Consistently, the word is used to describe rebellion, revolt, defection, etc.

To "depart" in this sense is to abandon, to turn away from and leave.

You simply don't have the weight of evidence on your side here. You have a desire for the text to mean what you want it to mean, but you only have straw to grasp upon.

-CryptoLutheran

The propagandists who are trying to stamp out the truth of the pre-Trib rapture in the Bible have done a very good job. That doesn't change the original Greek and what apostasia means in its second definition: departure/disappearance. Therefore, "departure" means "physical departure."

 

[tdidymas]

It's a copy-and-paste of misinformation that one can find in a lot of places on the internet.

For example in the article it talks about something St. Ephraem wrote in the 4th century. Well, St. Ephraem was alive in the 4th century, but he didn't write what they claim he wrote. They are referring to a text that has been attributed to Pseudo-Ephraem. When a work is written under a pseudonymous name, we often append "Pseudo". So, for example, we have the authentic epistles of St. Ignatius written during his forced travel in chains from Antioch to Rome; but we also have a later collection of letters attributed to St. Ignatius of Antioch, since these are not the authentic works of Ignatius, we would say they are the Pseudo-Ignatian letters. The work in question is Pseudo-Ephraemic, not written by the real St. Ephraem.

Continuing on the discussion of Pseudo-Ephraem, there are two works of note here attributed to him, both have been given the name "Apocalypse of Ephraem" but better called "Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraem". One, written in Syrian, dates the late first millennium, around 7th-8th centuy; and it is very clearly talking about the Muslim conquests which were very recent at the time it was written. But it presents itself as a text predicting the Muslim conquests from the time of St. Ephraem hundreds of years earlier. It speaks of the Muslim Conquests as a prelude to the end of the world, a view that was very common at the time as historically Christian regions were being conquered by an invading heretical force. I say heretical, because from the view of contemporary Christians of the time, Islam was not regarded as an entirely separate religion, but was more often viewed as a Christian heresy, Muhammad was regarded as a heretic rather than a founder of a brand new religion. So, surely, from the view of those at the time, the Muslim Conquests probably looked like the powers of the Antichrist on the rise, and surely then the world would be coming to an end. That didn't happen, but we have the benefit of hindsight.

There is yet another work called the Apocalypse of [Pseudo-]Ephraem. Written in Latin. This is the work which, in its English translation by Cameron Rhoades, is appealed to by Pre-Tribulationist apologists.

Specifically this quote:

"All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see the confusion which is to overwhelm the world because of our sins."

That, read through a Pre-tribulationist lens, looks like what Pre-tribulationists believe will happen.

The problem? This is how the text concludes:

"And when the three and a half years have been completed, the time of the Antichrist, through which he will have seduced the world, after the resurrection of the two prophets, in the hour which the world does not know, and on the day which the enemy of son of perdition does not know, will come the sign of the Son of Man, and coming forward the Lord shall appear with great power and much majesty, with the sign of the wood of salvation going before him, and also even with all the powers of the heavens with the whole chorus of the saints, with those who bear the sign of the holy cross upon their shoulders, as the angelic trumpet precedes him, which shall sound and declare: Arise, O sleeping ones, arise, meet Christ, because his hour of judgment has come! Then Christ shall come and the enemy shall be thrown into confusion, and the Lord shall destroy him by the spirit of his mouth. And he shall be bound and shall be plunged into the abyss of everlasting fire alive with his father Satan; and all people, who do his wishes, shall perish with him forever; but the righteous ones shall inherit everlasting life with the Lord forever and ever."

It describes here the conclusion of Antichrist's reign, when Jesus returns in Judgment, at which point the dead rise and meet Jesus. It is identifying the 1 Thessalonians meeting between the resurrected and the Lord Jesus at Christ's return of Judgment where He destroys the Antichrist.

There are more problems than just this, for a much more rigorous analysis of the Latin Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephraem, feel freed to read here:

Did pseudo-Ephraim believe in the Rapture? Some notes on the manuscripts, the passage and its Greek origins

There is a Latin text from the early Dark Ages which some believe teaches the “Rapture”; the idea that, before the Tribulation described in Revelation, the saints will all be caught up in the air b…

www.roger-pearse.com

This isn't the only source Pre-Trib apologists use, another common one (though I did not see it in the article you gave me) is an isolated quote from St. Irenaeus of Lyons' five volume workd Agaisnt Heresies. Unlike the former example, this does use the authentic work of St. Irenaeus; but just like the former example it is an intentional isolation of a passage devoid of considering the entire text.

For we could consider, for example, look to see what Irenaeus does believe:

"And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, "There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be." [Matthew 24:21] For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, Ch. 29)

Ireneaus understands the Church as undergoing tribulation at the end of time, through which the Church overcomes and is crowned; the catching up of the Church is not prior to, but having gone through, tribulation.

And this is, when one looks at such copy-and-paste jobs, routine. Old sources are pillaged looking for something that looks like it might fit, but no consideration is given to a critical analysis, and in cases there is blatant (though perhaps at times unintentional) deception such as attributing a work to the 4th century Ephraem when it is, in fact, a pseudonymous work from a later period.

-CryptoLutheran

Tks for the info. Although the passage cited from Ephraim is a pseudo-writing, doesn't it still prove their point that the pre-trib idea is much earlier than 19th Century? (They date the writing about 450 but with a question mark).