John died before the kingdom of God and the new covenant was ushered in. He did not get to experience the kingdom on earth like we do.
Is there a kingdom on this earth? I thought Yeshua told Pilate that His kingdom is not of this world?
Upvote
0
John died before the kingdom of God and the new covenant was ushered in. He did not get to experience the kingdom on earth like we do.
Here is the elaboration on 2 Thes. 2:3 in the Wycliffe translation, which pre-dates the KJV by over 200 years:
3 [That] No man deceive you in any manner. For but dissension come first [For no but departing away, or dissension, shall come first], and the man of sin be showed, the son of perdition
Note that dissension (consistent with apostasy, separation, schism) is the elaboration. Rapture is unseen.
Departing/departure means departure from the truth i.e. apostasy, not rapture; falling away, not flying away.
Wycliffe himself identified antichrist as the papacy, at whose hands the true church was suffering. He unquestionably therefore did not believe in a pretrib rapture.
And from Calvin's Geneva Study Bible:
Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Calvin also identified antichrist as the papacy, and thus did not believe in a pretrib rapture.
Same with Tyndale. He was martyred by the papacy.
Same with Cranmer. He too was martyred by the papacy.
Coverdale was an associate of Tyndale's, and of like persuasion.
Beza was of like persuasion.
There is no Reformer who defined the word as anything other than apostasy.
A definition of "discessio," the word used in the Vulgate, is found at this site.
Included near the end is a specific ecclesiological subdefinition:
"In the church, a separation, schism (eccl. Lat.), Vulg. Act. 21, 21; id. 2 Thes. 2, 3."
Occurrences are cited as being Acts 21:21 and 2 Thes. 2:3.
Letting Scripture interpret Scripture, the use of the word in Acts 21:21 is translated "forsake," which is fully consistent with the subdefinition above, and has nothing to do with rapture.
Apostacia: What Modern Greeks say about "Apostacia" in 2 Thess 2:3.
Excerpt: "I could find no debate among Greek speaking Christians on how to interpret this verse. They all interpret "apostacia" in 2 Thess 2:3 to mean "apostacy"."
Does Apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Refer to a ‘Physical Departure’ (i.e. the Rapture)?
2 Thess 2:3 in the Early Church Writings; How early Greek, Latin and Aramaic speaking Christians interpreted "Apostacia"/"Apostacy
The Latin Influence on 2 Thess 2:3
In addition, of the more than fifty English Bible versions, you will not find a single one which translates 2 Thess. 2:3 as anything other than apostasy or falling away. These of course include the NASB and YLT. They also include DARBY and the SRB.
If you review all of the links I posted in detail, you'll see all of your issues addressed.Several translations of the Greek New Covenant scriptures into English prior to the King James Authorized version of 1611 translate apostasia as either the departure or the departing. Here are literal quotes from some of those translations:
• The Tyndale Bible (1526 / 1534) "a departynge fyrst"
• The Coverdale Bible (1539) "a departynge come firft"
• The Cranmer Bible (1539) "a departynge fyrst"
• and The Geneva Bible (1557 / 1608) "a departing first"
Also the Wycliff Bible of 1384, the Breches Bible of 1576, and the Beza Bible of 1583.
One newer translation that also translates apostasia as departure is the Hebrew Names Version (1997).
Eprhraim the Syrian (also known as Pseudo Ephraim) is one of several writers prior to even the Latin Vulgate that espoused a pre-trib removal of the righteous. Isaac Newton, who was a prolific Bible expositor along with his more well known accomplishments, also held a pre-trib position. The post apostolic document "The Shepherd of Hermas" (140) espoused a pre-trib position. Morgan Edwards of England (1722-1795) also explicitly held a pre-Trib position.
if you notice, every reference I mentioned in this post pre-dates Darby by at least one century, with the bulk of the references going back further. Darby was late to the party. The only exception is the HNV of 1997 I mentioned.
Apostasy is an anglicized word, not a Greek word, that does not hold the same meaning. Kenneth Wuest, a well known Greek scholar, in his multi volume work on the NT elaborates that apostasia can only mean, literally, a departure. For it to mean departing in the sense of falling away, there also has to be a direct reference to what is being departed from, such as in Acts 21:21 (the only other passage that has apostasia), where the discussion revolves around departing from the Law and forsaking Moses. The 2 Thessalonians 2:3 usage doesn't include a definite article that can be referenced as what is being departed from, so the meaning of apostasia then stands on its own as a departure.
If you review all of the links I posted in detail, you'll see all of your issues addressed.
Wycliffe, the first English version in the later 1300s, translates the word as dissension or departure from the truth or faith. With the true Church suffering under the papal antichrist, he did not subscribe to a pretrib rapture (nor is there any evidence that he was even aware of such). The same is true of all of the Reformers.
Doesn't change his unawareness of a pretrib rapture.Actually, the dissension or departure from the faith is a text note, and not the actual text of the translation. That is is an expositional commentary note on the original Wycliff Bible. I provided the actual text quote.
BABerean2 said in post #218:
He also found a Roman coin under the bottom layer of stones of the "Wailing Wall" which dated around 17 AD.
BABerean2 said in post #218:
Sadly, modern Jews and Arabs are fighting over the remains of a fort built by the Romans to house the thousands of troops needed to police the city of Jerusalem, during the time of Christ.
Copperhead said in post #219:
I see the departure occurring before the man of sin is revealed, as per 2 Thessalonians 2:3.
Copperhead said in post #219:
I see the departure occurring before the man of sin is revealed, as per 2 Thessalonians 2:3.
Copperhead said in post #219:
And it would seem that character comes on the scene before the Great Tribulation period.
Copperhead said in post #221:
Is there a kingdom on this earth? I thought Yeshua told Pilate that His kingdom is not of this world?
Copperhead said in post #222:
Eprhraim the Syrian (also known as Pseudo Ephraim) is one of several writers prior to even the Latin Vulgate that espoused a pre-trib removal of the righteous.
Note that when the unknown writer of the document called "Pseudo (False) Ephraem" says: "all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation" (Section 2), he doesn't mean prior to the tribulation of Matthew 24. For that would contradict the Biblical teaching that the elect are gathered immediately "after the tribulation" of Matthew 24 (Matthew 24:29-31).
Doesn't change his unawareness of a pretrib rapture.
How could he have a departure in view when he believed (correctly) that the Church was enduring the papal antichrist?Doesn't support your contention that Wycliff didn't have a departure in view either. You are basing your assertion on commentary.
Not sure which translation you're working from, but here is the quote from Wyclif's 1380 version:Actually, the dissension or departure from the faith is a text note, and not the actual text of the translation. That is is an expositional commentary note on the original Wycliff Bible. Notice the brackets in your post of the text? That is expositional commentary put in the text after the translation had been written. The original Wycliff bible did not have study guide expositional commentary on the text. It is the presupposition of whoever put the commentary in the text.
Is there a kingdom on this earth? I thought Yeshua told Pilate that His kingdom is not of this world?
How could he have a departure in view when he believed (correctly) that the Church was enduring the papal antichrist?
Let's not forget what the kingdom of heaven is like:
Matthew 13:31-32 He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”
And who are the birds? Yeshua made that clear in a previous parable. They are the evil ones who snatched up the seed in the parable of the sower. Let's take it a step further. What of the parable of the leaven? Leaven is a symbol of sin throughout the scripture. It is symbolic of pride in that it puffs up. The kingdom is like a woman who hides leaven in 3 measures of meal and it eventually permeates the entire thing. 3 measures of meal is the fellowship offering at the temple. Hiding leaven in it is a sin punishable by stoning. Both of these parables paint a pretty bad picture of the Kingdom. And they are not the only ones. And the OT prophets even wrote some pretty bad stuff that goes on even during the reign of the Messiah upon the earth.
The HS tends to use the same idioms in describing things throughout scripture. It is commonly referred to as the Law of Expositional Constancy.
Jesus states he and the apostles are not of this world. Does that mean they never existed in the world?
Were the Pharisees in heaven when Jesus said the kingdom is in the midst of them?
The Reformers, who paid for their prophetic faith and obedience in blood, do not concur.Whether the pope is antichrist or not is a concept that one may or may not hold, it doesn't mean the false messiah, man of sin, son of perdition, etc that scripture talks about.
The 70th week was fulfilled long before the RCC's appearance.And whether the RCC is the source of the problem in the 70th week of Daniel stuff is pure speculation also. The RCC may have ecumenical desires and want to be a part of the nonsense, but it is speculation, pure and simple, as to whether the RCC plays a major role and the pope at the time is of any significance.
They were troubled that "that the day of Christ is at hand." (v.2) There is nothing that says or implies that they were troubled because they had missed a removal, or believed they had missed one.Someone had written a letter that they attributed to Paul, saying that because the trials they were enduring, they had missed the removal and now were in the Great Tribulation.
Paul is issuing a consistent reiteration of his previous message (v. 5). Neither includes a removal.For therm to fear that they were in the tribulation shows that they had been told by Paul that the righteous would not go thru the tribulation.
Copperhead said in post #235:
If they were meant to go thru the Tribulation, why did Paul even need to write anything?
Copperhead said in post #235:
Isaiah 26 shows that both the resurrected dead and the righteous are hidden in their chambers during the time of the wrath of God.
Copperhead said in post #235:
Yeshua said He was going to prepare many chambers or rooms for us.
Copperhead said in post #235:
Yeshua said the gates of Hell would not prevail against the church . . .