Question for Jacob Prasch Regarding “The Apostasy”
Please explain to me how in the world, some of those that continue in this pre-trib view, can interpret the word apostasy in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 [below] as being the departure? I really need this clarified for I can not accept it nor can I understand how they arrived at this conclusion. Many renown bible teachers, whom I admire are believing this and spreading it throughout the body of Christ. It’s too hard understand how and why. I would appreciate it if you would be so king as to take time to explain, for maybe I’m not the only one questioning this and we need an answer.
Thank you in advance,
2 Thessalonians 2;3 Let no one in any way lead you astray, because, unless the Merid (Rebellion, Revolt, the [Anti-Moshiach] Shmad Betrayal Defection of Apostasy, the Azivah Abandonment) Desertion comes rishonah (first), and the Apocalypse of the Ish HaMufkarut (Man of Lawlessness), the Ish HaChatta’ah Ben HaAvaddon (Man of Sin, Son of Destruction Anti-Moshiach) is unveiled.
4 I’m referring to the one setting himself against and exalting himself AL KOL EL (above every G-d, DANIEL 11:36), above all that is given the appellation “G-d” or object of worship, with the result that in the Beis Hamikdash Heikhal he sits down on the MOSHAV ELOHIM (throne of G-d, YECHEZKEL 28:2), proclaiming that he himself is Elohim…
Apostasia having an ambiguous meaning is a little like this: ‚ It is like interpreting “Vice President”.
If you go to the Latin origin it is an ambiguous term. Prepositionally it comes from ‘in place of’ (one of the Latin equivelants of the Greek term “anti”). ‚ But “vice” is also the Latin term for “defect”.
Vice President ‚ comes from the prefix of Viceroy (one who acts in place of a ‚ King or royal). It is from ‘Vic’ as in “vicar” or ‚ “vicarious”and ‘roy’ as in “royal”.
Only unlike in monarchial countries , Vice-roy becomes Vice-Pres in countries that are Republics with presidential instead of parliamentary democracies.
But if you divorce Vice President from its normal usage and play games it could also mean a president who likes to gamble, smoke, chase girlies, and get loaded.
Now, ‚ if you argue that this second definition of vice president is a president with moral defects who hangs out in bars, bordellos, and race tracks and frequents
Las Vegas ‚ is just crazy as it is not the normal meaning of vice president (although it could technically mean that), ‚ because it obviouslly means vice-pres as in vice-roy, then they say : yeah maybe – but Viceroy could also be a brand of cigarettes.
You can’t win against such preposterous argumentation. It is like George Burns trying to get sense out of Gracey Allen. It just can’t happen.
Although their etymology is technically possible in theory, it is not a viable possibility because their fundamental reasoning becomes convoluted despite the improbability of their conclusions (to say nothing of the contextual and co-textual arguments mitigating against their proposition which does not support the term meaning “rapture”).
Jews call this kind of circular mal-reasoning ‘pilpul’ (a pseudo spiritual/ pseudo theological version of ‘Whos on First)’ and it reminds me of something The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to warn against in 1 Timothy 6:4 – ‘Disputes About Words’.
This does not mean not mean that we are not intended to grasp proper etymological definitions of scriptural terms. ‚ It means not to be like Bill Clinton testifying before the ‚ grand jury that time (“it depends on what ‘is’ is”). ‚ It is a prohibition against Pilpul , which is what the legalistic disputations of the Sanhedrin amounted to. Now I see eschatological ‘pilpul’ in the church even among believers. Others are playing pilpul with Romans chapter 1 in order to attempt to circumvent the meaning of The New Testament condemnation of homosexuality and lesbianism. Now I see it being done with the text of 2 Thessalonians chapter 2. Pilpul has come to church. When Abbot & Costello did it , like most people, I found it harmlessly entertaining. When Burns & Allan did it, it made me laugh (like my own family, Burns & Allan were a Jewish-Irish combination mixing the cultural humour of both ethic groups, ‚ so I found them not only funny but something I could comically relate to). Pilpul is okay as long as it is a joke. But when we are expected to take an obvious joke seriously like calling the falling away the rapture, it is no longer a joke. It is what Paul in God’s Word condemned.
There are oddly good preachers and expositors whom I personally love & like and otherwise respect and whose ministries I even endorse engaging in this tragic folly.
Lets leave the comedy to Abbot & Costello and to Burns & Allen. There ought to be ‚ no place for pil-pul ‚ in the pul-pit.