At the Pre-Trib Study Group last December, Dr. Wayne House presented a paper on the meaning of apostasia in 2 Thess 2:3.  He had earlier made a presentation at the same conference study group back in the mid-1990s, but had done some more work on it and decided to present the main idea again.

The debate over apostasia in this passage stems from the two major options:  a departure from the faith or a departure from the earth as in rapture of the Church.  Of course, if the latter is true, then the debate about the timing of the rapture of the church is over — pre-trib wins.  However, the issue is far from clear as Dr. House shows.  Most dispenstionalists have probably held that it refers to departure from the faith or rebellion or declension.   Some have taught that the great decline of the Christian faith in the West (and in the Western Church) during the 20th century is a fulfilllment of this prophecy.  Both of the two options, if I remember correctly, are listed in the notes of the Old Scofield Reference Bible (1909).

The translation of apostasia as rebellion as found in the NIV was rejected by House.  He suggested that this thought has existed only as a translation of the word in English translations since the King James Version but earlier English versions had favored the simpler idea of departure.  House argued that the word meant departure and that the issue of what the departure was from or what the nature of the departure consisted of was something that only the context of a passage could deliver.  Grammatically, the word does not automatically carry the idea of rebellion by the simple use of the word.   House points to contextual ideas (the general focus of 2 Thess 1-2 on end-time issues and 2 Thess 2:1 talking about the rapture itself.  Thus, he argues the following:  “What makes the most sense in the context, that the Day of the Lord had not come because a rebellion against government or a defection from the faith had not occurred, or that the departure to be with Christ had not occurred? Remember, in 1 Thessalonians 1, the encouragement was that the coming of Christ would rescue believers from the coming wrath”  (page 5 of House paper).”

In my own commentary, First and Second Thessalonians: Looking for Christ’s Return (2009), I respectfully discuss House’s position using his earlier paper that ended up published in When the Trumpet Sounds (1995).  However, I gravitate to the position that the word means apostasy, rebellion, or declension and that it is associated in some way with what follows — the appearance of the man of lawlessness (the anti-Christ figure).  However, I respect the argumentation of Dr. House and must remain open to the possibility that he is right.  Why do I go to the later connection of the man of lawlessness instead of linking to the immediate context given earlier along with the general theme of the book?  In this matter, I cannot be dogmatic.

In earlier posts, I mentioned Tom Krattenmaker’s article “What if the end isn’t near?”  (USA Today in August 2010).  It is largely a criticism of the pretrib view of the rapture and the alleged motivation such a view is toward inaction on the part of the Christian in the world to engage social problems, etc.  In my first post, I listed some concerns which I began to flesh out briefly in other posts.  I have provided them below.  In this post, I want to finalize my initial analysis.

 1.  How many pre-trib Christians hold different views of nuclear weapons and environmentalism from the author’s because of factors other than biblical views of the end times;
2.  The generous use of overstatement throughout the article;
3.  Unwarranted assumptions and limited options that are sometimes given (why are there only two futures?  why not 3 or 4? are we really dealing with all the possibilities?);
4.  The false charge of fatalism in light of the true nature of the doctrine of imminency;
5.  The use of fringe views or minority views instead of scholarly and thoughtful presentations of the pre-trib perspective;
6.  As a corollary to # 5, the futurism of the pre-trib view which does not allow for predictions of the future in a true pre-trib perspective.  In other words, the article seems to be unaware that it is being critical of historicist misrepresentations of the pre-trib perspective rather than the pre-trib perspective itself.
7.  As a corollary to # 1, the idea that the article (may) assume that current political environmentalism is what the Bible teaches about care for the created order.

To begin, I want to make some remarks about unwarranted assumptions and limited options that are given in Krattenmaker’s article.  This is demonstrated at the very outset of the article.  Citing Tyler Wigg-Stevenson (favorably), Krattenmaker says “he sees two futures.  In one, the world has rid itself of nuclear weapons.  In the other, the world has been destroyed by them.”  These two options appear to be the thrust of the title of Wigg-Stevenson’s organization the Two Futures Project.  It is quite appropriate for someone to voice his view of the dangers of nuclear weapons.  I have absolutely no problem with that.  All wars are to be avoided if at all possible, not just nuclear ones.  However, is the opinion that these are the only two options (world-wide destruction or no nukes exist) a wise one to possess on such a critical issue? Is there no middle position that is possible?  Why craft the issue in these stark terms?  One must live in reality not in a dream world.  It is not at all a sure conclusion that the world will destroy itself with nuclear weapons if they are allowed to exist.  It is certainly a theoretical possibility.  However, it is not an inevitable one.  One cannot assume the world-wide catastrophic end when the next nuke is used (although some pretribs do hold this view).   Of course, this view could be seen as playing it safe to prevent the catastrophe.  Unfortunately, in a fallen world this may not be appropriate.  If evangelicals rose up to be against nuclear weapons and helped lead America to unilaterally destroy all their nuclear weapons, it is not at all assured that the same would be true of other parts of the world.  A wise use of nuclear weapons as deterrents has been quite effective for decades in preventing catastrophe and/or servitude.

Read the rest of this entry »