Arguing About the Rapture: Who Must Prove What and How

Dr. John Feinberg

OVERVIEW

What is one of the most significant passages in theNew Testament relating to the timing of the rapture? Second Thessalonians 2 isone of the most-debated New Testament passages that relates to the timing ofthe rapture. In this essay, Dr Paul Feinberg deals with three of the mostimportant issues relating to the timing of the rapture in 2 Thessalonians 2. Hedemonstrates from the Scripture why the pretribulational position best explainsthe problems and issues in this important passage.

TheThessalonian epistles are Paul's eschatological epistles. We would expecttherefore that Paul would have things to say about the rapture, and we are notdisappointed. The Thessalonian church was not only an exemplary church (1Thess. 1:8); it was an expectant church. Paul writes that the Thessalonians"turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to waitfor his Son from heaven" (1 Thess. 1:9-10). In his first Thessalonianletter Paul writes to urge Christians not to neglect daily work even thoughthey were to look for the Lord's return (4:11-12), and he writes to comfortthose who had lost loved ones, assuring them that those who had died would meetthe Lord in the air (4:13,15).

Paul's secondThessalonian letter is written about six months later. In chapter 2 he writesto correct some false teaching that was troubling believers in Thessalonica.Paul is trying to save the doctrine of the second coming of Christ from somemisconceptions that were held by the Thessalonians. This chapter and its relationshipto the rapture question is our subject here. I shall focus primarily on thefirst seven verses. There are three issues that I wish to address: 1) therelationship between 2 Thessalonians 2:1 and Matthew 24:29-31 and the time ofthe rapture; 2) the silence of Paul about a pretribulational rapture incorrecting false teaching in 2 Thessalonians 2:2-4; 3) the identity of therestrainer in 2 Thessalonians 2:5-7.

The Relationship Between

Thereis a twofold argument that relates 2 Thessalonians 2:1 with Matthew 24:29-31and sets the time of the rapture as post- tribulational. One finds thesearguments in Robert H. Gundry's The Church and the Tribulation.[1]The arguments are as follows. First, Gundry argues that "the coming of ourLord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him" is a reference to thereturn of Christ and the rapture at the end of the Tribulation period. He basesthis argument on the idea that 1 Thessalonians 4:16-5:9 is a reference to arapture that will take place just before the Day of the Lord which begins atthe end of the Tribulation.[2]Moreover, Paul makes no distinction between his description of the secondcoming given in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 and the coming in 1 Thessalonians 4:16ff. Further, he introduces the phrase "our gathering together tohim" in 2 Thessa-lonians 2:1 without any observable shift in referencefrom 1:7-10, which is a posttribulational coming in judgment to destroy thewicked. Finally, Paul writes about an event that will take place in theTribulation, the Antichrist and his demise. Gundry concludes, "Hence,outstandingly posttribulational references surround the highly debated section2:1-7. The very setting of the section should make us wary of unnecessarilyinterpolating the idea of a pretribulational rapture."[3]And again, "if then the context of 2:1 leads us to regard the parousiathere as posttribulational, it is singularly strange that 'our gatheringtogether to Him' should be connected with it and mentioned second inorder-unless the rapture, too, is posttribulational."[4]

Tosummarize what Gundry has done to this point, he has related Paul's discussionsof the coming of Christ in the Thessalonian epistles to one another: 1Thessalonians 4 and 5 to 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 to 2 Thessalonians 2:1. He hasalso argued that, in their context in the Thessalonian epistles, these arereferences to a posttribulational return and rapture.

Tothis argument is added a second one which relates 2 Thessalonians 2:1 toMatthew 24:29-31. In Gundry's discussion of the Olivet discourse, he tries toestablish the place of the rapture. He says that no reference to it would placeit before the Tribulation. He rejects what he sees as common pretrib reasoningfor this omission, namely that the Olivet discourse is about the Jewish age andis a Jewish discourse. Therefore we should not expect it to teach about apretribulational rapture of the church. Gundry thinks this is simply false. Heargues against an exclusively Jewish understanding of the Olivet discourse onthe grounds that: 1) the disciples are a transitional group (one timerepresenting the believing remnant in Israel, another time standing for thechurch); 2) that Jesus is teaching about the church just two days later in theUpper Room discourse (John 14); 3) that Matthew, the Gospel written to theJews, teaches about the church (Matt. 16:13-18; 18:15-18).[5]

Posttribulationalists,therefore, identify the rapture with the gathering of the elect by the angelsat the sound of the trumpet in Matthew 24:31. This clearly sets the rapture asposttribulational because Matthew 24:29 introduces the events that follow asoccur- ring "immediately after the distress of those days." Thecorrectness of this identification is further supported by a number ofparallels with 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17, where we read of a trumpet and cloudsand 2 Thessalonians 2:1, where Paul discusses a gathering of believers just asin the Olivet discourse.[6]

Insummary, Gundry has argued that the gathering together at the coming of theLord (2 Thessalonians 2:1) is a reference to the rapture of the church, andthat that gathering is the same as the gathering of the elect in Matthew 24:31,decisively establishing the time of the rapture as posttribulational. If thisargument is correct, then a pretribulational rapture of the church cannot becorrect.

However,if this argument is a good one, it is equally as decisive against amidtribulational rapture as it is against a pretribulational one. Second, thisargument is good only if two conditions are met. The "gatheringtogether" of 2 Thessalonians 2:1 must be a reference to the rapture of thechurch, and the gathering of the elect in Matthew 24:31 must be identical withit. I shall argue that first condition is met and is true but that second isfalse, because arguments aimed at identification fail. Therefore, this argumentfails as an objection to a pretribulational rapture.

Hereis a more thorough discussion of the aforementioned conditions. First, to whatdoes the "gathering together to Him" of 2 Thessalonians 2:1 refer?There are only two answers: to a rapture, the time of which would be determinedlater, or to the coming and revelation of Christ on His return to this earthafter the Tribulation. Clearly, the majority view is that it refers to thecoming of Christ at the end of the Tribulation. It is fair to say that manycommentators on this verse do not relate it to the rapture issue at all. Theirargument is that Paul discusses the return of Christ in these two epistles, andthere is no reason to make any distinctions related to this eschatologicalevent. For instance, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 teaches about a judgment that is totake place at the end of time, and there is no reason to think that 2:1 is areference to anything else. This whole argument, in my judgment, is not aninconsequential one; but in the end I think that this is not a reference to thesecond coming of Christ to this earth.

Thesecond option is the minority view. It identifies the gathering together withthe rapture of the church. Interestingly enough, that is the view both ofGundry[7]and Thomas,[8]though the formet thinks that the rapture is posttribulational and the latterpretribulational. I have already mentioned Gundry's reasons for taking it asthe rapture. Thomas holds that "the being gathered" specifies whatpart of the "coming" is under discussion. It is the great eventdescribed more fully in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17. The gathering is of those whogo to meet the Lord in the air, en route to meeting the Father in heaven. Bothof these texts speak of a gathering, though 1 Thessalonians 4 says we"will be caught up together," while 2 Thessalonians describes it as"being gathered to Him." The ideas are clearly parallel. This too isa substantial argument, but the decisive matter in favor of identifying thisphrase with the rapture is that Paul calls it our gathering to him. He isdefinitely speaking to Thessalonian Christians who were members of the church.He uses the first person pronoun in 1 Thessalonians 4. Therefore, I cannotescape identifying the gathering with the catching up.

Whatremains to be examined is when this rapture will take. place. It must be aposttribulational rapture for Gundry's argument to be established. This couldbe done on one or all of the three grounds suggested by Gundry. The first isthat Paul only discusses the coming of Christ as a single complex event comingat the end of a time of Tribulation, since 1 Thessalonians 4: 16ff, 2Thessalonians 1:7-10, and 2 Thessalonians 2:1 are discussed without any appealto a distinction between a pretribulational rapture and posttribulationalsecond coming of Christ. The important link in this argument is therelationship of 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 to the rest of the references to thecoming of the Lord, especially 1 Thessalonians 5:1-9. The point is that if youcan tie 4:14-17 to posttribulational rapture, and identify 2 Thessalonians 2:1with 4:14-17, and support the posttribulational timing of the rapture by itsrelationship to 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, which everyone takes to be after theTribulation, then you have the rapture in the Thessalonian epistlesconsistently a posttribulational.

Again,the key to making this argument is to show that 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, is sorelated to 5:1-9 that a posttribulational rapture is required. It is just atthis crucial point in the argument that a pretribulationist disagrees, andrightly so in my judgment. While Gundry thinks that 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, onits own, best fits a posttribulational rapture, another important reason is itsrelationship to 5:1-9. The connection between the two sections is through theGreek particle de. According to Gundry, this particle has "a mixture of acontinuative sense and a slightly adversative sense. In other words, the particleimplies a shift in thought, but not without close connection with the foregoingthought. Sometimes the adversative sense drops out altogether."[9]Gundry's argument is based on a misreading of the text, as the connectionbetween 4:14-17 and 5:1-9 is not through the particle de, but pen de. This isPaul's usual way of introducing a new subject (e.g., 1 Thess. 4:9,13). While itmay be true that the two subjects discussed are not so different that they arecompletely unrelated to one another, or in contrast to one another, it is alsotrue that they are not simply the continuation of the same subject. "Theproper interpretation recognizes a shift in thought, but not without someconnection with the foregoing."[10]suggest that the topic remains the coming of the Lord, but that there is adiscussion of two distinct phases of it. This is further supported by thechange from the use of "we" to "they" and "you"in 1 Thessalonians 5. Gundry does not think that this is significant, but to apretribulationist's mind it certainly is. Once 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 is nolonger connected in the simple way that Gundry suggests, his argument is goingto fail.[11]

Asecond reason for identifying the Thessalonian references as aposttribulational coming of Christ is the linguistic parallel between the"gathering to him" of 2 Thessalonian 2:1, and the "gathering ofhis elect," in Matthew 24:31. 2 Thessalonians 2:1 uses the nounepisunagoges, while Jesus uses the verb episunachei in Matthew 24:31. On thebasis of the use of related words, it might be argued that the two gatheringsare the same and that they are clearly posttribulational, since Matthew saysthat this is "immediately after the distress of those days."

Suchan argument fails. Methodologically, one cannot simply identify two eventsmerely because they are described by the same word. Further, to do so in thecontext where the debate is whether the events are the same or different is tobeg the question. There is one way out of this dilemma. One might argue thatthe word in question has become a technical term, such that wherever it occursit has a constant meaning. In this case the argument would be that the verbepisunagein and its cognate noun have the status of a technical term relatingto a posttribulational gathering of God's children to Himself. However, anexamination of the evidence shows this argument is simply false. There are nineoccurrences of the noun and verb in the New Testament. Of those nine only threehave an eschatological significance. They are the two under discussion here anda third instance in the synoptic parallel in Mark 13:27. Six occurrences arevery general: the citizens of a city coming to see a dignitary. Therefore, toclaim that a term has become a technical term based upon three occurrences, twoof which are parallels in the synoptic Gospels, is to claim too much.[12]

Infairness to those who make this identification, they do not all do it simply onthe linguistic parallel mentioned. They would offer a third reason, which, incombination with the second reason, they believe constitutes the case foridentifying the gatherings. It is the similarity of detail along with thelinguistic parallel that justifies the claim that the two gatherings are thesame event and therefore posttribulational. There is the use of a trumpet,there are clouds, and there is a gathering of saints to the Lord. Thisargument, if true, is more substantial.

Closeconsideration, however, shows this argument is unconvincing to apretribulationist.[13]The parallel between trumpets, clouds, and saints being caught up to meet theLord in Thessalonians and Matthew, depends on establishing 1 Thessalonians4:14.17 as posttribulational. At the center of this argument is itsrelationship to 5:1-9, which we have previously rejected. Moreover, anyargument of this sort must not only be based on similarities; it must also besensitive to differences. Similarities between events may be because they aresimilar, not the same. Gundry himself recognizes that there are differences,but he tries to show that they are compatible with one another and/orinsignificant. The gathering may be related to that of dispersed Jews at thecoming of their Messiah as taught in Deuteronomy 30:4 and Isaiah 27:12,13.,Those who are gathered in Matthew are called the elect, a term Gundry himselfsays may refer to Israel, the church, or both. The one who gathers the saintsis different. It is angels in Matthew and the Lord Himself in 1 Thessalonians4. Gundry calls the Olivet discourse the most complete description of what willtake place at the rapture, but there is the curious omission of any statementabout the resurrection of the dead.[14]

Insummary, the similarities that are cited between the Thessalonian epistles andMatthew are all based on making 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 posttribulational andtreating the differences as explainable. Both of these approaches will beunconvincing to a pretribulationist.

The Silence About a Rapture

in Correcting False Teaching

Asecond issue is the Paul's silence about a rapture in his correction of thefalse teaching that was troubling the Thessalonian believers, in 2Thessalonians 2:2-4. An important reason for Paul's writing this second epistleso shortly after the first is found in these verses. The false teaching thatwas troubling the Thessalonians came to them either by a variety of means (aprophecy, a report, a letter) or by one of these means. The content of thisfalse teaching is clear "The Day of the Lord has come" (2:2). Theteaching was that these believers were in the day of the Lord. This teachingwas unsettling and alarming them. Paul writes to correct this false teaching,which was also incorrectly attributed to him.

Gundrythinks that there are two ways in which pretribulationists can interpret thispassage. First, they can argue that the Thessalonians were unaware of apretribulational rapture, and because of this ignorance they believed that theywere in the Day of the Lord. This move, however, comes at a price. It requiresthat the entire case for a pretribulational rapture in the Thessalonianepistles be invalidated. If they did not know of such a rapture both from thefirst epistle and Paul's oral teaching, it is unlikely that we, who lack thelatter, would be able to discern such a teaching. Furthermore, Paul merelyreminds them of what he has taught them in order to correct their error. Thus,if they were unaware of such teaching, the case for a pretribulational rapturefails in 2 Thessalonians as well. [15]

Second,pretribulationists can hold that Paul taught a pretribulational rapture in 1Thessalonians and orally, but that the believers forgot about it. Theirforgetfulness caused them to believe the false teaching, and this was thesource of their agitation. This is more likely the approach that apretribulationist will take, but it too has a price. The problem here is thatPaul had a very simple and decisive response to the Thessalonian error. Hecould have, and on Gundry's view ought to have, said that the Thessaloniansshould not worry because he had taught them that a pretribulational rapture hadto occur before the Day of the Lord was going to begin. Paul is silent on thisissue. He makes no mention of the rapture, and this counts severely against apretrib rapture. Paul's answer is that the Thessalonians cannot be in the Dayof the Lord because the apostasy had not occurred and the man of lawlessnesshad not been revealed.

Thereare a number of points that one can make in response to this claim. First, Ican agree with Gundry that it would have been nice to have had an unequivocalstatement about the time of the rapture here. However, the Spirit of God didnot see fit to do that, and as I will argue that is not necessary here.

Second,there are some pretribulationists who do think that there is a reference to therapture in Paul's response. For them, the reference comes in the statement thatthe apostasy must come before the Day of the Lord. They take the word"apostasy" not only to have the meaning of a religious defection butalso to mean a physical departure. Were this the case, and I do not think itis,[16]then Paul corrected the Thessalonian believers by reminding them that therapture had to occur before the Day of the Lord began.

Third,let us grant that there is no reference to the rapture in Paul's answer to thefalse teaching. Does that invalidate a pretribulational rapture? I think not! Ican put my reason both negatively and positively. Negatively, what wouldinvalidate a pretrib rapture would be teaching by Paul that was inconsistentwith or contradictory to such a rapture. Positively, as long as Paul's teachingis compatible with a pretrib rapture there is no problem, as long as there issufficient basis for such a belief elsewhere. In sum, all that is required isthat Paul's teaching does not contradict a pretrib rapture and that such arapture is based on biblical teaching elsewhere. I think that both of theseconditions are met, although an unequivocal statement by Paul would have beennice.

Fourth,the problem of Paul's silence about a rapture in correcting the false teachingabout the Day of the Lord is every bit as unresolved on a posttribulationalunderstanding of the rapture. Put slightly differently, posttribulationistshave either the same or a similar problem on the assumption of the correctness oftheir view. There are, I suggest, three interpretive options open to theposttribulationist. First, Paul taught no view of the rapture in 1Thessalonians, or else the believers were unaware of it. If this is so, thenthe problem for the posttrib is the same as the problem for the pretrib inGundry's first option. Second, it can be argued that Paul taught a posttrib,pre-Day of the Lord rapture. This is the view that I would attribute to Gundry.If this is so, Gundry has the same problem that the pretrib does on the secondinterpretative option set out above. The Thessalonians thought that the Day ofthe Lord had come. The decisive answer here, as well, would have been,"You are wrong in your belief; don't you remember I taught you a posttrib,pre-Day of the Lord rapture?" The text is silent about such a rapture too.Third, posttribulationists may hold that Paul taught a posttrib, Day of theLord rapture. That is, the rapture will be both posttribulational and in theDay of the Lord. In this case, the problem is not the same but similar. It isnot why Paul is silent about the rapture but why the Thessalonians areunsettled and alarmed, two strong words. On this interpretation, the Day of theLord would have to come before the rapture could take place. If theThessalonians thought they were in the Day of the Lord, even thougherroneously, they should not have been unsettled and alarmed, for the coming ofthe Lord to rapture them was imminent; it was about to occur. Joy andexpectancy should have been their attitudes. Those who were not working becausethey thought the Lord was about to return, were in fact vindicated. The rapturewas about to occur.

Insum, it would have been nice to have had some unequivocal statement about thetime of the rapture in answer to the false teaching. But that was not the HolySpirit's intention, and it may be profitless to speculate why. However, if thisis a problem, it constitutes the same problem for certain posttribulationalviews of the rapture, and a similar one for other interpretations.

Afinal theological and exegetical question in 2 Thessalonians 2 is the identityof the restrainer and its importance for the question of the time of therapture. This issue is a bit different than the previous two. The first twomatters dealt with arguments that posttribulationists offer againstpretribulationism. This issue deals more with an argument thatpretribulationists bring in support of their position and against mid- orposttribulationism. The argument is that the
restrainer in 2 Thessalonians 2:6,7 is the Holy Spirit, and that the removalof His restraint comes at the rapture. This removal supports a pretribulationalrapture.

Thefirst step in dealing with this argument is to identify the restrainer.[17]As we might expect, we have a variety of interpretations. Let me just give anoverview of the most common approaches. First, the predominant view in theearly church was that the re strainer was the Roman Empire. The restrainingpower was embodied in the person of the emperor. As time passed, conflict arosebetween the civil and ecclesiastical power, and this text was interpreted asmeaning that the civil power was restraining the papacy until the coming of theLord, at which time the latter would be destroyed. This view was defended onthe grounds of Paul's vagueness about the restrainer, since if this letter fellinto the hands of the civil authority they might view Paul's claim about therestraint being removed as an act of sedition. The vagueness of the reference,however, seems to be related to the fact that the Thessalonians already know ofthis matter. Moreover, the Roman Empire no longer exists, and the man oflawlessness has not appeared.

Second,growing out of the first view is the interpretation that the restrainer ishuman government, particularly as it is expressed in the rule of law. Restraintthrough the rule of law is the opposite of the man of sin and the mystery oflawlessness. This view has gained popularity among interpreters of all views onthe rapture. One can not rule out the possibility that this is the correctidentification. Though human governments are often given to excesses, Paulteaches that their rightful duty is the restraint of evil (Rom. 13:1-7). At thesame time we should not dismiss the possibility that the restraint of evilrequires something stronger, more supernatural, than mere human government,which praises welidoers and punishes evildoers.

Third,many identify the restrainer with the Holy Spirit. This interpretation seemsbest to me. It too was widely held in the early church, being found in thewritings of Theodoret, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Chrysostom. The view mayreflect apostolic teaching. Moreover, it would seem that a person is requiredto restrain a person, and a supernatural one to restrain this man oflawlessness who is motivated by Satan himself. Finally, this view best accountsfor the change in gender between verses 6 and 7. Verse 6 uses a neuter toidentify the restrainer, most likely a reference to the Greek noun for spirit,pneuma. The change in verse 7 to the masculine is a reference to thepersonality of the Holy Spirit. Thus, I conclude that the most likely referenceis to the Holy Spirit, for even if the restraining of evil is through humangovernment, ultimately that is only possible through the power given it by theHoly Spirit.

Havingidentified the restrainer as the Holy Spirit does not settle the issue of therelationship of this to the rapture. For this to be used as an argument forpretribulationism, it must be shown that the Holy Spirit only restrains therevelation of the man of lawlessness through the church. It is only in this waythat the removal of the church is identical with the removal of the restraint.As long as the Holy Spirit is active during the Tribulation period, it ispossible that He will act to restrain the final manifestation of evilindependently of the church and its restraining activity. There seems to beabundant evidence that the Holy Spirit will be active in the earth during theTribulation period. He will empower His witnesses (Mark 13:11). Evangelism willbe more effective than it has ever been (Matt. 24:14; Rev. 7:9-14). It isreasonable to assume that as Satanic activity increases, so will the activityof the Holy Spirit. As a matter of fact, this passage does not say, nor doesany other, that the restraint of the appearance of the man of lawlessness is anactivity that the church has been called to do. We are to be salt and light,but it is unlikely that Jesus meant that this was the restraining of the finalform of iniquity, if this is so, then any view of the rapture can meet therequirements of this passage. The Holy Spirit will be active during theTribulation, and the church at best is one, not the only one, who restrains therevelation of the man of lawlessness. We may think that because of the specialrelationship between the Holy Spirit and the church, a pretribulational rapturebest serves the meaning of the text, but, at least in my judgment, it is notthe only possible interpretation. Thus, those of us who are pretribulationistsneed to be careful in the use of this argument, that we do not claim for itmore than is justified.[18]

Inconclusion I have tried to deal with one of the most difficult eschatologicaltexts in the New Testament. I have tried to show that on the three issuesraised in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-7, there is no exegetical or theological matterthat makes a pretribulational rapture impossible, or even improbable.

Whilethe majority of commentators on 2 Thessalonians 2:3 take apostasla to refer toapostasy or religious defection, some argue that it is reference to therapture. [19] If thisclaim is defensible, then Paul does use his teaching about a pretribulationalrapture to instruct the Thessalonian believers about the Day of the Lord. Theaccuracy and defensibility of this claim rests on the etymology and usage ofthe Greek verb aphistemi and its cognate nouns.

Aphistemiand its cognates are found widely in Greek literature. The verb is firstthought to have been found in the writings of Thucydides (Thuc., 1, 122). Inthe period from second century B.C. to first century A.D. there are at least355 occurrences of this word group,[20]making these rather common words in the Greek language. Aphistmi is a compoundverb from apo (from) and histmi (to stand). It is both a transitive verb,meaning "to cause to revolt, mislead," and an intransitive verb,meaning "to go away, withdraw, depart, fall away." From this verb arederived two nouns, apostasion and apostasla. Apostasion comes to have a fixedmeaning, "a bill of divorce," while apostas(a means "rebellion,abandonment, state of apostasy" or "defection." It is the latternoun that is found in our text.

Thequestion that we are now ready to answer is whether the noun apostasta everrefers to a physical departure, allowing Paul to make a reference to therapture of the church by using this word. Let us take how the words are used inthe biblical Greek (the LXX and the New Testament) as the context forestablishing how these words are used. These would be the primary contexts forsetting the usage of any biblical term, although at least in this case what istrue in biblical Greek is true more generally. The first thing that we can say isthat the verb aphistemi is clearly used of physical departure in bothtestaments. In the Old Testament (the LXX) the verb is used in Genesis 12:8 ofAbram's departure from Shechem toward the hills east of Bethel. It is used ofthe physical separation of persons as in 1 Samuel 18:13, where it is used ofDavid's departure from Saul, and in Psalm 6:8, of the physical separation ofthe wicked from God's presence. In New Testament Greek there are clear examplesof the use of the verb to express physical departure or separation. Forms ofthis verb appear 15 times. Luke uses this word 10 times (Luke 2:37; 4:13; 8:13;13:27; Acts 5:37-38; 12:10; 15:38; 19:9; 22:29). It is found four times in Paul(2 Cor. 12:8; 1 Tim. 4:1; 6:5; 2 Tim. 2:19). It is used once by the writer ofHebrews (Heb. 3:12). All but Acts 5:37 are intransitive uses. The idea ofphysical departure is promi- nent in many of the occurrences. In Luke 2:37 Annais said to have never left the temple. In Acts 19:9 Paul was teaching in thesynagogue in Ephesus for three months, but he left or departed when someobstinate hearers refused to believe. Thus, there are clear examples where theverb means to physically depart or leave in both the Greek Old Testament andNew Testament.

Thereare fewer uses of the two related nouns in biblical literature, but again bothare found in the Greek Old Testament and New Testament. Apostasion is foundwith a fixed meaning in both testaments. It is related to the breaking of themarriage covenant (Mal. 2:14). And it means "a certificate ofdivorce" (Deut. 24:1,3; Isa. 50:1; Jer. 3:8; Matt. 5:31; 19:7; Mark 10:4).

Thisleads us to the noun in 2Thessalonians 2:3, apostas(a. It is found in the GreekOld Testament and has the idea of rebellion (Joshua 22:22), wickedness (Jeremiah2:19), and unfaithfulness (2 Chr. 28:19; 29:19; 33:19). Apostasta is foundtwice in the New Testament, in our text and in Acts 21:21. In Acts, the noun isused in Paul's teaching that the Jews who lived among the Gentiles that forsakethe teaching of Moses about circumcision. None of the uses of the noun ineither testament indicate a physical departure of any sort. The point can bemade even more strongly. If one searches for the uses of the noun"apostasy" in the 355 occurrences over the 300-year period betweenthe second century B.C. and the first century A.D., one will not find a singleinstance where this word refers to a physical departure. The uses outsidebiblical Greek are exactly parallel to those in it.

Letme summarize my findings: 1) aphistemi and its cognates are found widely inGreek literature; 2) the verb aphistemi has many and clear uses where aphysical departure can only be meant; 3) the noun apostasion has a clear andfixed meaning that relates it to the marriage covenant, and it is the commonway of expressing the giving of a certificate of divorce; 4) the other noun,apostasta, has a variety of meanings, but none of them relate to a physicaldeparture. It seems that any fair assessment of the data leads to theconclusion that Paul does not refer to the rapture in 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

BeforeI conclude this appendix, let me state and respond to two possible objectionsto the conclusions that I have argued for above. It might be argued that thoughthe derivative noun may never be used of a physical departure, the idea isnonetheless justified because of the underlying verb which has that etymologyand usage. In other words, one rests the rapture interpretation of this textnot on apostas(a but on the verb aphistmi. This simply cannot be done. In mostcases the meaning of the underlying verb carries over to its derivative noun.But there are instances where this is not the case, and to do so leads to falseconclusions. This is even true where the word is a compound. Anaginsko is aword in the New Testament. It is a compound from the preposition ana whichmeans "up, upwards" and ginosko which means "to know." Tobase the meaning of the compound on the meaning of its parts leaves one with ameaning for anaginosko of "to know up" or "to know upwards,"when in fact the word means "to know certainly, recognize" or"to read."[21]There is at least another clear example of the difference between a verb andits cognate noun. There is a verb eperotao which is found a number of times inthe New Testament, 53 times in the Gospels, and five times in the epistles(e.g., Mart. 12:10; Luke 3:10; Rom. 10:20). The meaning of the verb,invariably, is "to ask" or "consult." A derivative nounoccurs once in the New Testament, in 1 Pet. 3:21. The noun is eperotema. Theidea here is of a pledge, quite different from its cognate verb meaning.[22]That is, water baptism is "a pledge of a good conscience toward God."Thus, the meaning of derivative nouns must be established through their usage.

Asecond objection to what has been argued is that, in the history of theinterpretation of this text, there are some interpreters, important ones too,who have suggested that a physical departure is at least a part of the meaningof this word. That may be, but that does not settle the matter. If they came totheir conclusions on the basis of the etymology and usage of aphistemi, theywere wrong, at least in my judgment. If, on the other hand, they reached theirconclusions for some other reason, then we would have to know what those reasonswere, so that they could be evaluated. However, it does seem that given what wepresently know, there is no reason to understand Paul's use of apostas(a as areference to the rapture.

[1] Robert H.Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973). Seealso Doug Moo, "The Case for the Posttribulation Rapture Position" inThe Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Postiribulational? Gleason Archer, et a!. (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1984), 186-90.

[2] Ibid.,100-11, especially 105-06.

[3] bid., 113.

[4] Ibid., 114.

[5] Ibid.,134-35. See also Moo, 190-96.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.,113-14.

[8] Robert L.Thomas, "Second Thessalonians" in EBC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1978), 319.

[9] Gundry, 105.

[10] Robert L.Thomas, "First Thessalonians" in EBC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978),280.

[11] For afuller discussion see, Paul D. Feinberg, "Response to Doug Moo" inRapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Posttribulational? Gleason Archer, et a!. (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1984), 226-27.

[12] For afuller discussion see Ibid., 229-31.

[13] Ibid.,224-26.

[14] Gundry,135-36.

[15] Ibid., 118.See also Moo, 187-190.

[16] I haveincluded an appendix on this issue. I set out my reasons for thinking that aphysical departure and thus a rapture is not the correct interpretation of thisverse.

[17] SeeGundry's fine discussion of the options, 122-26.

[18] See bothGundry, 126-28; and Feinberg, 228-29.

[19] See E. Schuyler English, Re-Thinkingthe Rapture (Travelers Rest, SC: Southern Bible Book House, 1954),67-71; andKenneth S. Wuest, "The Rapture-Precisely When?" Bib Sac 114 (1957):63-67.

[20] Ibychus,Thesaurus linguae Graecae, The Regents of the University of California, PackardHumanity Institute, 1992, Listone.

[21] This pointwas made to me by my colleague Douglas Moo.

[22] This pointwas made to me by Ron Nickelson, presently a Ph.D. student in New Testament atTrinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL.