2 Thes 2.3 and 1 Tim 4.1

[MisterE]

Paul makes an unambiguous reference to the departure from the faith, the end times APOSTASIA. Here is the verse in question:

I Tim 4.1
ὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ῥητῶς λέγει ὅτι ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς πίστεως, προσέχοντες πνεύμασιν πλάνοις καὶ διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων...

Here we see that Paul uses the verb AFISTAMAI when referring to the APOSTASIA, the departure from the faith. So, when Paul wants to refer to the Tribulation, he uses the verb, not the noun, APOSTASIA.

Some claim that the word APOSTASIA in 2 Thes 2.3 refers to the departure from the faith, but elsewhere Paul uses the verb AFISTAMAI to talk about the Tribulation. Why did Paul use a different word when he had already used APOSTASIA to refer to the departure from the faith?

 

[RandyK]

Paul makes an unambiguous reference to the departure from the faith, the end times APOSTASIA. Here is the verse in question:

I Tim 4.1
ὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ῥητῶς λέγει ὅτι ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς πίστεως, προσέχοντες πνεύμασιν πλάνοις καὶ διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων...

Here we see that Paul uses the verb AFISTAMAI when referring to the APOSTASIA, the departure from the faith. So, when Paul wants to refer to the Tribulation, he uses the verb, not the noun, APOSTASIA.

Some claim that the word APOSTASIA in 2 Thes 2.3 refers to the departure from the faith, but elsewhere Paul uses the verb AFISTAMAI to talk about the Tribulation. Why did Paul use a different word when he had already used APOSTASIA to refer to the departure from the faith?

I'm more of a theology person than a biblical languages person, but your question seems pretty basic. "Afistamai" would refer very generally to any kind of departure from a location, whereas "apostasia" would refer to a "forsaking," as in forsaking a moral standard.

I don't think "afistamai" is attached to "the Tribulation" any more than "apostasia" is attached to the Antichrist. The particular word is chosen based on whether a general departure from a place is meant or a general abandonment of a standard is meant.

 

[MisterE]

I'm more of a theology person than a biblical languages person, but your question seems pretty basic. "Afistamai" would refer very generally to any kind of departure from a location, whereas "apostasia" would refer to a "forsaking," as in forsaking a moral standard.

I don't think "afistamai" is attached to "the Tribulation" any more than "apostasia" is attached to the Antichrist. The particular word is chosen based on whether a general departure from a place is meant or a general abandonment of a standard is meant.

What can't be done is to show that APOSTASIA means forsaking, rebellion, or falling away from the faith UNLESS it is so qualified in the context. Like Acts 21.21, Luke adds "from Moses." He adds that because the word itself does not denote revolt. Apostasia is used in contexts about apostasy, but all known uses of apostasia have qualifications as to what kind of apostasy is in use.

The cognate verb is almost exclusively used for a departure of some kind, often a physical departure. Some deny that a noun's meaning is informed by the verb. I simply reject that argument as it is a known "law" of semantics,.

 

[RandyK]

What can't be done is to show that APOSTASIA means forsaking, rebellion, or falling away from the faith UNLESS it is so qualified in the context. Like Acts 21.21, Luke adds "from Moses." He adds that because the word itself does not denote revolt. Apostasia is used in contexts about apostasy, but all known uses of apostasia have qualifications as to what kind of apostasy is in use.

The cognate verb is almost exclusively used for a departure of some kind, often a physical departure. Some deny that a noun's meaning is informed by the verb. I simply reject that argument as it is a known "law" of semantics,.

Let me clear about one thing. It is an interpretive fallacy to declare a word as attached, necessarily, to a particular meaning if it is so general as to require a context.

This would, of course, mean that technical words are exempted from this. Technical words by definition imply that they have a particular attachment when otherwise the word is more general. So a "forsaking" does not have to refer to a departure from the faith since it is not being applied as a technical applicaation.

Our word "apostasy" also does not have a technical application by necessity and does not have to refer to the "Antichristian Apostasy." But it is the proper word to use for the Antichristian Apostasy because it is a reference, generally, to a forsaking of set standards, whatever those standards may be.

Since "apostasia" is in fact being used in the context of Antichrist's appearance, it does refer to a forsaking of proper worship of God. This is made doubly clear when Paul says that the Man of Sin sits in the temple of God proclaming himself as God. He is forsaking the proper worship of God in God's heavenly temple by proclaiming himself God.

 

[for_his_glory]

2Th 2:3 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

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils

Both of these verses speak about falling away from faith as many are being deceived into believing the lies of Satan. Whether it be Apostasia or Afistamai they both mean to abandon faith and the rejection of Christ Jesus.

 

[MisterE]

2Th 2:3 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

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils

Both of these verses speak about falling away from faith as many are being deceived into believing the lies of Satan. Whether it be Apostasia or Afistamai they both mean to abandon faith and the rejection of Christ Jesus.

Not exactly. 2 Thes 2.3 is about the Rapture, not the departing from the faith. Since you are not defending the post trib here but asserting it, there is not much more I can say. I would welcome your attempt to demonstrate that APOSTASIA can NOT mean a "departure" anywhere at any time, and therefore, is MUST mean a falling away from the faith. Bear in mind that I can quote any Lexicon that defines APOSTASIA as departure as one of its meanings.

 

[follower]

I can quote any Lexicon

BRG
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
CSB
Do not trust in nobles, in a son of man, who cannot save.
CEB
Don’t trust leaders; don’t trust any human beings— there’s no saving help with them!
CJB
Don’t put your trust in princes or in mortals, who cannot help.
CEV
You can't depend on anyone, not even a great leader.

 

[MisterE]

BRG
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
CSB
Do not trust in nobles, in a son of man, who cannot save.
CEB
Don’t trust leaders; don’t trust any human beings— there’s no saving help with them!
CJB
Don’t put your trust in princes or in mortals, who cannot help.
CEV
You can't depend on anyone, not even a great leader.

follower,

A lexicon is a dictionary. I have no idea what you are doing.

 

[Consecrated Life]

Paul makes an unambiguous reference to the departure from the faith, the end times APOSTASIA. Here is the verse in question:

I Tim 4.1
ὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ῥητῶς λέγει ὅτι ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς πίστεως, προσέχοντες πνεύμασιν πλάνοις καὶ διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων...

Here we see that Paul uses the verb AFISTAMAI when referring to the APOSTASIA, the departure from the faith. So, when Paul wants to refer to the Tribulation, he uses the verb, not the noun, APOSTASIA.

Some claim that the word APOSTASIA in 2 Thes 2.3 refers to the departure from the faith, but elsewhere Paul uses the verb AFISTAMAI to talk about the Tribulation. Why did Paul use a different word when he had already used APOSTASIA to refer to the departure from the faith?

I have never spoken with a Christian who has failed to clearly see the progressive falling away from the faith within denominations as well as the residual post-falling away apostasy remaining within the still standing dead carcass of the denomination today.
The Spirit clearly having ability to unmask any errant application of terms for the faithful

 

[follower]

follower,

A lexicon is a dictionary. I have no idea what you are doing.

There are multiple and serious errors throughout the dictionaries.

 

[miamited]

There are multiple and serious errors throughout the dictionaries.

Just a heads up. I think you missed the point. The poster was saying that before you argue with them, you should know that every lexicon has 'departure' as a perfectly normal and acceptable translation to 'apostasia'.

Yes, I understand now why you don't want to trust dictionaries. You find error in them a lot, do you?

 

[RandyK]

Not exactly. 2 Thes 2.3 is about the Rapture, not the departing from the faith. Since you are not defending the post trib here but asserting it, there is not much more I can say. I would welcome your attempt to demonstrate that APOSTASIA can NOT mean a "departure" anywhere at any time, and therefore, is MUST mean a falling away from the faith. Bear in mind that I can quote any Lexicon that defines APOSTASIA as departure as one of its meanings.

There is something called "logic" that comes into play when trying to interpret words in their context. To say that "departure" refers to the Rapture makes no sense in the context. The day of the Rapture will not take place unless the Rapture takes place first. That makes no sense!

But to say that the Rapture will not take place unless the falling away, and the revelation of Antichrist, takes place first, makes perfect sense.

So why would Paul say such a thing? It is clear from Jesus' statements on the Mt. of Olives that the "end would not come immediately," that Antichrists and false Prophets would show up first.

The idea that Antichrists will show up prior to Christ's coming for his Church tells the Church not to fall for any false claims about Christ being already here on the earth, and not to fall any false claims about the Kingdom of God already having arrived. This was the very error that Paul addressed in 2 Thes 2, when the Church heard that some Christians were proclaiming that Christ had already come to his Church.

So Paul said, Christ will only come from heaven, just as Jesus had said that his sign will be a coming from the sky, like lightning from one end of heaven to the other. False Christs who claim Christ is already on the earth with some Christian group is a lie. The day of the Rapture will not happen unless Antichrists appear first. This is, I believe, the "apostasia."

 

[MisterE]

2Th 2:3 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

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils

Both of these verses speak about falling away from faith as many are being deceived into believing the lies of Satan. Whether it be Apostasia or Afistamai they both mean to abandon faith and the rejection of Christ Jesus.

As I said earlier, APOSTASIA does not mean to depart from the faith. To say that in 2 Thes 2.3 APOSTASIA means to depart from the faith can not be demonstrated with a Greek Lexicon. Note that Paul adds "from the faith" in 1 Tim 4.1 since the naked word AFISTAMAI does not imply that.

 

[MisterE]

I'm more of a theology person than a biblical languages person, but your question seems pretty basic. "Afistamai" would refer very generally to any kind of departure from a location, whereas "apostasia" would refer to a "forsaking," as in forsaking a moral standard.

I don't think "afistamai" is attached to "the Tribulation" any more than "apostasia" is attached to the Antichrist. The particular word is chosen based on whether a general departure from a place is meant or a general abandonment of a standard is meant.

Whether or not it is a general departure or a general abandonment is supplied by the context, not the words.

 

[RandyK]

Whether or not it is a general departure or a general abandonment is supplied by the context, not the words.

Yes, words are very flexible, the meaning of which is determined by the user of those words. Unless a technical word is being applied, the meaning covers a broad range potentially. Even a technical word can be applied somewhat liberally.

The word has a dictionary definition or more. And the context for how the word is used is determined by the speaker or writer.

 

[RandyK]

As I said earlier, APOSTASIA does not mean to depart from the faith. To say that in 2 Thes 2.3 APOSTASIA means to depart from the faith can not be demonstrated with a Greek Lexicon. Note that Paul adds "from the faith" in 1 Tim 4.1 since the naked word AFISTAMAI does not imply that.

Yes, but the point is that "apostasia" would be the appropriate word to use in the context of speaking about a departure from the faith.

 

[MisterE]

Yes, but the point is that "apostasia" would be the appropriate word to use in the context of speaking about a departure from the faith.

The point I was making is the APOSTASIA does NOT mean a departure from the faith by itself. There must be a qualifying phrase, such as "from the faith" or in its only other use "from Moses." APOSTASIA by itself does not mean departure from the faith. It only means departure from __________. The qualifying phrase does not appear in 2 Thes 2.3.

 

[RandyK]

The point I was making is the APOSTASIA does NOT mean a departure from the faith by itself. There must be a qualifying phrase, such as "from the faith" or in its only other use "from Moses." APOSTASIA by itself does not mean departure from the faith. It only means departure from __________. The qualifying phrase does not appear in 2 Thes 2.3.

I think Joe Canada in the accompanying link does a more than adequate job explaining all of this, which is nothing more than an attempt to bypass or confuse the obvious meaning of the biblical passage. See

Does Apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 Refer to a ‘Physical Departure’ (i.e. the Rapture)​

 

[JLB]

Paul makes an unambiguous reference to the departure from the faith, the end times APOSTASIA. Here is the verse in question:

I Tim 4.1
ὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ῥητῶς λέγει ὅτι ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς πίστεως, προσέχοντες πνεύμασιν πλάνοις καὶ διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων...

Here we see that Paul uses the verb AFISTAMAI when referring to the APOSTASIA, the departure from the faith. So, when Paul wants to refer to the Tribulation, he uses the verb, not the noun, APOSTASIA.

Some claim that the word APOSTASIA in 2 Thes 2.3 refers to the departure from the faith, but elsewhere Paul uses the verb AFISTAMAI to talk about the Tribulation. Why did Paul use a different word when he had already used APOSTASIA to refer to the departure from the faith?

Let’s compare the actual scriptures and see.

Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4

In 2 Thessalonians 2 Paul is emphasizing the Day of the Lord which we see is the Day of Christ which comes after the antichrist is revealed and he he re-emphasizes this in verse 5.

Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?


Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,
1 Timothy 4:1

In 1 Timothy 4:1 the emphasis is on false doctrine that has their inspiration from demons.

 

[RandyK]

Let’s compare the actual scriptures and see.

Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4

In 2 Thessalonians 2 Paul is emphasizing the Day of the Lord which we see is the Day of Christ which comes after the antichrist is revealed and he he re-emphasizes this in verse 5.

Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things?


Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,
1 Timothy 4:1

In 1 Timothy 4:1 the emphasis is on false doctrine that has their inspiration from demons.

Yes, consider the link I provided Mr. E above, which shows that the primary use of the word in the NT is in relation to abandoning the faith.

[quote:]
New Testament:
The term is used only one other time in the New Testament, which means a religious departure:

and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake [religious apostasy] Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. –Acts 21:21

Septuagint:
Four Times: Joshua 22:22; 2 Chronicles 29:19; 1 Maccabees 2:15; Jeremiah 2:19.
Every time it means apostasy or rebellion in a religious or political sense—never used as a spatial or physical sense.
[unquote]