Ice and Apostasy

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 apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition. – 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3

What is “the Apostasy” in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3?

In a pre-wrath view, this passage serves as a reliable proof text to support the notion that the rapture takes place only after the coming of the Antichrist and the apostasy – understood as a great falling away from the (said) faith. As straightforward as this passage may seem to be, in the pre-tribulational view, there appears to be some variation as to how this word ought to be defined. Understandably so, because it takes a great deal of ducking and deflecting of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 to maintain a pre-tribulational view. Some theologians recognize this problematic passage and seek to alter its meaning.

A natural reading of this text, however, leads us to understand that the central focus is “concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him”. There should be little to no question that Paul is speaking of the rapture here. Paul encourages his audience by telling them to not be troubled as though you have missed it. Let no one deceive you, there are some visible precursors that will take place before “that Day”, the rapture, comes. Notably, that includes the apostasy, and the revealing of the man of sin/antichrist. This natural reading is how we get the Pre-wrath understanding of the rapture. Paul is giving reason for why they ought not to worry about missing the rapture. The rapture takes place immediately after the great persecution of believers by the hand of the antichrist, just before God’s wrath is poured out upon the wicked. Though this text seems pretty clear, there remains a few challengers who continue to try to dodge the straightforward meaning of this text and deflect it to mean something else.

An example of this deflection is from the Executive Director of the Pre-Trib Research Center, Dr. Thomas Ice. Dr. Thomas Ice isn’t new to the Pre-Wrath rapture view. In fact, back in 1995, he was in a debate with Dr. Allan Kurschner, who is one of the more prominent scholars who represent the Pre-Wrath view. In my opinion, Dr. Kurschner very well may be the face of the Pre-Wrath position as it stands today. During this debate, Dr. Kurschner pressed Dr. Ice with this passage, insisting on the natural reading of the text. Dr. Ice, however, took a rather strange stance on the interpretation of this passage.

Traditionally, how pre-trib interpreters avoid this problematic text is by making the claim that between verse 2 and 3, Paul suddenly changes gears from talking about the rapture to then start talking about the 2^nd coming. Therefore, they can make the claim that the apostasy and the arrival of the antichrist are not precursors to the rapture but are precursors to the 2^nd coming, which takes place at the end of the final 7-year period we read about in Daniel. This alone disrupts the natural reading of the text. There is no textual indication that Paul is switching his focus from the rapture to a different event. His audience was concerned that they had missed the rapture, not the 2^nd coming at the end of Daniel’s 70^th week. However, Dr. Ice takes it one step further than even most pre-trib interpreters do by fallaciously dropping the traditional meaning of the word, “apostasy” to make the word fit his eisegesis. In his article, “The Rapture in 2 Thessalonians 2:3”, he states,

“Some pretribulationists, like myself, think that the Greek noun, “ἀποστασία”, usually translated “apostasy,” is a reference to the rapture and should be translated, “departure.” Thus, this passage would be saying that the day of the Lord will not come until the rapture comes before it. If ἀποστασία is a reference to a physical departure, then 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is strong evidence for pretribulation.”

I agree with Dr. Ice’s conclusion. If this translation of the word were to be correct, it truly would be a game changer. However, it is the process these interpreters take to make this conclusion that I strongly disagree with. From the surface many arguments can look good. There appears some plausibility with Dr. Ice’s claim as we observe the support for it. But with just a little bit of digging, we can see where fallacious rule breaking takes place.

Support for “the apostasy” meaning “the departure/rapture” –

Dr. Ice quotes a statement made by Gordon Lewis, a Professor of Systematic Theology and Philosophy at Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary. In this statement, Lewis points out that the Greek term, “ἀποστασία” is derived from the verb, “ἀφίστημι” (Aphistemi). “Aphistemi”, he notes, means to “remove spatially”. The conclusion made from this is that since the verb means “remove spatially”, then the noun, ἀποστασία (apastasia) can too. Therefore, the “apostasy” or the “spatial departure” of Christians via rapture and the arrival of the antichrist are precursors to the 2^nd coming. Ice also notes that English translations prior to the publishing of the KJV in 1611 translated “ἀποστασία ” as “departure”, implying that they must have believed that this word meant the rapture and we have since deviated from this original understanding of 2 Thessalonians 2. From the surface, this seems like reasonable support. Of course, as we dig deeper into this, we will see why this line of reasoning is very problematic.

The second supporting point Dr. Ice uses in his argument is that the manner in which Paul mentions “ἀποστασία ” is as if he has mentioned it to the Thessalonians beforehand at great lengths. We do not see any mention of apostasy in Paul’s previous letter, but rather, we do see him talking about the rapture in detail. Therefore, this mention of apostasy in 2 Thessalonians 2 could be yet another reference to the rapture.

Ice states, “Whatever Paul is referring to in his reference to “the departure,” was something that both the Thessalonian believers and he had discussed in-depth previously. When we examine Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians, he never mentions the doctrine of apostasy, however, virtually every chapter in that epistle speaks of the rapture (cf. 1:9–10; 2:19; probably 3:13; 4:13–17; 5:1–11). In these passages, Paul has used a variety of Greek terms to describe the rapture. It should not be surprising that he uses another term to reference the rapture in 2 Thessalonians 2:3.”

Here again, we see what appears to be a reasonable argument for apostasy possibly referring not to a religious falling away, but a physical departure via rapture.

The third primary supporting point for Dr. Ice’s view is the use of the definite article in front of “apastasia”. Apostasy is not exclusive to the times of the end. In a religious sense, it simply means a rebellious turning away from the once proclaimed faith. Throughout history, we can observe many instances where a culture has experienced some form of religious apostasy. It is usually gradual, slowly growing over time. There isn’t really a point in history where you could say, “this specific date began that apostasy”. It is gradual and does not tend to be seen as a definitive event. However, in 2 Thessalonians 2, when Paul refers to apostasy, he calls it, “ἡ ἀποστασία”, or “the apostasy”. Dr. Ice notes that the use of the definite article, demonstrates that this is an exceptional instance of apostasy. He quotes, “This leads to the theological argument mentioned above that ἀποστασία can’t refer to an apostasy in the last days because the last days apostasy will not be significantly different from the long line of apostasies that proceeded it. But it can refer to an outstanding instance of physical departure – the rapture.”

Alright. Sounds good. This would have to be an outstanding instance of apostasy for Paul to use the definite article. Could it therefore mean its speaking of the rapture? The rapture would certainly be an eventful departure worthy of the definite article. You can decide that for yourself after hearing the arguments against this interpretation.

At the very least, this interpretation is misleading. At the very most, it is deceptive. I believe that either of these descriptions are fitting due to the nature of the interpretive errors made. There are a select few scholars who go this far to make this case who, in doing so, break a number of interpretive rules they know better not to make. Scholars like Dr. Ice and Gordon Lewis know these rules more than I do. They know that they are breaking rules they would otherwise condemn others if done to other passages in scripture. This is hypocritical eisegesis to manufacture a view where it doesn’t belong in scripture. In fact, it is not even simply those like me who are outside of the pre-tribulation camp who have taken issue with this outlandish interpretation. Much of the defense I will be presenting here is research and study by a pre-tribulationist. Ironically enough, yes, I will stand behind the hermeneutical studies of a pre-tribulationist to refute this hyper-pre-tribulational view. I am no expert in interpretation, but there are general rules that anyone can come to learn that one must abide by to ensure that you are understanding something as the author intended.

Arguments against “the apostasy” meaning “the departure/rapture”

In his book called, “Apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 — Rapture or Apostasy?”, Bible teacher and author, Lee W Brainard exhaustively investigates the interpretation of “apostasy”. I encourage you to read his book. Like I said, Lee is a pre-tribulationist. If anyone has reason to be biased, it is him. In fact, he even mentions in his book that he wishes this interpretation of “apostasy” is true. But he knew something fishy was going on and humbly pursued the truth, even if it tore down a solid defense for the eschatological view he aligns with. We need more honest Bible believing men like Lee Brainard.

To address the first supporting point in this interpretation, which made the connection between apostasy and its root verb, Lee shows the fallacious nature of this interpretive method. This is by far the largest point of support for this interpretation, so I will spend the most time on it. Again, the claim Dr. Ice and others make is that since “apostasia is the noun for the verb “aphistemi”, which means to remove something spatially, the noun must also mean a spatial departure, (or rapture). This is a perfect example of what a Root Fallacy is. By definition, a Root Fallacy is when someone uses the root verb to determine the definition of the noun. Why is this a fallacy? This is a fallacy because though sometimes root verbs can point you in the right direction of the meaning of a noun, this is often not the case. We can observe this issue in the English language as well. Here are a few examples of verbs whose meanings differ drastically from their corresponding noun:

1. Desert

Verb: To abandon a person or cause.

Noun: A barren and arid land.

• Project

Verb: To throw something or cast an image on a surface.

Noun: A task one is working on.

• Park

Verb: To bring (a vehicle that one is driving) to a halt and leave it temporarily, typically in a parking lot or by the side of the road.

Noun: A large public green area in a town, used for recreation.

• Ship

Verb: To send by some other means of transport or by mail.

Noun: A vessel larger than a boat for transporting people or goods by sea.

• Wave

Verb: To move one’s hand to and fro in greeting or as a signal.

Noun: A long body of water curling into an arched form and breaking on the shore

As you can see, it would be very incorrect to define any of these nouns based on the definition of their verb. That is the nature of this Root Fallacy Dr. Ice has fallen for. Lee gives a good biblical example of this concept with “Apostolos”, the noun meaning “apostle”, and its root verb, “Apostello”, which means, “I send”. These words are certainly similar. But if we were to incorrectly apply the verb to define the noun as “sent one”, this would be very misleading as to what an apostle is. An apostle is certainly a “sent one”. But it is much more narrow than merely someone who is sent. Yes, all messengers are sent, but not all messengers are apostles. Likewise, all believers are sent/commissioned, but is every believer an apostle? Absolutely not. That is a fallacious error that Dr. Ice and others who try to make this claim regarding apostasy must be called out for. Is apostasy a departure? In a way, yes. Is everyone who has ever departed from something or someone an apostate? No. ἀποστασία is a departure/rebellion from the once proclaimed faith, not a physical departing as the verb ἀφίστημι is defined.

Secondly, in regard to the same point, this interpretation is also guilty of something that is called the “Semantic Anachronism Exegetical fallacy”. Yes, that’s a mouthful, but the definition of this fallacy is quite simple. In short, it is when a later definition of a word is used to describe how the word must have been used in earlier literature. We do not let our modern use of words determine how they must have been used in the past. For interpretation, we must determine how the word was used in context surrounding the time it was written to truly determine what it correctly meant. Why? Because words can change their meaning over time and can take upon different uses. For example, the word, “prestigious”, in modern dictionaries, means “honored”. However, before 1546, we can observe uses of it meaning to involve some form of trickery or illusion. That is why we hear magicians say “presto!” “Presto” is derived from the old meaning of “prestigious”. Another example is the word, “garble”. Its modern definition is to cause something to be confusing. This is contrasted by its use in the 1400’s which defined it as, “to sift or separate out impurities”. This is quite opposite to its modern understanding. If we were to read old literature that used these words and try to interpret them by our modern understanding of the words today, we would garble the meaning of the text.

This is what Dr. Ice falls into when defining apostasy in 2 Thessalonians as “departure”. He cites the Liddell and Scott lexicon for the use of apostasy as “departure”. However, what he and others do not tell you is that this description was a 6^th century use of the word, and that this was not the first entry for the definition of this word. This, as we just established, is fallacious. We are allowing the use of the word 500 years later determine how it must have been used and understood in 2 Thessalonians. Nobody does this in interpretation.

Furthermore, this 6^th century use of the word that is mentioned in the Liddell and Scott lexicon was written by Olympiadorus in his commentary called, “In Aristotelis Meteora Commentaria”, translated as “Commentary on Aristotle’s Meteorology.” This, as you can tell by the title, is not theological work. This was scientific work used to describe liquid “departing” from a solid when heat was applied to it. Lee notes that “it is not legitimate to lift the translation departure out of this scientific context and export it into a non-scientific context.” This is simply not how we properly interpret words. Lee notes, “It is an egregious anachronistic error that undermines the historical grammatical hermeneutic.” This does not prove that apostasy can mean people depart to heaven or people departing for a new location. And yes, Lee also states, “Moreover, I would point out, lest anyone try to exploit the sense of evaporation, that the rapture is not an evaporation of the believers who will be reconstituted later.” No other place in scientific terms is this word used like it was here one time. Normally, this technical sense of this concept is called “apostasies”. Not only was it extremely uncommon for “ἀποστασία” to be used in this sense, but there is also another word that regularly described this phenomenon. Once again, this use is misleading and unsubstantiated.

The last rebuttal to this first point is that the defining of “ἀποστασία” as “departure” in the Liddell and Scott Lexicon was not the first entry for the word, meaning that this was not to be considered the primary understanding of the word. Dr. Ice and others only look to the second entry because the first completely contradicts their claim. The first entry defines “apostasy” as, “defection, revolt, legal sense in Dionysius Halicarnassensis Roman Antiquities 7.1, Josephus Life 10, Plutarch Lives Galba 1; especially in religious sense, rebellion against God, apostasy, LXX Joshua 22:22, 2 Thess 2:3.”

It is selection bias to gloss over the primary interpretation of the word and nitpick a singular scientific use of the word in the 6^th century to define a 1^st century word. Contrary to Dr. Ice’s claim, even these 6^th century interpreters would disagree with modern interpreters who try to twist “ἀποστασία” into the rapture. It is true that prior to the publishing of the KJV in 1611 interpreters used “departure” for “ἀποστασία”. However, comments from these translators and editors prior to 1611 will prove to show their true intent for this use.

For example, in the Geneva Bible (1560 and 1569) – The introduction to Second Thessalonians, it states, “…there should be a falling away from true religion, even by a great part of the world, and that Antichrist should reign in the Temple of God.” Clearly, even though “the departure” was used for “ἀποστασία”, the translator still understood it as a falling away from the (said) faith.

Another example is seen in The Matthews Bible (1537) – The preface to the second chapter of Second Thessalonians, which says, “He sheweth them that the day of the Lord shall not come till the departing from the faith come first.” Again, clearly the translator didn’t imply that the rapture is ἀποστασία. Apostasia means to depart from the faith. So yes, translators prior to 1611 translated it as “departure”, but they still meant it as a departure from the faith. Trying to use them to support this modern notion of calling it the rapture is wrong.

With that entire rebuttal for just the first point, it almost feels pointless to go over the last two minor points. Dr. Ice mentioned that it seems as through Paul had discussed “apostasia” in great detail with the Thessalonians beforehand. He concludes that since apostasy is not mentioned in his first letter, it is likely to be another term for the rapture, which was discussed all throughout the previous letter. This is hardly a point of support. We know that Paul spoke directly to the Thessalonians in 51AD just a few months before he wrote 1 Thessalonians on his second missionary journey. Shortly after, 2 Thessalonians was written in response to the various eschatological questions amidst persecution the church had begun to receive. Even by the manner in which Paul speaks of end times in 1 Thessalonians it can be understood that he must have discussed this with them in more detail beforehand.

For example, 1 Thessalonians 5:2 says, “For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night.” How would they know perfectly well if these matters were not discussed in great detail beforehand? Paul surely gave the rundown of eschatological events where he would certainly discuss the apostasy and the antichrist. It is only reasonable to suggest this. There is no reason to suggest that “apostasy”, understood as a falling away from the faith, was never mentioned beforehand, leaving the interpretation of “ἀποστασία” up for grabs. This is what Dr. Ice has to presuppose in order for this claim to have any validity. I just don’t think that is plausible at all.

And finally, we come around to responding to Dr. Ice’s notion that the use of the definite article in front of “ἀποστασία” refers to it as an outstanding instance of physical departure – the rapture.

I agree that the use of the definite article implies that it will be an outstanding instance of apostasy. However, I do not see this as a problem in the eschatological context it is used. 2 Thessalonians 2 says “…that Day will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed…”. The apostasy is directly connected to the revealing of the antichrist. It is collectively agreed upon that the revealing of the antichrist takes place at the midpoint of Daniel’s 70^th week. Alongside this revealing, we are told in Revelation that the antichrist will establish his mark to be taken by all, and that all those who do not take this mark will be killed. In a Pre-Wrath perspective, this is where “the men are separated from the boys”, so to speak. In other words, the revealing of the antichrist and the establishment of his mark brings upon this final eschatological apostasy. The church is still on earth at this point. The church will be greatly persecuted by the antichrist at this point. MANY fake Christians who have no real root system in Christ will “fall away” or apostatize when this specific time comes. Mark 4:16-17 says,

“These likewise are the ones sown on stony ground who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with gladness; and they have no root in themselves, and so endure only for a time. Afterward, when tribulation or persecution arises for the word’s sake, immediately they stumble.”

The Greek word for “stumble” in this passage is “σκανδαλίζω” (skandalizo), which means “to scandalize, to entrap, trip up, figuratively stumble, entice to sin, or apostatize”. (Strong’s Concordance). We see this same concept clearly played out in the eschatological sense. The revealing of the antichrist, the establishment of his mark, and the great persecution he commences against those who follow Christ will surely cause many to “σκανδαλίζω”. Churches are filled with people who have “received the Word with gladness”, meaning that they accepted it under happy terms, possibly under false teachers who preached that Jesus will give them everything they want and make life easy. Prosperity teachers on all levels are leading people down the road to apostasy. And when this eschatological apostasy comes, it will not be gradual. It will not be easy to miss. It will be a giant separation of the church. If you merely go to church and call yourself a Christian, but do not truly know Jesus as Lord and savior, you will fall for the antichrist’s deception. When the antichrist wins his war and offers worldwide peace and safety to all, if you do not believe in Jesus Christ, you will cave in to this plot. You will begin to hate those stuck-up Christians who refuse to worship this man as God. You will begin to believe that Christ followers remain as a problem, and this man, the man of perdition, is the savior was said to stand on mount Zion. This apostasy will be unlike anything the world has ever witnessed. It absolutely stands out from any apostasy we can observe in history. From the command for all to take the mark of the beast, apostasy begins. You can apostatize, or you can be killed. It is “ἡ ἀποστασία”. It is THE Apostasy.

Do not be soon shaken in mind or troubled as though you have missed the rapture. The revealing of THE antichrist and THE apostasy will come first, and you will not miss it! 1 Timothy 4:1 says,

“But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.”

If you do not expect there to be a great apostasy coming and you do not expect there to be great persecution coming, you are more likely to stumble should we be that generation who experiences it. Hold true to the Word and head His warnings to us. Do not pay attention to deceitful spirits only promising peace and safety. Be prepared and grow deep roots in the Lord who has overcome it all.

Thank you for reading. God bless!