Recently I received an email from a listener who was arguing with an avid dispensationalist about the pre-trib rapture. Unlike most dispensationalists, this one was very clever and weasel worded, and also confident. So this listener reached out to me for help and I decided to document my response so that you have a resource for these topics. In particular, many cultural and grammatical arguments were made that seem very convincing on face value, so we will address them thoroughly in this article.

THE LAWLESS ONE & THE RESTRAINER

The first argument claims that:

“According to the ‘restrainer’ concept in 2 Thessalonians 2, the ‘Lawless One’ cannot be revealed until the force currently restraining evil is removed. Historically and legally, a sovereign does not initiate a full-scale strike on a territory while their own ambassadors are still on the ground; the ambassadors must be extracted first. This protocol is rooted in ancient Jewish wedding customs, where the groom returns at an unannounced hour to snatch the bride away to the father’s house before a period of separation. While the Second Coming describes Christ returning to Earth to judge, the Rapture describes a separate event of snatching believers away. While preparing for earthly hardship is wise stewardship, the biblical text supports a distinct event where the King’s assets are exfiltrated before the final outpouring of wrath.

To take it a step further, your position fails to account for the Restrainer Protocol in 2 Thessalonians 2:6–8 and the structural layout of Revelation. Paul explicitly states that the Lawless One cannot be revealed until the force currently restraining him (Katecho) is taken out of the way. In biblical theology, the Holy Spirit indwelling the Body of Christ is the active force holding back the full manifestation of global lawlessness; you cannot reveal the Antichrist while the primary restraining authority is occupying the field. Furthermore, while the word Ekklesia (Church) is referenced 19 times in Revelation chapters 1 through 3, it completely disappears from the Earth realm throughout chapters 4 through 18 while God’s judgment seals are opened. The Church isn’t mentioned on Earth during the Tribulation because the King’s ambassadors have already been extracted to the throne room, precisely as the legal and diplomatic structure of the New Covenant demands.”

This first argument relies on many assumptions and equivocations. If the ‘restrainer’ in 2 Thessalonians 2 is the Holy Spirit, and He is taken away, then nobody could be saved during the final years of earth’s history -- yet dispensationalism teaches that this final supposed 7 year tribulation will bring many unrepentant Jews and Gentiles to Christ. That’s not possible if the Holy Spirit is taken completely out of the way and has no influence in the world.

Another assumption is that antichrist cannot co-exist with God’s Spirit on Earth, yet John tells us in his letters that antichrist is already here (1 John, 2 John) and working in the world. Nobody will deny the Holy Spirit was active and present in the 1st century Church, and this is the only actual mention of antichrist in the Bible. Therefore there is no hermeneutical basis to claim that the Holy Spirit must be taken way for Satan to work his schemes or even maximize evil on the Earth. Therefore that also means that the interpretation of the restrainer as the Holy Spirit is wrong.

A third confirmation of why the interpretation of the restrainer being the Holy Spirit is wrong is the assumption that the man of lawlessness must be a singular individual in the future. This is not true for several reasons. First, the parallels Paul draws are clear to the little horn power of Daniel. The lawless one blasphemes God, persecutes God’s people and rules until the end when Jesus returns. But Daniel is a historically interpreted book, because the days are years not literal days. That’s easily defended by the Daniel 8 and 9 relationship, and how the 70 weeks prophecy unlocks every other prophecy in Daniel and therefore Revelation. So if the little horn rules for 1260 years he cannot be a singular individual, but rather an institution of men, an office and power of some kind. That power came out of Rome (the 4th beast), and has ruled during the Church Age and will continue to rule until Jesus returns, because that power is the papacy. But what is the papacy? It is an institution of men, a power, an office, and each successive man brings more lawlessness into the world through his proclamations and decrees and receiving worship from the world while also persecuting the saints and attacking the truth.

We see further proof of this institutional reading when Paul tells Timothy about the ‘man of God’ in 1 Timothy 6:11 and 2 Timothy 3:17. In the former, Paul uses this term to refer to Timothy as the individual man of God, a man dedicated to study and teaching and godly things. Yet in the latter, Paul uses this as a phrase to refer to the office that Timothy holds as a servant, in the sense that scripture is sufficient to make that office complete. Therefore grammatically, and by parallel, (typologically) we see a connection between the ‘man of God’ and the ‘man of lawlessness’ - they are both institutions of men, successions of men, not singular individuals. Timothy was not the only man of God, and Pope Gregory I was not the only man of lawlessness.

Putting all of this together results in a clear picture that the restrainer is not the Holy Spirit and the man of lawlessness is not a singular wicked individual far in the future, and also that the revealing spoken of is not a physical revealing/appearing but rather a spiritual revealing. In other words, the restrainer that is preventing the man of lawlessness from being revealed is a circumstance in the world (not the Holy Spirit) that must come to pass before this blasphemous office becomes obvious to God’s people. The only reasonable explanation given the invocation of the little horn that comes out of the 4th beast that Paul makes is that the restrainer is therefore pagan Rome.

Pagan Rome as an empire was still in great power and expansion in the 1st century, and there were yet three more centuries to go before it would finally yield and Satan’s throne would be transferred to the papacy. Early Church Fathers like Tertullian, Chrysostom and others saw the fourth beast as Rome and the restrainer in 2 Thessalonians 2 as the Roman Empire. They expected the final persecuting antichrist power to emerge from Rome as a result, and this lines up with history. The political office of the Roman Caesars prevented Satan from exercising his final manifestation of power through the papacy. That isn’t to say that Satan wasn’t working actively through pagan Rome. To the contrary, Satan was incredibly active persecuting the Church - but his final plan required the Church to grow and, eventually, fuse with the State. And as God raised up enemies of Rome that eventually burned her to the ground, Satan transferred that power to the office of the papacy in fulfillment of the Bible’s warnings.

But even after this transfer, the blasphemies of this office did not become clear (’revealed’) until centuries more time passed. The persecutions, inquisitions, crusades, Great Schism, bible burning and, eventually, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. It took about a millennia for God’s people to finally identify this power, because in the beginning it wasn’t obvious. Yet as that power grew it did become obvious through all of these events, and today it is exceedingly obvious because the papacy is the only power that matches all of the qualities described in Daniel, Paul and Revelation.

A final thing I want to touch on here is the claim that the word ‘ekklesia’ (church, fellowship, assembly) is not mentioned in Revelation 4-18 and therefore that proves the secret rapture theory. This is yet another bogus assertion without any hermeneutical basis but purely based on carnal feelings and assertions. Yes, that word is not present in those chapters. But you know what is? The word ‘hagion’ (saints), like when it says in Revelation 13 that the beast was given power to make war with the saints and trample them. In fact the word ‘saints’ appears in chapters 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. So yes, the word ‘ekklesia’ does not appear, but who is the ekklesia? Is it not the assembly of the saints? To argue that there are saints that are counted not part of the ekklesia is unsubstantiated, because the ekklesia is made up of the saints. But if that’s the case, then dispensationalism is refuted because the saints appear throughout Revelation and throughout history, which means the Church is present throughout history until the very end. For dispensationalism to be true in its assertion here, you would need to either justify why the Church is present in two places at once with vastly different qualities of life (antichrist vs heaven), or justify why elect saints left on Earth and gathering together does not constitute the ekklesia. Neither of these positions are defensible.

It is here that the dispensationalist will try to argue that ekklesia refers to the New Testament Church, and that the saints of the Old Testament had their own separate ‘dispensation’ with God. But this is simply unsubstantiated by context and the original language itself.

The word ‘ekklesia’ literally means ‘assembly’ — and ‘assembly’ is not a word exclusive to the New Testament. In fact it appears over 70 times in the Greek Septuagint, which is the Greek text translated by 3rd century BC Jewish scholars themselves. Therefore the whole argument that there is some difference between the New Testament Church and the Old Testament saints is unsubstantiated, because God has always had an ‘ekklesia’ (assembly) and the people who were part of that assembly were the saints, those who were faithful and obedient to God. Paul explicitly defines the ekklesia as the body of Christ, but that doesn’t contradict this continuous relationship: it fulfills it. Just as Paul writes about the relationship between man and woman being a picture of Christ and the Church, and that reveals something that was always there yet did not have a label — so too is Paul revealing, by the Spirit, that the fullness of God’s assembly is manifest in the Church, which is the assembly of saints or saved elect that are faithful. The English word has nothing to do with the underlying reality, which from the original language is proven to be a continuous one. To try to invent ‘dispensations’ and divisions where God does no such thing is to divide where God unites and be completely dishonest with the textual evidence.

JOHN 14:2-3 — CELESTIAL PALACE OR REASSURANCE OF PRESENCE?

Now, with the first argument refuted, we proceed to the next argument, which focuses on the arrival of Jesus and the timing thereof:

“Claiming a Pre-Tribulation extraction requires a ‘Third Coming’ conflates two completely different biblical mechanics and commits a basic category error. In the Extraction described in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, Christ descends into the air, believers are snatched up to meet Him, and He returns with them to the Father’s house, as promised in John 14:2–3, without His feet ever touching the ground. In stark contrast, at the Second Coming detailed in Zechariah 14:4 and Revelation 19, Christ descends all the way to Earth, His feet touch the Mount of Olives, and He returns with His glorified saints already behind Him to execute judgment and establish the Millennial Kingdom. Calling the Rapture a ‘Third Coming’ is like calling an ambassadorial recall before an invasion a ‘second war,’ completely ignoring that they are distinct operational phases on God’s timeline.”

Like the previous argument, this relies on equivocations in order to justify itself. The main one being that the extraction described in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is a different arrival event than the one described in Zechariah 14:4 or Revelation 19. In the Greek text, the word use for meeting Christ in the air (apantesis) does have the connotation of meeting a dignitary outside the city walls, but the understanding is that the meeting is to escort them immediately back into the city, not do a complete U-turn and head outside the city.

So then 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is not inconsistent with Zechariah 14:4 or Revelation 19, in the same way that the various gospel accounts record slightly different details surrounding the passion and resurrection events and are not contradictory, but rather complementary. Dispensationalism tries to present these accounts of Christ’s return as contradictory (and therefore their conclusion of a third coming being justified) but they are complementary. Jesus will arrive, levitate everyone into the air, and then be escorted back down to Earth. It is possible we will join Him in Armageddon, or that He may complete that battle on His own before bringing us back down to claim the Earth. There is nothing inconsistent with this interpretation, because Paul’s focus is on one aspect while Zechariah or John is on another.

Adding to this are a variety of testimonies about Christ’s return that make the case abundantly clear: when Jesus returns it will be a single and extremely obvious event. Jesus describes His return in the gospels as full of lightning and power, and the 7th of the bowls, trumpets and seals align with this exact imagery. Jesus warns us in fact that we should not believe anyone when they claim they’ve seen Christ or that Christ has returned or that they are Christ, because His return will be physical, supernatural and unmistakeable. Resurrection will also be accompanied by Jesus’ return, something that was foreshadowed at the gospels, when several Old Testament saints were raised and went to proclaim the gospel in Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52). Paul says this resurrection will happen at the last trumpet (1 Corinthians 15:52), and both the dead will be raised and those who are left alive will be transformed. And because the last trumpet describes exactly the signs Jesus described for His return, all of this checks out completely and consistently.

What you have then is one return, not two. To argue from a single verse taken out of context that the God of the universe would return in secret, when in fact He promised a glorious return, is to rely on one’s one assumptions rather than exegete the text properly. Not a single time did Christ ever say He would return in secret or that He would rescue some believers and not others. Not a single theologian for the first 1800 years of Church history interpreted these verses to mean that there was some secret snatching away of some believers while leaving others, and then a third and final arrival of Christ afterward.

The justification for a secret rapture is a 7 year tribulation, but Christianity has been in tribulation since its inception. If people being fed to lions for sport or murdered by communists in cold blood doesn’t count as tribulation then nothing does. Jesus’ words in Revelation addressing the seven churches shows us how God thinks about this situation very clearly. Smyrna, the most persecuted church, was congratulated and encouraged to endure. Meanwhile Laodicea, the lukewarm church, was rebuked and told to endure suffering so as to build their character. If these are also phases of the Church Age, and certainly the justification exists, how then can Christ contradict Himself and come to rescue the very group He told needs to mature spiritually with suffering and trials? How can there be a period of 7 years of tribulation greater than millions dying in the Holodomor, or Inquisitions, or world wars or Roman crucifixions? How can tribulation be future when John acknowledges that he is with his fellow brothers in ‘the tribulation’ already? (Revelation 1:9) If God has an elect bride that He foreknew before time began, how can He make distinctions between one group of elect and another, by rescuing one and leaving the other to endure the worst chapter of history?

None of these issues are reconcilable with scripture, which is why there is no justification for a 7 year tribulation, and therefore no justification for a ‘pre-tribulation rapture.’

THE JEWISH WEDDING MYTH

Moving on to the next equivocation. Our dear dispensationalist says the following:

“Furthermore, first-century covenantal theology—and Jesus’s exact words in John 14:2–3—is modeled precisely after the ancient Galilean wedding protocol. The covenant is legally sealed at the Betrothal when the price is paid at the Cross, after which the Groom departs to His Father’s house to build a bridal chamber. The Groom then returns unexpectedly—typically at night with a shout and a trumpet—to snatch the Bride away to the Father’s house. The Bride remains hidden inside the bridal chamber for seven days while the wedding feast occurs, directly mirroring the seven-year Tribulation on Earth, before the Groom and Bride finally emerge together to reveal themselves to the world. Your post-tribulation model forces the Groom to snatch the Bride in mid-air only to immediately turn around and slam her back down onto a devastated battlefield, completely gutting the ancient covenantal picture Jesus painted for His followers.”

Here we see an all-too-common argument, which is (supposedly) the typology of the Galilean wedding. But the Galilean wedding as it is presented by these people is a myth. Firstly, there is absolutely no historical, archaeological or even rabbinic evidence from the first century establishing a clear-cut, distinct Galilean wedding protocol that matches this 7-day hidden chamber narrative. So then where does it come from? By and large this is fictitious dispensational mythology arising out of the popularized 2020 documentary, Before the Wrath. In this production they rely on medieval European Jewish customs to proleptically describe what people 2000 years ago were thinking, but this is anachronistic at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

To make things even worse for dispensationalists, what we do have about ancient Judean and Galilean customs is that in these cultures the ‘chuppah’ (bridal chamber) was not a place where the couple hid away for seven days while a party happened without them. The marriage feast was the celebration of the union, and the bride and groom were the central, visible figures of the festivities. They were not prisoners in a secret room waiting for things to come to an end. That doesn’t even make any sense.

Now, it is true that the Bible and New Testament especially use a lot of wedding metaphors for the Church and Christ. Revelation talks about the marriage supper of the Lamb, Paul describes the relationship of marriage between a man and a woman as imaging Christ and the Church, and the Church is called the bride several times and even pictured as a woman in Revelation. All of that is well established and valid. But when you start making direct prophetic and eschatological claims that have consequences on history, and even soteriology, and all you have to go on is a metaphor - this is not good. And when the very thing you’re building an entire case from doesn’t even have historical support for the time period you’re trying to say it’s from, that’s even worse. These kinds of things are in the same group of error as Catholics trying to argue that Mary is the new ark of the covenant based on over-stretched typological pictures and metaphors. It is poor hermeneutics and weak exegesis.

One more thing to address is the notion that John 14:2-3 describes some celestial palace that Jesus is taking people into. The answer of course is that this is not the case. It is a fact that nobody has ever gone to heaven other than Jesus, as He tells us in John 3:13. That immediately disqualifies Enoch and Elijah and Moses, as so many erroneously believe. Enoch was taken by God in the sense that he was given a quick and painless death, so that he wouldn’t be abused by Nephilim. Elijah was taken into the sky and placed somewhere else, because he wrote a letter to king Jeroboam several years later. Moses died, and the vision the apostles saw on Mount Hermon at the transfiguration was just that: a vision. Jesus tells them to keep the vision to themselves, therefore what they saw was a picture about Christ, not raptured Old Testament saints in heaven.

So if nobody has gone into heaven, and Jesus is coming back down to Earth to rule on Earth, and if New Jerusalem is our final home, and Isaiah says the Earth was made to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18), on what basis would God suddenly go against all of these precedents and take people into the celestial realm for many years? And while other elect are being tortured by the antichrist? Again, it makes zero sense.

Therefore the point of John 14:2-3 is not that Jesus is going to prepare a special room in God’s palace (and only temporarily at that), but rather to prepare a place for His chosen elect in the new Earth. Part of Jesus’ ruling period in heaven is to prepare the final reality, and that is what He is doing. He is conquering His enemies under His feet, and when the final enemy (death) is destroyed at the 2nd coming, the Earth will be renewed and we will all have our own homes and jobs and things to do in the presence of God Himself. That future reality is what Jesus is preparing, because the emphasis is not on a celestial palace but on being in the presence of God and with God.

Now it is here that a very clever dispensationalist, like the one in question, will pull out names and dates in an effort to try to impress you into capitulating to their fairytale. They will cite the work of Alfred Edersheim, a well-known historian of the 19th century who did substantial work on ancient Near East weddings and culture. But Alfred Edersheim explains Galilean customs, not the rapture myth. He was actually a post-tribulation historicist/amillennial theologian of the Church of Scotland in the 1800’s. Yes, in his work, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, he dedicates specific sections to Jewish weddings (such as the wedding at Cana), where he notes that in Galilee, weddings were characterized by ‘simpler and purer’ customs than Judea. He explicitly claims that the bride and groom were accompanied by friends to the chuppah. That much is true.

However, and fatal for the dispensationalist, nowhere in Edersheim’s extensive volumes does he ever suggest that the couple hid for seven days while a party happened without them, nor does he ever correlate a wedding timeline to a 7-year dispensational tribulation or a pre-tribulation rapture. To appropriate his work to theories he never held is not only intellectually dishonest but stupid.

So the entire crux of the argument for the rapture rides on this invented idea that the bride was ‘hidden away’ in the chuppah for seven days while the world around her suffers. Historically and textually this is exactly the opposite of ancient Near Eastern practices documented by Edersheim. The chuppah was public and immediate, because in Jewish culture it was a highly decorated bridal tent or canopy of some kind, right in the middle of the village or father’s estate. It was not an isolation chamber hidden away in a distant location. If anyone wants to make that claim, where is their evidence? It doesn’t come from Edersheim, so then who?

Furthermore, the seven days of rejoicing (sheva brachot) were not seven days of isolation. They were seven days of public festivities and feasting. The bride and groom did not disappear, they were treated like royalty, crowned and sat at the center of the community festival for an entire week. To insist that these basic things demand a situation that leads to completely irreconcilable theology is not only intellectually dishonest but stupid. Christ suffers with His people, He doesn’t shut Himself away with a handful of elect at a small party while the rest are being tortured to death by Satan. What an abominable soteriology and eschatology that is, but because people judge with their emotions they are blinded to their own errors.

THE TRIBULATION & GOD’S WRATH

Moving on to the final part of this silly argument, our dispensationalist friend says the following:

“Finally, your argument that Christians have suffered throughout history—and continue to suffer today—relies on a massive confusion between man’s persecution and God’s divine wrath. Scripture explicitly warns that believers will face earthly tribulation and persecution caused by a hostile world system, Satan, and corrupt men, which Christ promised we would endure. However, the Great Tribulation is the supernatural, global judgment poured out directly by God when the Lamb opens the seals of Revelation. 1 Thessalonians 5:9 explicitly states that God did not appoint us to suffer wrath, but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. Expecting God’s Bride to be subjected to the specific judicial wrath meant to break rebellious nations isn’t hardcore theology — it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Blood Covenant, because while the church has always faced martyrdom from men, it was never designated to bear the divine execution of God’s final seals.”

By now it should be obvious that these things, though seemingly convincing on face value (because of their emotional appeal) are wrong and unsubstantiated. But this last segment is very clever, so let’s take it apart. It relies on several equivocations and sleights of hand. They invoke 1 Thessalonians 5:9 to argue (correctly) that God is not going to judge the elect. Romans 8:1 tells us the same. There is no condemnation for God’s people. There may be trials, but we will all be resurrected and not face the supernatural plagues at the end of time and also the second death. That’s good news. But it is here that the first gaping hole of this position screams loudly: if God has not destined any elect for wrath, and there are still people during the 7 year tribulation that need to repent, then there are indeed predestined elect that are left behind and will ‘wake up’ when all the supernatural judgments get thrown on the Earth, which means there are elect that are experiencing God’s wrath. This is irreconcilable with the texts just cited, therefore it counts as fail #1.

Fail #2 is assuming that the seals and trumpets happen in the future, but they do not. The seals and trumpets are happening throughout history, it is the bowls that happen in quick succession at the end of time. The bowls mirror the plagues on Egypt, begin after the world has taken the mark, do not have any time stamps (like the 5 months for the 5th trumpet) and other contextual clues tell us they are quick, like the taunt against Mystery Babylon in Revelation 18. The seals and trumpets, by contrast, along with the first two woes, are all historical and happen throughout time because they symbolize judgments on God’s enemies (as Jesus is putting the enemies under His feet) and changes in the Church itself that parallel the deterioration of the Church as seen in the seven churches sequence. It is also the case that the plagues in Egypt lasted approximately 3 weeks, and so the judgments that are poured out (beginning with the first bowl and sores) are also going to be rapid. There is zero indication from the text that the judgments of Revelation will occupy a period of 7 years.

This can be refuted in another way, by establishing the day to year principle. Daniel is the foundation for Revelation, and if the 1260 period is years and not days, that means all other periods in Revelation (including the 5 months or 150 days of the 5th trumpet) are actually years, not days. In this way it is proven that these trumpets are not crunched together with the seals and bowls at the end in some 7 year period, but rather happening throughout time as layers parallel to the changing phases of the Church. Therefore the notion that these things will all happen in 7 years is false for many reasons and it is irreconcilable with the text. It is based on pure imagination, and it requires equivocating on soteriology (election) in order to be justified.

EXAMINING CLAIMS OF EARLY RAPTURE THOUGHT

A final card the clever dispensationalist will have up their sleeve is to claim that early patristic sources actually espoused the notion of a pre-tribulation rapture. One popular example that travels by meme is a supposed quote from Ephraim the Syrian from the 4th century, which goes something like this:

“For the elect shall be gathered prior to the tribulation, so they shall not see the confusion and the great tribulation coming upon the unrighteous world.”

The citation is attributed to Ephraim’s Sermon on Repentance and Judgment and the Separation of the Soul from the Body, and it seems pretty decisive evidence for the pre-tribulation rapture well before Darby and Scofield and Irving. But when you’re dealing with history, especially ancient history, you always have to be thorough and triple check everything. Why this matters is because this quote is actually not from Ephraim at all. It is a spurious and mis-attributed quote, and on top of that it is taken completely out of context.

So where does it actually come from? The answer is that it comes from a later Latin apocalyptic sermon titled, On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World. Church historians universally catalog this author as Pseudo-Ephraim. The “pseudo” in front of the name means these are not his writings but rather someone else pretending to be him. Internal textual evidence (such as mentions of the fall of the Roman Empire and Islamic invasions) proves it was penned centuries later, likely between the 6th and 8th centuries, since Islam didn’t arise until the 600’s.

This means that the attribution of the sermon is a complete fabrication. That actual homily by the genuine St. Ephraim was a meditation on a soul facing physical death and the localized judgment seat of God. The sermon the real Ephraim wrote contains zero apocalyptic timeline mapping or mentions of a global tribulation escape. So those promoting this quote are promoting a lie, because the quote was copy-pasted from Pseudo-Ephraim's On the Last Times and slapped onto a completely different title to make it seem like mainstream patristic theology, when in fact it isn’t.

Even if we look at the actual source text by Pseudo-Ephraim, the quote is stripped of its immediate context and it refutes the rapture theory, not supports it. In the original language versions of this homily (such as the Syriac recensions), the author explicitly explains how the elect are gathered before the tribulation through dying naturally before the chaos begins. The text literally says: “Blessed are you for you were borne away (to the grave) and hence you escaped from the afflictions!”

Later in the very same sermon, Pseudo-Ephraim writes that during the actual Great Tribulation, the inescapable doom will overwhelm “all people, just and unjust...” and that Christians will be present dying in such massive numbers from the Antichrist’s persecution that there will be no one left to bury them. So Pseudo-Ephraim was what we would call a ‘classic imminent intra-tribulationist’ — a common worldview for many early Christians including the apostles. Pseudo-Ephraim believed Christians were entering the tribulation and that the only escape hatch for the elect was physical death. This view is consistent with the over-arching theme of the New Testament to endure to the resurrection. But modern prophecy writers (specifically popularized by pop-eschatologists like Grant Jeffrey in the 1990s and others) ripped a single sentence out of the Latin translation to claim they found a medieval rapture.

But they didn’t, it’s all made up and taken out of context and misattributed.

Now what about other patristic sources? Dispensationalists frequently comb through the Church Fathers looking for keywords like ‘caught up’ or ‘escape’ to claim historical validation. But when we examine each one, we see the same exact pattern of taking things out of context and misattributing them to fit a fairytale that nobody ever believed.

Irenaeus (130-202 AD) — they point to Against Heresies V.29 where he writes, “When the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, there shall be tribulation…”. But Irenaeus isn’t teaching a pre-tribulation rapture, he’s actually doing the opposite. His view was that there would already be tribulation when the catching up (harpazo) would happen at Christ’s return, along with the resurrection.

Cyprian of Carthage (210-258 AD) — they point to De Mortalitate where he writes, “We who say that the world is collapsing… should rejoice at the departure of the resurrection… escaping the ruin of the coming world.” Important to understand that during Cyprian’s time there was a substantial plague, so he argued that dying of disease was a blessing from God because it spared them from seeing the earthly decay and judgment of the Roman empire. Not a single time does Cyprian ever mention being rescued and taken to heaven for a seven year period.

Victorinus of Pettau (3rd-4th century) — they point to Commentary on the Apocalypse where he notes the Church is “taken away” before the angels strike the earth with plagues. But in context what he is actually writing about is the Church being taken out from the midst of Rome (as many early sources at that time saw Rome as integral to Christian persecution and the final system), and being placed in the wilderness. Victorinus was not teaching a secret whisking away of believers into heaven while other elect were left behind to suffer worse than anyone in history.

So what do we have? What we have is a consistent pattern of misattribution and lying, because demonic doctrines aren’t based on truth so they need to deceive in order to have any power. That is why the pre-tribulation rapture is a false doctrine from the pit of hell. Not a single theologian worth their weight in Church history believed these things until the 1800’s. Any claims or attributions to patristics or early theologians to the contrary are spurious and fabricated or taken wildly out of their context. Christianity has always taught perseverance and endurance to the resurrection, with the hope being the return of Christ so that all things could be renewed. The hope has never been going to heaven when you die or being rescued from tribulation magically while other elect (who do not yet believe) get left behind and endure wrath. God would never do such a thing, so those who insist on these doctrines of devils do not understand the gospel and they certainly do not understand eschatology.

In case you missed it, here are this week’s posts and stories. Don't forget that after this week they will get devoured by the big bad paywall monster, so make sure you subscribe if you want to reference them later — plus you'll get some awesome perks :)

IMPORTANT: Gmail or other email services may truncate this email because they’re lame, so make sure to see the whole message.

After producing a 1000+ hour theology library and writing over 5000+ pages of books, articles and answers to questions — I have come to a simple conclusion: God is sovereign. And when we employ this lens to each topic in theology we experience a marvelous realization, which is that all true doctrines lead us back to the sovereignty of God and are an extension of a sovereign view of God. The inverse is also true, because all error stems from denying God’s sovereignty in some way. Therefore this book aims to be a companion on your walk with Christ, to help you walk as narrow and biblical of a way as possible so that your perspective on life and God are transformed forever. In it I share with you the most profound realizations from my years of intense study, connecting all seven major doctrines together into one consistent view which I hope will inspire you to marvel at God and rejoice at His soon return.

To listen to all of the recordings, purchase the book or poster, or simply learn about this project you can go here.

This is the replay for the recent AMA (ask me anything) on Soteriology.

• 00:00 - Introduction & Housekeeping

• 09:48 - Substack Questions

• 1:11:35 - YouTube Questions

• 1:49:16 - SuperChats

A conspiracy narrative has been circulating for some years now, and especially since the Zionist exposure began in late 2023, and it has enough surface plausibility to catch thoughtful people. The claim, in its various forms, is that the word “Jew” is a modern invention, or a sixteenth-century mistranslation, or a term that entered English only in the 1200s with the letter J, and that it therefore has no legitimate connection to the biblical people of Judah. This claim interweaves with some truth, and this is why it is convincing, yet it is a gateway into trutherism, Satan’s little season narratives, Serpent Seed narratives, Jew-focused views of the world power structure and other deceptions. Nevertheless, on the strength of that alleged disconnection, an entire edifice is built, claiming that “Jew” is a fabricated label with no biblical warrant, that the Bible never speaks of “Jews” at all (but rather “Judeans” who were supposedly “different” in various social, political and genetic ways), and that anyone using the term has been deceived by a linguistic sleight of hand.

I want to address this with nuance, because the narrative works by attaching a false conclusion to several true facts that I myself have exposed over the years. Some of what its proponents say is correct. The word “Jew” did enter English relatively late, and English itself is a very new language historically speaking. Either way, it is not a clean letter-for-letter transliteration (like “Iesous” is from “Yeshua” or “Jesus” from “Iesous”). In many New Testament contexts “Judean” is probably the better English rendering, because it’s a little more specific. Conceding those points costs nothing, because none of them establishes the conclusion. The conclusion requires that “Jew” be divorced from “Judah,” and the etymology makes that divorce impossible. That’s because the word is a lineal descendant of Judah’s own name, and every serious lexical authority in existence agrees on this issue.

I have spent considerable effort exposing Zionism, dispensationalism, and the political misuse of Jewish identity, and I understand the impulse behind this narrative. People sense (correctly) that the modern term “Jew” carries meanings that have nothing to do with the tribe of Judah two thousand years ago. This is true. But the remedy for a word with an inflated semantic range is context, not the invention of a false etymology or conspiracies. Fighting one deception with another only makes the truth more difficult to discern, which is a win for the enemy regardless and this is the greater point of today.

THE ETYMOLOGICAL CHAIN

The origin of the word is not in dispute among the people who study words for a living. The chain runs as follows, and it is confirmed identically by the Oxford English Dictionary, the Online Etymology Dictionary, the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia.com’s Oxford sources, and Wiktionary:

• Hebrew Yehudah, יְהוּדָה, the name of Jacob’s fourth son and of the tribe descended from him, rendered in Genesis 29:35 as “praise.”

• Hebrew Yehudi, יְהוּדִי, the gentilic adjective formed from that name, meaning “of Judah.”

• Aramaic Yehudai, the same word in the language of the exile and the Persian court.

• Koine Greek Ioudaios, Ἰουδαῖος, a loan from the Aramaic, which the Septuagint’s own Hellenistic Jewish translators chose to render Yehudi. Note something important here: the Greek term that supposedly “mistranslates” the Hebrew was selected by Jews translating their own Scripture.

• Latin Iudaeus, following the Greek.

• Old French giu, earlier juieu, which dropped the “d” from the Latin Iudaeus through ordinary phonetic elision (omission of a sound due to casual or fast speech).

• Middle English, in which the word appears from about 1000 to 1600 in a bewildering variety of spellings: Iudea, Gyu, Giu, Iuu, Iuw, Iew, and finally Jew, with the J spelling predominating from the sixteenth century as the letter J itself differentiated from I across European orthography.

That is the whole pedigree throughout history. It is a continuous line of descent from the name of Judah, through four languages, into English. The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia states it very matter of fact: the forms “were derived from the Old French Giu, which was earlier written Juieu, derived from the Latin accusative Judæum with the elision of the letter d,” the Latin from the Greek, the Greek from the Aramaic, and the whole “a gentilic adjective from the proper name Judah.” No serious source anywhere breaks this chain. They all agree on this history, so either countless scholars throughout the centuries are unilaterally wrong — or modern day truthers are wrong.

TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS

Two objections raised against this deserve a direct and honest response, because conceding them strengthens rather than weakens the case.

First, “Jew” is not, strictly speaking, a transliteration. A transliteration is a single deliberate act that carries a word letter-by-letter from one alphabet into another, as when Hebrew Yeshua was carried into Greek as Iesous. “Jew” is the product of something messier: a long phonetic evolution across Aramaic, Greek, Latin, French, and English, with sounds eroding and letters dropping at each stage. But this simple fact only strengthens the case. Transliteration and phonetic evolution are both forms of derivation. A word that evolved from Judah’s name across a thousand years is no less descended from Judah than a word transliterated from it in a single stroke (like Iesous). If anything, the long organic evolution proves a deeper and more continuous connection, not a weaker one. You cannot appeal to the length and messiness of the chain to argue that the chain does not exist.

Second, in many New Testament passages “Judean” is genuinely the better English rendering, and the Gospels frequently use Ioudaioi to mark a geographic and factional distinction, the people and authorities of Judea over against Galilee. This is a fair and scholarly point. In John especially, “the Ioudaioi” who oppose Jesus are often best understood as the Judean religious establishment centered on Jerusalem, not the whole ethnic body. Paul refers to these as the “circumcision party” in several places. So, I have no quarrel with rendering it “Judean” in those contexts, and doing so often clarifies the text. But here we need nuance. It is a point about translation choice in particular contexts. It is not a point about etymology, and it does nothing to sever “Jew” from “Judah,” because “Judean” is itself derived from Judah by way of Judea. Whichever English word one prefers, both trace to the same root. Those who want the “Judean” reading to prove that “Jew” is illegitimate are in error, because “Judean” and “Jew” are two English descendants of the same Greek word Ioudaios, which is one Greek descendant of the same Hebrew name. Preferring one cousin does not orphan the other. They are equivalent terms, and read in context there is no issue because context determines the meaning of a word.

WHERE THIS ARGUMENT ACTUALLY COLLAPSES

The mistranslation thesis makes a specific, testable claim: that Ioudaios in the New Testament means, in most cases, a resident of the Roman province of Judea, or more narrowly the elite of Jerusalem, and that it carries no tribal or ethnic sense tied to Judah. This claim is simply false to the text, and the counterexamples are as clear as day:

• The Samaritan woman at the well calls Jesus a Ioudaios in John 4:9, and He does not correct her. He was raised in Galilee, yet the term is applied to Him on the basis of His people and lineage, not His province of residence, and He lets it stand.

• Paul calls himself a Ioudaios in Acts 21:39 and Acts 22:3, and in Romans 11:1 grounds the claim explicitly in descent: “an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.” The term for him is a matter of bloodline, not postal address.

• Aquila is called a Ioudaios in Acts 18:2, though he was a native of Pontus, not Judea. Apollos is called a Ioudaios in Acts 18:24, though he was of Alexandria. Neither was a “resident of Judea” or a member of the Jerusalem elite. The term attaches to their people, not their location.

• In Romans 2 and 3, Paul builds an entire argument on the distinction between Ioudaios and Greek, a distinction that is meaningless if the word denotes mere provincial residence. He is contrasting two peoples defined by covenant and bloodline descent, not two zip codes.

Once these are on the table, the “resident of Judea, in most cases the Jerusalem elite” thesis collapses. The word demonstrably ranges over people identified by ancestry, by covenant membership, and by religion, applied to a Galilean, to a man of Pontus, to a man of Alexandria, and to a Benjamite from Tarsus. It cannot be confined to a Roman administrative category.

THE REAL ISSUE IS SEMANTIC RANGE, NOT ETYMOLOGY

What the conspiracy narrative has actually stumbled onto is a genuine linguistic phenomenon, but it is (as usual) taken in the wrong direction and off balance. That is, the word “Jew” does carry meanings today that have nothing to do with the tribe of Judah. It can mean for example an adherent of rabbinic Judaism, a religion that took its developed form centuries after Christ. It can also mean an Ashkenazi or Sephardic ethnic identity. It can mean a citizen of the modern Zionist state. Since the 1600’s or so it also has been slur to describe a greedy, scheming person. These meanings are real, and they have inflated the term far beyond its origin.

But this is not corruption of etymology. It is expansion of semantic range, and it is the most ordinary thing in the world for a living word continuing through thousands of years of history. The remedy for this problem is context, and the parallel that settles it is the word “Christian.” I have talked about this several times in my presentations. If someone says “Christian” today, the term now covers Roman Catholics, Mormons, prosperity preachers, and a hundred mutually contradictory groups Paul would not have recognized. It is also highly ecumenical because of this fact. But now, does the modern misuse of “Christian” make it wrong to call Peter a Christian, or to call ourselves Christians? Of course not. Peter tells us not to be ashamed to suffer as a Christian in 1 Peter 4:16. The word simply has to be contextualized so the reader knows which sense is meant. And when someone tells you about a “Christian church” or a “Christian book” or a “Christian author” or a “Christian event” — you are right to raise your eyebrow just slightly and ask, “What do you mean by that?” Well, the word “Jew” is identical. It is entirely accurate to call Paul a Jew, because that is the English descendant of the word he applied to himself, provided one contextualizes that he means a man of the tribe and covenant, not an adherent of a religious or political system that did not yet exist. What is not accurate is to call Abraham or Isaac a Jew, or Moses a Jew, or Debrah a Jew or Samson a Jew or a myriad of other biblical heroes Jews because they were either predating Judah or not from that tribe.

So this is the whole answer, and it is more honest and balanced than the conspiracy version. The word is not fabricated. It is not a mistranslation. It is a legitimate and ancient descendant of Judah’s name whose range has widened over two millennia, and which therefore requires the same contextual care that “Christian,” “church,” and a dozen other loaded terms require today. What’s the lesson? Context, context, context.

THE COMPLICATION OF JUDEA AND EDOM

There is one further layer that the conspiracy narrative distorts, and it is worth going deeper on because it is where the real history is genuinely complicated.

By the time of Christ, “Judea” as a Roman province name did not correspond cleanly to the tribal area of Judah. After the Babylonian exile destroyed the genealogical clarity of the northern tribes, and after the Hasmonean, or Maccabean, dynasty in the second century BC forcibly circumcised and absorbed the Edomites, the descendants of Esau, into the body of Judah rather than expelling them, with a further issue being that the population calling itself by this name was already mixed by that point. Herod the Great and Herod Antipas were Edomites, Idumeans, who had bought their standing. So by the first century, a man calling himself Ioudaios might be a genuine descendant of Judah like Jesus and Paul, an Edomite convert, or some blend of the two, and the records to distinguish them had largely been destroyed in AD 70 and again after AD 135 with the various Jewish revolts and Roman judgments.

This is real history, and it matters enormously for how we read the Gospels and for the modern chosen-people question. But notice what it does and does not do to the etymology. It explains why the referent of the word became muddy — why the people the word pointed at (Jews/Judeans) were no longer a pure tribal body. It does not change where the word itself came from. “Judea” is still named after Judah; the province took its name from the tribe whose territory it centered on, which is precisely why the syllable Jud/Yud binds all these words together through time. The Edomite absorption complicated the bloodline the word described. It did not sever the word from its root in Judah. The conspiracy narrative confuses a complication of reference with a fabrication of etymology, and they are two entirely different things.

THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF TRANSLATION

A final point to mention is that when you’re dealing with translation you will always balance two things that are mutually exclusive. On one side is accuracy and on the other is intelligibility (understanding). Regardless of the languages themselves, nouns and verbs, adjectives, even descriptions for experiences — these cannot be 100% transplanted into another language. If you are too accurate and literal, it will be almost impossible to understand. If you are too paraphrased, the meaning will get lost. And regardless of what you do there is always something lost in translation.

Now add a layer of fundamentally different cultural, spiritual and geographic realities. Now add over a millennia of time difference. This is what you get with Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew and English — all of the languages that come into play in Bible translation. By the time English was even a language, a lot of time had passed since the cross, and with it many significant changes. The word “Judean” today has no meaning, because Judea doesn’t exist anymore. The word “Jew” means way more things than what it meant for Paul or Jesus 2,000 years ago. So this is the problem.

But even if you were to replace every instance of “Jew” in the New Testament with “Judean” — your problem still wouldn’t be solved. Do you think Darby or Scofield or the Jesuits would not have been able to deceive the world with dispensationalism if the text in English read “Judean” instead of “Jew”? Do you think people would have not frothed at the mouth for a Jewish revival, Zionism, the rapture or a 7 year tribulation if these words were different? The answer is no, because the deception going on with these things has to do with something real in the world — it replaces the true, invisible Church with a fleshly people group. Whatever you call that group doesn’t matter, it’s the sleight of hand that is the problem.

So at the end of the day the same solution is what we arrive at, which is context. Context solves these problems because context is the ability to consider social and political realities of the author, what they were trying to convey, who they were writing to and why, what was the original language and what other things that author said. If people employed these skills consistently it wouldn’t matter what translation they used and deception wouldn’t exist. But they don’t, and as a result they get snagged by various schemes of the devil because they cherry pick, ignore the intent of the author, do not compare his other writings and ignore the cultural and historical context or the audience it was written to.

CONCLUSION

The burden of proof in this debate lies exactly where it has sat unmet throughout, which is etymology. Anyone claiming that “Jew” is a fabrication or a mistranslation must produce an etymology in which “Jew” does not descend from “Judean,” and “Judean” does not descend from “Judah.” If you want to claim that it is a medieval contrivance or some made up word that secret reptilian Zionists created to rewrite history and trick everyone into believe they are actually relatives of Judah — where is your evidence? The answer is that you do not have evidence. No such etymology exists, because the descent is unbroken and unanimously attested from the Hebrew Yehudah forward. Every dictionary, including the Jewish sources the narrative would presumably trust least to serve a Zionist agenda, records the same chain. In other words they all agree, and consensus puts the burden of proof on the one challenging it.

So the honest position is the boring one. “Jew” is a real, old, legitimate English word for the people and, by extension, the religion that descend from Judah. It is not made up. It is not a mistranslation. It entered English late only because English itself is a late language, and it looks different from its Hebrew ancestor only because a thousand years of ordinary sound-change stand between them, exactly as “Jesus” looks different from “Yeshua” for the same reason. What has genuinely happened is that the word’s range has swollen to cover peoples, politics, and a religious system that the biblical term never contained, which means the word must always be handled with context. That is a call for careful reading, not for conspiracy. And it is a far stronger foundation for critiquing Zionism and dispensationalism than a fabricated etymology could ever be, because it rests on the truth, and the truth does not collapse the moment someone checks a dictionary.

For a treatment of these and other theological topics in detail, please see my book “The Seven Transformations: Finding the Narrow Road by Pursuing a Sovereign Christ.”

Omar recently invited me on his show to discuss current events and conspiracies, so we will be going live on YouTube in 30 minutes at 8PM EST. I will not post another notification, so if you want to join us and hang out or chat — this will be the link. Go ahead and bookmark it and we will see you then!

Bookmark

Read more

In case you missed it, here are this week’s posts and stories. Don't forget that after this week they will get devoured by the big bad paywall monster, so make sure you subscribe if you want to reference them later — plus you'll get some awesome perks :)

IMPORTANT: Gmail or other email services may truncate this email because they’re lame, so make sure to see the whole message.

After producing a 1000+ hour theology library and writing over 5000+ pages of books, articles and answers to questions — I have come to a simple conclusion: God is sovereign. And when we employ this lens to each topic in theology we experience a marvelous realization, which is that all true doctrines lead us back to the sovereignty of God and are an ext…

Read more

Over the years I have spent hundreds of hours creating a high value library that can help you navigate the deception in the world and also help you marvel at God’s word. Today I want to announce the next phase of this journey as the library turns into a living book and community platform through the FENNEC app.

• 00:00 - Introduction

• 02:32 - What is FENNEC?

• …

Read more

We are just about to go live, so join today’s stream and let’s have some fun. Today’s topic is Soteriology, so ask me anything on the gospel, salvation, predestination, etc.

Join Live

Read more

In case you missed it, here are this week’s posts and stories. Don't forget that after this week they will get devoured by the big bad paywall monster, so make sure you subscribe if you want to reference them later — plus you'll get some awesome perks :)

IMPORTANT: Gmail or other email services may truncate this email because they’re lame, so make sure to see the whole message.

Submit your questio…

Read more

After producing a 1000+ hour theology library and writing over 5000+ pages of books, articles and answers to questions — I have come to a simple conclusion: God is sovereign. And when we employ this lens to each topic in theology we experience a marvelous realization, which is that all true doctrines lead us back to the sovereignty of God and are an ext…

Read more

As we can expect with anything in the world, because God has cursed the world to get worse as time comes to an end, everything that is good decays and gets crappier by default. The Internet itself, though a fraction of humanity’s history, has demonstrated this perfectly in its brief lifespan of 30 something years — going from MySpace profiles and AOL di…

Read more

As the world is ravaged by war and economic hardship, dialectics and culture shaping are being pushed to their maximum. Ecumenism is rapidly herding all of Christianity into one pen, and people are demanding a common good solution to the injustices created by the corporate class. But these and many other threads are all tied to the same hand, and that h…

Read more

I will be going live for an AMA (Ask Me Anything) on this coming Monday, August 31st at 12PM (Mountain Time, Arizona). The topic will be Soteriology (salvation). You can join and have fun in the chat, and ask me your burning questions on all matters of the gospel, salvation, election, predestination, and everything in between. If you don’t know where to…

Read more

In the last 20 or so years, it has become increasingly fashionable to question everything. Not that questioning is itself wrong, because we should question and examine all things. However with the rise of the Internet, social media, trutherism and conspiracy culture -- it has become ‘hip’ to be extreme in one’s views on practically any topic. In other w…

Read more

In case you missed it, here are this week’s posts and stories. Don't forget that after this week they will get devoured by the big bad paywall monster, so make sure you subscribe if you want to reference them later — plus you'll get some awesome perks :)

IMPORTANT: Gmail or other email services may truncate this email because they’re lame, so make sure to see the whole message.

After producing a 1000+ hour theology library and writing over 5000+ pages of books, articles and answers to questions — I have come to a simple conclusion: God is sovereign. And when we employ this lens to each topic in theology we experience a marvelous realization, which is that all true doctrines lead us back to the sovereignty of God and are an ext…

Read more

As is the case with any new thing, there are always tweaks and changes because I am a hopeless perfectionist and technology always has shenanigans. Below are some more updates that have recently been pushed to the new FENNEC app. Enjoy!

1. The space to type in the Chat tab has been modified to be slightly wider vertically by default, and also to dynamically…

Read more