I consider this a fringe commentary as Courson introduces alternative exegetical meaning to make a point not necessarily held in the scriptural context. Courson takes a stretched path to interpret 'apostasia' in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 as a physical departure from 'truth' which in context is not the meaning. The Apostle Paul says in Second Corinthians verse 11:25, "Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one." Courson attributes Paul's account as a beating of thirty-nine lashes being enough to kill a man—which is not only inaccurate, but completely wrong! The correct reason Paul received forty lashes—or stripes—less one is because Deuteronomy 25:3 specifies no more than forty lashes. To be sure the law would not be violated or at risk of being violated by a miscount, the rabbinical rule became forty lashes minus one. Thus the law is stated that forty lashes is met, but not broken, and Paul was stating the exact rabbinical rule. The brutality of a scourge attributed to Paul's flogging account as particularly deadly on the premise that receiving a full forty lashes would cause death is wrong because the Romans used such devices for torture, but the Jews did not. The Jewish flog was made of three strands of calfskin so that a count of thirteen strikes would equal thirty nine lashes. I am unable to give confidence to a work that borders on eisegesis and disregards background accuracy.