Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7:36-40: A Father and His Daughter or a Man and His Betrothed?

by

The interpretation of 7:36-38 is a matter of debate as a comparison of the NASB and ESV reveals.

NASB:

But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry. 37 But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. 38 So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.

ESV:

If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. 37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. 38 So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.

The first obvious translation difference is the NASB’s “virgin daughter” in contrast to the ESV’s “betrothed.” In favor of “betrothed,” Garland cites several passages where the betrothed are said to be virgins (Matt. 1:18, 23; Luke 1:27; 2 Cor. 11:2). But in none of these cases does “virgin” mean betrothed. All who are betrothed would be expected to be virgins, but not all virgins are betrothed. Some appeal to the English idiom “his girl” to support the translation “betrothed” (Barrett, 184), but appealing to English idioms seems like an exegetical stretch. In favor of “virgin daughter,” παρθένος never means betrothed anywhere in Scripture (LXX or GNT), Plato, Philo, or the Apostolic Fathers. However, it must be acknowledged that when Scripture refers to a virgin daughter, in other passages “daughter” is explicit in the text (Judges 19:24; 2 Sam. 13:18, etc). In extra-biblical Greek Sophocles does use “my virgins” for “my daughters” (Morris citing LSJ, 117). On the balance, the usage leans towards interpreting “his virgin” as “his virgin daughter.” It may be that Paul avoided the term daughter to keep the relationship indefinite so that the teaching applies to both fathers and guardians.

The second translation difficulty is between the NASB’s “if she is past her youth” and the ESV’s “if his passions are strong.” After surveying extra-biblical usage (the word occurs only here in the Scripture), Winter concludes, “From these examples of ὑπέρακμος and its cognates a number of points emerge. Clearly the verbal form neither suggested that a person had reached menopause if a woman, nor impotence through age if a man. It was used to refer either to a woman who has reached puberty and therefore could engage in intercourse and safely conceive, or to the sexual drives or passions of either sex. Usually it referred to the man, and then to indicate the danger of being entrapped by immorality through his natural sex drives” (TynBul, 77). This means the ESV’s rendering is possible, but “if she has reached puberty” is also possible. The NASB’s rendering is probably not the best unless “youth” is taken to mean childhood.

Thus ὑπέρκαμος could refer either to a woman who has reached puberty or to the passions of a man or woman. Winter favors the latter on the basis that ἀσκημονέω often has overtones of sexual impropriety (TynBul, 78). This is true, but the word has a “variety of connotations” (Garland, 340) and can refer to any kind of impropriety (see Fee, 638 and Thiselton, 1049, 1051 on 1 Corinthians 13:5; see also Deut. 25:3 and Ezekiel 16 for other biblical uses). Another argument in favor of the ESV’s rendering is that the “unexpressed subject in a dependent clause usually picks up the subject of the preceding clause” (Fee, 351). But Fee also says, “one cannot be sure” and leaves open the possibility that the word here refers to the virgin (ibid.).

“And it must be so”/“and it has to be” is a reference forward to the marriage under either interpretation. If taking the NASB’s line of interpretation, this refers to the father or guardian’s conviction that he should permit his daughter to marry since it would be shameful otherwise. If taking the ESV’s line of interpretation, this refers to the betrothed man’s conviction that since he is acting in a sexually dishonorable way toward his betrothed, he must marry her.

The NASB renders the closing line of 7:36 “let her marry.” The ESV translates “let them marry.” In this case, the ESV is clearly correct. Γαμείτωσαν is clearly a third person plural. Garland says that under the father-daughter view the third person plural subject “abruptly brings in a third party” whereas the betrothed view naturally takes the “them” as the man and his virgin spoken of throughout the verse (Garland, 337). A. T. Robertson, however, suggests “the subject [is] drawn from the context” (Robertson, 1204).

Verse 37 provides a contrast to the “let them marry” of verse 36. Under the father-daughter view, the one standing firm refers to the father who is firmly convinced that he is doing the right thing in keeping his daughter a virgin. Under the betrothed view, the one firmly established is the man who is convinced that he is doing the right thing in not marrying his betrothed.

“Being under no constraint/necessity.” In the father-daughter view, “under no constraint” means the father is not under any compulsion (like the knowledge that it would be improper) to hold his virgin back from being married. In the betrothed view, “under no necessity” means the betrothed man is not under the compulsion of his own desires for sexual satisfaction. Thus he can refrain from marriage (Garland, 343).

In contrast to being under compulsion, the one who lets them marry/the one who marries must have “authority over his own will” (NASB) or have “his desire under control” (ESV). The difference here is simply a more literal translation on the part of the NASB and a more interpretive translation on the part of the ESV at this point. In the father-daughter view, having “authority over his own will” simply means that this action is not coerced. Paul doesn’t want men to keep their virgins just because of the pressure in the Corinthian church for an ascetic lifestyle (cf. 7:1). In the betrothed view, having “authority over his own will” means the man has control over his sexual desires.

Nothing to this point in 7:37 firmly points one way or the other. Either view can make sense of 7:37 up to this point. But “to keep his own virgin daughter” (NASB)/“to keep her as his betrothed” (ESV) presents a major problem for the betrothed view. As noted above, it is unlikely that παρθένος should be translated betrothed. Thiselton argues the verse should be translated, “to respect her virginity.” He says, this “cannot be intelligibly translated as to keep his own virgin without distorting Paul’s meaning. The noun refers to the-woman-as-virgin for which in English we should speak of the woman’s virginity.” Thus “it is difficult to improve on the REB’s to respect her virginity” (601). Against Thiselton, the noun refers not to virginity but to the-woman-as-virgin. The “his own” makes no sense if the noun refers to virginity. In support of “keep her a virgin” Fee cites Achilles Tatius 8.17.3 τηρησω δε σε παρθενον (but I will keep you a virgin) and 8.18.2 παρθενον γαρ την κορην μερχι τουτου τετρηκα (I have kept the maiden a virgin to this hour) (353n. 26). But note that Fee’s quotations don’t include the important “his own.” Fee says “this tends to be a difficult clause for any view,” but in reality this clause fits the father-daughter view quite well. It is a major difficulty for the betrothed view. It results in the odd conclusion that Paul is saying that a man may betroth a woman, and keep her as his betrothed, and yet never marry her.

In 7:38 Paul gives his conclusion. The key difference between the NASB and ESV is the phrase translated either “he who gives . . . in marriage” (NASB) or “he who marries” (ESV). The key word is γαμίζω. The dispute is whether the word γαμίζω can mean “marry” or whether it only means “to give in marriage.” Everywhere else in the New Testament (it does not occur in the LXX), γαμίζω means “give in marriage” (Matt. 22:30; 24:38; Mk. 12:25; Lk. 17:27; 20:35). The word γαμέω uniformly means “to marry” (Matt. 5:32; 19:9f; 22:25, 30; 24:38; Mk. 6:17; 10:11f; 12:25; Lk. 14:20; 16:18; 17:27; 20:34f; 1 Co. 7:9f, 28, 33f, 36, 39; 1 Tim. 4:3; 5:11, 14), including nine occurrences within 1 Corinthians 7 itself.

Fee counters by noting “that the classical distinctions between -eo and -izo verbs had broken down in the koine period” (355). Thus he argues for the possibility that γαμίζω simply means “to marry” in 7:38. While Fee is correct that –ιζω was losing its distinctive force in the period of the New Testament, the question remains whether this was the case with γαμίζω. Apollonius Dyscolus, a second-century Greek grammarian, wrote that γαμῶ meant “I receive in marriage” and γαμίζω meant “I give in marriage” (BDAG, 188; Bekker, 280). This seems to indicate that the distinction between γαμίζω and γαμέω held longer than with other words. Furthermore, those who argue that γαμίζω and γαμέω mean the same thing need to explain why Paul changes the verb here since he used γαμέω nine times in this chapter. Why change the verb? Why change it here? Fee says that the best answer may simply be stylistic variation. He also floats the idea that γαμέω is used intransitively and γαμίζω is used transitively by Paul. This is a difficult statement to prove or disprove since this is the only occurrence of γαμίζω in Paul. On the whole, it is more likely that γαμίζω here means “give in marriage.”

The editors of BDAG minimize the Apollonius quotation by saying, “It is hard to say how far the rule of Apollon., quoted above, applies, since there are so few exx. of γ. In any case, his observation indicates that mistakes could be made in the use of either term.” They also note that γαμίζω is used for “marry” by the third-century bishop Methodius. Yet it is interesting that Theodoret of Cyrus, a fifth-century bishop text using the word εγγαμιζειν, which means to “marry off” (246, n. 23). Theodoret takes the father-daughter view without even noting another possibility.

On the whole, the father-daughter view seems preferable to the betrothed view. It adopts the attested rather than an unattested meaning for παρθένος. It provides the best explanation of “keep his own virgin.” It best accounts for the use of γαμίζω. It’s handing of ὑπέρκαμος is well within attested usage. It also seems to fit the cultural context better. The biggest challenge to the father-daughter view seems to be the subjects of ᾖ ὑπέρκαμος and γαμείτωσαν. The unexpressed subject of ᾖ ὑπέρκαμος would more naturally refer to the man, and on the father-daughter view the implied subject of γαμείτωσαν introduces a groom without previous mention. But neither of these are insurmountable challenges.

According to the father-daughter view, Paul concludes the chapter by looking at what a father’s attitude toward his virgin daughter should be (and the issue of remarriage after widowhood). Paul had been recommending (but not commanding) singleness for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (7:36–38). At the same time some Corinthians seem to have wrongly thought that abstinence from marital relations was a more spiritual state than marriage (7:1). In this context Paul warns fathers and guardians about improperly restricting the marriage of their virgin daughters. It seems from the opening question of the Corinthians that some fathers might have been under pressure not to marry off their daughters. Paul here tells them that to do so is no sin. If the father thinks he is not acting rightly toward his virgin daughter by not giving her in marriage, he should give her in marriage. A father may conclude that he is not wronging his daughter by her remaining single for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. But if this is the choice, it can’t be due to pressure from others. He has to be convinced in his own heart that he is acting rightly toward and not wronging his daughter. Paul observes that both courses of action are good. In keeping with his emphasis in this passage, however, Paul does express his preference for singleness.

In sum, Paul does not fully assent to the statement that it is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman (7:1). He denies that this is the case for people already married (7:2-6). He further does not believe that marriages should be dissolved, even if they are mixed between unbelievers and believers (7:10-24). But Paul does commend singleness. He wishes that everyone were single like himself (7:7). Because of the last days that have arrived (7:26, 29, 31), it is good not to marry so that undivided attention may be given to the Lord’s work. However, Paul concedes that this is simply his trustworthy opinion and not a binding restraint (7:25, 35). Paul wants it to be as easy as possible for undivided attention to be given to God’s work (7:32). Nonetheless, Paul notes that it is possible to render great service to the Lord and be married (7:29). In fact, to be single is a special gift from God not granted to everyone (this does not mean that those so gifted are superior to those who have differing gifts, see Paul’s discussion in 12:14-26) (7:7), and some who cannot control themselves (including both thoughts and actions) ought to marry (7:9).

Paul is clearly commending singleness in this passage. Many resist Paul’s clear teaching by attempting to limit the application of Paul’s teaching to a first century situation (e.g., a local famine or a time of persecution) while others may simply ignore Paul’s commendations. Neither should be done. On the other hand, Paul’s words must be placed within their broader canonical context. When the disciples respond to Jesus’ teaching on divorce by exclaiming that it would be better not to marry, Jesus replied, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given” (Matt. 19:11).

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barrett, C. K. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Black’s New Testament Commentary. ed. Henry Chadwick. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1968.

Bekker, Imanuelis, ed. Apollonii Alexanrini De Constructione. Berlin: Reimeri, 1817.

Birkett, Kirsten and Lois Hagger, “Gift of Singleness? You’re not Serious? A Look at Paul’s Call to Singleness in 1 Corinthians 7,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 5 (Fall 2000): [Electronic].

Bruce, F. F. 1 and 2 Corinthians. New Century Bible. ed. Matthew Black. London: Oliphants, 1971.

Calvin, John. “Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians.” In Calvin’s Commentaries. vol. 20 trans. John Pringle Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.

Fee, Gordon D. “1 Corinthians 7:1 in the NIV.” In Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23 (December 1980): 307-14.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. ed. F. F. Bruce. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. ed. Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.

Lightfoot, J. B. Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999.

Morris, Leon. 1 Corinthians. rev. ed. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. ed. Leon Morris. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. New York. United Bible Society, 2002.

Piper, John. “Foreword: For Single Men and Women (And the Rest of Us).” In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991.

Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research. Third ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919. Reprint, Norfolk, VA: BibleWorks, 2005.

Theodoret of Cyrus. Commentary on the Letters of Paul. Volume 1. Translated by Robert Charles Hill. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Greek Testament Commentary. ed. I. Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Winter, Bruce W. “Puberty or Passion? The Referent of ΥΠΕΡΑΚΜΟΣ in 1 Corinthians 7:36.” In Tyndale Bulletin 49.1 (1988): 71-89.

 

Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7:25-35

by

In verse 25 Paul picks up once again the subject of singleness. He says that regarding virgins (unfortunately rendered “betrothed” in some translations) he has no express command, though he does have a trustworthy (even inspired!) opinion. (Theodoret notes that Christ actually said not everyone could accept the condition of celibacy, which meant that Paul’s advice here could not be considered law; p. 187.) Paul’s opinion is: “I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released [echoing what he said previously]. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a [virgin] marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that” (7:26-28).

What does Paul mean by “present distress”? Some think that it refers to some immediate crisis, like a famine, in the locale of Corinth (Winter cited in Garland, 324). But this is unlikely in light of Paul’s fuller explanation (“This is what I mean… [v. 29]) which concludes with the statement “the present form of this world is passing away” (7:31). The present distress is the last days that stretch from the ascension of Christ to His return.

Paul’s opening words of his explanation (7:29-31) are quite shocking. They may perhaps be best understood by working backward from 7:31. The KJV translates this verse, “And they that use the world, as not abusing it.” The ESV translates “those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it,” but it is probably better translated, “and those who use the world as though they did not make full use of it” ([H]CSB, NASB). In other words, because this world is passing away don’t make the world the full focus of your attention. Note the end of 7:30, “those who buy as though they had no goods.” Paul admits people are going to buy, but don’t let their goods consume your attention. The first part of v. 30: “Those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing.” Paul is not commanding the absolute cessation of weeping or rejoicing. Garland notes, “He himself weeps (Rom 9:2; 2 Cor. 2:4; Phil. 2:25-30; 3:18) and rejoices (1 Cor. 16:17; 2 Cor. 7:4-10; Phil. 1:12-19; 4:10)” (Garland, 329-30). Paul’s point is that these are not ultimate. Don’t weep as if that’s all there is. Don’t rejoice as if that’s all there is. Don’t buy as if that is the end all. Don’t use the world as if it’s all that mattered. And the married should not live as though marriage is ultimate. It’s not. These are the last days. In the eternal state, marriage will not continue (Mark 12:25).

So Paul says to the married, live as though you had no spouse—in a certain sense. Certainly not as a celibate; Paul commands the contrary earlier in the chapter. Furthermore, Paul is certainly not encouraging couples to ignore their spouse’s needs. He assumes that the spouses will be concerned about one another (7:33). But Paul is telling the married that they should not view their marriage as ultimate. The ultimate should be service to the Lord since the end times are now.

In 7:32-35 Paul expands on why he encourages people to remain single. Though the married are to live in some ways as though they were not married because of the last days, Paul realizes that by its very nature, married people won’t be able to be as undivided in their service to the Lord. Married people are concerned how to please their spouse—and it is pleasing to the Lord that they are. But Paul recommends the single life for undivided service to God.

This should be kept in context. Paul begins the section by saying that his comments here are not commands from God, though they are trustworthy opinion (7:25). And as he concludes this section, he notes that he is not seeking to “lay any restraint” on his hearers (7:35). They may marry without sin (7:28).

Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7:7-24

by

Verse 7 marks a transition. Most translations leave the conjunction in this verse untranslated, but the NASB rightly includes it: “Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am.” In verses 2-6 Paul responds to the issue of whether or not it is good for men and women to have sexual relations. Paul’s response is that within marriage there is no choice—a husband and a wife must have such relations. But, here he does acknowledge a situation in which it is good for a man to not have such relations: “To the unmarried and widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am” (v. 7).

Paul is not saying that singleness is better than marriage. He says it is good. Marriage is good. Singleness may also be good. Paul does say that he wishes everyone could be single like him, but he recognizes that singleness is a gift from God. Other people may have other gifts and not this gift. Paul commends singleness as a good thing, but he recognizes that it is only good for those to whom God grants it as a gift. He then provides a sure indication that one does not have the gift: if a person is not exercising self-control, he does not have the gift of singleness and ought to marry rather than “burn in his passion” (some think the intended meaning is rather than “burn in hell,” but “to burn” was a common idiom in Paul’s day for “burn with passion”) (Garland, 273-74).

Beginning with verse 10 Paul gives further instructions to the married. In general he is urging them to remain married. In verses 10-11 he reiterates Jesus’ teaching that divorce is not an option for a Christian (cf. Matt. 5:32; 19:3–9; Mark 10:2–12; Luke 16:18). In 7:12-16 Paul deals with the issue of Christians who are married to an unconverted spouse. Paul acknowledges that Jesus said nothing about this during his earthly ministry (“to the rest I say (I, not the Lord)” 7:12). But Paul’s words here are inspired by God and thus still carry divine authority. Paul says that the Christian should try to keep the marriage together for the sake of the unbeliever and the children. The presence of the believer in the family has a sanctifying effect on the family which may result in the salvation of those in it who are lost (7:14, 16). If the unsaved spouse ends the marriage, the saved spouse is not bound to attempt to keep the marriage together (7:15). Paul supports his teaching with illustrations about circumcision and slavery. Hellenized Jews would undergo surgery to reverse the marks of circumcision. Paul tells circumcised Christians not to do this. Likewise, uncircumcised Christians had no need to seek circumcision. In the same way, slaves were to be content with their position as slaves, though in their case they may take advantage of an opportunity for freedom (7:21). These illustrations reinforce Paul’s teaching about marriage. People who are married should be satisfied with their condition. It is wrong to seek divorce. If, however, an unbelieving spouse leaves, the Christian should be willing to accept the new condition of singleness.

Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7:1-6

by

The right understanding of 1 Corinthians 7:1 can be approached by a comparison of translations. The NIV 1984 translates 1 Corinthians 7:1 “Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.” “Not to marry” is the interpretive translation of what the NASB translates literally, “it is good for a man not to touch a woman.” Since “touch a woman” is an idiom, an interpretive translation is helpful here. The NIV 1984, however, misinterpreted the idiom.

The idiom in question is fairly common in the ancient literature, occurring in Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Josephus, and Marcus Aurelius. The idiom also occurs elsewhere in Scripture. For instance in Genesis 20:6 God speaks to the Philistine king, Abimelech, in a dream: “I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her.” “Touch” here refers to sexual relations, as the context makes clear. A less clear occurrence is found in Ruth 2:9. Proverbs 6:29 provides another clear example: “So is he who goes in to his neighbor’s wife; none who touches her will go unpunished.” “Touches” is here paralleled with “going in to” a wife, a clear reference to sexual relations (Fee, “1 Corinthians 7:1,” 308). Thus translation of the NIV 2011 improves on its predecessor by translating, “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

The second question that arises is whether verse 1 is Paul’s viewpoint or that of the Corinthians. In the ESV, (H)CSB, NRSV, and NIV 2011 the latter part of the verse is in quotation marks which indicate that Paul is quoting the Corinthians. The idea that this was a quotation stretches back as far as the church father Origen (Thiselton, 499; cf. Theodoret, 182). This seems likely due to the way that Paul immediately qualifies the statement in the following verses. Those who don’t view the latter part of verse 7 as a quotation, must take it as a statement of a thing good Paul thought good only in certain circumstances. Thus he immediately qualifies the statement (Calvin, Corinthians, 222-23).

In any case, Paul is responding to the questions of the Corinthians regarding the acceptability of celibacy. He counters the statement “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” with the statement, “But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” Despite the sound in English, Paul is not commanding everyone to get married. Those who attempt this interpretation invariably must soften the idea to a “general rule” that most people ought to get married (Morris, 102). But if Paul had wanted to encourage everyone (or even most people) to get married, he probably would have said, “each man should take [from λαμβάνω] his own wife” (also, to have told wives to take a husband does not fit the cultural situation) (Fee, Commentary, 278). The idiom Paul uses, “have [from ἔχω] his own husband or wife,” often indicates sexual intercourse. The LXX uses this idiom to translate the Hebrew word for “lain with” [שׁכב] in passages where sexual intercourse is clearly in view (Deut. 28:30; Isa. 13:16). Paul uses it in 1 Corinthians 5:1, “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you…for a man has [from ἔχω] his father’s wife” (Fee, “1 Corinthians 7:1,” 310-11; Garland, 255-56; Theodoret, 182). Thus we could translate this verse, “each [husband] should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband” (NIV 2011). Verses 3-5, then, are a further expansion of the teaching of verse 2.

Paul’s point is this: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations” is not true for married people. Verse 1 does not endorse celibacy as better than marriage. Verse 2 does not command everyone to get married. Instead, in response to the question of celibacy, Paul’s first response is that married people ought not be celibate.

In verse 6 Paul says, “Now as a concession, not a command I say this.” What is the “this” that Paul is conceding and not commanding? With our understanding of the first 5 verses, Paul can’t be referring back to verse 2 and saying that he concedes marriage is acceptable, but that it is not commanded (cf. Hodge, 110-11). This is a popular view, but Paul actually uses imperatives in verse 2 and throughout the first five verses. In any event, Paul isn’t talking about getting married in verse 2. He’s telling husbands and wives not to deprive one another. Others think the “this” points forward to Paul’s wish that all were single as he is (Garland, 275), but this involves adopting a less likely textual variant (the “for” reflected in the KJV, NKJV) (Metzger, 489; Fee, Commentary, 272 n.19). More likely, Paul is referring back to the one concession he does make to the Corinthians about it being good for a man to not have sexual relations with a woman: verse 5, “except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer” (Fee, Commentary, 283-94; Barrett, 157).

Calvin on the Inseparability of Justification and Sanctification

by

For we dream neither of a faith devoid of good works nor of a justification that stands without them. This alone is of importance: having admitted that faith and good works must cleave together, we still lodge justification in faith, not in works. We have a ready explanation for doing this, provided we turn to Christ to whom our faith is directed and from whom it receives its full strength.

Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we grasp Christ’s righteousness, by which alone we are reconciled to God. Yet you could not grasp this without at the same time grasping sanctification also. For he “is given unto us for righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, and redemption” [1 Cor. 1:30]. Therefore Christ justifies no one whom he does not at the same time sanctify. These benefits are joined together by an everlasting and indissoluble bond, so that those whom he illumines by his wisdom, he redeems; those whom he redeems, he justifies; those whom he justifies, he sanctifies.

But, since the question concerns only righteousness and sanctification, let us dwell upon these. Although we may distinguish them, Christ contains both of them inseparably in himself. Do you wish, then, to attain righteousness in Christ? You must first possess Christ; but you cannot possess him without being made partaker in his sanctification, because he cannot be divided into pieces [1 Cor. 1:13].

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, KY: WJK, 2011), 1:798 [3.16.1].

Review of Steven James’s New Creation Eschatology and the Land

by

James, Steven L. New Creation Eschatology and the Land: A Survey of Contemporary Perspectives. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2017.

In this book, Steven James identifies two models of eschatology: the spiritual vision model and the new creation model. He notes Hoekema’s work has been seminal in moving modern theologians toward a new creation view, though he acknowledges Hoekema’s reliance on the Dutch Reformed tradition of Kuyper, Bavinck, and Berkhof in this regard, as well as the Belgic Confession (Art. 37).

The first part of chapter 1 surveys the positions of several theologians who hold to new creation eschatology: N. T. Wright, J. Richard Middleton, Russell Moore, Douglas Moo, Howard Snyder. 3-12

The last part of the chapter surveys theological themes that ground the new creation model: the coming kingdom (fulfilled on earth through the restoration of creation), bodily resurrection (which points to a material eternity), and the reconciliation of all things (Co. 1:19-20) under the rule of Christ (1 Cor. 15:24-28), which points toward the restoration of creation (Romans 8).

In his second chapter James surveys the same new creationists introduced in the first chapter on the question of the discontinuity or continuity of the present world with the new creation. The new creationists hold to a new creation that is a renewal or restoration of the present creation rather than a replacement of the present creation. He also provides interpretations of key passages that might tell for (Romans 8) or against (2 Peter 3) this view.

With chapter 3 James turns his attention to the theme of the land. After establishing the importance of the land theme, James surveys the viewpoints of W. D. Davies, Walter Brueggemann, Christopher J. H. Wright, Norman Habel, P. W. L. Walker, Gary Burge, Colin Chapman, O. Palmer Robertson, William Dumbrell, T. D. Alexander, Craig Bartholomew, Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum, Oren Martin, Bruce Waltke, and others.

James observes that two broad ways of interpreting the land promises are found in these interpreters. Some Christify the land promises so that promises about the land are said to be fulfilled in the person of Christ in a non-material way. The other approach is to universalize the land promise so that what was said about Israel’s particular land is applied to the entire new creation (and to Israel in its land).

Many new creationists, including all those surveyed in the first chapter, follow these metaphorical understandings of how the land promises are fulfilled (most it seems hold to universalizing the land promises). James argues that this is contradictory to the position of continuity between the present earth and the new creation.

First, James observes a logical consistency. Those who adopt one of the metaphorical interpretations hold that a “reality shift” takes place from the giving of the promise in the OT to its fulfillment in the NT. This shift typically moves “from the material, the earthly, the ethnic, to a heavenly, a spiritual, a non-ethnic reality” (words here are from Blaising as quoted by James). But the new creationists are not willing to see eternity as non-material and heavenly. So on what grounds do they hold to a reality shift when it comes to ethnicity and land?

To further complicate matters for new creationists who treat the land promises as metaphors, James observes that many of the Old Testament passages that they appeal to to establish the material reality of the new creation and its continuity with the present creation contain specific land promises.

Further, if the new creation stands in continuity with the present creation, there remains a material land of Israel and a Jerusalem that must be reckoned with. Since the land of Israel is a part of the whole, how, on a new creation model can it be made to stand for the whole. This is further complicated for new creationists holding to a metaphorical view of the land promises by the fact that some of these OT new creation passages involvement movement from other parts of the world to the land of Israel.

In his final chapter James addresses passages from which it is argued that the land promise has been universalized: Matthew 5:5; John 4:19-24; Romans 4:13. In each case, he argues that the passages are not universalizing the land promise. He then makes the positive case that “affirmation of a future role for the territorial particularity of Israel” fits best with the new creation model.

Though James seems to be a progressive dispensationalist, he argues that the position he is defending need not be limited to premillennialists or dispensationalists. He observes that Vern Poythress, an amillennial covenant theologian holds that in the eternal state believing Jews will receive the promises of Abraham regarding their land.

James’s book provides a good survey of both new creation eschatology and the theme of land within Scripture. Even those who disagree with his conclusions would find this book to be a helpful place to start to become oriented to the major issues. I also find his thesis—that consistent new creationism logically and exegetically entails the fulfillment of the land promises to Israel for Israel in the new creation—to be compelling. I don’t think that this obviates a universalizing extension of land promise (so I wouldn’t feel the need to take as hard a line on Matthew 5:5 or Romans 4:13) since I see universalizing extensions of the promise sitting alongside the particular promises in the OT itself.

Progressive Covenantalism has advertised itself as via media between covenant theology and dispensationalism, but it risks becoming simply another option. I see no logical, theological, or exegetical reason why James’s proposal could not be accepted by dispensationalists, progressive covenantalists, and covenant theologians.

Quarles on 1 Thessalonians 1:9

by

Quarles, Charles L. The ΑΠΟ of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 and the Nature of Eternal Punishment,” Westminster Theological Journal 59, no. 2 (Fall 1997): 201-12.

Quarles is responding to annihilationists who argue that since 2 Thessalonians 1:9 says the wicked will “suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord,” and since God is omnipresent, therefore to be away from God’s presence means to be annihilated. Quarles draws on passages from the Old Testament in which sinners who enter God’s presence are destroyed to argue that the απο, in this case, is not indicating separation, is in the ESV quoted above (cf. NASB, NIV, NRSV). Instead, the presence of the Lord is the source of the destruction. This understanding may be reflected in the translation of the CSB: “pay the penalty of eternal destruction from the Lord’s presence.”

I think Quarles makes a good case. However, I don’t think it is a necessary case to oppose an annihilation view. Even if από is separative, it does not imply annihilation. The presence of God does not always refer to God’s omnipresence. Sometimes it refers to a special fellowship that God’s people have with him. Adam and Eve lost this in Eden, it was symbolically restored in the tabernacle, further restored in the Incarnation, and then advanced in the giving of the Spirit. The presence of God is significant for all these events, but it is not omnipresence that is in view.

Interpreting 2 Thessalonians 2:3

by

Robert Cara highlights a difficulty that interpreters for 2 Thessalonians 2:3 face. That verse “has signs occurring before the Second Coming” whereas “1 Thess. 5:2 … apparently does not” (Robert J. Cara, A Study Commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians EP Study Commentary [Webster, NY: Evangelical Press, 2009], 199). Cara seeks to resolve this problem by arguing that “the appearing of the Antichrist and Christ’s battle with him will essentially take place at the same time” (Ibid., 206).

I don’t find this to be a satisfying resolution to the problem.

James Hamilton observes that the “rebellion” that Paul refers to in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 probably relates to “the following statements in Daniel, each of which uses the Hebrew noun פסע (peša’), rendered as ‘transgression’ (e.g., ESV, NKJV) or ‘rebellion’ (HCSB, TNIV [TNIV cited here]):

  • Daniel 8:12, ‘Because of rebellion’
  • Daniel 8:13, ‘the rebellion that causes desolation’
  • Daniel 8:23, ‘when rebels have become completely wicked’ (participial form of the cognate verb)
  • Daniel 9:24, ‘ to finish transgression’

These texts that refer to ‘rebellion/transgression’ and ‘rebels’ in Daniel are accompanied by the references to ‘the abomination that makes desolate’ (Dan. 11:31;12:11 and cf. the similar phrases in 8:13 and 9:27)” (James M. Hamilton, With the Clouds of Heaven: The Book of Daniel in Biblical Theology, New Studies in Biblical Theology, ed. D. A. Carson [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2014], 192).

Included in Daniel 8 is the specific period of time which either amounts to 2,300 days or 1,150 days (the difference being whether evening and morning are counted individually or together as the indication of a single day).

Also, on Cara’s view, why would Paul’s response simply have been, if the Day of the Lord had happened, you would know because Christ would be present. To explain why Paul did not simply argue in that way, Gene Green argues that 2:2 should be translated as it is by the KJV: “that the day of Christ is at hand,” Green agues: “The following discourse on the signs before the end (vv. 3ff.) itself indicates that the concern was not about whether the day had already come but its imminence” (Gene L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians, Pillar New Testament Commentary, ed. D. A. Carson [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 305).

But in taking this position Green is arguing against the undisputed “natural sense of ἐνέστηκεν“ (F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker [Waco, TX: Word, 1982], 165) in favor of one based on an inferred apodosis. Frame notes, “ἐνέστηκεν means not ‘is coming’ (ἔρχεται I 52), not ‘is at hand’ (ἤγγικεν Rom. 1312), not ‘is near’ (ἐγγύς ἐστιν Phil.45), but ‘has come,’ ‘is on hand,’ ‘is present’” (James Everett Frame, The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians, International Critical Commentary, eds. Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles Augustus Briggs [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912], 248; see also Jeffrey A. D. Weima, 1-2 Thessalonians Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Robert W. Yarbrough and Robert H. Stein [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014], 501-502). The NRSV correctly translates the phrase, “that the day of the Lord is already here” (cf. NIV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, [H]CSB).

The preceding discussion has revealed two problems: (1) Why did Paul not argue simply that they were not in the Day of the Lord because if they were in it Christ would have already come? (2) How is 1 Thessalonians 5, which indicates that there are no signs preceding the day of the Lord, to be harmonized with 2 Thessalonians 2, which seems to give two events that must precede the day of the Lord?

The solution to the first problem is noted by Weima: “Most commentators conclude that the Christians in Thessalonica likely did not understand the day of the Lord to be a single and instantaneous happening but rather to be a complex number of events, of which Christ’s parousia was just one part (so, e.g., Frame 1912: 248; Best 1977: 279; Marhsall 1983: 186; Morris 1991: 217; Wanamaker 1990: 240; Dunn 1998: 301n37; for objections, see Nicholl 2004:117). The claim that ‘the day of the Lord has come,’ therefore, would be interpreted by the Thessalonians to mean that the series of events connected with that eschatological day have begun to unfold and that ‘the coming [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering to him’ (2 Thess. 2:1) are about to take place” (Weima, 502). This interpretation makes sense both of this passage and as well as with the numerous other passages about the Day of the Lord which, when put together, point to that Day including both the tribulation judgment at the end of the age and the following reign of Christ (in the millennium). The one modification I would make to Wiema’s statement is that the coming or parousia of Christ, is not simply a part of the complex events that make up the Day of the Lord but is itself a complex event.

The second problem, how to reconcile this passage with 1 Thessalonians 5, which says the Day of the Lord will come “as a thief in the night” while people are saying “There is peace and safety” (cf. Matt 24:36-44).

I think the key to this problem is the fact that the phrase in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 “that day will not come” is not present in the Greek text but is supplied by translators. Thomas argues that the supplied apodosis should be “that day is not present” rather than “that day will not come.” He reasons that the present tense in the context indicates that the supplied apodosis should be present tense also. (Robert L. Thomas, “The Place of Imminence in Recent Eschatological Systems,” in Looking into the Future, ETS Studies, ed. David W. Baker [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001], 210-11).

Furthermore, πρῶτον need not indicate that the apostasy and man of lawlessness come before the Day of the Lord. Martin notes that “its placement in the sentence slightly favors the understanding that the apostasy comes ‘first’ and then the lawless one is revealed.” (D. Michael Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians, New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen [Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1995], 232. On this reading, Paul is saying that the Thessalonians will know that the day of the Lord is present when they see, first, the apostasy and, second, the revelation of the man of lawlessness. Best also observes that the placement of πρῶτον could indicate that Paul is itemizing here rather than saying that the apostasy and man of lawlessness come before the Day of the Lord. However, he notes that word order is not determinative (281).

Despite these observations, neither Martin or Best adopt the above view. Martin makes the odd objection that if the above view were true, the restrainer of would have been mentioned in 2:3 as well as 2:7-8. It is by no means clear that this is the case. Best makes the more reasonable observation, also made by Weima (510), that Paul does not add the word “then” or “second” as might be expected in such a situation. This objection is not decisive. Ellicott (109) and Milligan (98) both note the καί can carry this role—and does so elsewhere in the Thessalonian correspondence.

In sum, I would argue that a defensible translation is: “Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already present. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day is not present, unless, first, there come a rebellion, and [second] the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction.”

In this view, the interpretational choices favor the interpretation that the day of the Lord is not present because if it were present, there would be a rebellion followed by the revelation of the man of sin, and those things have not yet happened.

Structure and Direction in Cultural Debates

by

Two of the most helpful concepts that I’ve gleaned from Al Wolters’s Creation Regained are creational norms and structure and direction.

Wolters holds that law is built into creation. Creation is not only material things; creation includes non-physical laws like gravity and norms for marriage. Drawing on the wisdom literature Wolters observes that God designed his world to work in particular ways. Wisdom is to observe God’s world to through the lens of God’s Word to discern how best to live in the world God made.

Structure refers to the essence of a thing, and it is rooted in creational laws. Direction refers to the degree to which a creational entity (which, recall, is not limited to the physical world but includes institutions such as marriage) is perverted by the fall or is being brought back to conformity to creational law.

Related to these two concepts is the critique of ideology developed by David Koyzis. Building on Wolters’s structure/direction distinction, and applying it to politics, Koyzis argues that ideologies are idolatrous because they seize on one aspect of the way God made the world (creational norms/structure) and make it ultimate. If only the ideology could take root, the thinking goes, then the nation or community or world could be saved by the evil which threatens it. The “fundamental evil” identified by the various ideologies is itself another aspect of God’s creation (identifying evil with structure not with direction). As a result of deifying one part of the creation and demonizing other parts, ideologies develop warped soteriologies that lead to more evil and suffering because governing moral principles built by God into his world (creational norms/structure) are subverted by the salvific goal set up by the ideology.

—

Here is copy from Oxford University Press, describing Clare Chambers’s new book Against Marriage: An Egalitarian Defence of the Marriage-Free State:

Part I makes the case against marriage. Chambers investigates the critique of marriage that has developed within feminist and liberal theory. Feminists have long argued that marriage is a violation of equality since it is both sexist and heterosexist. Chambers endorses the feminist view and argues, in contrast to recent egalitarian pro-marriage movements, that same-sex marriage is not enough to make marriage equal. Chambers argues that state-recognised marriage is also problematic for liberalism, particularly political liberalism, since it imposes a controversial, hierarchical conception of the family that excludes many adults and children.

Here is the book’s cover:

A colleague of mine, observing that the cover presents marriage in a fallen direction, commented that a common rhetorical approach for rejecting biblical teaching is to use fallen direction as a way to oppose creational structures. In these conversations, therefore, it is important to distinguish between structure and direction.

Further, the copy illustrates the benefit of Koyzis’s analysis of ideologies. The copy indicates that equality and freedom are the governing standards for Chambers. Both equality and freedom have a role in God’s good creation. Indeed, both have a role within marriage. But if equality and freedom become the absolute norms and if heirarchy and limits become the great evils, then Chambers has invented an idol. And since this idolatry does not conform to the way the true God made his world to work, the only result will be greater pain and suffering for living contrary to creational norms.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 and the Timing of the Rapture

by

The timing of the rapture is a complicated subject because any interpreter’s conclusions depend on interlocking assumptions brought from the interpretation of other passages. On the one hand 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 is the key rapture passage. It is the passage about saints being caught up into the air to meet the Lord. And yet, this passage, on its own, (arguably) reveals nothing of the timing of the Tribulation (Hiebert, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 218). Note the difficulty of even stating the question without bringing in one’s understanding of other passages. Hiebert and Hoekema, for instance, are going to have differing understandings of the Tribulation to which the Rapture is being related (cf. The Bible and the Future, 332). Thus, the timing of the rapture has to be discerned by relating the passage to other Scriptural passages.

When it comes to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 there seem to be two major arguments in favor of a post-tribulation view, one internal to the passage and one external.

First, post-tribulationalists argue that ἀπάντησις is used to indicate going out to meet a dignitary in order to lead him back to the city. This points toward a rapture in which the saints immediately return to earth with Christ after having been caught up to meet him in the air (though it should be noted that Beale and Weima take the clouds and the snatching up to be apocalyptic imagery rather than an indication of any actual movement).

The argument that ἀπάντησις is a technical term is argued for by Peterson in TDNT. It has subsequently been adopted by a number of commentaries. However, after tracking down the usage of the term in the sources noted in LSJ and elsewhere, it seems to me that TDNT’s treatment of ἀπάντησις is an example of the kind of thing for which James Barr critiqued TDNT. The term ἀπάντησις can be used to indicate going out to meet a dignitary with the purpose of bringing him back to one’s city, but it is not always thus used. Thus EDNT seems to exhibit sounder judgment when it says, “The evidence (Peterson [TDNT] 683–92) is not so much proof for a t.t. [technical term] … as for the existence and form of an ancient custom” (1:115). Whether that ancient custom is in view in a particular text depends not on the presence of the term but on “the exegesis of the respective contexts” (Ibid.). In this case, it is not a delegation that goes out to meet Christ; all those in Christ meet him. Nor do they go out to meet him; they are caught up to meet him. It doesn’t seem to me that the exegesis favors the post-tribulational understanding of ἀπάντησις. For further discussion, see here.

More impressive, in my opinion, for the post-tribulation position are the parallels that seem to exist between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4. On a pre-tribulation view, Matthew 24 deals (primarily) with the second coming proper whereas 1 Thessalonians 4 deals with a previous rapture. The post-tribulation position is able to identify these two passages with the same event.

Greg Beale lists the following parallels in his commentary on the Thessalonian epistles:

    1. Christ returns
    2. from heaven
    3. accompanied by angels
    4. with a trumpet of God
    5. believers gathered to Christ
    6. in clouds

Nonetheless, the parallels between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4 are not as impressive as they appear at first glance. Points 1, 2, and 6 would, in the nature of the case, be the same at the rapture and at the second coming proper even if these two events are distinguished. Point 4 is a more exact point of comparison, but if one, for other reasons, sees the events as distinct there is nothing to prevent a trumpet sound at both. Points 3 and 5 are more ambivalent. With regard to point 3, the Thessalonians passage merely mentions the voice of an archangel. The accompaniment by angels is only mentioned in Matthew. With regard to point 5, the Thessalonians passage has the saints caught up to meet Christ in the air. Matthew has the angels collect the elect from the four winds. It is unclear whether this terminology refers to a catching up or to a gathering on earth. These differences are harmonizable, but they are differences rather than similarities.

I would say that all things being equal the parallels between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4 would lead toward interpreters identifying the two events. But if other considerations come into play, the differences may take on more significance for the interpreter. In any event, the similarities are not of the nature as to compel Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4 to refer to the same event.

What considerations might lead to the conclusion that 1 Thessalonians 4 and Matthew 24 are distinct events―or better, distinct parts of a complex event that we call the second coming? There seem to be two major arguments in favor of a pre-tribulation reading of 1 Thessalonians 4.

The first argument is the lack of harmony between the sequence given in 1 Thessalonians 4 and the sequence given in Revelation 19-20. The sequence of events in 1 Thessalonians 4 is significant because it is at the heart of the argument that Paul is making in that passage. Consider the argument of Weima. He holds that the need for this instruction came from the Thessalonians’ concern that fellow believers “who had already died would be at some kind of disadvantage at the parousia.” That this is the concern is indicated by Paul’s emphasis that the living will not precede the dead at the parousia, the dead will rise first, the living and the resurrected dead will meet Christ together in the air. To argue, as some do, that this is an unreasonable concern “underestimates the great anticipation and hope that the Thessalonians have about participating in the glory of the parousia event (Weima, BECNT, 312-13).

Having established that the sequence given in 1 Thessalonians 4 is significant, it is important, then, to note that pre-millennialists have long argued that Revelation 19-20 gives a sequential description of future events. Here is the complexity noted above: as an amillennialist Weima, for instance, probably does not accept the argument that Revelation 19-20 is sequential, so an argument for a pretribulation rapture that presumes the a sequential interpretation of Revelation 19-20 will not be persuasive to him. Nonetheless, there is a powerful case for seeing Revelation 19-20 as sequential.

  • Revelation 19 narrates the return of Christ and his dealing with the beast and the false prophet. But Satan, a key opponent of Christ, is not dealt with until the beginning of chapter 20. Remembering that chapter breaks were added at a later date, it seems that a natural reading would travel directly from chapter 19 to chapter 20 (noted by Bruce Ware, “Boyce College Eschatology Forum with Schreiner, Ware, and Brand,” Audio Recording, 1:01:03).
  • If there is a sequence that moves from Revelation 19 into Revelation 20, as any premillennialist must argue, Revelation 20:4 continues the sequence. This is especially so since there is a sequence of Καὶ εἶδον (and I saw / then I saw) extending from 19:11 through 21:1 (19:11, 17, 19; 20:1, 4, 11, 12; 21:1) that seems to mark the sequence of events.

The sequence that runs from Revelation 19 through Revelation 20 does not harmonize with the sequence in 1 Thessalonians 4. In Revelation Jesus returns with the armies of heaven, casts the beast and his prophet into the lake of fire, chains Satan in the abyss, sets up his throne on earth, and then raises saints from death. In 1 Thessalonians 4, Jesus appears in the clouds, raises the dead saints to life, and catches all the saints, living and resurrected, into the clouds. The inability to harmonize these two sequences indicates that these passages refer two separate events (or to different parts of the complex event that is the second coming).

In further support of the distinction between 1 Thessalonians 4 and Revelation 20 is the fact that the only saints raised in Revelation 20:4 are the Tribulation martyrs. Michael Svigel argues:

“Since the vision from 19:11 through 20:10 appears to be in sequence, and since the armies accompanying Christ are the resurrected, glorified Church, it seems best to understand the unmentioned subject of the third person plural verb in Rev 20:4 as referring to Christ and the armies of heaven accompanying him [cf. KJV, NKJV, NASB]. The passage begins: Καὶ εἶδον θρόνους καὶ ἐκάθισαν ἐπ αὐτοὺς καὶ κρίμα ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς. Some translations have recognized the problem of the lack of the subject here and have adjusted their translations accordingly [cf. NIV, NRSV, ESV, (H)CSB]. However, if one reads the entire passage from 19:11 through 20:10 as one vision described by John, one realizes that immediately before 20:4 the only persons remaining in John’s vision are Christ and his armies descending upon the earth. Thus, those who sit upon the thrones and those to whom judgment is given are those accompanying Christ on white horses. If this is the case, the ones resurrected in Rev 20:4–6 would be limited to the saints martyred during the Tribulation. [Michael J. Svigel, “The Apocalypse Of John And The Rapture Of The Church: A Reevaluation,” Trinity Journal 22:1 (Spr 01) p. 51-52.]

In any event, the only ones identified as being raised in 20:4 are Tribulation martyrs who did not worship the beast. Verse 5 says the rest of the dead are not raised until after the Millennium. This would either mean that on a post-tribulation view that only Tribulation saints are resurrected with the rest of the dead (including the dead in Christ) having to wait until the end of the Millennium. No post-tribulationist actually holds this view because it contradicts 1 Thessalonians 4. On the pre-tribulation view, Tribulation martyrs were the only dead in Christ that were still in need of resurrection at the time of Revelation 20:4. If all other believers were already raised at the (pre-tribulation) rapture, and if the Tribulation martyrs were raised just after the second coming, then only the lost dead remain dead through the Millennium. This latter reading seems more probable.

The second argument in favor of a pre-tribulation reading of 1 Thessalonians 4 relates to what Thessalonians itself says about wrath and the day of the Lord. In the context of the Day of the Lord, which is a day of wrath, 1 Thessalonians 5:9 says that Christians are not destined for wrath (cf. 1 Thess. 1:10). Given the context, it is more likely that wrath refers to the Day of the Lord than merely to Hell. This would also harmonize with Revelation 3:10. Obviously, much more could be said about this second argument.