Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

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.

Απαντησις in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and Dispensationalism in Scholarship

by

Two Articles on Απαντησις

Michael R. Cosby, “Hellenistic Formal Receptions and Paul’s Use of ΑΠΑΝΤΗΣΙΣ in 1 Thessalonians 4:17,” Bulletin for Biblical Research, Vol. 4 (1994): 15-33.

The TDNT article on απαντησις, written by Peterson, claims that απαντησις is a technical term for a delegation that goes out to meet a dignitary and returns with him to the city. Cosby found this claim attractive since he was seeking to leave behind the pretribulational views of his youth. He planned on translating additional work by Peterson on this matter, but he began to see significant deficiencies in Peterson’s argument as he worked on this project. Though not returning to a pretribulational position, Cosby said scholarly integrity compelled him to abandon Peterson’s understanding of απαντησις as an argument against it.

Cosby found that “only a minority of the uses of these terms describe formal receptions” (20). This alone does not rule out a technical use, but Cosby found it notable that in all the patristic discussions of this text, only Chrysostom, who lived in an imperial city, made the connection between this term and an imperial reception. In addition, the claim that that απαντησις is a technical term because Seneca included it in untranslated Greek in a Latin text referring to a procession is relativized by Cosby’s observation that Seneca often included untranslated Greek terms in his writing. In other words, the fact that Seneca left the word untranslated does not itself demonstrate that the term is technical.

Cosby then notes six differences between 1 Thessalonians 4 and the “Hellenistic receptions.” 1. These receptions were planned, but Christians do not know when Christ will arrive. 2. Those who greeted dignitaries wore special clothes, which Christians will not do at the return of Christ. 3. The dignitary was not announced with trumpets or heralds. 4. Donations were given to the dignitary. 5. Judgement of the wicked was not a part of these dignitary visits, but it is a major part of Christ’s return. 6. The dignitary would offer a sacrifice, but Christ already offered the final sacrifice.

Robert H. Gundry, “A Brief Note on “Hellenistic Formal Receptions and Paul’s Use of ΑΠΑΝΤΗΣΙΣ in 1 Thessalonians 4:17,” Bulletin for Biblical Research, Vol. 6 (1996): 39-41.

Gundry’s response to Cosby’s article concedes the point that “απαντησις does not by itself connote a reception of that kind,” meaning that it is not a technical term for a delegation that goes out to meet a dignitary and return with him to a city. However, Gundry holds that instead of differences between the Hellenistic receptions and 1 Thessalonians 4, there are similarities. 1. Gundry holds that Christians will know ahead of time when Christ will arrive (2 Thess. 2:3-12). 2. Christians will be newly clothed with imperishable bodies (1 Cor. 15; 2 Cor. 5). 3. Gundry grants the difference between “the shouts of acclamation” at a Hellenistic reception and “the summoning shout and trumpet blast at the Parousia.” But he claims that they “share the element of happy noise.” 4. Gundry holds that believers present themselves to Christ as holy, blameless, and mature (Col. 1:22, 28). 5. Gundry observes that Cosby noted that prisoners were sometimes executed at these events. 6. Gundry says that Cosby presents a good reason for the absence of the sacrifice—Christ already provided the final sacrifice.

How does Gundry’s critique hold up? Points 1 and 3 do not hold. Even if there are signs preceding this event, a matter that is debated, that doesn’t mean Christians know when Christ will return. And the difference in point 3 cannot be erased by claiming they are both happy noises. Points 2 and 4 depend on reaching outside the passage. There is no case made that the Thessalonians would have been able to make the proposed connections. Gundry seems to be correct with regard to point 5. He seems to indicate that point 6 is an exception to the rule. I’d grant that if there were sustainable parallels in the other five points, but it is hard to maintain when four of the other five points fail to hold.

Conclusion

It seems that απαντησις can refer to a Hellenistic dignitary reception, and if one holds to a post-tribulation position, it makes sense to float that as a possibility in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. But it also seems that the word is not a technical term. Further, given the absence of the elements of such a reception in this passage, a posttribulation reading of this passage cannot be mandated on the basis of this term.

Thoughts on Dispensationalism in Scholarship

Toward the beginning of his article, Cosby makes plain that though he is opposing a key argument in a posttribulational reading of 1 Thessalonians 4, he is not advocating the pretribulational position. Problematically, Cosby only engages with Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth and a popular book by John Walvoord. This article was published several years after the initial wave of books on Progressive Dispensationalism came out. There were plenty of recent scholarly books and articles that Cosby could have interacted with.

Similarly, in reading Robert Cara’s 2009 commentary on the Thessalonian epistles, when he footnotes his discussion of pretibulationalism, he cites two articles by Walvoord from the 1960s and 1970s. I read the articles, and they were unimpressive―an exercise faulty assumptions and in reading one’s system into the text.

What troubles me is that both Cosby and Cara’s citations show exceedingly poor scholarship. Why, at a time when the first wave of Progressive Dispensationalist articles and books were being published, is Cosby citing Hal Lindsey in an academic journal? And why, in a 2009 commentary are articles from 30 to 40 years ago being cited? Why is there no interaction with more careful and more recent literature? I am a bit at a loss as to why scholars whose work I appreciate in other areas set aside their scholarship when dealing with dispensationalism.

An Interpretation of W. B. Yeats’s “Second Coming”

by

Harrison, John R. “What Rough Beast? Yeats, Nietzsche and Historical Rhetoric in ‘The Second Coming'” Papers on Language and Literature (September 1995): 362-88.

Harrison argues that in his poem “The Second Coming” (known for such lines as “things fall apart; the centre cannot hold” and “what rough beast … slouches towards Bethlehem) Yeats presents readers with a Nietzschean-influenced vision of history. According to Harrison Yeats had a cyclical view of history. In this case, it is pictured as a gyre or cone shape. Picture two of these cones coming together at their points. That center is the birth of Christ. But now, Yeats, says that center cannot hold. After 2,000 years Christianity has run its course and the world is slipping into anarchy. Christian theology would say that the falling apart of the world points to the Second Coming of Christ. But Yeats sees instead the revival of the pagan sphinx, “A shape with lion body and the head of a man,” as it “Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born.” In other words, the Second Coming that Yeats envisions is the coming of anti-Christ rather than the coming of Christ.