Post by jaybee on Jul 23, 2015 17:59:42 GMT -8
The following is a rough draft excerpt - so excuse the typos - from a term paper I am writing this semester. I figure I will throw it up here for conversation:
Much of 1 Thessalonians is clear in its reading, from the history Paul relates of his arrival and preaching to the people, to the instructions he gives the church. However, there is one area of the letter which proves to be problematic. The problem stems from Paul’s prediction of the Lord’s return, or the “Day of the Lord” – better understood as the παρουσία (parousia) in Greek.
Reading most mainstream Bible scholars shows that the popular understanding of this expected return recorded in 1 Thessalonians is eschatological in nature – an event still awaiting fulfillment in what almost every believer likely knows as the second coming of Christ and the end of history. Despite this overwhelming majority opinion, it is easy to find many reputable scholars who fall on the other side of this issue and believe this forecasted παρουσία has already seen fulfillment.
Due to the division of respected scholars, and the fact that popularity does not make right a belief, the following consideration of this problem turns from conflicting sources and considers an independent, reasoned walk-through of the passage. A deliberation in such a project as this cannot hope to present all necessary material for leading every reader to a definitive conclusion, but can only hope to open up the passage for reflection and possibility.
Preliminary reading of the passage poses a ready problem with an eschatological understanding. Paul says, “…we who are alive, who are left, will be suddenly caught up…” Paul’s words speak to his contemporaries – his direct audience – as the ones who will be alive and caught up at the παρουσία. Additionally, it is on this basis – that the return of Christ will happen in the lifetime of Paul and his readers – that Paul tells his audience to reassure one another.
Paul writes further to his contemporary audience telling them that the return of the Lord will not take them “as a thief in the night.” The language indicates that Paul’s direct readers will experience the return of Christ; while others will be caught unaware, Paul’s readers will be ready.
One might wonder if Paul mistakenly wrote, in misguided belief, that some of his readers would be alive for the coming of Christ referenced here. Or, perhaps one must consider if, having been taught directly by Christ fairly soon after his conversion, Paul knew what he was saying and was correct. The consideration here boils down to: Even if Paul was mistaken, would the Holy Spirit allow erroneous words into the Bible?
It is obvious that the traditional Christian would claim that Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote down truthful words, without error or contradiction to themselves or other scripture.
Perhaps one might contend that Paul is using an all inclusive “we” to refer to any believer from his writing on, not just the ones he is directly communicating to. The problem with this is that it violates the nature of a letter. First and foremost, it is understood with the epistles that we are reading someone else’s mail. Therefore, unless clearly stated otherwise, all content must logically be assumed to relate from the author to the direct audience. The generally understood nature of “we” in grammar is that it includes the speaker and the contemporaries he is addressing.
Given the following:
1. The Holy Spirit’s understood hand in preventing errors in the Bible;
2. The knowledge that “we” grammatically involves contemporaries;
3. And the absence of reasons in the passage to read Paul’s “we” in an odd manner;
It must seriously be entertained that this παρουσία, or the second coming of the Lord, did in fact happen during the lifetime of Paul’s contemporaries to ensure Paul’s words – and the Bible itself – stand true.
Today’s common theology poses a problem for such an idea. It looks for a yet undocumented event where Christ literally returns on a cloud, with a trumpet and an angel’s voice, while the dead and living believers are caught up to meet him.
What happens after they meet him is contested amongst scholars. The well known Left Behind series conveys the mainstream Dispensational view that after meeting Christ, the Christian are taken with him, out of the world, while the earth goes through a time of tribulation. The impasse with this idea is that the passage does not support such an understanding. In actuality, the Greek translated word for “meet” refers to people who go out to greet an arriving dignitary, and then escort him on the last bit of his travel into their city. Thus, a technically correct reading of the “meeting” Paul speaks of, should have Christians going out to meet Christ, to then escort him back to earth. Meeting the dignitary to return to the place of the dignitary’s origination is not intended by the wording of Paul.
Beyond this problem with the Dispensational view, the issue with taking the imagery surrounding Christ’s return literal, is that such a reading of the passage would require a literal interpretation of Paul’s “we” in connection with his contemporary audience as previously considered. Thus, a literal reading fully supports the idea that Paul was right in telling his audience that Christ’s return would happen during their lifetime, but poses the problem that the return of Christ has not happened as described.
The Bible solves this problem for its readers. A general Bible search of the Lord’s coming will reveal the recording of such events. An example comes from the book of Micah as he predicts the fall of Samaria. Micah describes the coming of the Lord to march on mountaintops, disintegrating and melting them. While it is a historical record that Samaria fell, the Lord did not literally walk on mountains.
Another example of the language surrounding the coming of the Lord can be found in the book of Revelation with Christ’s message to the church in Ephesus. Here Christ threatens to come to the church and remove their lampstand. It is apparent that neither the church of Ephesus, nor the entire city exist any longer. However, it is understood that the return of Christ was not intended literally to remove an actual lampstand.
From these examples, it is plain to see that the coming of the Lord can be biblically supported as a spiritual occurrence, rather than a literal one. Additionally, the coming of the Lord can be described using symbolic imagery, such as dissolving and melting mountains and removing a lampstand.
With this final piece in mind, the problem passage can be considered in a new light. Paul’s use of “we” can fit within the proper grammatical context of a letter – author and contemporary recipients – while the coming of the Lord can be biblically supported to be symbolic in nature, and not needing a literal fulfillment. Additionally, the meeting of the Christians with Christ can be understood as a spiritual event, ushering Christ to earth.
This leaves present day readers to look for a historical event which would have taken place during the lifetime of Paul’s contemporaries, and spiritually fulfilled the coming of Christ and subsequent arrival to his people.
Reading most mainstream Bible scholars shows that the popular understanding of this expected return recorded in 1 Thessalonians is eschatological in nature – an event still awaiting fulfillment in what almost every believer likely knows as the second coming of Christ and the end of history. Despite this overwhelming majority opinion, it is easy to find many reputable scholars who fall on the other side of this issue and believe this forecasted παρουσία has already seen fulfillment.
Due to the division of respected scholars, and the fact that popularity does not make right a belief, the following consideration of this problem turns from conflicting sources and considers an independent, reasoned walk-through of the passage. A deliberation in such a project as this cannot hope to present all necessary material for leading every reader to a definitive conclusion, but can only hope to open up the passage for reflection and possibility.
Preliminary reading of the passage poses a ready problem with an eschatological understanding. Paul says, “…we who are alive, who are left, will be suddenly caught up…” Paul’s words speak to his contemporaries – his direct audience – as the ones who will be alive and caught up at the παρουσία. Additionally, it is on this basis – that the return of Christ will happen in the lifetime of Paul and his readers – that Paul tells his audience to reassure one another.
Paul writes further to his contemporary audience telling them that the return of the Lord will not take them “as a thief in the night.” The language indicates that Paul’s direct readers will experience the return of Christ; while others will be caught unaware, Paul’s readers will be ready.
One might wonder if Paul mistakenly wrote, in misguided belief, that some of his readers would be alive for the coming of Christ referenced here. Or, perhaps one must consider if, having been taught directly by Christ fairly soon after his conversion, Paul knew what he was saying and was correct. The consideration here boils down to: Even if Paul was mistaken, would the Holy Spirit allow erroneous words into the Bible?
It is obvious that the traditional Christian would claim that Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote down truthful words, without error or contradiction to themselves or other scripture.
Perhaps one might contend that Paul is using an all inclusive “we” to refer to any believer from his writing on, not just the ones he is directly communicating to. The problem with this is that it violates the nature of a letter. First and foremost, it is understood with the epistles that we are reading someone else’s mail. Therefore, unless clearly stated otherwise, all content must logically be assumed to relate from the author to the direct audience. The generally understood nature of “we” in grammar is that it includes the speaker and the contemporaries he is addressing.
Given the following:
1. The Holy Spirit’s understood hand in preventing errors in the Bible;
2. The knowledge that “we” grammatically involves contemporaries;
3. And the absence of reasons in the passage to read Paul’s “we” in an odd manner;
It must seriously be entertained that this παρουσία, or the second coming of the Lord, did in fact happen during the lifetime of Paul’s contemporaries to ensure Paul’s words – and the Bible itself – stand true.
Today’s common theology poses a problem for such an idea. It looks for a yet undocumented event where Christ literally returns on a cloud, with a trumpet and an angel’s voice, while the dead and living believers are caught up to meet him.
What happens after they meet him is contested amongst scholars. The well known Left Behind series conveys the mainstream Dispensational view that after meeting Christ, the Christian are taken with him, out of the world, while the earth goes through a time of tribulation. The impasse with this idea is that the passage does not support such an understanding. In actuality, the Greek translated word for “meet” refers to people who go out to greet an arriving dignitary, and then escort him on the last bit of his travel into their city. Thus, a technically correct reading of the “meeting” Paul speaks of, should have Christians going out to meet Christ, to then escort him back to earth. Meeting the dignitary to return to the place of the dignitary’s origination is not intended by the wording of Paul.
Beyond this problem with the Dispensational view, the issue with taking the imagery surrounding Christ’s return literal, is that such a reading of the passage would require a literal interpretation of Paul’s “we” in connection with his contemporary audience as previously considered. Thus, a literal reading fully supports the idea that Paul was right in telling his audience that Christ’s return would happen during their lifetime, but poses the problem that the return of Christ has not happened as described.
The Bible solves this problem for its readers. A general Bible search of the Lord’s coming will reveal the recording of such events. An example comes from the book of Micah as he predicts the fall of Samaria. Micah describes the coming of the Lord to march on mountaintops, disintegrating and melting them. While it is a historical record that Samaria fell, the Lord did not literally walk on mountains.
Another example of the language surrounding the coming of the Lord can be found in the book of Revelation with Christ’s message to the church in Ephesus. Here Christ threatens to come to the church and remove their lampstand. It is apparent that neither the church of Ephesus, nor the entire city exist any longer. However, it is understood that the return of Christ was not intended literally to remove an actual lampstand.
From these examples, it is plain to see that the coming of the Lord can be biblically supported as a spiritual occurrence, rather than a literal one. Additionally, the coming of the Lord can be described using symbolic imagery, such as dissolving and melting mountains and removing a lampstand.
With this final piece in mind, the problem passage can be considered in a new light. Paul’s use of “we” can fit within the proper grammatical context of a letter – author and contemporary recipients – while the coming of the Lord can be biblically supported to be symbolic in nature, and not needing a literal fulfillment. Additionally, the meeting of the Christians with Christ can be understood as a spiritual event, ushering Christ to earth.
This leaves present day readers to look for a historical event which would have taken place during the lifetime of Paul’s contemporaries, and spiritually fulfilled the coming of Christ and subsequent arrival to his people.