Awenydd

Last Sunday we had a Rev. Charles Svoboda preach at our church. He was from the IFCA, he was 87 years old, he was dispensational. He made repeated reference to the “blessed hope” and “glorious appearing” of Christ in a way that clearly referred to the Rapture, and he adamantly maintained that the world is getting worse—a sure sign of the imminent return of Jesus Christ.

Pastor Svoboda came to Christ at Cicero Bible Church in 1941, the same church where my parents’ college pastor Dr. Saxe was converted, and under the ministry of the same man. Providentially, Pastor Saxe’s son Jonathan was visiting us and our church with his family that very Sunday, and were able to meet him. We discovered that not only did Dr. Svoboda know Pastor Saxe, he had spoken to him only a few days before!

Now, I am actually going somewhere with this. Anyone who has read my articles on eschatology knows I don’t agree with the dispensational interpretation of Scripture. But as soon as this man began to speak, it was clear that he was immersed in the Bible. He had memorized these passages of salvation that he was presenting to us, the congregation, and he believed them with all his heart. As soon as he began to speak, even before I knew who he was or where he came from, I was completely at ease with him.

Because even though I may not agree with him or Pastor Saxe or any number of these people in their eschatology, I cannot help but acknowledge and respect whole lives lived for Christ, the love they have for the people of God, and the pure sincerity with which they serve the Lord. Although I continue to examine various passages and attempt to bring deeper and perhaps different meanings to light in the Scripture, I do not despise these people with whom I disagree. How can I? No Christian should despise them for the sake of their theology. They represent collectively many hundreds of years of service to God. We all can learn a lot from that.

I am departing a short while from Matthew 24, though we’re not going too far, since I’ll be referencing Matthew 25.

1 Thessalonians 4:14-17

For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

This is the classic passage that many understand as refering to the Rapture, whether pre-tribulational, post-tribulational, or mid-tribulational. The passage tells us that Jesus will descend from heaven to take up all who believe in him. From there, many interpreters will generally read the passage with the assumption that all those who have been taken up will then go with Jesus back up into the clouds to be with him forever.

I want to propose that when we read the passage this way, we are reading the translation at its English face value and missing the original meaning, which should be determined primarily by comparing the section to other similar passages. We should always follow the general principle of biblical interpretation to read more difficult sections in light of similar but clearer ones.

For the purpose of this article I’ll be concentrating on one word: “meet.”

Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air . . .

This word “meet” in the Greek text is a lot richer than in our English translations. It has implications for direction, initiator, etc. The English “meet” is a translation of the Greek apantesis. By lexical definition this word means far more than to simply encounter. I want to first establish the lexical definition and then take a look at how the word is used elsewhere in the New Testament.

From Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words:

apantesis (ἀπάντησις, 529), “a meeting” (akin to A, No. 1), occurs in Matt. 25:6 (in some mss. in v. 1, and in 27:32, in some mss.); Acts 28:15; 1 Thess. 4:17. It is used in the papyri of a newly arriving magistrate. “It seems that the special idea of the word was the official welcome of a newly arrived dignitary.”

So no ordinary meeting this is, but one of a city going out to meet a dignitary or magistrate. When the dignitary approached a city, the elders of the city would go out to meet him and escort him back into the city.

Interesting as a lexical definition, but it doesn’t necessarily tell us about how apantesis is used in the biblical literature. Let’s take a closer look at the other two New Testament uses of the word. We should pay particular attention to who is doing the “meeting,” who is being “met,” which direction both parties are traveling, and where they go afterward.

Let’s start with the clearest of the three usages:

Acts 28:15

And so we came to Rome. And ^the brothers there, when they heard about us, came as far as the Forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us. On seeing them, ^Paul thanked God and took courage. And when we came into Rome, ^Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier that guarded him.

So . . .

1) Paul is traveling toward the city of Rome.
2) The brethren meet him.
3) Paul and the brethren continue on into Rome, the original destination.

Let’s take a look at Matthew 25:1-11

Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them, but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps. As the bridegroom was delayed, they all became drowsy and slept. But at midnight there was a cry, ‘Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.’ Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ But the wise answered, saying, ‘Since there will not be enough for us and for you, go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.’ And while they were going to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut. Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, ‘Lord, lord, open to us.’ But he answered, ‘Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.’

This is an important passage to consider in relation to 1 Thessalonians 4 because it is most likely describing the same events in parable form. Christ returns to Earth to claim his bride, who is patiently awaiting him. So let’s look at the same questions here that we did in Acts 28.

1) The bridegroom is going to the marriage feast.
2) The virgins go out to meet him.
3) They continue on to the marriage feast, the original destination.

It is not explicitly stated that the virgins are already at the location of the feast, but that can be inferred fairly clearly as the parable’s narrative seems to depend on it. The bridegroom certainly does not fetch them from where they are waiting and whisk them off to some far away location. Rather, while the foolish virgins are away buying more oil, the bridegroom comes and enters into the marriage feast with the five wise virgins. The foolish virgins return to their original location to find the door already shut.

I think it is pretty clear that the lexical definition of apantesis fits the biblical usage almost exactly. Someone important approaches, those waiting go to meet him, and then escort him back to the location where they were waiting. In no case does the one being met reverse direction and return the way he came. On the contrary, it is the party meeting the dignitary who changes direction.

What can we gather about the meaning of 1 Thessalonians 4:17 by comparing it with these other similar texts? Well, let’s use our “who and where” questions in the same way:

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

So reading in light of the other usages of apantesis, here is what we see:

1) The Lord descends from heaven [toward Earth].
2) After the dead rise first, we who are alive go to meet him in the air.
3) [We accompany the Lord back to Earth, which he was originally approaching, and where we were waiting for him].

Here’s a quick diagram illustrating what we find when comparing all three of these passages in parallel:

We see here that the most natural and biblically consistent reading of
1 Thessalonians 4:17 gives us a picture of the second and final coming, when Jesus will come to judge and rule the world forever. When examined closely it does not appear to be such a good fit for a pre-trib or mid-trib Rapture. To see the Rapture in this text you would have to approach the passage with that already in mind.

Jesus does not simply snatch his bride from the world and take her away to Heaven, never to be seen again. Rather, He calls her up to Him as He approaches, and together they descend to Earth in glory, where she will be with Him forever.

Finally we note that in Matthew 25, if we read it as a parallel to
1 Thessalonians 4, we find that the marriage feast is the final destination, not simply a marker in the middle of God’s time line. It is to the marriage feast that Christ and his bride return after their “meeting” in the air. It is not something that happens in the clouds, but rather it takes place in this world, which God loved and gave his Son to redeem. That feast will be in the New Heavens and the New Earth, when Jesus Christ returns, physically and visibly, just as he ascended. That is the kingdom of heaven.

Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (ESV)

If you read this and most other translations, you can easily come to a mis-understanding of what the text is actually saying. In English, this verse appears to say that the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven. As this lends itself to our imagination, we picture people on Earth gazing up at the sky at some supernatural apparition—the sign of the Son of Man. But there is a better and more likely interpretation of this phrase. To understand it, we need to ask ourselves, what, exactly, is “in heaven”? In Greek, this can more naturally (and in light of the second half of this verse, which I’ll come to, more likely does) refer to the location of the Son of Man, rather than to the sign. The sign simply appears, and the location of its appearing is not disclosed.

How does the second half of the verse support this interpretation? Again, if we just read the English, and particularly if we do not read it in the light of other Scriptural texts to which it refers, we may let our imaginations get the better of us. We picture Jesus Christ, robed in brilliant light, riding the clouds of heaven like a chariot, descending to Earth on the last day with a host of his angelic army following at his back.

But let’s think biblically here instead of letting our creative natures run wild. To what is this verse referring? The Son of Man on the clouds of Heaven refers, in fact, to Daniel 7:13-14.

I saw in the night visions,
and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.

I have a couple observations about this. First, there should be no doubt that Matthew 24:30 is a direct reference to Daniel 7:13. Both speak of the Son of Man “coming” on the clouds of heaven; both speak of the Son of Man’s power and glory. Matthew 24 describes the fulfillment of Daniel 7.

So this is Christ’s second coming, right?

The problem is when we consider the direction the Son is “coming.” In English, when we say “come,” we automatically assume that the subject is travelling in our direction. Hence our tendency to interpret Matthew 24:30 as Christ “coming” down to Earth. But we need to consider the perspective of Daniel and the purpose of Matthew.
Which way is the Son of Man coming in the texts? Daniel views his visions from a high heavenly vantage point. In Daniel 7, the Son is coming to the Ancient of Days. In proper English, from an earthly perspective, the text tells us that Christ is really going, not coming. So why does Matthew say “coming”? Matthew is quoting Daniel almost word for word. Since Daniel (viewing things from a heavenly vantage point) says “coming,” Matthew uses the same word to make the reference explicit. That may make the direction of movement more obscure, but that is only if one isn’t aware of Daniel 7.

Let’s compare this with a conflation of two other passages—

Matthew 28:16-20 and Acts 1:9.

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

Sound familiar? All of these passages are speaking of Jesus Christ going to the Father’s right hand on the clouds. I don’t think there can be much doubt. Matthew 24:30 is speaking not of Christ’s second coming to Earth at the end of history (which is yet to come) but of his ascension to the right hand of the Father (which happened at a particular point in history), where he rules both Heaven and Earth.

So in light of this, what is the first half of the verse saying? It is Jesus’ promise to his listeners that they will be given a sign that the Son of Man is in Heaven—that he has gone to the right hand of the Father, and that he rules. Of course, the rest of Matthew 24 must be read with this in mind. And we should note that the tribulation comes before this sign.

While we should not confuse the sign with that which is signified (the sign is the evidence of a state that is already in effect), most often sign and signified are temporally linked. One closely follows the other in time and space. From this, we may infer (though not with complete confidence from this text), that since the signified (ascension and rule) occurred two thousand years ago, the event of the sign itself also is history.

It can be easy to think of being “left behind” as a good thing, considering the Greek (aphietai) can also mean released, forgiven, etc. It can, of course, also quite literally mean to be left alone and abandoned. After some thought, I’ve decided on the latter interpretation in the context of Matthew 24. The unbelievers will be abandoned.

And the believer? “Taken away” is not such a good translation for “paralambanetai.” It misses so much. The real sense of the word is more like “taken in.” It emphasizes status rather than location. It is a covenantal word, describing how the believer is received by God and identified with Christ. This cannot be said of the unbeliever.

In fact, there is virtually no negative connotation possible for the word. It certainly does not mean “swept away.” The closest one might get is to translate it as “to take over or receive jurisdiction over,” as in the case of a prisoner or slave. But then, that describes the Christian just as well. The believer is the doulos (bondservant) of Jesus Christ.

So. Let’s look at this whole concept of being “Left Behind.” The premise is that at the rapture … er, sorry, The Rapture … believers in Christ will be taken away (to meet the Lord in the air), and the unbelievers will be “left behind.” After all, isn’t that what Matthew 24 says? If you listen to Tim LaHaye, you’d think it was a settled issue. Clear as crystal.

But actually there are two views on this.

Jesus says that this event will be like “in the days of Noah.” In Noah’s day, people were going along their merry little lives until Noah entered the ark. And suddenly, the flood came and “swept them all them away!” So in the same way, in the event Jesus is describing, two people will be in the field. One will be “taken away” and one left.

But who’s getting taken? If we look to the parallel illustration of Noah and the flood this way:

Noah into the ark = those left behind (or alone)
Everyone else swept away = those taken away

… we may actually conclude that those who were making merry in Noah’s day were taken, while Noah was left. Likewise, it would then be the unbeliever in Jesus’ warning that is being taken, not Christians being raptured. The believers are left. This may further be supported by the connotations of forgiveness, peace, and pardon that the Greek word translated as “left behind” can sometimes have.

All in all, a fairly convincing reading. It makes perfect sense in English translations, while to reverse the roles seems odd. This is the position to which many preterist interpreters subscribe. I was one of them, oh … last week. However …

On closer examination, I’m not so convinced of this interpretation after all. I’ll elaborate on why that is in the next article, to be added shortly.