Steven Carr

Before Paul left for his trip to Europe, there was an interesting thread on NT Wright's interpretation.

Mr. Baxter wrote :-:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On I Thess, in my opinion you are not quite being fair (to Wright). He interprets some of this language figuratively, on the premise that that is how Paul meant it to be taken. Referring to the 'literal' interpretation he says "The multiple apocalyptic resonances of the passage on the one hand, and the glorious mixed metaphors on the other, make this interpretation highly unlikely. Fortunately, the rest of the passage is reasonably clear . . ." (TROTSOG p215)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I replied :-

Here is the bit from 1 Thessalonians, note the we who are still
alive and are left till the coming of the Lord. Everybody that was addressed to is dead, aren't they? I'm reminded of the famous Jehovah's Witness book 'Millions now living will never die'.

14We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words.

I'm glad Wright finds the meaning of this passage reasonably clear.

What did the Christians in the first two centuries see happen, which would have made them think, 'Yes, that is what Paul meant by we who are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.'

This might be figurative , but what events was it figurative about?


What did the Christians in the first two centuries see happen, which would have made them think 'Yes that is what Paul meant when he wrote 'For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.'


This might be figurative , but what events was it figurative about?

I would still be interested in answers to these questions.

judge

Following the grat tribulation (66-70 a.d.) or there abouts, Jesus raised the dead from the "house of the dead", where they "slept" . On death we are clothed with immortality (caught up in clouds....this is the "afterwards").

I don't think any of this was visible, but if you read daniel 12 you will see that the "resurrection" was to happen at this time. So naturally as his (Paul's) recipients were curious abot these things, and expecting the "new age" Paul explained it to them

At least that's how I've come to see it. (but may be introuble with the prophesy police)...

Paul Baxter

Stephen,

Thanks for remembering me

I can tell you the answer to your question without too much trouble: I don't know. If you excerpt vss 16 & 17, then the paragraph is, to me at least, fairly clear in meaning, being about hope for those xians who die.

But that's not what you asked. Certainly eschatological questions are vexing, and you'll get a lot of opinions from a lot of different folks. I think the confusion in this passage is the confluence of the dead rising on the one hand and the clouds of heaven on the other. I think Paul meant these to be considered separately. When he says the dead will rise, I assume he means that in the same way he means it elewhere, i.e. that they will rise from the dead, not rise into heaven.

The part preceding this--the coming, the command, the voice, the trumpet--are various figures from OT prophecy denoting the day of God's judgment/wrath/vindication of his people. I don't have the references at hand, but seems to echo various passage in Isaiah and Daniel among others.

I would assume that Paul was trying to counter some particular contrary postion he had heard about in Thessalonica (as he is obviously doing in II Thess as well), but it's hard to reconstruct that. It might be something along the lines of "those who die/are martyred have already acheived victory with God, but we who are alive have not", or maybe something totally different.

In any event, putting together what Paul said leads to the idea that on the day of judgment (clouds, loud voice, trumpet), the dead (believers) shall be raised up, and all believers will be vindicated and counted among God's side/the heavenly kingdom/the "host of heaven". Something like that. Heaven, as you probably know, can refer to both the literal sky and to the "place" from which God rules. So the passage does not necessarily, in my mind, mean that living believers at any point take a skyward leap.

As to when early believers were hoping to see such an event, you'll have to ask someone else. Sooner or later, I suppose. My feeling is they were kinda hoping for sooner, but that the NT message doesn't necessarliy rule out later.

Anything I didn't cover or which made no sense at all (I wouldn't be surprised).

PB

Steven Carr

'17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.'

I can't find anything about the dead in that verse.

I asked what it did mean would happen to them. What is it figurative of? Why did Paul use a metaphor of 'motion' when Wright claims no motion will happen?


If you are right that there will not be a skyward leap, then what sort of figurative leap will happen, and why is a leap into the clouds a good poetic, metaphor of what you believe will actually happen?


What was the point of Paul writing something that the Thessalonians had no chance of interpreting?

You write 'I don't have the references at hand, but seems to echo various passage in Isaiah and Daniel among others.'


Is Wright corect that Paul could rely on the Thessalonians having a remarkable ability to pick up on his references to Isaiah and Daniel, just a short while after their conversion, so that they would not be confused by Paul's talk of people still alive rising into the clouds to meet the Lord?

After all, you do not know these references and you teach courses in Christianity.


And in 2 Thess. 1:7 'This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels.' .

It is really hard to swallow Wright's claim that there will be no fire.


So 'we who are still alive' does not necessarily rule out later? As Paul and all who read that letter are dead, it does rule it out.

Seems to me that Wright is doing no more than Bible-denial, as he cannot concede that this was a failed prophecy - so he simply denies what it says, and claims that it has no meaning.


If Paul wanted to claim merely that live Christians would also join dead Christians in Heaven , he could have done it in a lot simpler fashion.


You write :-

'Something like that. Heaven, as you probably know, can refer to both the literal sky and to the "place" from which God rules'

Perhaps you can give us an example of Jews saying that these were two different concepts - that there was only sky above us and that Heaven was not above us.


You also write ' When he says the dead will rise, I assume he means that in the same way he means it elewhere, i.e. that they will rise from the dead, not rise into heaven.'

Are you really claiming that Christians believed the dead will not rise into Heaven?

In 2 Corinthians 12, Paul is 'caught up' into the 'third Heaven'. The word for 'caught up' is the same word used in Acts to describe how Philip was 'caught up' into the air.

Wright's eschatology is based on denying what the Bible says, and reading into it what it does not say. Paul has no concept in his writing of Wright's claim that Jesus was preaching that Jerusalem would soon be destroyed.

Paul Baxter

Steven,

I hope I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not an expert on this passage. All I'm truly convinced of is that it does not teach the "rapture" which I was brought up believing.

Couple of quick answers to some of your questions.

On heaven: I thought it was common knowledge that the term heaven carried these meanings. That's how my lexicon divides them up.

On the dead in vs 17: Does the pronoun refer to the dead? If not, what does it refer to? Perhaps you meant something else?

On length of time of the Thessalonians faith: how long had they believed? How long does it take to read Daniel and Isaiah? You raise an interesting point here, and one that can apply throughout Pauline studies, i.e. did the audience pick up on all of Paul's references. I think the only honest answer here is maybe sometimes, and sometimes maybe not. Perhaps Paul figures since they had scriptures there, someone would either be familiar with the references, or would become so later. Also, it would only take one person, say a Jew, to pick up on this and explain it to everyine else. But for more on this problem I highly recommend the work of Duke prof. Richard Hays in _Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul_.

On the dead: of couse early xians believed they would rise from the dead. Paul seems to imply in II Cor an perhaps elsewhere that there was a "life after death" in heaven, but that is completely separate from and prior to the resurrection. The idea that resurrection=going to heaven is quite foreign to the NT, but certainly gained traction in the church later and is still quite prevalent today. Wright, in his latest book, proves this point quite beyond arguing.

On timing/specific expectation (your main question?): I can't say I've figured this out even to my own satisfaction. I've just tried to convey where I am on this myself at the moment. I don't think the "we who are alive" is quite as strong as you think it is. Perhaps Paul thought it would be soon. I like to read this as "whoever is alive at that time". Maybe I'm wrong. I don't quite agree with judge above that this is talking about the war or judgment in 70, though I'm open to arguments for that position, and I think that passages like Matt 24 are quite definately about that event.

You can ask any more questions you want, but you've probably exhausted my knowledge of I Thess 4 already. I'd refer you to a good commentary, but I'm not familiar with one (not saying any particular one is bad, just that I'm not up on this).

Paul Baxter

I'd forgotten that I have on myself Wright's little devotional book, _Paul for Everyone: Galatians and Thessalonians_. I'm not at liberty to copy it out for you, due to time and copywright concerns, but it says pretty much what I had said to you. I'll just give you this little bit of it:

{quote}When Paul talks of Jesus 'descending', he doesn't suppose that Jesus is physically above us at the moment. Heaven, where Jesus is, isn't another location within our space, but another dimension. The language of 'descending' is the risky metaphor--all metaphors are risky when talking of the future--that Paul here chooses. Elsewhere (e.g. Col 3:4) he can speak simply of Jesus 'appearing', emerging from the presetnly hidden world of heaven, as heaven and earth are at last united, visibly present to one another {end quote}. p 125

Paul can be accused, by uncomprehending modern readers, of mixing literal and figurative language together in this passage, but, like the copulation habits of hares, we do it all the time as well.

Steven Carr

Does Wright even bother to give evidence that Paul did not suppose Heaven to be above us?

And why, oh why, is a metaphor of 'rising into the clouds to meet the Lord in the air' , a good metaphor for what will happen to those who are alive on the day of judgement?


Metaphors mean something, dammit. Wright can't just say it is a metaphor and then not explain why it is a good metaphor.

If I said Wright is one Book short of a Testament in his exegesis, I could explain this metaphor by pointing out how it has an image of incompleteness, and that something has to be supplied to make it complete.

Does Wright explain how rising into the clouds to meet the Lord in the air is a metaphor of what will happen to those still alive?


As for Colossians 3:4, there is absolutely nothing in it which at all contradicts the idea that Jesus is going to appear by coming down from Heaven. Wright simply cites Scripture , but never explains how it supports his case. It doesn't.

And , of course, we have Colossians 3:1, which Wright , for some reason, left out when he claimed that Colossians 3 somehow contradicts the view that Paul thought Jesus was above us.

'Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God.'

Do I need to explain how this supports the view that Paul thought Christ was above us?



Metaphors mean something, dammit. Wright can't just say it is a metaphor and then not explain why it is a good metaphor.

If I said Wright is one Book short of a Testament in his exegesis, I could explain this metaphor by pointing out how it has an image of incompleteness, and that something has to be supplied to make it complete.

Does Wright explain how rising into the clouds to meet the Lord in the air is a metaphor of what will happen to those still alive?

Paul Baxter

Shortest answer I think I can possibly come up with.

Heaven means two things

1 The sky (and similar stuff)

2 God's home

People were quite aware of the diference between these two. Consult any Greek dictionary.

Of course people conflated these two to some degree, so that God is 'above', but so what? It's not like there was some particular point in the sky where God lived.

Steven Carr

So?

The White House has two meanings. A place on Capitol Hill. The place from where Bush governs. Are you saying these are different places?

The fact that Heaven has two meanings does not mean that Jews believed there was only sky above us.

When you say people were quite aware that the sky above us was not where God reigned from, you will find it easy to produce quotes by Jews saying that.

Steven Carr

Amazing how many false dichotomies Wright can pack in!

There is no dichotomy between Paul talking of Jesus appearing and Paul talking of Jesus descending.

And there is no dichotomy between Paul think Heaven was above us, and Paul thinking Heaven is not a location in our space.

Paul would have thought of Heaven as a celestial sphere (actually more than one - Paul talks about the third Heaven for example). He would not have regarded it as 'our space'. It was unreachable for him, and unthinkable for him that it could be reached.

Wright is building a strawman that people who say that Paul thought Heaven was above us (see Colossians 3:1), are saying that Paul thought Heaven was in our space.

And his blanket assertion that people who disagree with him are 'uncomprehending' is simply well-poisoning.

How many fallacies can a scholar produce in two paragraphs?