1Th. 4:15 Τοῦτο γὰρ ὑμῖν λέγομεν ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου, ὅτι ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι εἰς τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ κυρίου οὐ μὴ φθάσωμεν τοὺς κοιμηθέντας· 16 ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος ἐν κελεύσματι, ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι θεοῦ, καταβήσεται ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ καὶ οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστήσονται πρῶτον, 17 ἔπειτα ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁρπαγησόμεθα ἐν νεφέλαις εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα· καὶ οὕτως πάντοτε σὺν κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα. Spent some time looking over the exegetical history from John Calvin to J. Weima[1].
He employs the term κελεύσματος, (shout,) and afterwards adds, the voice of the archangel, by way of exposition, intimating what is to be the nature of that arousing shout—that the archangel will discharge the office of a herald to summon the living and the dead to the tribunal of Christ. John Calvin
Paul is invoking an eschatological – apocalyptic scenario where 98% of the scenario is left to be filled in by the reader. Not sure what can be assumed about the Thessalonian’s familiarity with Second Temple Apocalyptic literature but that isn’t the problem. Paul invokes the scenario as if they were familiar with it. In the apocalyptic literature divine commands are often delivered by a subordinate agent, for example the opening of the seals in the Apocalypse where The Lamb opens the seals but a command is given by one of the living beings: Rev. 6:1 Καὶ εἶδον ὅτε ἤνοιξεν τὸ ἀρνίον μίαν ἐκ τῶν ἑπτὰ σφραγίδων, καὶ ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων λέγοντος ὡς φωνὴ βροντῆς· ἔρχου. J. Weima[1] disagrees, he thinks that αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος nails down ὁ κύριος as the agent of κελεύσματι. I don’t follow that. ἐν κελεύσματι is an attendant circumstance. The pronoun αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος draws attention to identity of the agent in the main verb καταβήσεται ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ. Ran across a somewhat tangential observation about the constituent order in this passage. αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος is a point of departure followed by a long marked focal constituent ἐν κελεύσματι, ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι θεοῦ in the pre-verbal slot[2]. This doesn’t particularly address the question at hand but I thought someone might like to read this paper. [1] a Google search: φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου who is speaking, delivered among others J. Weima 2014, 1-2 Thessalonians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) By Jeffrey A. D. Weima, 2014 [2] See page 25, Greek Word Order in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11
I am going to pull from Numbers 10 that la mikra (לְמִקְרָ֣א) “for summoning” is for the congregation with a silver trumpet as there a relation to (αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος ἐν κελεύσματι “autos oi kurios en keleusmati”) keleusmati ( attic greek pronunciation) or with shout of command in English. This in return complements the KJV: For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: ( 1 Thessalonians 4:16). Hence there is a summons of a congregation in the air kinda like Moses on the ground.
This is actually good – thank you !
Troy Day thx my Hebrew and Greek are rusty. So I am trying…
Brent Payne oh well arent we all 🙂 my Hebrew shes no so good
Besaider 🙂
Have u read Isa 42:13 and Isa 30:27-36, and Joel 3: 14-16, this is the shout of God at his descent from heaven ( zion) being described . It shows ot is at the day of the lord and 2nd coming of christ where the sun moon and stars don’t give their light. And the mountains and hills quake. It is the coming of the lord with torrents of fire and brimestone from his lips .
Martin Asare like I tell my students, you dont need to include the whole Bible in your papers I’ve read it and a simple reference shall suffice But to answer your question, Yes I’ve read the whole Bible many times which will include the verses you ask about. After reading the Bible many times, going to school, reading plenty of books and listened to sufficient teachers of preference I have become convinced of the eschatology I uphold and defend scholastically. I am yet however interested and have asked you time and again what do you hold as end time belief? You seem to lean pre-wrath but knowing it is just a man-made theory from the recent 90s, I do hope you have a stronger foundation of your end times faith… BTW did you read the great example by Brent Payne
Troy Day i don’t know what prewrath is. But if u mean the rapture occurs at the 2nd coming before the final wrath of God is poured at upon the earth and sinners then that’s what I believe. This is after the great tribulation as seen un the 6th seal following the 5th seal in which the tribulation is concluded. This us also seen in Matt 24:29-31, which shows christ coming us after the tribulation of those days known as the great tribulatioin like none other.
Martin Asare dont know much about it either
Troy Day well u said I lean pre wrath so I guess u imight know or else u won’t say it.
Martin Asare it is a mystery what you lean to until you present a full eschatological plan like Neil Steven Lawrence did and explained his position plainly
Isa 42:13 in it’s context is a battle cry. You don’t even need to know the Hebrew root
which is root word tsarach or hoo (he) tsarach (battle cried for war (“he war cried” for battle past tense).
It’s not the same as summons as in la mikra of Numbers 10.
Isa 30:27-36 context is different too than la mikra.
Brent Payne Isa 30:27-33 is the descent of the lord, at which he comes with fire in his mouth. He brings the fire and brimestone judgment. It is also when his voice of authority as the archangel is heard.
Isa 42:13 describes it as when he goes to war and utters his shout. This is the same text in Joel 3:14-16 when he roars like a lion from zion and utters his voice from Jerusalem. And it is also when he goes out to war with his army as seen in Zech 14:1-5. It is the same text seen in Rev 10 ,as the coming of the son of man upon the cloud . These texts are all combined with others like Isa 63, Psalm 2, to give us Rev 19:11-21. So the shout of authority at his descent with the fire and brimestone in his mouth and the shout of war are not different . This is the same shout of 1 Thess 4 which is at his descent from heaven. It is the 2nd coming
Martin Asare I appreciate what you have to say but having looking at the context with the Bible and comparing with the Hebrew and Greek again, 1 Thessalonians 4 is the rapture assembly. I have to disagree. There is also a comforting words added at the end of the verse for His return. I don’t see wrath here.
Brent Payne point is the coming of the lord brings the resurrection and salvation of Gods people and the wrath to the world. 2 Thess 2:1 says its occurs at the day of the lord. Which is the coming of the lord.
Martin Asare The Day of the Lord done not merely apply to the second coming; it applies to several aspects of the judgment of God upon mankind. Even the final great white throne judgment is considered part of the “ Day of the Lord” Troy Day
Heres my main concern Neil Steven Lawrence James C. Morris Zachary Uram I mean everyone talks eschatology here as a specialty. Ancient prophecy modern prophecy no prophecy at all and so on BUT when it gets down to the actual text Paul wrote with the specific pre-trib terminology in the original Greek tongue ALL these specialists and rapture opponents check out and wait for an easier OP where they can strong arm with the usual ad hominin All and while the Greek is so easy as regards timing, by Paul’s unique use of the preposition EIS with PAROUSIA? Should EIS be translated as “to,” “till,” “until” or “up to” and thus convey the idea that the “rapture” event could be expected early in the PAROUSIA or, should it be translated as “for” or “during” the PAROUSIA and leave the timing of the “rapture” indefinite? Personally, I would be happy for the timing to be definite, but, my reading of pages 358-9 on prepositions in Wallace’s GGBB has disturbed my conclusions. Please bear with me as I explain how I got to the latter conclusion of the above question: I view the PAROUSIA of Jesus as a durative event. In my view it is shorter than the PAROUSIA described by Israel P. Warren but longer than just the ERXOMAI of Jesus with power and great glory. The PAROUSIA would seem to be a “state”; whether of shorter or longer duration; rather than an “achievement” or “semelfactive” event. In my study of the PAROUSIA and the events connected with it, I note that EIS is uniquely used with PAROUSIA at 1Thess. 4:15. Now, as far as I can determine, only dependent verbal participles (circumstantial or adverbial) are grammatically subordinated to their controlling verbs (usually the main verb of the clause). At 1 Thess. 4:15 hOI PERILEIPOMENOI is most likely an independent substantival participle and as such is not grammatically subordinated to the main verb of the sentence. It could also be a nominative absolute participle but this seems less likely. Therefore, in the clause “hOI PERILEIPOMENOI EIS THN PAROUSIAN TOU KURIOU,” EIS would not be grammatically subordinated to the main verb of the sentence, but rather to the participle. Could the participle PERILEPOMENOI at 1 Thessalonians 4:15 be viewed as “stative” and if so, would it then, override the transitive force of the preposition EIS. On how to identify a “stative” verb Wallace on pg. 412 of GGBB states: “The key is simple: The stative occurs either with the equative verb or one that in translation uses am + a predicate adjective.” [italics mine] So, if his observation that one could identify a Greek “stative” verb by its ability to be translated using “am” + a predicate adjective, then the following English translation would seem to allow PERILEIPOMENOI to be “stative.”: …we the living who are surviving [for the presence of the Lord…] I believe that “surviving” is in this instance a predicate adjective. In this instance, EIS might then be better reflected by the preposition “for” rather than “to.” Also, on page 369 of GGBB under heading A.) Basic Uses of EIS at usage # 8 Wallace indicates EIS could be used in place of EN with its various nuances. I.P. Warren translates EN TH PAROUSIA as “during” the PAROUSIA. This translation of EN is also allowed for in BDAG and Wallace. So I say all of the above to again ask this: If it is shown that at 1 Thess. 4:15, EIS is sandwiched between a “stative” governing verb and possibly even a stative prepositional object; which really would not necessarily influence the preposition; should it then, be translated as “for” or “during” the PAROUSIA and leave the timing of the “rapture” less definite than might be allowed by the possible ramifications of the conventional translation using to/till/until/up to and viewing PAROUSIA as an “acheivement” (coming) rather than a “state”?
Well I’m very impressed with all this language capability. It looks very impressive.
I must confess though, that I’m not proficient enough to comment off the cuff. I would need to drag out concordances and dictionaries to wade through all this scholarship.
However there is another way to unravel the prophetic program and that is through numbers.
The ancient Middle Easterners used to use numbers, their counting systems and conventions for days, months and solar years in a different way to us in the west, and that is part of the mystery.
With some inspirational help from the awesome Numberer and Namer and a scientific background to help, it is amazing what is revealed.
At least that was my experience and I think it is important.
God reveals his creation and timing through numbers.
Martin Asare There IS a bit of mix and match cherry picking in the verses you point out AND as Brent Payne already showed they describe 2 separate events – the Lord coming FOR his saints in the rapture and WITH his saints for the battle I believe we already addressed them MORE than ONCE but here it is again in brief
2 Thessalonians 2:1 sums UP the last day evens which Paul has already explained once in 1 Thes 4 – the people of Thess believed the Lord has already returned like wrongly DO many preterists even here Paul said you will know the Lord has returned because FIRST you will be raptured FOR Him and then WILL participate WITH Him in his coming back in his return 1 Thess 4 gives the particular eschatological order Paul has in mind which Neil Steven Lawrence also listed tho we have not seen one from you yet as pre-wrath or post-Trib etc
Isaiah 30:27-33 refers for the Lord returning WITH his saints after the tribulation WHEN He will shake the nations while Israel sings therefore some conclude his return to be on one of the Holy Days of Israel
Joel 2 with the day of the Lord and Zech 14 again refer to the same return as Is 30 They do NOT speak of the church or its rapture but of Israel We agree with you 100% all these will occur upon the return of the Lord when he steps His feet upon Zion ; this occurs 7 years after the Church has been raptured from earth This occurs upon the Lord’s return WITH his saints In his taking the saints from earth He never touches earth – it occurs in the AIR as shown the exegesis I posted
Now ALL you have left as an argument is the shout or cry of IS 42 so lets look at it briefly IF you look how the LXX translates v 13 it literally means that in the battle the Lord shall raise his zeal
AND yell against (βοήσεται) his enemies with strength (ισχύος) Some commentators BDAG and others compare this zeal yelling against with the sound of shout against Jericho – this is an yelling against for destruction as a lead for the battle – βοήσεται NOT
κελεύσματι as in 1 Thes 4 15 – κελεύσματι means word of command Many translate with a shout/word of command BUT infact the Greek reads IN a Word of command It is a play off Christ being the Word at that moment is a word of command to raise the dead like he commanded Lazarus to come out He is κελεύσματι commanding with one word the dead in Christ not the wicked dead to rise / and the Church to come out from the world and meet him in the air. κελεύσματι does not involve a battle, battle cry, zeal or destruction like βοήσεται but gathering, rising, departure to indicate the rapture of the church before the Tribulation #there
https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/always-be-ready-for-the-coming-of-our-lord-jesus/
Neil Steven Lawrence Terry Wiles for ppl asking me constantly for in-depth discussion with theological text-relative argumentation deriving from my personal HERMENEUTICS Martin Asare Rob Burr Lionel Landroth and even once saved Eric Bakarian sure stir away from this one with avid fear to delve into the depths of eschatology I wonder why when the Greek clears out most pre-trib antagonists disappear Exegesis is a king, they say…
To believe such … is hitting bottom of barrel seems a lot if made up dribble
Lionel Landroth it is a bit sad to see otherwise smart people making fools of themselves. Reminds me of the warning in Revelation 17 for the need of wisdom to interpret the meaning of the kingdoms.
The text is deliberately written obscurely and repeated twice to give the wrong impression.
With psychological tricks like that to separate the sheep from the goats, who needs pretribbers to confuse the plain intent of the church fathers and apostles.
Rob Burr exactly.
Lionel Landroth to believe the BIBLE is no bottom barrel especially when Rob Burr cannot provide not even 1 counter argument It is actually quite satisfying to watch
Troy Day Your comments don’t provide scripture to any context. Its just talk sorry.
Troy Day I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here
Lionel Landroth actually it does because Paul is invoking an eschatological – apocalyptic scenario where 98% of the scenario is left to be filled in by the reader. Not sure what can be assumed about the Thessalonian’s familiarity with Second Temple Apocalyptic literature but that isn’t the problem. Paul invokes the scenario as if they were familiar with it. In the apocalyptic literature divine commands are often delivered by a subordinate agent, for example the opening of the seals in the Apocalypse where The Lamb opens the seals but a command is given by one of the living beings: Rev. 6:1 Καὶ εἶδον ὅτε ἤνοιξεν τὸ ἀρνίον μίαν ἐκ τῶν ἑπτὰ σφραγίδων, καὶ ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων λέγοντος ὡς φωνὴ βροντῆς· ἔρχου. J. Weima[1] disagrees, he thinks that αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος nails down ὁ κύριος as the agent of κελεύσματι. I don’t follow that. ἐν κελεύσματι is an attendant circumstance. The pronoun αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος draws attention to identity of the agent in the main verb καταβήσεται ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ. Ran across a somewhat tangential observation about the constituent order in this passage. αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος is a point of departure followed by a long marked focal constituent ἐν κελεύσματι, ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι θεοῦ in the pre-verbal slot[2]. This doesn’t particularly address the question at hand but I thought someone might like to read this paper. [1] a Google search: φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου who is speaking, delivered among others J. Weima 2014, 1-2 Thessalonians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) By Jeffrey A. D. Weima, 2014 [2] See page 25, Greek Word Order in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11
Eric Bakarian just a little Greek – that’s all
Troy Day if you cannot explain the above in English, you’re wasting both your and our time.
In fact you seem to be on an ego trip the like of which I have not seen in decades.
Provide the original Greek by all means, but then explain it in your own words….. if you can.
And by the way, the four living beings addressed in Rev 6 represent the tribes of Israel. Something the Jews and Tribesmen of the synagogue at Thessalonika would have understood, even if they were unfamiliar with John’s visions.
Troy Day
//just a little Greek – that’s all//
No what you said was incoherent. Had nothing to do with Greek.
Fancy display of greek but no coherent explanation from scripture
Lionel Landroth Eric Bakarian not sure how to respond to unlearned one-liners BUT will make sure to pick you some more Greek in the morrow
What are you responding to?
Hint: This is why you quote people
Good luck on your greek knows all answer. I will stick to the scriptures and it’s the Holy Spirits job to guide.