Video Transcripts for Day 71-80

5 Video Transcript

Video Transcript: Grammatical and Literary Analysis of 1 Thess 4:13-18

Hello, my name is Jeff Weimar, and I'm a professor of New Testament at Calvin Theological Seminary. If you're watching this video, that means you've probably already seen some earlier ones on me on how to interpret the Bible, how to read the Bible for all it's worth. And so there I presented five key hermeneutical principles that one should follow when interpreting the Bible. And those key principles again, were the Holy Spirit element, the idea that the Holy Spirit needs to work in our hearts and minds to properly interpret God's word. Then we talked about the grammatical, the importance of language, literary, historical, and theological. And so now we're going to take those five somewhat abstract principles and apply them to a passage, the passage, as you can see, is First Thessalonians 4:13-18. And I've entitled this passage, 

Jesus is coming again, a word of comfort about deceased Christians at Christ return. 

Now I'm anticipating you're going to learn many interesting and important things about this passage and what God is saying to us in these words. But the bigger goal is that when is that this passage will serve as an illustration for that hermeneutical approach we looked at earlier. And so again, although I hope you'll learn a lot and be benefited by our interpretation of this passage. The larger goal is it gives you a practical example of how to read the Bible for all it's worth. Because of course, obviously, in these courses, we can interpret every single passage of scripture. And so our goal instead is to give you a method to give you a strategy, which then you can apply on whatever part of God's word you happen to be working. So with those preliminary comments, let's turn to this passage First Thessalonians 4:13-18. And before I read those words, let me spell out for you the how this passage fits within the structure of the letter as a whole. By the way, this kind of question or discussion would fit under our reformed hermeneutic under the category, literary, because we're dealing with the form and the structure of the passage, not just what the biblical writer says, but how they say it. Now, you can see that our passage falls in the second half of Paul's letter to the Thessalonians. All of Paul's letters have the same structure. 

He has an opening in which he gives his name, the name of the church to whom he's writing, and then a greeting. And then he also has a thanks giving section. And the important point for us now to be aware of Paul foreshadows in that Thanksgiving section, the major topics of the rest of the letter to come. And so our passage that is chapter 4:13-18, the topic of Christ's second coming has already been foreshadowed. In the Thanksgiving section, you can see in chapter one of First Thessalonians, verse three, and even more clearly in verse 10. Paul anticipates this discussion is going to have later on in the letter about what happens to Christians who die before Jesus comes back. Now, the word comfort in that title is important. Because Paul, the pastor is speaking more than Paul the predictor. And so as we hear these words, and I'll say something more about this later on, in our interpretation of this passage, the primary purpose of Paul in this passage is to comfort grieving Christians in the city of Thessaloniki. Well, let's turn then to our passage and hear what God is saying to the Thessalonians then and there, but also what God is saying to us here and now. Our text goes like this. 

Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again. And so we believe God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till they're coming to the Lord will certainly not proceed those who have fallen asleep, 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. After that we who are still alive and our 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. Therefore, encourage each other with these words.

Now that we've heard what God has said, Let us think carefully about what God means How we ought to interpret this passage. So now we take that five fold reformed hermeneutic. And we apply it to our text for today. The first category is the Holy Spirit element. And that is the idea that the same spirit that inspired Paul to pan these words, needs to work on our hearts and our minds to properly interpret those words. Now, unlike the other four principles, this is more of a subjective category. And it's also a category that you won't really see in the process that you're going to view now. Because I prayed for the leading of the Spirit, I asked for God's Spirit to work in me as I prepared these words that you're going to hear now. And so that's the first principle, the Holy Spirit element. And so we leave that first subjective category, which again, is different than the other form, we turn to the form more objective categories. And so the second, or, for our purposes, we could call it the first is then grammatical. And remember that grammar involves looking at the original language for the New Testament, that means Greek and for the Old Testament, that means Hebrew, and once in a while Aramaic. And the reason we do that is I suggested before the model, every translation involves interpretation, our translations as good as they may be, lose something. 

And so now we're asking ourselves, what can we learn from the original, in this case, Greek text that the English text can't tell us. And even if you're not a Greek geek, like me, even if you don't know the Greek language, we can't overlook this step, we have to then surround ourselves with a good cloud of witnesses, that is commentaries, scholars who know the language and can offer us insight into the text that we can't get perhaps on ourselves. So we can't just say, Oh, this is all Greek to me, and then ignore it and move on. Now we have to wrestle with what the original text says in the original language. And so let's look now at some examples in our passage. So the first example comes from verse 13, where we see it's one word in Greek and it's translated in English as those who are asleep. Now, the Greek verb here quite model literally means to sleep. But Paul, when he uses it, in our passage is not talking about, you know, some people who, you know, who kind of you know, are bored and who knock off and literally fall asleep. Now, he always uses it in his writings in a more metaphorical or symbolic way. And he uses it as a euphemism for death. euphemism is just an English way of saying something that's kind of harsh in a softer or more user friendly way. 

Well, even today, we have a hard time sometimes saying that so and so has died. That sounds too harsh for us. And so we do have euphemisms to refer to that. We say instead, things like Oh, so and so has passed away or so and so is no longer with us. Someone once joked that if you turn to the obituary column, in any given day, there may be 10 people listed there, but only three of them that actually died, all the other seven have gone to be with the Lord or who are no longer with us. And so it's not surprising that just like today, already, back then, in the ancient world, writers referred to death in a softer, more user friendly way, such as sleeping. Now, this is important, not just for understanding what Paul is saying, but also to correct a conclusion that sometimes is wrongly made some biblical readers talk read about the text, referring to people who have fallen asleep, and they wrongly conclude, oh, that's what happens after people die, their souls fall asleep. In other words, what happens to people from the moment they die until the moment they're resurrected bodily, oh, that in between time, it's often referred to as the intermediate state, oh, the souls just kind of fall asleep and then they wake up again, when Jesus returns and their bodies are raised. But that's a wrong conclusion from the reference in our verse and elsewhere in Scripture to the idea of sleeping again, it's just a euphemism for death. And in fact, later on in our passage, Paul drops the euphemism he uses sleep three times. 

But then he says those who have died in Christ, he just says it straight out. And the problem was soul sleep is it's not supported by other teachings of Scripture if we interpret Scripture with Scripture, or compare one part of God's Word with another part of God's word, for instance, on Luke 23:43, that's Jesus words to the thief on the cross. Today, you will be with me in paradise. It's not like you'll knock off for a little while your soul asleep, and then one day down the road, you'll wake up. No, today you'll be with me in paradise, or Paul's words to the Philippians. Two times they're in chapter one, Paul says that for him to die is gain, and is better by far, that doesn't sound like he's just going to be in a state of non existence or in which his soul just kind of is in this no man's land, no Paul invisions, a conscious presence with Christ following death. And then also the text and revelation six, which refers to those martyrs, people who have been killed for no other reason than their followers of Jesus and how they're involved in worship. So, in other words, don't miss understand this reference to sleep. Another example, that illustrates the importance of the grammatical principle is Paul's words in verse 13, that you may not grieve. 

Now, Paul uses a kind of a special or more emphatic form of the Greek verb here, which stresses what, which stresses the ongoing or continuous nature of the action. Or to put it differently. When Paul talks about grieving, he's not just talking about people who are a little bit down or depressed. He's talking about a kind of substantive, significant, ongoing grieving process. And this is a good reminder for me and for you that again, Paul in this passage is primarily comforting his readers remember the title of our address, it's a word of comfort, first and foremost, our passage. And I stress that because way too many Christians way too many Christian teachers have used this passage instead, as a way to what to predict the future or kind of a blueprint for what yet God will do at the end of time. So that misuses or distorts this passage, first and foremost, Paul is trying to comfort these grieving Christians in the city of Thessaloniki. In verse 14, Paul literally says in Greek, if we believe that Jesus died again, now sentences that begin with if are called conditional sentences. And actually, there's 1 2 3 different types of conditional sentences in the Greek language. And each of them have their own understanding or their own particular nuance. 

The one that's found here is called a first class condition. And what that means is, the speaker assumes the truth of the condition. In other words, the speaker says, If such and such is the case, and I believe it is, then and then they give on the second half. And so when we read here, Paul says, if we believe Jesus died, and rose again, it would be wrong for us to say all the Thessalonians maybe didn't believe that Jesus died and rose again. Well, that's what Paul is doing. He's trying to prove to them or convince them that Jesus really rose again. Now, the Greek clearly shows that's not the case. In fact, some translations are so sure of this, that they render it differently. For example, the RSV and the new RSV translate verse 14, not as if we believe, but since we believe, and then the NIV the text that I used as our base text for this presentation, they just simply drop it all together and turn it into a statement and they say, we believe that. And of course, this is not surprising, because Paul clearly stressed the resurrection as a first importance. It no doubt was a big part of his missionary preaching, as indicated by his comments to the Corinthians. Another important thing that the grammar tells us is that verse 14a, might well be a confession of the early church. 

You know what a confession is, don't you? That's where the speakers speaks not their own words, but they quote something that the church as a whole believes or says, for example, if I'm preaching a sermon on spiritual warfare Ephesians sick and six and then I suddenly say something like for still our ancient foe the seek to work us whoa his craft and power great and arm with cruel hate hate on earth is not his equal. Now, I don't have to tell you that. Oh, those aren't my words. You just Hear them and you recognize them as well words of Martin Luther words that I am quoting, and why might I quote something? Well, in order to give it greater emphasis, and also because you know those words, and that means it's not just me speaking, it's not just Martin Luther, it's the whole church because the whole church has sung those words, and therefore believes those words for centuries. Well, in a similar way, Paul, like a preacher today, a good preacher today, Paul quotes to occasionally in his letters from either confessions, or other him Nick material that the early church used. Now, how can we identify this? Why do we think that verse 14, a may well be a kind of quote that Paul is making from the confession of the early church? 

And the answer has to do with the unique nature of a number of things about verse 14, eight, for example, reason number one, the introductory phrase where Paul says, if we believe that, well, that's a formula used to introduce a creedal formula in another letter of haul Romans 10, verse nine. Well, maybe that's not convincing enough, we need more evidence before we draw that conclusion, and we do have more evidence. Reason number two, is the fact that that Paul uses the word Jesus alone. Now, this will probably sound surprising to you. But Paul actually hardly ever refers to Jesus as simply Jesus. Paul almost always refers to Jesus instead as the Lord, or the Lord Jesus, or the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul actually hardly ever refers to Jesus as just plain old Jesus. And he does that in this verse here. And that's another interesting fact. But maybe we need more to be convincing. And here's the other third reason to suggest that Paul here is quoting something. And that's the verb he uses to refer to Jesus rising. He uses the Greek verb and nissa t, which for Paul is rare. He only uses it four times, and actually two times because two of these four are not really Paul's words, he's quoting from the Old Testament, and the reason it's so striking is Paul almost always uses a different verb to refer to Jesus rising, the Greek verb is "egeirô", and he uses it 33 times. So Paul is very, very consistent. 

So you have to ask yourself, how come Paul almost always uses this one verb for Jesus rising, but here he uses this rarer verb instead, is that significant. And then a fourth and final factor, and that is this, Paul rarely speaks of Jesus rising from the death. Paul's language is always more precise, he always refers to God raising Jesus from the grave. So we have these four unique characteristics all at play in the first part here of verse 14. And, and a good logical conclusion would be the reason for all of these differences is that Paul is not writing these himself these aren't his own words. Now he is quoting a confession of the early church. And maybe you're saying, well, big deal? Who cares? Well, actually, this is important for interpretation, because you have to ask yourself, if Paul is citing something, why is he citing something? How does that help him in his persuasive purposes in this passage, and as I hinted earlier, in the example from Martin Luther's hymn. When a preacher quote something, whether it's a hymn or in this case, a confession, it adds authority to your words. In other words.

Paul isn't just giving his own personal opinion or his own private belief. Now he's saying, I believe you believe Indeed, the whole church community believes that Jesus died and rose again. So knowing that this is a quote, and again, the grammar or in this case, the unique vocabulary suggests to us that it is that shows that Paul is adding weight to his argument here in 14. Another grammatical point is found in verse 15. And the unusual thing here in the Greek is that Paul uses a double negative, this is the most emphatic way to negate something in the original Greek language. And it's too bad that some translations therefore don't capture this translation. In other words, some translations have verse 15. Simply we will not proceed those who will fallen asleep. But the Greek is quite clear. Paul says when you have to add something in English, we will certainly not proceed or we will absolutely not proceed or we will by no means proceed. You have to ask yourself again. Why is Paul being so emphatic here? Is it because there were in fact, some people who did say that Christians who were alive when Jesus comes again would proceed? In other words, is Paul so emphatic because he's trying to, to oppose some alternate thinking. 

We'll come back to this later when we look at the historical context. Verse 17, has something that most Christians are quite interested in. The translation is that we will be caught up. The Greek verb used here is the verb "harpazô". Now, Greek was relatively early on translated to Latin and you perhaps have heard of the Latin translation of the Bible. It's called the vulgate. And so when the Latin vulgate came across this Greek verb, they translated with the Latin verb "rapare", and the Latin verb "rapare" is where we get our English noun rapture. Oh, now I've got your attention, right? Christians are quite interested in this topic of the Rapture. Well, it's found only in this verse, verse 17. This is a rather complicated issue. And so because it's going to involve some other elements of our reformed hermeneutic, I decided to leave it at the very, very end of our discussion. So after we've worked through the rest of the passage with the other hermeneutical principles, then we'll come back in a more focused and deliberate way, examine the question of what does this verse and indeed what does the rest of the Scripture teach about this important subject of the Rapture. The last example for grammar is found in verse 18, or the nav translates it as encourage one another. 

Now, the Greek verb that Paul uses here, "parakaleite" is literally a verb, which means to be called along one side, right to be called along one side. And it's exactly the same verb and noun that's used in the Gospel of John to refer to the Holy Spirit, who is the Holy Spirit, while among other things, he's one who's called to our side, that's a very powerful and comforting image, namely, that Christians do not walk through life alone. But we have one who is called to our side. And in fact, some translations just take the Greek and they transliterate it, maybe you've heard of the Holy Spirit referred to as the "Paraclete" that comes right from the same Greek verb, or sometimes the sense of that is translated instead. And it's translated as the comforter. And, and the reason I'm highlighting this is, it's a good reminder for me, and again, for you, too, that the primary purpose of this passage is not to predict the future. So when we come to this passage, and we're all excited, oh, now we can finally find out what's going to happen yet yet in what things are to come. We're really misusing this passage, we're distorting the Word of God, because Paul's primary purpose in this passage is pastoral. His primary purpose is to comfort the Christians who are grieving in Thessaloniki. 

Well, that's the end of our second or in this case, our first objective hermeneutical category, there are grammatical, and we're going to move on now to the second or the third, however, you're counting these. And that, as you may remember, is the heading literary literary. 

They're a bunch of questions we asked under this hermeneutical category. And one of the important questions is to take seriously, what kind of literature our particular passage comes from. The technical term is genre, right? The Bible is one book made up of different kinds of writing different kinds of genres. And so we have to know very clearly what kind of scripture passage we're dealing with. are we dealing with a historical book? are we dealing with an apocalyptic book? are we dealing with a gospel? are we dealing with poetry? In our passage, for today, we're dealing with something that is obviously a letter or an epistle. And that means that we need to know something about letters of Paul's day, and especially the kind of epistolary conventions, that is these fixed sayings or the stereotyped expressions, which are very common in letters of that day. And thereby Paul and his readers knew about them, but are not so true of us today, and thereby we don't know about them. And so we have to kind of educate ourselves as to what these conventions might be. 

Now, one of the things we use literary features for is to make sure we know where to begin a passage and where to end passage, this is a very important question because if we don't start in the right spot or end in the right spot, that increases the possibility that we distort a passage that we make it say something that it was not intending to say, or maybe it's only a minor part in the biblical text, but we magnify it and turn it into a major part. And so for every passage, it's always crucial to ask carefully, where do we begin? And where do we end? Now you say, I know where to begin. And I simply follow the chapter divisions in the Bible. And then you remember something, hopefully, you remember that, while the chapter divisions weren't added to the Bible until the 11th century AD. So these are not part of the biblical texts. They're not inspired in any way. Some of the chapter divisions, of course, are okay and appropriate, but some of them I think, are not. And so we're not controlled by that, nor by verse divisions, because they weren't added until about the 14th century. But that doesn't mean that the biblical writers didn't leave clues for us readers to know where to begin. And then they just left different kind of clues are clues today are things like paragraph breaks, headings, and things like that. 

But writers in that day left literary clues. And so what are the literary clues which show that our passage does indeed begin at verse 13? Well, one literary clue is the vocative. The vocative is a special case in the Greek language, it's somewhat unique, it's a form of address. Paul uses it many, many times as other biblical writers do, as secular letter writers of that day do to mark a transition either to a major unit change, or sometimes a sub unit change. But it's the vocative brothers, some translations go brothers and sisters, and we find that mark here in 4:13, we also see in 4:13, something that can be called a disclosure formula. Actually, it's a verb, or if I should say a saying that focuses on the verb to know, our texts, verse 13, can be literally translated, we do not want you not to know. And so whenever you hear Paul, or other biblical writers use that key verb, no, that's a good sign, you have that disclosure formula. And again, it's another transitionary device, it marks the beginning of something new. And we have that here in verse 13. 

We have yet a third literary clue that we begin something that verse 13, and that's the so called now about formula. In Greek, it's two words, it's Peri death, Peri death, and it can be translated in different ways. A common way to translate it is now about, it can also be translated, but concerning, but in Greek, it's always the same, and therefore it's quite clear and easy to see. Peri death. And Paul uses it multiple times. In the letter to the Corinthians, For example, the whole second half of First Corinthians, all the different topics are introduced by Peri death now about now about now about, and here in First Thessalonians. We have not one, not two, but three occurrences of it in a row as well. In a paragraph just before ours four nine, Paul says now about brotherly and sisterly love. That's a new paragraph, Paul is going to start something new. Then in a passage right after our five one we read now about the times and the seasons. Again, Paul has shifted gears and is going to move to a new topic. And so now in our passage 4:13. Between these two examples, we have yet another example of now about a clear sign that Paul is starting something new. Now, we can also look at the content to see if there's some shift at a particular point. Now, this can be sometimes misleading, because Paul has a habit of at least on a surface level looking like he's moved on to another topic when he really hasn't. And so you have to be careful when you use content grounds to mark the beginning of a new passage. 

But when we take content shifts, and we support it with these literary devices, these epistolary conventions, or then it gives us greater evidence. And so in the preceding passage, there's been nothing about Jesus coming again. It's been about holiness, in sexual conduct, and about brotherly and sisterly love. And so we made a pretty dramatic shift in our passage we're pulling out is talking about the second coming of Jesus, and more precisely what happens to those who have fallen asleep, those who have died before Jesus comes again. So those are some good evidences that we start something new. Nowhere does the passage. And this actually is a little trickier because if you went by content alone, if you looked at chapter five 1 2 3 and following all the way to verse 13, you would see the chapter five also talks about the second coming of Jesus. And that's why there are a number of preachers and a few commentators who say, Oh 4:13, all the way to 5:11. All of it talks in a general way about the second coming to Jesus. And so they lump it all together. 

But we can see that there are instead a clear break, there are clear markers, signifying a shift at five one, yes, they both deal with the end times, but they're slightly different from each other in terms of the subject matter. So what are the evidences that our passage ends at 4:18? Well, first of all, in verse 18, Paul says, Therefore, or sometimes it's translated. So then, in Greek, it's quite clear, it's hosta. Now, why do people in the Pew get excited when they hear the preacher say, therefore? Well, they get excited, because they know that the preacher at least unless he's playing with them, is finally coming to an end, right? We're happy it's drawing to a close. And so just the meaning of the word itself, therefore, or So then, sounds like Paul is bringing his discussion to a close. But we can see that Paul actually uses this Greek word hosta. A lot of times to bring his discussion to a close, you can see a bunch of examples from First Corinthians where that is the case. First Corinthians chapter seven, the whole chapter is about, about, about marriage, and whether single people should remain single or get married, that whole discussion is introduced in 7:38, with hosta. So then, therefore, our chapter 10, deals with meat sacrificed to idols, and that whole passage comes to an end with hosta, and Greeks, therefore, so then, Chapter 11, is the passage on the Lord's Supper. And Paul again, brings that discussion to close by saying, therefore, or So then, in chapters 12:13-14, he deals with spiritual gifts. And that long three chapter discussion is marked by the conclusion. 

So then, therefore, in Greek hosta, and then if First Corinthians 15, that's the powerful chapter on the resurrection, that whole chapter comes to a close also with those words, therefore, so then, so that markers so then or sometimes translated, therefore, in our passage, chapter four, verse 18, is a pretty clear marker that Paul is bringing this discussion to a close. But there are additional clues to that we should notice, in 5:1, we have another example of that vocative, which we saw marked the beginning of our passage 4:13. So five, one begin something the natural conclusion would be the verse before that which is 4:18 must end something. Or in 5:1 we get another of those now about or but concerning in Greek, it's Peri Death (Now About) formulas. And so again, Paul is introducing something new in five verse one, he must have just brought something to a close in the preceding verse and 4:18. And then we have yet another disclosure form. And I remember the key verb to know in chapter 5:2, so a bunch of other clues that support the passage, ending it 4:18.

Here's another marker that suggests that our passage is indeed from 4:13-18. And that is, I think there's an inclusive Oh, here, what's an include do include zeal is the repetition of a key word or phrase at the beginning, and the end acting like bookmarks, marking out a passage. Well, here we don't have a verbal inclusio, Paul doesn't use exactly the same words in verse 13. And then repeat them in verse 18. But we have more of a thematic inclusio, because our passage, as we'll see in a little bit, starts off with a problem, the problem of grieving. But then in verse 18, we have the solution, Paul says comfort one another. And so looks like the problem that's been introduced has been resolved. And once the problem has been resolved, well, that's a natural place to come to an end or a close. Well, one more piece of evidence to show that the passage ends at 4:18. And also, I guess, begins at 4:13. And that is our passage has a different kind of character, if you will, from the passage before it, and the passage after it. The passage before it, and after it, both deal with and these are my words, previously shared topics. In other words, Paul, in the preceding passage of ours, and the one after there, and a certain says, been there and done that. In other words, we've already talked about these things before. 

Notice what Paul says in 4:1 we instructed and when did Paul instruct? Well, it must have been when he visited them right for three plus weeks, or in 4:2 he says one instructions we gave past tense When did Paul give them those instructions? Well, again, when he was visiting them when he established the church 4:6, Paul says, just as we have already told you, when did he tell them while he told them when he was there again for those three plus Sabbath's and then 4:11, just as we told you, so everything in 4:1-12, in a certain sense isn't new for the Thessalonians. Paul against has been there and done that when we were with you, you know, originally establishing the church, we talked about all of these things, you know, all of this already. And then we get to 4:13. And Paul says, we do not want you to be ignorant, or remember, literally in Greek, it says, we do not want you not to know, oh, that's different, isn't it? I guess I didn't tell you anything about what happens to Christians who die before Jesus comes again. Do you see how 4:13 is different from the material beforehand, the material beforehand, you know, Paul had previously shared all this material with them. Our passage, in a certain sense is introducing something new. Paul never ever clarified. 

What happens to those who have fallen asleep, those who have died before Jesus comes again, what happens to them when Jesus comes again. And then our next passage is also different, because then Paul reverts to previously shared material. Now 5:1-11, in a similar sense, deals with the Second Coming, but it's different because this now is not new. Notice what Paul says in five one, we do not need to write to you write about the times and the seasons, why doesn't Paul need to write to them about the time and the seasons? Well, because he had already told them about it. They know that already. And then verse two, he says, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will that that they don't just know it, they know it very well, how can they know very well, because again, Paul had covered that when he had been with them earlier. And so you can see that our passage, the boundaries of our passage are quite clearly set apart from the material beforehand, which deals with previously shared topics, and the passage that comes afterward, which also deals with previously shared topics.

I've spent some time dealing with these boundaries, not because there's a huge debate, almost all scholars agree that you'd begin at 4:13, and you end at 4:18. But I want to make a point for you. Because not all passages are so clear, I want you to for whatever passage of scripture we're going to preach on or teach or reflect on. That's an important part of exegesis, you have to ask yourself, How do I know that we begin here? How do I know that I ought to end here. And a good part of that are these literary clues that the biblical writers have left for us? Because there's still a couple of more things about literary that we need to cover very important things. And let's talk about those right now. And that has to do with the structure of the passage, the internal argumentation of Paul, I've called it here, the MapQuest of our passage. You know, what a MapQuest does, it helps you get from point A to point B, you just don't start driving in your car and start driving around hoping you'll get there eventually. I know sometimes men want to do that that's not a good strategy, right? You normally go to MapQuest. So you know, the most efficient and direct way to get from point A to point B. And in a certain sense, when we do exegesis, we have to ask, how does the biblical writer get from the beginning of the passage to the end of the passage? 

In this particular case? How does Paul get from the grieving that he talks about in verse 13, to the comfort that he finally highlights for his readers in verse 18. And Paul, again, has a strategy. Paul doesn't just start talking, I hope that you don't know any preachers who do that. They just get on the pulpit and start talking. And then they look at their watch and go, oops, I guess it's time to end. No, a good preacher or a good teacher has a strategy. They think carefully about where they're going to go and what order the points are going to be in the most effective and persuasive and clear way to present the material. And Paul does exactly that. He is a not just a writer, but a gifted writer, a gifted writer, hundred the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, things carefully, not just about what he's going to say the content, but how he's going to say it the form. And this involves literary analysis, literary analysis, regardless of what genre of Scripture you're dealing with, thinks carefully, not just about what the biblical writer says the content, but the how they're a lot of ways to say something. But why did they say it in this way? Why in this particular form and structure? Now, when we look at our passage, Paul does have a clear map or roadmap in mind and I think it goes like this Verse 13, he starts off with an assertion. He says, I don't want you to grieve like others do who have no hope. 

Now that sounds negative, maybe we'll spin it positively. In other words, Paul is asserting that Christians should grieve differently than non Christians. They should grieve with hope. And then he has to give some grounds for why he says that he doesn't in verse 14, and he introduces it with a little word, don't ignore little words. They're very important, especially for showing the connection from verse to verse. It's a little word for in Greek, right? It's Gar. In other words, Paul says, The reason I'm asserting what I did in verse 13, is for right, it's for this reason, or this cause, and we look at verse 14, it deals with what Jesus has done. Or if you want to be more precise, what God has done through Jesus, namely His resurrection. And as we talked about earlier, under grammar, Paul likely here is quoting a confession of the early church. So in other words, verse 14, is the first statement that grounds or undergirds the assertion he made in verse 13. Let me get the verse 15. And we see another little word that he begins that verse with, its again in Greek Gar translated as four because now Paul is going to give a second ground the second causal clause, the second reason why you should be convinced about what he has asserted in verse 13. And here are the causes different if in verse 14, the cause is because Jesus has done something here in verse 15. 

Just because Jesus has said something, Paul appeals to in his words, the word of the Lord. Paul has some teaching from Jesus, which proves the point that he is already been making in verse 13. Now, in verse 16, we meet in English, a word that might throw you off, we mean, get another four. And you might think, oh, here's yet a third ground 444, 3 in a row. But then the Greek helps us because it's a different word in Greek, in verse 16, even though in English, it's exactly the same. And so, again, you see how grammar helps us here. And we realize that this isn't actually a third new or different causal clause. But actually, Paul is fleshing out he's giving a fuller explanation of the second cause that he's introduced already in verse 15. And then in verse 18, we get the word that I'm sure that hears, then we're excited about remember the word therefore, or so then the words that sound like Paul is drawing his discussion to a close. And so if we, we structure this outline it, I think, looks a little more in a neat fashion like this. So again, he begins with an opening assertion, and that's in verse 13. And the opening assertion is Christians grieve for deceased believers differently, then non Christians grieve, right? we grieve with hope. 

That's a powerful assertion. Paul, how can you say that? How can you say that Christians, even in the midst of death have whole pulses? I'm glad you asked. We got two reasons for that. One reason is because in my words now of the weighty word of the church, remember we said earlier under our grammatical analysis, that Paul in verse 14 is likely quoting a confession of the early church, and he's appealing to what the resurrection of Jesus, and we're going to develop this later on. But Paul's logic is this. Jesus resurrection is a guarantee of Christians resurrection, you know, those Christians in Thessalonica, who have fallen asleep who have died. And so, if Jesus has rose, well, then that means these dead Christians will rise and if they are going to rise, that means they will be there when Jesus comes again, they won't miss out they won't be at a disadvantage. They'll share and participate equally in the glory of Jesus return. And then after giving that first reason a verse 14, he gives them the second reason in verses 15 16 and 17. If the first reason involves a way he word of the church, the second reason involves a way he Word of the Lord that is the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Paul has received some teaching directly from Jesus, which assures the believers that we who are living right who are alive when Jesus comes again, will what will certainly not there's a double negative, we will absolutely not be ahead of those who have already fallen asleep. In other words, living Christians will share equally with deceased believers who are now resurrected and transformed. all Christians living and resurrected, will participate fully and equally in the glory of Jesus return. And then after those two grounds, well then Paul naturally can bring his discussion to a close, he can say, therefore, or so then comfort one another with these words. And so it's very important for us when we go through these verses, we don't lose the forest for the trees. As we sometimes say, in English. We get so excited by each individual verse or each word and each individual verse that we don't understand the big picture view that we have a clear sense of how Paul is developing his argument, and how every verse within that fits within his persuasive or his rhetorical strategy. 

Well, hopefully now I have indeed come to the end of our literary analysis, and we'll turn next in our upcoming video to the remaining two hermeneutical categories, the historical approach to the text and also the theological.

Video Transcript: Historical and Theological Analysis of 1 Thess 4:13-18 

Welcome back to our exegetical study of First Thessalonians 4:13-18. Or, as we said, Really, this is an illustration of how to take the five hermeneutical principles and apply them to a biblical passage. So we've already looked at the first three, the Holy Spirit element, the grammatical element and the literary one. And so now we move on to the last two. And that means we're now looking at the historical approach. And this is where we look at a passage in its context, every passage has a historical context. And so we need to look carefully at what that was. Another way of saying it is, what is the trouble in the text, almost every passage of scripture, there's some problem that the biblical writer is trying to solve or address. And so a good question for us to ask is, what is the trouble in our passage? What is the problem that Paul is trying to correct? Now in a general way that's easy to answer, and that is, he's trying to address the problem of grief, grief over brothers and sisters, Christians who have fallen asleep, that is they have died. 

But then we have to go deeper than that, because we have to ask now, why were the Christians in Thessaloniki greaving. And remember, we said so intensely. In verse 13, Paul used that emphatic form of grief to say, Why were they so upset over brothers and sisters who have already died? And so when we go a little deeper, we find that the answer is this. As a result of Paul's preaching to the Thessalonians, they believed in not only Jesus Christ come not only Jesus Christ living not only Jesus Christ crucified, not only Jesus Christ resurrected, but also Jesus Christ ascended and one day coming back. And as a result, the thessalonian Christians were very eager for the return of Jesus. But then some of the Christians in that church fell asleep, they die. And this deeply troubled the ones who were living, they worried about what would be the fate of those Christians who would already die, they worried that they might miss out completely on the Perusia, the return the second coming of Jesus, or they might be at a disadvantage compared to them who were still alive. And so an answer to that problem. Paul addresses our passage. 

Now, let me give you some evidence, that is indeed the problem. Evidence number one is this. Paul's use of that double negative we looked at under our grammatical analysis, we refer to that as the emphatic future negation. The idea that Paul doesn't just say, we who are living will not be ahead of those who have died. He says, We will certainly we will absolutely not, we will by no means. If I might quote Shakespeare here, we might say, you know, me thinks that Paul doth protest too much. Why is he so emphatic? Well, the answer seems to be because there were some in the church who did believe that those who were living would be ahead of or in some position of advantage at Christ return over those who had already died. Abraham alharbi is one scholar who says Paul's denial and 4:15 that is that that emphatic future negation a double negative, is so strong that it sounds like a denial of an opinion actually held by some people in Thessalonica. Evidence number two, Paul clearly sequences, these eschatological or in time events, notice he says, oh, the deceased Christians arise first. And then we were living. And actually the Greek stresses the first and the end. And you have to ask yourself, why is Paul sequencing things? Why is he putting things in a chronological order? Is it because he's trying to spell out those who have some confusion or questions about what will happen and when it will happen?

Third, evidence has to do with the addition of a little word, actually in Greek it's even smaller than it is in English and Greek it's only three letters Ama, ama, but it's the English word together. And Paul says in verse 17, not just that we will be that is we who are living will be with them, that is those who have died, but he adds the word we will be together with them. You don't really need the word together, right? it perfectly makes sense just saying we'll be with them. And when you add the word together, you're stressing something you're stressing Wait a minute, that living Christians to gather with them deceased Christians will be sharing equally in the glory of Jesus return. And why is Paul stressing that because seemingly, there are some who are doubting that or questioning that. And then the fourth piece of evidence has to do with word order. In English, you know, prepositional phrases belong at the end of a sentence. So it's not surprising that most English translations render this verse, as we who are alive will be caught up together with them in the clouds, and so forth. Notice it's at the end of the sentence. But in Greek, the words together with them are pushed away to the front, even in front of the verb. And you do that in Greek for emphasis. 

So again, Paul wants to stress it isn't just we who are alive, it's also we together with them, all of these events will happen to all Christians, not only living Christians, but also those who have already died, who have already passed away. And so the trouble in the text involves not just general grief in the face of death. Now, that's a common problem, right? It's not hard to imagine that problem people in the context of loved ones dying, they cry, they agree, right, it's a very easy to understand and common problem faced by people today. But that doesn't seem to be the problem at work in the church of Thessaloniki. It's more precise than that. In other words, it looks like Christians, there had some confusion about how all of these end time events would fit together. And especially they were worried that their fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord, who were so much looking forward to, and anticipating the glory of Jesus return, and the fact that their faith would be vindicated. We haven't said anything yet about how the church in Thessaloniki was persecuted, and how, therefore they would be so eager for Christ to come back and a sense prove to everyone around that they didn't believe in vain. And so they were worried the Christians there that their loved ones might miss it, that is Christ return or be at a disadvantage. And therefore Paul writes to them trying to comfort them over that particular trouble, that particular problem. 

Another kind of historical question deals with a claim that Paul makes in verse 13. It's an important claim. So we want to make sure we understand it and get it right. Paul says that he doesn't want the readers to grieve like the rest of men who have no hope. In other words, Paul is really claiming that the rest of men that is non Christians have no hope in the context of death. And a good historical question is, is Paul right is is he speaking the truth? Or like some commentators today say, Oh, he's just exaggerating, he's overstating the case? If we would go back in time, and we would investigate what were attitudes towards death. in Paul's day, what would the answer be? That's an historical kind of question. And what we find out is that Paul is indeed right. Namely, there's a clear sense of hopelessness in the context of death. For example, feel crisis is a writer of ancient Greek poetry. And he has an important saying in this regard, he says, hopes are for the living without hope, are the dead? That sounds exactly what Paul is talking about. Right? He says, Don't grieve like the rest of men who have no hope. See, your credit says that, well, you know, the only kind of people who can have hope are the living people, right? Anybody who are dead? Well, they have no hope at all.

A popular grave inscription, both in Greek and Latin throughout the ancient world went like this. I was not and I was, I am not, I care not. I'm very optimistic or positive, right. Are you thinking about using that on your gravestone? In fact, this was so popular that it was often just abbreviated, we found many greystones that simply had NFFNSNC and there and the reason is that people could just assume I know what it means. It means non Phooey, Phooey non swim non curl. In other words, I was not and I was I am not and I care not. So that sounds like a widespread hopelessness in the context of death.

Here's another example from Poxy. In other words, papaya Iris oxy. reinkers. oxy wrinkles is a place in Egypt where a lot of papaya rye, due to the dry climate of that part of the world have survived and this is Letter of consolation, it's written by a woman, Irene, to a husband and wife whose child has just died. So that's the context. And the first part of the letter, she says things like, I and my family have done the kind of customary duties that one does in this situation to show that we sympathize with you and your loss and your trouble. But then she closes her letter with this line in which she tries to be comforting, she says, But nevertheless, one is able to do nothing against such things, namely the death of your son, therefore comfort yourselves, I think about the logic of what she is saying, she say, Well, you know, you couldn't have done anything to prevent the death of your son. So comfort yourself in your helplessness, right and your inability to do anything to change your situation? Well, does it sound very hopeful or comforting to me does it to you. 

Seneca was a very famous, not only politician, statesman, but also philosopher closely connected with the Emperor Nero. Anyway, he referred to the mystery religions, I don't know if you know much about the mystery religions. Actually, we don't know a lot about them, because they were so mysterious. But in addition to all the Greek and Roman and Egyptian calls, they were these mystery religions. And they were a bit unusual in the sense that they promised some kind of life after death, they were a bit different than the other kind of religions or cults of that day. But notice how he refers to that. He refers to them as, quote, human pipe dreams, it's almost as if he were saying in a colloquial fashion, what do you guys smoking, right? That can't be true, who would believe in some kind of life after death, existence like that. Now, even without the kind of historical evidence that we've just looked at so far, Paul has also a theological reason for claiming that non Christians don't have hope in the context of death. That's because Paul believes that non Christians are, and I'm quoting here, from his words to the Thessians, a different Christian church. He says that non Christians are, quote, without God in the world. And because they're without God in the world, they are there for those who have no hope. But the wonderful contrast in our passage is that Christians in Thessaloniki are different from the rest of men, the rest of men grieve without hope. 

But Paul, as we're going to see, in this passage, he says, we do have hope, hope, not only for our deceased loved ones who have died before Jesus comes again, but also hope for us who are still alive on that great and glorious day. Well, let's turn to one more kind of historical question. And that has to do with Paul's reference in verses 15, 16 and 17. To the word of the Lord. He says, For this, we say to you by the word of the Lord, verse 15.

Now Paul has received some revelation from the Lord. And for Paul, the Lord is never a god the father or the Holy Spirit, it's always the Lord Jesus Christ. And so Paul has received some kind of teaching some kind of truth, some kind of revelation from Jesus. And that raises three questions, at least I think it should. Question one is where did Paul get this word of the Lord? Question two, what in the following verses constitutes the word of the Lord? And question three, what is the significance of Paul citing the word of the Lord? So question one, where did Paul get this word of the Lord? Well, there are a number of possibilities. It could be an Agra fond in Greek that means something that is a not graph on not written down. In other words, they were other sayings of Jesus, in addition to other deeds of Jesus, but other sayings of Jesus, that weren't recorded or made it down into the Gospels. And that's not surprising, because John himself says that the books of this world right, couldn't contain all the things that Jesus said and did. And so it may be that this is some unknown saying of Jesus. 

Well, it would be known to Paul right and to many in the early church, but it's unknown to us because it didn't make it into the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Another option is, is that Paul sees himself as following in the line of the Old Testament prophets, the Old Testament prophets regularly said, Oh, we have a word of the Lord. And so now Paul, some would argue, sees himself as a prophet who can then speak a word of the Lord. So in other words, this is actually Paul's words, but they're authorized by his status as spokesperson, a prophet of the Lord, not now, the God of the Old Testament, but the Lord Jesus Christ, as the term for Lord of the Old Testament God is applied to Jesus. A third possibility is that Paul is kind of summarizing, in his own words, the teachings of Jesus. So the idea would be that Paul just knows all the teachings of Jesus and he kind of reflects back and then he, in his own words, summarizes those teachings, especially those teachings having to do with the second coming, and how that might be relevant for the Thessalonians. Well, there are different scholars who argue for these different positions. I think the best answer is that Paul is paraphrasing. Now paraphrasing means that you're not citing it word for word, but he's loosely citing the teachings of Jesus that are found in the Gospels and the best candidate would be from Matthew 24. Say, Yun Kim is one New Testament scholar who says this, and he's talking about our passage. 

In First Thessalonians four, he says, The several and clear echoes of Jesus saying in the passage, our passage seemed to suggest that Paul must be conscious of the material he is using as Jesus material, and therefore that the word of the Lord here Paul is referring to the words of the historical Jesus. That's question one. Question two is, what are the following verses constitutes the word of the Lord? In other words, if you have a red letter Bible, what in the following verses should be in red letters? By the way, Red Letter Bibles really aren't the best thing, right? Because somehow they suggest the idea that red letters are more important than the black letters that of course that's not true, right? And so one has to be a little bit careful about distinguishing the words of Jesus red letters from the other words of the Bible, we don't want to cannon within a cannon. But anyway, if you had that mentality, you might say again to yourself, what in the following verses I need to put in red letters, what in the following verses actually is the word of the Lord that Paul is citing? And it's not 100% clear here how to answer this question. But the best answer, I think, is this, verse 15b. Paul, so to say summarizes or gives the upshot of the word of the Lord. And it's interesting what his upshot is, we will emphatically certainly not we will absolutely not, we will definitely not proceed those who have fallen asleep. 

Remember the pastoral Paul who is speaking, remember how Paul is trying to comfort grieving Christians over those who have fallen asleep. And he's stressing that they will, that we were living will not be an advantage, or the other way around those who have died will not be at a disadvantage. Anyway, after Paul first summarizing or giving the upshot of Paul Jesus teaching, then he loosely cites or paraphrases The word of the Lord and verses 16 in the first half of 17a.

And then in verse 17b adds the pastoral conclusion, he simply says, and so we will be with the Lord forever. We that is we who are living, and we have already died, all Christians, living and deceased are living and resurrected and transformed, will enjoy the personal presence of the Lord Jesus Christ. That's question two. But actually, it's question three, I think that is the most important one to ask. And that is, what is the significance of Paul citing the word of the Lord? What does Paul gain by quoting from Jesus or appealing to Jesus's words? And maybe the answer is clear to you. And the answer is this. It adds weight to Paul's words, it adds authority to his argument. I mean, Paul doesn't do what we often do today. He doesn't say something like, I just feel, or he doesn't say it just seems to me. No, Paul says, I have an authoritative teaching that goes back to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. 

Do you see how powerful that would be? One scholar comments, I think, appropriately so on that on the rhetorical effect of Paul citing the word of the Lord, he says, by placing his assurance that the living would not have precedence over the data coming to the Lord, under the rubric of a word of the LORD Paul what, Paul attributed the highest possible authority to his assertion in verse 15b. If you remember what we said earlier under the literary under the MapQuest under the argumentation of Paul, remember, the first ground was always the word of the church. And now if paul the second round, he appeals to the word of the Lord. You can see now why we can come In a way, the word of the Lord. Again, Paul doesn't just offer his personal opinion, he offers an authoritative weighty teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Well, we finish yet another of our hermeneutical categories, the historical approach to the text, and we turn to the fourth, or if you want better, the fifth one, which we call theological, and theological involves a number of things and involves looking at how our passage First Thessalonians 4:13-18 fits within the rest of Paul's thinking or theology, or the rest of the New Testament or the rest of the whole scriptures. And it also involves clearly hearing the Thaos that is hearing the voice of God in the text. So here's one important question that we need to ask that I think should be qualified under the category theological. And that is the claim that Paul makes in the opening assertion that you may not grieve like the rest, that you may not grieve like the rest. 

Now, if you look at those words, and you take it kind of naively or literally and some people do, you might say, Well, wait a minute, Paul is saying that the Christians in Thessaloniki should not grieve, even in the context of death, grieving or crying is inappropriate for followers of Jesus Christ. And this qualifies as a theological issue, because I want to say now, now, wait a minute, is that true? And how does that compare to what Paul and the rest of the biblical writers say isn't true? When I look at the rest of scriptures, how should Christians react to the problem of death? And then more specifically, is it appropriate for Christians to grieve or to cry in the face of death? Now, this is a wrong view, in my opinion, but there are just a few scholars who say yes, this is what Paul is saying that there are no tears allowed. Yeah, that old song Big Girls don't cry. La Nina says big Christians don't cry, right? mature believers, you know, there is no grieving for them even in the context of death. Abraham malaby, for example, says Paul's attitude toward this grief, grief over the loss over over over the the death of loved ones, is equally straightforward. It is prohibited. That is it grieving is prohibited. Paul is thus making an absolute prohibition, and it's not only a few commentators who think that this is what Paul is saying, I'm afraid that there are many more Christians today who also believe that this is what Paul is saying. 

This is the idea that many Christians have that they should not grieve in the context of death. I'm thinking of a situation that is a personal one to me and evolved my cousin, who died and an all too early age, she was 32. So she was a mother of three young children. And in less than a month, she went from diagnosis to death, less than a month from diagnosis to death. Anyway, I went to the funeral service. And even though the death was quick, she and her family had some time to think about the service and they wanted to sing. And we did sing a hymn that maybe you know, it's, we bring the sacrifice of praise into the house of the Lord. Now, remember the context. It was difficult to sing that song, then, in fact, I think it was inappropriate to sing that song then. But I understand what they were trying to say they were trying to say, wait a minute, even in the context of death, there is a victory that the Scriptures speak about. And we want to claim that victory. Even in this funeral service, we want to affirm the victory over death. And the reason for praise that we as Christians have, I think that's what they were trying to accomplish. I think they were wanting to do that because they maybe didn't think about it all out loud or so consciously. 

But I think there was within them the sense that Wait a minute, Christians don't grieve in the context of death, that if you do that somehow you're a weak Christian, you know that a mature believer in the faith would have enough faith would have enough confidence in the promises of God's Word that grieving is not permitted or it isn't appropriate. But I want to suggest to you that that is an on biblical, and also an unpatched rule but at first and foremost is an on biblical position. Look at what Paul himself says that Paul expects Christians to grieve, let alone in death. But also in other situations. It's clear from some of this text Philippians 2:27. He says, if Epaphroditus had died from his illness, who is Epaphroditus? Oh, he's the helper from the Philippian. Church, the Philippian sent Paul and when when he wrote to them, he was in prison, likely in Rome. And they sent him not only money, but they also sent him somebody to help him his name was Epaphroditus, anyway, and pafford itis got ill and almost died. And Paul said, if he had died, I would have had Paul said sorrow upon sorrow, Paul would have grieved the death of Epaphroditus. or writing to the Romans. Paul says rejoice with those who rejoice. 

But he also says, weep with those who weep. Paul envisions the very real and appropriate response that in the context of pain and suffering, Christians are going to cry, they're going to weep. And how does Paul referred to death in First Corinthians 15, the great resurrection chapter? Well, there he says, it's the last one, it's the last enemy. So don't make the mistake of thinking that somehow death is a friend of Christians. No, it is an enemy. And the rest of Scripture is quite clear about that to God created us not to die, but to live death is really a consequence of the fall human sin and rebellion against God. And you perhaps already thinking about the example of Jesus so powerful example. How did Jesus respond to the death of his friend Lazarus, and we have that very short? It's the shortest verse on the whole Bible. Don't overstate that. But that short phrase, Jesus wept, Jesus wept. And it's interesting to notice how the crowd reacted in john 11, where that text occurs, it says Jesus wept. And then the next verse says, so the Jews said, see how he loved him. The Jews didn't say, Oh, Jesus has weak faith? Well, no, no, right? No, there is Oh, Jesus is a poor believer or something like that. No, see how he loved him. So I want you to hear me say this, I'm gonna say it twice, because I believe it's very important. 

Tears in the face of death is not a sign of weak faith, but a great love. I say it again, tears in the face of death is not a sign of weak faith, but a great love. When you cry when someone near by you dies, it doesn't mean that you have weak faith, it doesn't mean that you're a poor believer, it just means that you really, really love this person. That means that the enemy has struck. Yes, there is victory over death. Yes, there is a hope that Paul talks about. But don't confuse that victory, and that hope, as grounds for concluding that Christians don't grieve. So what is the difference then between Christians and non Christians, in the context of death, it isn't one of grieving.

Right? Christians will agree Christians will shed tears in the context of death just as much as non Christians will. But there is an important difference. And that's the assertion that Paul makes in verse 13. That's the the key teaching of this whole passage. we grieve with hope, even through our tears, there is a hope that Christians embrace and that Paul grounds in our passage, and we're going to have to think more about that, as we, as we preach, and we teach this kind of passage. Well, that's an important first, his theological point, what is a biblical view of death and a biblical view of grieving? And how do Christians differ from non Christians in the context of death? But there are a couple of other things we can talk about. And that is the logic of verse 14, the logic of verse 14. If you look at the two halves of verse 14, it may not be so clear to how Paul got from the first half of the verse to the second half of the verse, the first half of the verse is for if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, remember the grammatical part if we believe and we do that Jesus died and rose again, how does it get to the second half? 

So God will bring with him, those will fallen asleep the idea that deceased Christians will be alive and will be with Jesus when he comes again in glory. In other words, they won't be at a disadvantage. How do you get from the first part of the verse to the second part of the verse? Well, there's a missing middle step there that Paul assumes. Well, I know that policy means that because I can see that assumption in his other writings. When I look at Paul's other writings when I compare our passage with Paul's other letters, as part of a theological approach, interpreting Scripture with Scripture and Paul with Paul, we can see what that missing or middle step is and it has to do with the resurrection of Jesus. in Paul's mind, the resurrection of Jesus is intimately linked with the resurrection of believers of Christians. You got one, you got the other, you don't have one, you don't have the other, they always go together. You can see that in a lot of texts, Romans eight, for example, Paul says, and if the spirit of him that is of God who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies, through His Spirit and lives in you. So again, Paul first refers in the first part of the verse to God raising Jesus Christ, the resurrection of Jesus, and how that's linked to the resurrection of Christians. 

Again, another example First Corinthians 6:14, by his power, God, raise the Lord Jesus from the dead, and he will raise us also from the dead. That's pretty clear. So God raised Jesus and Jesus resurrection is intimately linked in Paul's thinking or his theology, to believers resurrection, Second Corinthians 4:14. Because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus, another intimate link, same breath, same verse, the resurrection of Jesus, linked with the resurrection of believers. Colossians one, verse 18, Jesus is the firstborn from among the dead. And then the best chapter of all for the resurrection in the Scriptures, First Corinthians 15. But if it is preached, the Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead, right? So there you have the negative if Christ hasn't been raised, well, then believers won't be raised. But of course, Paul can stop there, and he has the positive and it's throughout the passage, it was a little long for me to cite here. But he says, For as an Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. And because there is this intimate connection between Jesus resurrection and believers resurrection, Paul can refer to the resurrection of Jesus as what the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. 

Now, maybe we don't appreciate the first fruits metaphor, because we're not farmers, or we're not gardeners. What is the first fruit? Well, it's the first year of grain to ripen, or it's the first grape on the vine to ripen. And why do farmers typically get excited about the first fruits? Well, they know as real as that grain is in their hand, or as real as that grape is that they can pop into their mouth. That's how real the rest of the harvest will surely be. And Paul now is doing the same thing for Jesus resurrection. Paul says that Jesus resurrection is a first fruit of our resurrection, as real as we believe Jesus rose from the grave. That's how real we can believe our deceased loved ones will rise from the grave.

And wait a minute, if they're going to rise from the grave, that means they'll be alive when Jesus comes again. And if they're alive, when Jesus comes again, then they won't miss out, they won't be at a disadvantage, they will share equally with us who are still alive when Jesus comes again. So in other words, Paul's logic is quite clear, right? He obviously had preached this to the Thessalonians, and therefore he doesn't need to spell it out for them. But again, we can see from his theology from looking at his other letters, how Paul thinks, or theologises, and he can briefly go in verse 14a to the reality of Jesus resurrection, to the end part of verse 14b to the reality of deceased believers resurrection. And he does so in this context, because he wants to reassure the Christians in Thessaloniki. Don't worry about your deceased loved ones. Don't worry about those guys who will fall asleep, they're going to become alive. And first Corinthians 15 says they will be changed in the twinkling of an eye, and then all Christians, we are loving and those who have been resurrected and transformed, will share and experience fully the glory of Jesus return. 

Well, we've come to the end of our five hermeneutical principles. But there's one more important topic to talk about, and that is the Rapture. But we're going to bring our discussion now to a close and I invite you to turn to the next video, where we take up this important exegetical, theological and pastoral subject.

Video Transcript: The Rapture

Welcome, my name is Jeff Weima, and I'm a professor of New Testament at Calvin Theological Seminary. Most of you watching this video have watched the previous ones in which we've been exegeting, we've been interpreting an important passage of scripture, First Thessalonians 4:13 to 18. And we did that first and foremost to illustrate hermeneutic, a reformed way of interpreting the Bible. But now we've marked out from that discussion, one particular topic entitled The Rapture, I've done so for two reasons. One, because the rapture is an important subject, a subject about which there is I'm afraid, a lot of confusion. And so I think it's helpful to kind of mark this out as a, as a subject worthy of its own independent treatment. And also, because a number of the things that we have to talk about in answering what the Bible says about the rapture involve not just one or two of our hermeneutical categories, but involves a number of them. And so we can see in this discussion that it's a bit artificial to separate them all out into independent five categories, but often they overlap with each other.

Nevertheless, it is helpful to separate them out so that they don't become confused in our mind. And we think about them in a more conscious way. on whatever passage of scripture we happen to be either teaching or preaching or interpreting. Well, let's turn into a topic in First Thessalonians 4:13-18, which deals with the rapture, the two key verses in our passage are found in verses 16 and 17. And go like this, for the Lord himself will come down from heaven with aloud command, with the voice of the archangel, and with a trumpet call of God, after that we are still alive and our left will be caught up together with him in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. So here is in my mind, anyway, the clearest for sure. And I would also argue the only passage in the Bible that directly or explicitly raises the topic of the Rapture. And the question is now, is this a biblical idea? Or is it a mistaken identity? 

And it can't be because the answer can't come because of what we like or what we want the Bible to say. It can't be of some scholar, it says this or that, no, it has to be soulless scripture, it has to be based on what the Scriptures alone, say. And it has to be based on a right dealing of Scripture. That is, in other words, dealing with Scripture according to this appropriate reformed hermeneutic that we have been talking about for some time. So here, we start off with some soft evidence. Now, I wouldn't call it soft unless I had somewhere down the road, some hard evidence. So if you're not convinced by the soft evidence, I'm not so bothered, but it is relevant to the discussion. And so let's start here. And that is that this verse seems to describe Jesus coming in a more public way, we hear about Jesus coming out with a loud command with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet call of God. If you did a word study on that phrase with a loud command, you will this would be a grammatical approach, by the way, you would find out that it would be a command given by what a captain of a ship to his rowers, or will be given by a general to his army. So this word always has the sense of a loud and authoritative cry. 

We have the reference to the voice of the Archangel. We don't have a lot of evidence about archangels speaking. So it's hard to make some conclusions about that. But the last thing there I think, is helpful to note with the trumpet call of God. There are other passages of Scripture, of course, that talk about the return of Jesus being marked by the sound of a trumpet. But at this point, I simply want to make home the important point that a trumpet out of all the different instruments available in the ancient world is still today is not a soft instrument, a trumpet is very, very loud. So when you look at these three prepositional phrases, you know, the natural way, the kind of somewhat simplistic, or I would say naive way, I mean, that may not be the right way always. But the natural way of reading the text is that Jesus will come back in a public way, right with aloud command with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet, the rather significant, loud, distinctive sound of a trumpet. And this suggests that Jesus coming will be what, it will not be a secret coming as some argue, I trust you're familiar with the idea of the rapture, the idea that Jesus will have not one coming but two comings will be a secret coming in which just all the Christians will vanish and disappear. 

Then there'll be a time of tribulation seven years. And then after that Jesus will come with his saints. But here, at least the tech seems to suggest a public company in which all people, not just Christians, but non Christians, too, will witness. Now those on the other side may say, and I guess they could say, oh, Christians will hear all of these things, you know, they'll have ears to hear all of these events, it will be a public event for them. But for non Christians, they'll miss it all. I suppose that's possible. That's a possible way to read this text. But, you know, a lot of things are possible, but not always probable. And that's not again, the natural way of reading this text. So the first evidence, it's soft evidence is not definitive or decisive, but it is relevant. The first evidence about the rapture is that it will be some kind of public coming of Jesus.

Second, soft evidence again, I call it soft because I've got must have some hard evidence coming. And that has to do with a key verb, the verb will be caught up. The Greek verb harpazo was translated in the Latin vulgate by the verb rapare and from the verb rapare we get the noun rapture. So the word in English rapture comes from this verse, out of the whole Bible First Thessalonians four, verse 17. It comes basically then from this Greek verb, harpazo. Now, if you did a word study on harpazo, you will discover something interesting, you will discover that it's a word that was used with some frequency by secular letter writers of that day to describe what how people were snatched, you could translate it caught up, if you will, but people were grabbed or snatched or caught up from life to death. You can see a reference there to Plutarch and important ancient author. And you can see there are a number of references in his writings where he uses the verb in that way. One example I have is that people who die and early death that they are snatched from right they're cut up from the advantages of life such as marriage, education, manhood, citizenship and public office. 

Funeral inscriptions, right, so either inscriptions that we find on text or on graves, speak about how fade has harpazo it's raptured. It's snatched away the living to the place of Hades to the underground and you can see again, a number of references about how this verb in Greek harpazo was used. And yet another writer Lucien uses a synonym of harpazo, to talk about a grieving father who says about his dead son, dearest child, you are gone for me snatch, right raptured, if you will, caught up, you know from the time of your earthly existence. Now, if you know that this is how the word was used, typically by secular letters of that day, this might open up the possibility that Paul is deliberately choosing this word, as a kind of Pun as a kind of inversion on a common use of the word in that day. Now, wait a minute, you first of all have to be convinced that Paul is a skilled letter writer and capable of this kind of clever punning. I hope that that that's clear to you. Right? 

There are all kinds of evidence that, that Paul was an extremely gifted guy intellectually, but he was especially a gifted letter writer, he thought very carefully, again, not just about what he was saying, but how he would say it. And he was more than capable of taking a word and making a pun on it. And so Paul's pun would be, wait a minute, we live in a world in which we regularly hear on gravestones and on secular letter writing, we regularly hear about people are rapture, they are harpazo in Greek, they are caught up from life to death. And Paul may be cleverly inverting this common verb to say, wait a minute, on the day of Jesus return, people are going to be caught up from life to well not to death, but to life or to a different form of life, the idea that they don't face death at all. And so the consequence of this would be is that Paul didn't mean this word to be interpreted literally, at least in the sense of the way that it's commonly understood by dispensationalist or left behind folks today. But he chose this word in order to cleverly invert an understanding of a common verb of that day. 

Well, even if you're not convinced to this, again, I'm not worried because after this soft evidence, I finally bring out not just the hard evidence, but I would say to you, the rock hard of it, I would suggest to you that this next discussion I'm going to have is so convincing, it actually delivers a deathblow to the far too common idea that Christians will just what when Jesus returns, they're going to be raptured, they will vanish and disappear for a period of seven years, they'll have the marriage feast of the Lamb while the tribulation takes place here on earth. And then we come back to Earth for a period of Christ, millennial reign, thousand years and those other events that happen after that.

So what is this rock hard evidence that delivers a death blow to that idea of the rapture? Well, it involves a word in English anyway, that doesn't look very important. But in Greek it is, we read in verse 17, that we will be caught up to what the Lord in the air to meet to meet. Now in English, the word to meet does not a very powerful word or exciting word. You may have meetings, and you're not very excited about that, but but that's not at all the meaning of this word. In Greek, the word is "apantêsis", "apantêsis". And first of all, it's a technical term, a technical term means it's a special word that has a special meaning, right? And what is this special meaning that this word always has? Well, in that day, if, if an important person were coming to your town, and have to be an important person, like the Emperor, or the governor of the province, or maybe an important Roman general, but if an important figure were coming to your town, what would happen? Well, the city leaders would get all excited as hell Emperor, so and so is coming, or governor so and so was coming. And they would first likely pass a decree, acknowledging on the public records, you know, the great honor that our city has by the visit of Emperor so and so or governor so and so or general, so and so. And then the city leaders would pick a group of people, right, they would pick a delegation party, and who would they pick, they would pick obviously, the movers and the shakers, people with the brains and the bucks, you know, would be a privileged position, and they would send this group of people down the road to "apantêsis", right to meet this Emperor to meet this governor or to meet this general. 

Then what would happen when the delegation party met or we might call a better the reception party meets this person, when they do a U turn. And this general or this Emperor or this governor would go back to where they came from, of course not. Obviously, the reception party, this delegation party would escort this important figure to the place he was always going, the place from which the members of the delegation party came. You can see some of the details here about this "apantêsis". And the Christians in Thessaloniki would have surely seen a couple of these in their lifetime. Thessaloniki qualifies as one of the top 10 cities in the ancient world. It also had an especially close relationship with Rome, and the Roman Empire. And it was visited on a number of occasions by either the Roman Emperor, the governor of the province of Macedonia, or by other figures. And so people in the city would have been well aware of these "apantêsis", these reception or delegation parties. 

Now think about the imagery because it's always the same outside of Scripture, the delegation party goes down the road to meet the important person and then escort them to the place they were always going, the place from which they the members of the delegation party came. And this is true not only for the meaning of this word, outside of the Bible, it's also true for the meaning of this word in its three New Testament occurrences. One of those obviously, is our passage. That means there's two more outside of Thessalonians. Let's go to those passages before we come back to ours. By the way, we're not only doing grammatical but also theological and kind of in with the principle of interpreting Scripture with Scripture. So So here in Matthew 25, verse six we meet in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins, we read about how they go down the road to what to "apantêsis" to meet the bridegroom. So what happens when they meet the bridegroom? Do they take off with them on the honeymoon? Of course not. The wedding hasn't even happened yet. Right? They they escort the bride groom to the place he was going, namely the wedding, the place from which they came, the picture is quite clear, you go out you receive and you escort this person the last part of their journey. 

Same thing is true of the Apostle Paul and his journey to Rome his so called captive or prison journey described in Acts 28 and verse 15, we read about how the Christians in Rome heard that Paul is coming. They said, Paul is coming. And so they send a delegation party or reception party down the Roman road to meet to "apantêsis", the apostle Paul. And what happens when they meet Paul? Do they escape with Paul? Do they run away with the apostle? Of course not. They escort him to the place that he was always going, Rome, the place from which they the members of the delegation party came. So again, the picture in those other passages of the New Testament are exactly the same in all the secular letter writers of that day, and therefore, I think, have important consequences for our passage. So now returned to verse 17. And we again, hear those words to what the Lord to meet the Lord "apantêsis". And so the picture that Paul paints for the Thessalonians is really that a picture? First of all, right? It's a metaphor. It describes a common practice of that day of a delegation party going out to meet an important dignitary, except for the Thessalonians. 

This is exciting, because instead of the movers and the shakers of the city, it's going to be them, and how exciting this must have been for them, for the fact that their fellow citizens, which Thessalonians says, persecuted them, ridicule them thought they were crazy for believing in this Jesus, oh, how these Christians in Thessaloniki were looking forward to the day when they would be proven to be true. And what's more, they were looking to the glory of the other events that would accompany Christ's return they were eagerly anticipating. And so Paul holds out for them in a comforting way, this glorious picture, that the church then they not only the church in Thessaloniki, but obviously the whole body of Christ, those who are living along with those who have died, and then been resurrected and transformed. So the whole church, then is the delegation party that meets the Lord in the air. The air is important too, because in the ancient world, the air was believed to be the place where the demons and the evil spirits control. And so Jesus kind of meets his church, his bride on hostile territory, thereby declaring what the scripture is also talked about his triumphing over the principalities and the powers. And then what should happen once the church meets, once it becomes that "apantêsis", to the descending and reigning Christ? 

Well, according to dispensationalist, according to left behind people, Jesus does a U turn, right, he doesn't come all the way to Earth, he turns around and goes back to heaven, and the church goes with him for seven years. But I hope you'll see how this clearly violates the image, the picture of this key technical term, "apantêsis". The natural way of reading the text is the church then escorts Jesus to the place he was always going, namely Earth, the place from which day the members of the delegation party came. And so as I said, this verse, I believe, delivers a death blow to the idea that Christians will, or the idea that there'll be a two fold coming of Jesus, first a secret coming in which no one will notice believers will just vanish and disappear. And then after a period of time, Jesus comes not for his saints, but with his saints. Instead, this passage, as Indeed, the rest of Scripture speaks of a one time return of Jesus, a one time public return of Jesus of such glory and magnitude that all people, both believer and unbeliever alike will witness and experience. Well, maybe you're still not quite convinced, because you're thinking of yet another passage, you've got another text and you want to interpret Scripture with Scripture, and that's a good thing. And you're thinking of Luke 17, where you see those words, two men will be in the field, one will be taken the other left, two women will be grinding with the hand mill, one will be taken in the other left. 

Now at first blush, this may seem like a text that's opposed to my interpretation, because we've got two people one is taken, doesn't say rapture, but maybe we had that in mind, right, and the other is left or left behind. And we say, Aha, see, that supports our idea of the rapture, that Wait a minute, one will be taken rapture that refers to Christians going to heaven for seven years and the other left or left behind to experience the tribulation. But then before you to quickly interpret these two verses that way, you remember that important principle of every passage ought to be interpreted in its context. So that's why I included the larger context here in our PowerPoint slides. And so we backtrack just a little bit. We read the context and it goes like this as it was in the days of Noah so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Okay, so let's just stop there for a minute. Okay, Jesus is drawing a parallel, he's saying something happened in Noah's day. And that's what will be like in the days of the Son of Man. Okay, so what happened to Noah's day? Well, in those days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving up in marriage up to the day that Noah entered the ark. And they knew nothing about what what happened until the flood came and took them all away. 

Who are them there? Well, it clearly from the context refers to the people who were eating and drinking, married and getting up and marriage up to the day that no enter the ark, and the ones who knew nothing about what would happen. Those are the ones who are then taken away raptured, if you will, and what happens when they're taken away when they're taken away to experience death. And then Jesus says, that is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man, two men will be in the field, one will be taken the other left, two women will be grinding with a hand mill, one will be taken and the other left. 

So if you interpret this first in its right context, so in Noah's day, those taken away, it doesn't say raptured. But if you want to use that verb, I'm willing to concede that we could those taken away or if you will, raptured, those referred to unbelievers who end up perishing in the flood, and the ones who are left or if you want to say in contemporary terms left behind, that's Noah and his family who live. And so if you read the verse in its context, you want to say I want to be left behind, I want to be like no one those who end up living, not those who are taken away and dying. And so if you go back to the verse, this is how it should be really understood. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man, to none will be in the field, one will be taken. And then now I've added in my interpretation away in judgment, just like those in Noah's day and the flood who were destroyed, and the other left, right behind to live to women will be grinding with a hand middle one will be taken again away in judgment, like the unbelievers and Noah's day, and the other left, and I'm adding behind to live like Noah and his family. So we go back to our original question, what about the rapture? Is it a biblical truth? Or is it a mistaken teaching? And I want to say yes, and no, not because I'm wishy washy, but because I think the evidence of Scripture is quite clear. 

Yes, I am willing to say because I believe the Bible teaches that the church will be joined to Jesus when he comes again. And if you want to call that a rapture, that's entirely fine with me. In other words, somehow, when Jesus comes again, there'll be a separation between those who belong to Jesus and those who don't belong to Jesus. And that's a wonderful comfort for Christians to think about, as they look ahead to the return of Jesus. One day, the church will be, as Paul says, with the Lord, right, forever, both living and and, and the ones who have died will be resurrected and transformed believers, both living and deceased will share in the glory of being joined with Jesus as his return. But know, the Bible doesn't here nor anywhere else teach about this sudden disappearance of the church, the rapture of the church to heaven for seven years, after which then it returns to participate with Christ in the Thousand Year millennial reign. In fact, if you know a bit about this teaching, no one believed this until really the the late 17th and early 18th century. It wasn't till in England and then some Plymouth Brethren, Christians from England carried it over to United States, and where it took root and it became the popular teaching that it is today. 

Well, friends, I hope that this teaching on the rapture has been helpful for you. I hope that it's been helpful that if you've maybe bought into a particular view of the rapture, that this will force you to reevaluate your position and and examine carefully what does the Bible actually say. I also hope that this discussion has illustrated for you how important it is to carry out a reformed hermeneutic in our interpretation of Scripture, whether it's this passage or any passage of scripture, how we involve all those elements, grammatical, literary, historical and theological in order to clearly and accurately hear what God was saying to the church then and there, and therefore also what God is saying to us, here and now. But perhaps most important, regardless of whether you find this teaching convention, convincing, the most important part with regards to the rapture is is whether or not you know that you belong body and soul and life and death to your faithful Savior. And you know that you'll be winning. Jesus when He returns, it's my prayer that it's that conviction that gives you comfort as you think about this idea of Jesus returning in glory. Thank you for your time and your attention.

Video Transcript: Sermon: Jesus is Coming Again! (1 Thess 4:13-18) 

Welcome, my name is Jeff Weima, I'm a professor of New Testament at Calvin Theological Seminary, and perhaps in the previous videos you and I had been thinking about this important passage from the Apostle Paul First Thessalonians 4:13 to 18. And now In this next segment, I would like to preach a sermon on this passage. And the goal of this is to illustrate for you how one moves from the then and there of the text to the here and now of today, on the kind of exegetical and hermeneutical moves one automate when you go from the study the exegesis of the passage to the pulpit, or perhaps the classroom where you preach or teach a passage. 

So the title of the sermon is also the title from our exegesis, namely, Jesus is coming again. And before we read and reflect on this passage, I'd like to have an opening prayer of illumination. And I do that because of what the scripture says about the Holy Spirit's work of illuminating our hearts and our minds so that we can hear and he the Word of God, for example, John 14:26, Jesus says, but the counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name will teach you all things. 

A couple of chapters later also as part of Jesus Upper Room discourse, Chapter 16, verse 13, and john we read, that when he the spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth, he not only is identified as the Spirit of Truth, but he guides or leads Jesus followers into all the truth. And the Apostle Paul also knows of how crucial the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit is. He says, the person without the spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned. So with those texts in mind, let us bow our heads in a prayer for illumination. 

Great and Almighty God, we thank You for Your Word, and the way that you in it revealed to us who you are, and what you've done for us in Christ. Now, as we open that word, we pray that your spirit may be present, that all thoughts of worry or distraction may be removed, and that the Spirit will allow us to hear your voice. And so Oh God, fill us with your spirit. Through the reading and proclamation of your word, this day, we pray in Jesus name, Amen. 

Our scripture passage again is First Thessalonians 4:13 to 18. And the text reads as follows. "Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep or to grieve like the rest of men who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again. And so we believe that Jesus, that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive and are left till the coming of the Lord will certainly not proceed those who have fallen asleep, for the Lord himself will come down from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel in the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that we who are still alive in our 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, therefore, encourage each other with these words."

In 1983, John Fisher was a classmate of mine at Calvin Theological Seminary. But before John Fisher felt a call to ministry and went to Calvin to pursue that call, he was instead going to be an engineer, and he was studying engineering at John Brown University in Arkansas. I don't know if you're familiar with John Brown University, but it's a Christian College, and more particularly, it's a Christian College, which emphasizes in particular, eschatology or the study of the End Times. In fact, all students at the beginning of the year were required to take a crash course in the Bible. And a crash course in the Bible at John Brown University in those days was not a crash course in the Bible as a whole, but much more specifically, what does the Bible say about the end times? So as a result of this intensive course at the beginning of the school year, the students minds were very much filled with these End time matters. John Fisher, however, wasn't Not having his mind filled with these End time matters. 

He was filling his mind with what all young male college students are thinking about all too often, and that his young female college students, and he and his two engineering buddies decided to play a prank on the women's students. They took an electronic horn, connected it up to a timer, and then put it in a box, which could not easily be figured out how to turn on or off. And then they set it to go off at midnight and place the box outside the women's dorm to go off at midnight. And so they placed this box outside the the women's dorms, and they sat in the bushes, hee hee hee, waiting to hear what would happen. However, there was a fatal flaw in their prank, they failed to recognize and electronic horn sounds suspiciously like an instrument, namely a trumpet. And every Bible student with his or her salt knows that when Jesus comes, it's going to be accompanied by the sound of a trumpet. Well, that midnight, the device went off. And guess what happened? Well, over half, over half of the women's students came running outside in their pajamas and their night gown. In fact, they were jumping in the air saying, I'm coming, Jesus, I'm coming. And what's more, many of them had tears in their eyes, because from their point of view, they weren't being raptured. But they were being left behind. Now, perhaps you're laughing as you hear about the story. And I don't fault you. 

I did the same thing too, when John told me that story so many years ago, but I thought a lot about those women's students in the past years. And I've come to the sobering realization that these women's students were actually more biblical in many ways than I was. Now, I don't agree that they had it right in terms of how Jesus would come back, we'll maybe talk about that later on in this message, but they got more the more important thing, right, and that is this, namely, that Jesus is going to come back. And this passage, if it does, anything else should remind you me of this important truth of Scripture, namely the certainty of Jesus return. And now we're called upon like those women's students to be living lives of anticipation, and preparation of that great and glorious day. Sadly, at that time, I was not like that. It was just a teaching that was in my head. It was just a confession, I said, when I recited the apostles creed, but it wasn't part of my faith, my day to day existence. Those women students instead were were more biblical than me, I believe, because it wasn't just a teaching, it wasn't just a confession. It was a truth, a spiritual truth. They live with a sense of excitement and anticipation for the great and glorious day of Jesus return. 

The Christians in Thessaloniki, though they did not have to be reminded about the certainty of Jesus return, they were already sure about that. That's because when Paul visited them on his second missionary journey for three plus Sabbath, he preached to them Jesus, he preached to them, Jesus incarnate. He preached to them Jesus during His earthly ministry, his teaching and his life. He preached to them Jesus crucified, Jesus resurrected Jesus ascended and also Jesus one day returning. And as a result of Paul's preaching, the Christians in Thessaloniki were eagerly anticipating Jesus glorious return, they were eagerly anticipating the day when their faith would be proven right, despite the opposition and objections of their non Christians who lived around them. But then, something happened which caused them to become confused. Some of the Christians in that church our tech says, fell asleep. 

Now, when Paul says they fell asleep, he doesn't mean that they were Christians in the church who during a boring sermon knocked off and now he's using the word fell asleep here in a more metaphorical or symbolic way, a metaphorical or symbolic way to refer to death. That's not surprising. Even today, we don't like to refer to death as death. It sounds too harsh for us. We use euphemisms, more softer, user friendly ways to refer to death, we talk about people who have Well, they've literally fallen asleep people who have people who have passed away people who are gone to be in glory. That's true even in the in the secular world. None of us are comfortable with the language of death. Someone once joked about the obituary column in the newspaper, there might be 10 people listed in the obituary column, but only three of them have died. The other seven have gone to be with glory gone to be with the Lord or in a better place or something. Like that. And so what Paul is dealing with here when he refers to those who are falling asleep in our text, he's referring to Christians in Thessaloniki who have died. And it's confused the Christians there, they worry now about the fate of their deceased loved ones, would they not participate in the glory of Jesus return? 

Would they somehow miss out on that day that they were so much looking forward to and anticipating? Or would they somehow be at a disadvantage compared to them, that is the Christians who are alive at Jesus return. And so in response to this confusion, Paul starts off with an important claim. He says to them, brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant. That is, we don't want you to be confused or to not know about those who fall asleep, or to what to grieve like the rest of men who have no hope. Paul doesn't want them to be confused about the way that they're grieving. Or to put it differently. Paul says, there's a difference between the way you Christians and Thessaloniki should grieve and the way non Christians in your city should grieve. Now, we have to be careful here not to make a mistake many Christians do. Many people hear these words appalling. They say, Oh, that's the difference between Christians and non Christians. Non Christians go boo hoo, apparently, in the context of death, they agree. But Christians, well, they don't go, boohoo. 

They might even go Hallelujah, praise the Lord, this person is in a better place by far this person is with the Lord, which is gain. However, there is something fundamentally problematic about this kind of distinction. It's not only not true to what Paul is talking about, but it is pastorally problematic. In other words, there are many Christians, perhaps you're one of them who think that Christians aren't allowed to grieve that those who grieve somehow or those who are poor believers. I remember very well, a visit a pastoral visit I made in my earlier days, when I was pastoring. A congregation I went to visit Mrs. Vandenberg, and Mrs. Vandenberg husband had passed away about three weeks before and so I was going there just as a kind of a follow up, encouraging visit. And as I was speaking with her, somewhere along the conversation, she caught me off guard, she said, Pastor Jeff, she said, God must be disappointed with me. I was shocked. So you know, here's this Dear Christian lady, you know, how could God possibly be disappointed with you? I said, and she said, This is her husband, she about her husband, she said, I know that I know that Martin is in a better place, I know that I should be happy for him. 

But you know, I just miss him so much. You see what was going on. Not only was she grieving over her husband, who had fallen asleep who had died, but she was feeling guilty about grieving, she somehow thought it was inappropriate for her to grieve even in the context of death. And so it's important for us this morning to hear what the whole scripture say about death and the proper response to death. We need to remember that God didn't create us to die. That's not God's purpose for humanity. That's actually a consequence of the fall and of sin. We need to remember what Paul says in First Corinthians 15, about death. He says, it's the last one, it's the last enemy. Death is not a friend of Christians, it's an enemy. And we of course, need to remember Jesus and His response to death, especially the death of not only his own life, he didn't welcome that. He said, Lord, please May this cup pass over me, but also the death of his dear friend, Lazarus. The Scriptures are quite clear. It says in a very powerful way he wept. And then I love what the Bible says, in the very next words, the crowd said, see how he loved the man. The crowd didn't say, Oh, look at the poor faith or weak faith that Jesus had? No, it showed that Jesus really loved Lazarus, and he grieved over his death. And so it's important for you to hear me say this today. 

Tears in the face of death is not a sign of weak faith, but a great love. I'm going to say that again. Because it's so so important for you to hear and to live out. Tears in the face of death is not a sign of weak faith, but a great love. There is nothing wrong with grieving over the loss of a loved one. Indeed, there is much to commend it. Paul commands us elsewhere to weep with those who weep. And when we do, it just means that we really, really love this person. And in the last enemy has struck. Well, if that's not what Paul is saying, if that's not the difference between Christians and non Christians, what is the difference? I'm going to read to you again that key verse, verse 13. Paul says, brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant to be confused about those who fall asleep, those who have died, or degrees like the rest of men who have no hope. That's the difference. That's the all crucial difference between believers and non believers. Yes, non Christians grieve. And yes, Christians grieve. But the big difference is, Christians grieve, with hope, even in the midst of our tears over the loss of a loved one who has died. We have hope. 

That's a powerful claim. Paul, what is this hope? What gives you the right to make this claim? Well Paul says I'm glad that you asked right. Let me clarify for you some reasons why we have hope, hope for our deceased loved ones, when Jesus returns again, and also hope for us who are alive on that great and glorious day. Now, Paul actually gives two reasons why Christians can grieve with hope one has to do with what Jesus has done. The other has to do with what Jesus has said. Let's begin first where Paul does with what Jesus has done. That's verse 14. Paul writes, we believe that Jesus died and rose again. And so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. What is it that Jesus has done, or more accurately what God has done through Jesus, while Jesus has been raised from the dead? And this is also important in Paul's thinking, because Jesus resurrection is a guarantee of believers resurrection, you have one, you have the other, you don't have one, you don't have the other. 

Well, this is why Paul says what he says, for instance, in First Corinthians 15, there in the great resurrection chapter of the Bible, Paul says that if Jesus has not been raised, well, then we're of all people most to be pitied why we're just kind of blowing smoke, we're just uttering hot air with all of our preaching and our teaching. But of course, Paul can stop there. As soon as he entertains the possibility that Christ hasn't been raised. He blurts out, but Christ has been raised. And then he says, The first fruits of our resurrection. That's a wonderful picture that Paul paints a wonderful picture that we need to adhere to here today, namely, that Jesus resurrection is a first fruit a guarantee of our resurrection. Well, you don't look so excited about that. Maybe that's because you don't appreciate the power of this farming or gardening metaphor that Paul paints, farmers and gardeners get really excited about the first fruit, the very first ear of corn that they could hold in their hand, or the very first grape that ripens on the vine, and they can pop into their mouth. 

Why are they excited? Well, because as real as that ear of corn is in their hand, and as real as that grape is that they can pop in their mouth. That's how real the rest of the harvest will be. And I'll pull them in a similar way says to the Corinthians, we believe that Jesus died and rose again, it's almost like he says, You there intestine, like Put your hands up all you who believe that Jesus rose again, and everybody puts their hand up. Everybody in Thessaloniki has heard the Gospel story from Paul's preaching, that Jesus died and by God's power was raised from the grave. And then Paul says, well, as real as you believe that Jesus rose again, that's how real you can be sure that your deceased loved ones will rise again. And if they're going to rise again, that means that they'll be there when Jesus comes again. That means that they won't be at a disadvantage, they won't miss out. They're going to share equally with those who are alive as Jesus returned, the glory and splendor of that incredible day. That's the first reason why you and I can grieve with hope. Because Jesus resurrection is a guarantee of our in our deceased loved ones resurrection. 

Paul's got a second reason why we can grieve with hope. And this one is not based on what Jesus has done, but on what Jesus has said. Notice what Paul says in verse 15. According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive who are left till the coming of the Lord We'll certainly not proceed those who have fallen asleep. Paul has received a word of the Lord and the Lord for Paul is the Lord Jesus Christ, not God the Father, not the Holy Spirit. It's the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, there are lots of questions that immediately we could ask, we could ask one. Where did Paul get this word of the Lord? or two? What in the following verses is the word of the Lord? But it's really this third question. I think that is the most important for one for us to ask an answer. And that is, why does Paul quote the word of the Lord? Why does Paul tell his readers that he has a word of the Lord? Well, the answer I think, is quite clear. The answer is it adds authority to what Paul is saying. Paul is not saying like we so often do today, I just feel or it seems to me, Paul is not just giving them his opinion, his reflections on a matter No, he says, I have an authoritative teaching that comes directly from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. And what is this authoritative teaching that comes from Jesus? Well, as the rest of the verse goes on, to say, it's that we who are left to the coming of the Lord will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 

You see what Paul is doing, don't you, he's thinking about the Thessalonians. And their problem, he's thinking about how they're grieving over their loved ones who have died, who have already fallen asleep. And here Paul reassures them from the words of Jesus Christ Himself, that we who are living will not be ahead of them who have already died. In other words, we who are living will in no way be in an advantage, or to say a differently, those who have already died will share fully and equally in the glory of Jesus returned. And that's a second powerful reason why we can grieve. But wait a minute, more importantly, we grieve with hope. Now, Paul, does something else with this word of the Lord that is of importance in verses 16 and 17. He actually gives what I think is the clearest description anywhere in the Bible of how Jesus will come again. And there are many Christians, of course, who were quite interested in these verses, because, again, all of us are interested in this end time scenario, what will happen when Jesus returns in glory, and I'm a little bit nervous about talking about verses 16 and 17. 

Frankly, because I'm worried that like many Christians, today, you're going to do something you're going to forget about pastor Paul, in this passage, Pastor Paul, who is, first and foremost trying to comfort these grieving Christians in Thessaloniki, and you're going to latch on to predicting Paul instead. You're going to get so excited to say, oh, now I'm going to finally hear what's going to happen in the end times. And even though I'm nervous about talking about these verses, I want to do so not only because they're obviously part of God's word, but there's a lot of confusion in today's church about these end time events. And so since our passage talks about them, let's take a moment or two to hear what the Scriptures do say about how Jesus will come. So we first look at verse 16. And we hear this, for the Lord himself will come, that's important, the end of time will not be ushered in, by an angel or by some other human be. No, it is the Lord Jesus Christ, who's coming We look forward to and anticipate, and how will he come, he will come down from heaven, one with aloud command, two, with the voice of the archangel, and three with the trumpet call of God. Now, there are some Christians, they are brothers and sisters, they are fellow believers in Christ. But they have a different view, I think, than I do. And I think that the Bible does about how Jesus will return. 

They argue that there will not be a one return of Jesus, but they will be a two fold return of Jesus. First, there'll be a secret coming in which Christians will vanish and disappear. Perhaps you've heard of the left behind series. Well, many people have they've sold many, many millions of copies. But the left behind series opens with exactly this happening, the so called rapture. The pilot is flirting even though he's married with a stewardess and then she comes back them and says they're gone. who's gone? Well, people are gone, they've just vanished and disappeared. You see, this is a very common belief by many Christians today that Jesus will have a secret coming in which all Christians will just vanish and disappear. They'll go to heaven for seven years. During the seven years you have the tribulation, a lot of bad things occur. And then after those seven years, Jesus comes not for his saints, but with his saints, and begins his millennial or thousand year reign on Earth. But I'm afraid that idea isn't really supported by this verse. Again, I share with you with what the Bible says. It says that the Lord himself will come out with the voice of the archangel, and with aloud command and with the trumpet, call him God. 

First of all, that loud command, that loud command was given by people in that day, people, for instance, who would be a general in an army, and they would say, charge, or a captain of a ship, who would tell people to roll in a tense time of battle, or a difficult storm. So these words always have the sense of a loud, authoritative cry. Our text also talks about the voice of an archangel. I've never heard the voice of archangel, but I have a sneaky suspicion that if an archangel spoke and wanted to be heard, I would hear it. And the last one is a trumpet. Now, one of my children, my youngest son plays a trumpet. And I can assure you that a trumpet is not a soft or quiet instrument, trumpet, even a single trumpet is loud. And so when you put these three things together, a straightforward reading of this verse is that Jesus will return will be a public return, a public return of such glory and magnitude that all people not only Christians, but non Christians will hear, will witness will experience. 

That's verse 16. But what is verse 17? Say, after that we who are still alive and our left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Here we have, I think, the only verse in the Bible that explicitly talks if not about a rapture, but about the idea of a rapture, the idea of meeting the Lord. But a careful study of this first shows that our dispensation was brothers and sisters, I think have it wrong here again, you see that word meet is a special word in English. Of course, it doesn't sound so important. Maybe you're going to meet someone today, or you've got a meeting this week, it doesn't sound very exciting or positive. But the word in Greek to meet is at "apantêsis". It's a special word that always has a special meaning. And it always has this special meaning outside of the Bible, just like it has this special meaning inside of the Bible. And what is this special meaning? 

Well, in that day, if a big important person were coming to your city, whether it was the governor, whether it was the General of the Army, whether it was the Navy, even the Emperor himself, well, what would happen while the city leaders would get together, and they would form a reception party, a delegation party, who would be in this party will obviously be the people of power and influence, this will be a privileged position, they will put on their finest clothes, usually white. The people in the city would be waiting for them, the city would be cleaned up and garlin would be, would be strewn all about. And this delegation party would go down the road to meet this important person. And then what would happen when the delegation party meets this important person? 

Do they go that important person back to that important person's home city or dwelling? Of course not. They escort this person the rest of their journey to the place they were always going to go the place from which the delegation party came. The image is very clear in the ancient world, it was a big event and the Christians in Thessaloniki would have seen it many times, when a governor or a general or in a rare occasion, the Emperor himself would come and there would be a delegation party to meet and then escort the person the rest of the way to the city. Well, the special meaning is always found outside of the Bible. And importantly, it's always found inside of the Bible to this word, "apantêsis". To meet occurs to other times in the New Testament. One is in Acts 28, when Paul is arriving to Rome, and this is his prison journey. And the Christians around here that Paul is coming, Paul is coming. And so they send a group of Christians down the road to meet the apostle. And what happens when they meet Paul? Do they escaped with him? Do they run away with him? Of course not. 

They escort him the rest of the way to Rome, the place to which he was going, the place from which they the members of the delegation party came the other occurrences in Matthew 25 the parable of the wise and food virgins, we read that the virgins go down the road to meet same Greek word "apantêsis" the bridegroom, and when they meet, and what happens? Do they take off with him on the honeymoon? Of course not. The wedding hasn't even happened yet. They escort him to the place he was going, the wedding and the banquet, the place from which they originally came. And so when we now come to this verse, this all crucial, verse 17, which has that special meaning of the word always outside of the Bible, and always inside the Bible. And it's two other occurrences, it seems to me the clear interpretation of verse 17, is exactly the same. That Paul paints a picture. And that's what it is, it's a metaphor, a picture for his readers of what happens when Jesus comes on that great day, they that is the Christians will be in the privileged position, they'll get to be in the important position of going down the road, or in this case going in the air to meet the Lord. 

Then what happens when they meet the Lord? does Jesus do a U turn and go back to heaven for seven years, as again, our brothers and sisters in the dispensational, or left behind camp suggest? Well, the answer can't be that the word never means that it never means that outside the Bible never meets it inside of the Bible. And it's two other occurrences, and said the picture is a is a wonderful one. The picture is once we meet the descending reigning Christ, we escort him to the place he is going, namely Earth, the place from which we the members of the delegation party came. And once that happens, Paul simply says, and so we will be with the Lord forever. It would have been nice if Paul had had gone on to talk about the final judgement and all things being made new, and life with Jesus and God on a glorified and perfected Earth. But for Paul, he says, simply, we will be with the Lord. And that's another reason why the Christians in Thessaloniki can grieve with hope. I'm really nervous now. 

Because I've been going on for maybe too long about verses 16 and 17, I've been giving you lots of technical details about how Jesus will come back. And as a result, I'm a little bit worried that you may have forgotten the Thessalonians, you may have got caught up with all these endtime events that you may have forgotten that they're grieving. Their grieving over the loss of brothers and sisters who have died before Jesus comes back. I may, I'm worried that you may have forgotten that really is Pastor Paul talking here. And so that's why we need to bring it home in verse 18, as Paul does and remind us of the comfort of Jesus returns. Paul ends by saying, therefore, encourage each other with these words, or as other translations have it I like that better, therefore, comfort one another with these words. In other words, be comforted by the fact that our deceased loved ones who now are not only with the Lord, which is gain, which is better, by far, will also be resurrected when Jesus comes again and therefore will share fully and equally with us in the glory of Jesus returned. And I know that these are words of comfort, not only for the Thessalonians. I know they're also words of comfort for you. I'm sure that you are thinking in today's passage about somebody whom you love who has fallen asleep. 

I mean, it might be a mom or dad, it might be a grandparent, it might be a spouse, or, well, it might even be as unfortunately it is in my situation, it might even be a child. You see my wife and I have four living children, but we have a fifth child to our second child was a boy and when he was two months old, he died of crib death, otherwise known as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. That's our son, David. Remember, he was under the care of someone else that evening and my wife and I were out and we came back to pick up our son and the horror on my wife's face as she held out for me, our son. And I remember feeling the cold, clammy skin of our beloved baby and the panic that we experienced as we waited for the ambulance to come and their inability to revive him. So my wife and I cried. It was appropriate for us to cry. Because this was a loss the enemy had struck. And so we grieved. But in the middle of our grieving we agreed not like the rest of men who have no hope we grieve with hope. 

Hope Our son, who was now with the Lord, which again is gained, which is better by far, hope that nothing can separate him from the love of God that is his in Christ Jesus, not even death, but also the hope that he would be with us again when Jesus returns in glory. And so dear friends, I know that these words of comfort are not only words of comfort for the Thessalonians, who are grieving over the loss of their loved ones, they can be words of comfort for you, as you think about the loss of someone who is near and dear to you. But you know, these are not only words of comfort, they're also words of challenge.

You just can't go to anybody on the street and say, Hey, listen to me, I've got some words of comfort for you. Because if you read just anybody on the street, these words, well, if they're a Christian, yes, their words of comfort, they reassure us that Jesus is coming back and that we along with our deceased loved ones will be with Jesus when He returns. But if you're not a Christian, well, these aren't words of comfort. But these are words of judgment. Because they'll remind some of the day they don't want to think about a day when Jesus returns Yes, in glory to, to want to judge the living and the dead. There's an old hymn that speaks about it being a day of wonders, but also a day of judgment. And so that raises the question of this passage for you now, is Jesus return a day of comfort? Or is it a day of judgment? Now, for me, it's a day of comfort. When you say, of course it is. You're a minister. You're not only administrator, a seminary professor, of course, you're comforted by this text? Well, I want you to know that this is a comfort text for me. 

Or to put it differently, I know that I'll be with Jesus when he comes again in glory. Not because I'm a minister, I'll be with Jesus. And this passage is comforting for me, not because I'm a seminary professor. And this passage is not comforting for me, just because you know, I'm a nice guy, and I do good things. And this passage is not a comfort to me, because, well, my parents were Christians and I somehow grew up in a Christian home. Now the reason that this is a word of comfort for me, the reason that I have hope, even through tears in the context of death, is because I know that I belong body and soul and life and death to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ. I know that Jesus has died for me and paid for all my sins, so that I can be reconciled to God so that I have the gift of forgiveness. And the outpouring of his spirit is one of the New Covenant blessings that Jesus during His earthly ministry ushered in. And if that's your confession to then these are indeed words of comfort. And then you can pray the last prayer of the Bible, and you can pray with all true conviction you can pray, amen. Come, Lord Jesus. 

Let's bow our heads in prayer. Father, we thank you for your word. A word which we believe is every bit as true for the Christians in Thessaloniki, as it is for the believers today. We pray now that your spirit the same spirit that inspired Paul to write those words will now work in our hearts and our minds. So that will heed these words. Oh God, we desire to experience the comfort that comes from belonging to Jesus, and knowing that he has paid for all our sins, we ask that you will impress this gospel truth into our hearts, so that we may be comforted, not only in the loss of loved ones, but also as we face our own potential mortality. Oh god reassure us of the comfort that is ours that comes from belonging to Jesus, in whose name we pray. Amen.

Video Transcript: Post-Sermon Debriefing

Welcome, my name is Jeff Weima, and I'm a professor of New Testament at Calvin Theological Seminary. This video is actually a follow up to a video, you hopefully just watch, namely, a sermon that I preached on First Thessalonians 4:13 to 18. Ideally, I would have liked to preach that sermon to you in person. So that then afterwards, we could have a kind of q&a question and answer session now that unfortunately, is not possible. And so instead, what I like to do is, is kind of have a debriefing session in which I talk out loud about the kind of moves or the things that I thought about as I left the study where I did the exegesis that then and there the text, and how I moved to the pulpit when I talked about the here and now the preaching. When people judge preaching today, too often they have I think, wrong criteria for judging a sermon to be good or bad. What's makes a good sermon in too many minds, it's three things. One, how long is it. And then typically, of course, long is bad and short is good, two, is how interesting and preferably funny it is. And then three, how relevant or practical it is. Now, in a sense, there's nothing wrong with these three criteria. I do think that when one speaks, one ought to be shorter than longer, I actually have a model that goes like this, the longer I am, the better I better be, I say that again, the longer I am, the better I better be. 

In other words, if I'm going to talk long to you, I better be really good, I better be on the top of my game, because the longer I am, I know that people only have a limit to how much they're going to listen to a particular person. So I do think it's good to look carefully about how long one is. And to avoid being excessively lengthy, too, I also think it's important to be practical and to be relevant. It's important for hearers, to hear how the text is applicable to their life and their situation. And thirdly, of course, I just reversed those order in my discussion now, but also to be interesting and preferably funny. There's a appropriate place for humor, even in the pulpit. Of course, you don't want to be disrespectful, but there's nothing wrong with with enjoying oneself as you explain the scriptures. But even though those three criteria aren't bad, they shouldn't be the sole criteria or the primary criteria by which we judge a sermon, good or bad. Because the truth is, I can preach a sermon that is short, that is interesting, even funny, and is practical. And notice nowhere Have I said how biblical I am how faithful I am to Scripture. Or in other words, how how appropriately I handled the scriptures. You see, that really is what sets apart a good sermon from a bad sermon. 

Namely, whether the preacher or the teacher, if you're talking about a teaching class, it's the same thing for that, whether the teacher or the preacher, followed faithfully the right hermeneutic whether they approach the passage from a Holy Spirit, grammatical, literary, historical and theological element that ought to be the criteria by which a sermon is judged to be good or bad. Now let's take that criteria, those five hermeneutical categories and apply to the sermon that you just heard, I gave on First Thessalonians 4:13 to 18. First, then the Holy Spirit elements, the idea that the Holy Spirit needs to illumine our sin darkened minds so we can hear and heed the voice of God. Now that's more of a subjective category of the five hermeneutical categories. And it was one that I tried to highlight by opening our time with a prayer for elimination. And I made it even more explicit by reading at least three texts, two from John and one from First Corinthians, which highlighted the important work of the Holy Spirit in illuminating our minds. And of course, the work of the Holy Spirit was done in the prep work for the sermon when I was in my study, when I first opened the scriptures and thought about this passage, I prayed for the spirit to be present. 

So the Holy Spirit element was there, not so much in the sermon, it's hard to show that in an obvious way, but it was very much an important part of the preparation and preaching process. Secondly, we have the grammatical element, ways in which my knowledge of the original Greek texts taught me something new, or more than what I could get just on the basis of English. Now, there are lots of things under the exegetical section in this series that I had to just leave in the study and not bring to the pulpit. But there were a couple of areas or places in the sermon where I Refer to the original text. For example, I talked about the word or the verb to fall asleep. And I highlighted the fact that that wasn't to be taken literally, the pole wasn't referring to those who knocked off right? And who snore during a boring sermon. No, this was a metaphor, a euphemism for death and how that was important for interpretation. I also referred to the double negative, the emphatic future negation not just that we who are living will not proceed, but we will certainly we will definitely not proceed. 

How Paul was stressing that, given the pastoral problem, namely, those who were worried that those who had died would somehow be at a disadvantage that those who were living would proceed those who had passed away. So I did bring some of those to the sermon, but I had to leave a lot of that exegetical stuff behind in the study. What about literary the form and the structure of the passage? I didn't spend any time of course, in the sermon or beforehand, justifying why began at verse 13. And why ended at verse 18. I did all of that work. So someone came up after the sermon and said, Pastor Jeff, why didn't you keep reading and keep talking about the following verses? Because after all, the following verses chapter five, one to 11, they also deal with the second coming of Jesus, how come? You didn't do that? 

I would have an answer for that. Because I had some grounds for ending it where I did. But there was one literary aspect that didn't make it to the sermon. And that had to do with the internal structure of the passage, I had an outline to my sermon that I said, came from Paul's structure of the text. That's a literary kind of question, where Paul has a strategy for moving from the beginning, the problem of grieving to the end the solution of being encouraged or comfort. And that also then made it to the sermon. For historical, that was an important part, I think of this sermon. In other words, there was a danger, I could see a people too quickly jumping to today, and how the passwords will be relevant for them. And that's slowing down. And first thing, what was the historical context what was going on in the thessalonian church? And that was my distinction between Paul the pastor and Paul the predictor, right? 

If you only look at what the passage is, for today, and a lot of people are excited about end time stuff, and eschatology, it's easy to turn this passage or to misuse this passage, as a way of predicting the future. And no, I wanted to stress the historical context that the Thessalonians was a real congregation. And they had a real problem that people were grieving, and grieving deeply about those who had fallen asleep. And that was important to see the pastoral focus of Paul in this passage, and how that pastoral focus ought to come out in the preaching and application for the audience today. 

I had to leave out things that Paul talked about, he talked about grieving like the rest of men who have no hope. You may have watched and remembered how in the exegesis in this series, we went back in time and said, what were the views towards the afterlife in Paul's day isn't really true that people in Paul's day didn't have hope, for life after death. And we found some evidence of that. I didn't bring any of that to the pulpit, I suppose I could have. But I made a judgment call and thought I didn't have time and it wasn't crucial enough for me to, to include in the message. So that's an example of some stuff that that we left in the study. I did talk about the word of the Lord. But notice how quickly I went through the first two questions. Namely, where did Paul get this word of the Lord? And to what in the following verses is the word of the Lord and therefore might be put in red letters? And I went just straight for what I thought was the most important question. Why does Paul cite the word of the Lord and I gave an answer to that, namely, the Paul gives emphasis or weight to his argument. It isn't just his opinion, but it's an authority of teaching of Jesus Christ. 

Theological, there was something important theological in this sermon that it had to do with a biblical view of death. It was the business of whether it's okay for Christians to grieve. And I wanted to stress that because I've experienced that not just in the example I gave from sister Vandenberg, who said that God must be disappointed with her but I have other stories like that other examples of how Christians think either it's inappropriate for them to grieve or somehow they downplay their grief because you know, mature believers are to Christians, instead, celebrate the good things, you know about about life after death. And so it was important for him for me in the sermon to give the biblical evidence, you know, that that God created us to live not to die, that death is a consequence of the fall. You know, the Paul talks about death being an enemy, not a friend and, and especially the example of Jesus who grieved in the context of the death of his friend, Lazarus. It's it's really important for people to hear that the Bible allows them to grieve almost demands that they grieve, right, we put those who weep. 

That's such an important pastoral point that the church has gotten wrong, I'm afraid and needs to hear today. And therefore, I think that that was emphasized in the sermon. Now, I also talked about the rapture in the sermon. And that was a tricky thing. Actually, it's not good normally to in your sermon have a subject of such difference and of such length that would distract from the main part of the message, right, the main part of the message was a focus on comfort the pastor side of Paul. And so by talking about the rapture, that was a kind of a sidebar, that was a kind of diversion. And again, normally, in a sermon, you shouldn't do that. That's not a strategy that I would normally recommend. It's better to stick with the one central over arching theme or function, or focus of the passage. My only excuse is, well, the business of the rapture, the business of the end times is such an important subject, and unfortunately, largely misunderstood subject in the church today, that I thought it demanded some attention. Now, of course, a lot of this would depend on your particular context. If you're in a context, where you have less time to talk about these things, well, then obviously, I would have cut out that part, I would have kept only the poll the pastor side of things. 

Or maybe I'm in a church where in a different context, either in another sermon or in a series of educational classes, I had a chance to talk about these matters. And I knew I could correct and address those things in a different context. And therefore I wouldn't talk about it in the message itself. But those are at least some decisions that one has to make, often in terms of preaching, there aren't absolute rights and wrongs. It's more a question of judgment, wisdom, and the particular context in which you were called to minister. One question I think you should ask of yourself when you hear a sermon, and when you write a sermon, and that is the percentage of the message that is exegesis, and the percentage of the sermon that is application. Remember, this is a distinction. That's an important one exegesis deals with the then and there of the passage. What was God saying to the people then? Right? And then once we saw that question, then we can move on to the here and now. Now, there's no absolute number on how much a sermon should be exegesis, how much should be application, but there are some principles that one should follow. 

There should be enough exegesis in a sermon that people hear what not your opinion, not just your reflections on a subject, but people hear the authoritative voice of God. In other words, you need to spend time in the text and explain the text for as long as is needed. And it has as much detail as as needed, so that people hear again, not just your opinion, but they hear the authoritative voice of God, the mustiness of the Scriptures, so there has to be enough of that in a sermon. How much application should there be? Well, there should be enough application so that people see how the text is relevant for their own life. People far too often hear a passage hear a sermon, and they say, oh, that would be good for so and so. Or they might say, Oh, I sure hope so. And so was listening to the sermon today, you see how quickly we tend to think of how passages are relevant for other people. And we fail, we're blind to see what's relevant for us. And so I think the preacher needs to think carefully about how can I make a passage relevant for each person in my audience today? So what does that mean? 

That means First of all, being as specific as possible, right, not just being abstract in general, but concretizing the example so that people don't have to think hard, though they don't have to imagine because you're spelling it out for them, how this passage impacts their life. And also thinking of examples for different age groups and different walks of life. Don't have all your examples, focus just on your own age group. Right? I mean, the temptation is you think about how the passage is relevant for you. And then you concentrate on that in your message. But wait a minute, you may not be an average person. What about young people in your church? What about older people in your church? What about people of different genders? What about people maybe who are attending who are not a Christian? So think more broadly about your applications, in terms of its specificity, and to whom they're aimed at? And some final kind of just miscellaneous comments. I started off the sermon with a story good sermons, I think begin with a story that kind of captures the interest of the audience. My story was kind of a funny one. And I think it's fine for the audience to laugh. 

Although there was some dangers there, someone might think that I was making fun of these women students. But of course, if you heard me carefully, I didn't. I said at the end that they were actually more biblical than I was held them up as an example for me and for others to follow. So I think having a story like that, and illustration, and even if it's funny that that's, that's perfectly fine. As long as it's appropriate to the context that you find yourself in. I also used a personal story in the sermon at the very end, I talked about something very personal, in fact. I talked about the death of our second child. And well, there are, I think, some advantages to that. I think that all illustrations and examples as much as possible should be personal. In other words, they shouldn't be some just preacher, example, or preacher illustration. I think you know what I'm talking about you, you've surely heard a sermon where the preacher talks about people or talks about some situation. And you may not say it out loud, but you kind of say to yourself, I don't think that really happened to him, I think he just read about it in a book, you know, it sounds too cliche, too generic to really be true. 

People today want authenticity, they want you to be genuine and sincere. And so if you talk about your own life, or personal experiences, that's one way to communicate that sense of authenticity. Now, like anything good, something good can be turned into something bad, you can overdo it. So if you're always talking about your life, well, that isn't so healthy either. So one has to be wise and prudent, as you try to follow that principle. But I thought in this passage, it was personal. In some cases, it can be a little bit too personal. In other words, you know, one has to be careful that you don't tell such a personal story that what could happen well, what I could become overly, you know, overly emotionally caught up in the death of my son that, that that might interfere with what what's happening, or I have to be careful not to be so personal that I refer to people's lives my own or my family, that some might feel that that was uncomfortable or inappropriate. So again, one has to be wise and how you live out that I had an outline in my sermon, there was a structure and some people feel strongly about outlines either good or bad. In my mind, outlines are good for a pastor to have. People want to know that you have a clear path, right? You, you've thought about not just what you're going to say, but how you're saying, right, you, you have some direction that you want to take them on. And so I think it's important to share that with them. 

Also, I think it's helpful for them. Because a good sermon will cause people to mentally or emotionally leave you for a while. In other words, you'll say something or they'll hear something about the text that they'll apply to their own life, you haven't said it, but they're doing their own application, and the spirit is working in that way. And that's a good thing. But now you want to make it easy for them to get back on the journey with you, you want to give them kind of a roadmap so that when they leave you they have a relatively easy way to kind of rejoin you again. And so an outline or a structure, I think is helpful for your audience in that regard. And then of course, an outline is helpful for not just understanding a passage but remembering a passage, I think that if you give them you know, the whole sermon is too much, there's just too much, there's a big blob of information is too much for them to take home. But wait a minute, if you give them an outline, that they can kind of hang their mental head on, oh, then they can kind of remember the outline. 

Then they once they remember the main points and then triggers their mind for the other things, for which those main points for fleshed out. In the message, I deliberately referred to the left behind people or dispensationalist, as brothers or sisters. I know I did that twice, I think maybe three times in the sermon. And again, that was deliberate because I know that some of you listening, maybe come from that community and are not happy with some of the exegetical arguments I was making, because it's not what you at least believed up till now. And, and maybe you still have to think about whether or not what I presented to you is indeed faithful to Scripture, and therefore you might have to change your mind. But I wanted anyone from a different camp to know that I still respect them. I still care for them. I still consider them as brothers and sisters in Christ. And so I don't know whether I carried off that discussion in the sermon in the right tone or not. I'll let you decide that but it certainly was my intention. And I tried to carry that out by referring to people I disagreed with, right as brothers or sisters. And I think that's an important thing to remember in a sermon that If you don't use vocabulary that marginalizes or give people a too easy excuse to turn you off or not hear what you are saying, finally, then you'll be happy when you hear the word Finally, right? 

That's what people in the Pew get excited when you hear the word Finally, because that means the end is almost here. And that's indeed the case. Finally, I wrote down to myself, don't bring too much to the pulpit. I've already said that already. But I want to spell it out again. There is that saying that, you know, less is more. And I need to remember that and maybe you're like me, you're one of the people are just too excited about all the things you discovered in the text and in your study, and you bring way too much to the pulpit, or this classroom. And as a result, you know, you're rushed, you don't have the time people are overwhelmed with information. And so one has to be kind of ruthless about that. I don't know if I'm ruthless enough. I'm working at it. 

But one has to think very, very carefully about now, is this essential, right? Is this important for my audience to hear? does it support the overarching theme or central teaching of the passage? Or is it somewhat of a secondary point, and while it might be nice to know about, it certainly wouldn't undermine my message if I leave it out. So less is more. What with that comment? I hope that these kind of debriefing comments are helpful as you think about how now you are going to not only execute a passage, but especially make that transition from the study to the pulpit or the classroom. And again, thank you for your time and attention.