1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

[Peter_M]

I am curious about how the Church interprets 1 Thes 4:16-17: (NABRE)

16 For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.

To me, the voice of the archangel, the trumpet of God seem symbolic, and not literal. Evangelicals who emphasize millennial dispensationalism, take these verses to refer to the rapture. But I think this understanding is too literal.

Paul’s purpose in this pericope is to answer a question supposed to have been asked by the Thessalonians and reported by Timothy about those who have died “before the return of the Lord.”

That there would be an audible shouting archangel and a trumpet sound - then a moment, or even a prolonged period when the dead rise from their graves and the living are caught up to heaven is just too strange. How does the Church interpret this?

 

[Gorgias]

That there would be an audible shouting archangel

Hmm… it doesn’t say that there’s an archangel, just that Jesus commands “with the voice of an archangel”. If I said, “@Peter_M will shout out with the voice of Walter Cronkite”, would you assume that you are bringing Conkrite with you… or maybe just that you’re gonna say “…and that’s the way it is; December 2nd, 2017”?

and a trumpet sound

The idea here is of a ‘war trumpet’, which is announcing victory. So, the “trumpet of God” is the announcement of God’s victory…

then a moment, or even a prolonged period

Where are you seeing a “prolonged period”, or even a “moment”? Jesus descends, declares victory, and the dead rise and the living with them. That’s all that’s happening here…

 

[Peter_M]

Thank you, your reply helps to some extent.

But, I’m wondering why Paul would choose to use this eschatological or symbolic language, instead of a direct statement… such as “Christ will call the dead from their graves…”

You believe it to mean that Jesus will shout with the voice of an archangel? Why does Peter_M need to use Walter Cronkite’s voice, or even Wolf Blitzer’s dulcet tones?

As far as a prolonged period, I’ve heard this from Evangelicals.

 

[Gorgias]

But, I’m wondering why Paul would choose to use this eschatological or symbolic language, instead of a direct statement… such as “Christ will call the dead from their graves…”

I guess 'cause he’s talking about an eschatological event?

I’m gonna think out loud here, and say that “the voice of an archangel” implies some sort of otherworldly, loud, unmistakeable voice.

And, @Peter_M, “@Peter_M needs to use Walter Cronkite’s voice” because it will be instantly recognizable and will turn heads.

As far as a prolonged period, I’ve heard this from Evangelicals.

Do you trust their Scriptural interpretations in general? If not, what would make you believe their take on this?

 

[Peter_M]

Do you trust their Scriptural interpretations in general? If not, what would make you believe their take on this?

No, I don’t trust their scriptural interpretations, it is just the interpretation I read on this verse. That doesn’t mean I believe it.

My question was twofold: 1) The Church’s theological position on this particular eschatological event, and

1. The historical criticism of these verses, which describe, as you say, an eschatological event. Did Paul actually believe a literal voice and a trumpet would sound? Why would he choose these images?

 

[Gorgias]

Did Paul actually believe a literal voice and a trumpet would sound? Why would he choose these images?

Good questions. Ask him one day in heaven.

As far as a ‘trumpet’ goes, that seems pretty straightforward: a war trumpet announces victory and the arrival of the victorious general. That’s Jesus. That’s what the Second Coming is.

With respect to the “voice of an archangel”, I can only surmise.

 

[De_Maria]

I am curious about how the Church interprets 1 Thes 4:16-17: (NABRE)

16 For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.

To me, the voice of the archangel, the trumpet of God seem symbolic, and not literal. Evangelicals who emphasize millennial dispensationalism, take these verses to refer to the rapture. But I think this understanding is too literal.

Paul’s purpose in this pericope is to answer a question supposed to have been asked by the Thessalonians and reported by Timothy about those who have died “before the return of the Lord.”

That there would be an audible shouting archangel and a trumpet sound - then a moment, or even a prolonged period when the dead rise from their graves and the living are caught up to heaven is just too strange. How does the Church interpret this?

1. The Scripture is the Church’s first written interpretation of the Word of God.
2. The literal interpretation is the most significant.

CCC#116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

1. The Church does not dispute the items you consider, “too strange”.

I’m not aware of any other official writing of the Church explaining this item in more detail.

 

[Peter_M]

I’m trying to do some study of the eschatology of the Old and New Testaments. 1 Thes is believed to be the oldest of the NT writings. The trumpet and the voice are the particular symbols Paul employed in writing to the Thessalonians. As Gorgias pointed out, Paul uses symbolic language to express this. Unfortunately, to ask Paul “when you get to heaven” isn’t very helpful.

That a “literal sense” should be applied to the use of apocalyptic and eschatological imagery is benighted. A literal sense is appropriate as a counterweight to allegorical interpretations overused by Medieval scholars, for example, but it should not be forced upon the writings which are by definition symbolic.

In the OT, the symbols of eschatology are primarily of a later development, although eschatology was probably present in nascent form in the pre-exilic period. Only later writers began to use the symbolic language of Ezekiel, Zechariah, Daniel. The NT writings are filled with these images, the book of Revelation being the most obvious of examples.

1 Thes is the simply the earliest example in the NT Scriptures.

 

[De_Maria]

That a “literal sense” should be applied to the use of apocalyptic and eschatological imagery is benighted. A literal sense is appropriate as a counterweight to allegorical interpretations overused by Medieval scholars, for example, but it should not be forced upon the writings which are by definition symbolic.

Who said that these words were strictly allegorical?

 

[Peter_M]

Who said that these words were strictly allegorical?

I think this is the opinion of most biblical scholars, although I would prefer the term “symbolic”, and not allegorical.

Let’s take some examples.

Rev 13.1 - “Then I saw a beast come out of the sea, with seven heads, and on its horns were ten diadems…” Shall we interpret this in the literal sense? This is symbolic.

John 15.1 - “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine grower…” Literally? This is an obvious analogy, and we treat it as such.

When describing events of an eschatological nature, only symbolic language is possible. Why Paul chose these particular images is the question.

 

[De_Maria]

Who said that these words were strictly allegorical?

I think this is the opinion of most biblical scholars,

I don’t follow Biblical scholars.

although I would prefer the term “symbolic”, and not allegorical.

In either case, it doesn’t matter. The Catholic Church has not declared that 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 is to be understood in a strictly symbolic manner.

Let’s take some examples…

No. They are besides the point. No one has the authority to declare that 1 Thess is strictly symbolic.

Rev 13.1 - “Then I saw a beast come out of the sea, with seven heads, and on its horns were ten diadems…” Shall we interpret this in the literal sense? This is symbolic.

Ok. I agree.

John 15.1 - “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine grower…” Literally? This is an obvious analogy, and we treat it as such.

I agree on this as well.

When describing events of an eschatological nature, only symbolic language is possible.

Eschatological does not mean symbolic. Is the Judgment supposed to be symbolic? It is eschatological, isn’t it?

Is heaven supposed to be symbolic? It is also eschatological.

Why Paul chose these particular images is the question.

On the contrary, that question is simple to answer. It is because he was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The text literally says that when all is over, some will be left alive and that these will be taken to heaven by Jesus Christ. And that the dead will rise.

There is nothing of beasts or vines here. It all sounds very plausible. Unless you don’t believe that Jesus has the power to return on the clouds or to raise men up from the dead or to assume the living into heaven.

 

[Gorgias]

Unfortunately, to ask Paul “when you get to heaven” isn’t very helpful.

 

[Gorgias]

Peter_M:

That a “literal sense” should be applied to the use of apocalyptic and eschatological imagery is benighted. A literal sense is appropriate as a counterweight to allegorical interpretations… for example, but it should not be forced upon the writings which are by definition symbolic.

Who said that these words were strictly allegorical?

Hang on a second, guys. Now you’re using the word “literal” to mean something that the Church does not mean, when it discusses the “literal meaning” of Scripture.

Rather, you seem to be talking about literalistic interpretations of Scripture. As an example, if Paul wrote about it “raining cats and dogs”, the literal sense of that statement is “it’s raining really, really hard,” not “puppies and kitties are falling from the skies!”

So, the literal sense of that passage – rather than the merely literalistic sense – is that Jesus will come from the heavens as a champion, proclaiming His victory and taking believers (living and deceased) with Him to heaven. No need to quibble over trumpets, voices, and allegory…

 

[Peter_M]

I don’t think this is quibbling. I hope it is more like a dialogue. I realize I used examples which, if interpreted in a literalistic way, would not make sense, in order to show that “the literal sense” is not something easily grasped by a cursory reading. It involves, in the case of 1 Thes, understanding what Paul intended to convey to the Thessalonians.

Perhaps Paul, a Jew of the first century C.E. understood the trumpet and the voice in a literalistic sense. I don’t think that means we, in the twenty-first century, should have to understand it in the same way. It would seem better to understand what that meant to Paul and the early believers, and not to adopt the idea simply because it is in the Bible.

I agree with Gorgias that the events described by Paul are intended to mean triumph of God.

Jesus will come from the heavens…

If the early Christians believed that Jesus would return from heaven on the clouds, it was because of their understanding that heaven was up in the sky. Today, we don’t think of heaven being above the earth. In our time, we have come to understand heaven being a place without a particular location. Can Jesus return on the clouds? Of course, but he’s not coming from the interplanetary space. It is surely a mystery, and in a way we are in the same place as the early believers… they could think of heaven being above the earth, and we can think of it as another dimension. We are just not blind in the same way they were to the earthly realities. But, the blindness remains.

 

[De_Maria]

@Gorgias, @Peter_M

What are we to do with the witnesses who saw Jesus ascend in the clouds?

Acts 1:9 When he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their sight.

The angels said that He was going to heaven.

11 They said, “Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking at the sky? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will return in the same way as you have seen him going into heaven.”

 

[po18guy]

2 Peter 3:15-17
And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved
brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this[a]
as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to
understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own
destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You
therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried
away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.

There are things revealed which are not comprehensible, and which therefore cannot be reduced to human language. The sin of man is to desire knowledge of such mysteries and therefore to fabricate or assign meanings which do not comport with the totality of revelation.

 

[Gorgias]

What are we to do with the witnesses who saw Jesus ascend in the clouds?

It’s an eyewitness account. I take it at face value.

 

[Peter_M]

There are things revealed which are not comprehensible, and which therefore cannot be reduced to human language. The sin of man is to desire knowledge of such mysteries and therefore to fabricate or assign meanings which do not comport with the totality of revelation.

This is about the language Paul used regarding the Parousia in 1 Thes. How are things revealed without using language? To try to understand this does not diminish the mystery. The whole idea of resurrection is inexplicable, and we take it on faith. But why Paul chose certain words to describe it is not inexplicable.

I’m not attempting to penetrate the mystery, just to understand whey these words were chosen by the inspired writer.

What are we to do with the witnesses who saw Jesus ascend in the clouds?

I believe the imagery used accounts for the belief at the time of the heavens being located above the earth. If you wish to say it is an eyewitness account, that is fine.

 

[Mintaka]

We might not be taking this literally enough. “Angel” is “messenger” in Greek, and an “archangel” is literally a “head messenger” or “chief messenger.”

If you were a knight in armor, and somebody came along “with the voice of a chief herald,” you’d know that the guy was projecting his voice in a mellifluous and polite, but very loud and audible, fashion.

I’m pretty sure that someone with “the voice of an archangel” would have a voice that was melodious and polite, would carry well, and would be a little bit scary.

Will that someone be Christ Himself, or will it be an archangel acting as a herald angel?

I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure it will become obvious when it happens!

(That said, it would be useful to study other texts for parallel comments.)

 

[Mintaka]

Looking around at some commentaries. The general idea is that St. Paul is painting a picture of Jesus coming back as the Emperor of all things, riding with His armies to rescue His faithful people like a Roman emperor would come rescue a Roman city that had been invaded by enemies or taken over by rebels.

So He and His army show up, and the onlookers hear the sound of a “shouted command,” along with “the voice of an archangel” barking that command (and that makes commentators guess that it’s probably St. Michael), and then a military “trumpet of God,” repeating the command to the whole force. This is the way a Roman army operated, so it was a bunch of images that the Thessalonians would have understood without explanation.

So the army of angels and saints moves out, descending from Heaven along with Christ, and acting as His escort to show Him honor.

Then the dead rise. They are joined by the living. Paul doesn’t say what happens to those who are not good or faithful. But all the faithful, living and dead, rush forward to greet Christ, like the faithful citizens of a Roman town going to meet the Emperor and cheer for him, even before he can get to their gates. But somehow, by Christ’s power, instead of staying on the ground, they are caught up into the clouds and meet up with Him and His army up there. From then on, as Christ conquers and judges the world, we are always with Him.

I think this is probably more reliable than my guesses!