Meeting in the Air (1 Thess. 4:15-17)

In preparation to teach on 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18, I read John Chrysostom’s Homily on the passage. There were lots of interesting insights, but I want to point out only one that I think has significant value for contemporary readers.

John Chrysostom, for those unfamiliar, is one of great “Doctors of the Church” in the East who lived from around 347–407 CE. He was made Bishop of Constantinople against his will in 398 and worked tirelessly to preach the Scriptures to reform the nominally Christian culture in which he found himself. His most enduring legacy is found in his many sermons and exegetical writings. Thankfully, we have a number of writings on Paul’s letters, including a collection of homilies on 1 Thessalonians.

Commenting on 1 Thessalonians 4:15–17, in his eighth homily in 1 Thessalonians, Chrysostom asks an important question: “If he [Christ] is about to descend, for what reason will we be caught up?” Many modern readers fail to ask this question and simply assume that believers “go to heaven.” The imagery here, however, is not of “rapture” (of the Left Behind sort), or final departure to the pie in the sky, but a welcome party for the arrival of Jesus. Chrysostom’s answer to his question about why Jesus comes down and we rise up is quite helpful:

“The reason is honor. For when a king enters a city those in honor go out to meet him, but those condemned remain inside for judgment. When a loving father comes, the children, and those worthy to be children, go out on a chariot in order to see and kiss him, but those having offended him remain in the house.”

The “meeting” that occurs as Jesus comes down and believers go up is a welcome party for Jesus that bestows vindicating honor on the saints. It refers to believers going up to meet Jesus, only to then return to earth for final judgment.

The word “meet” is used in precisely this same way elsewhere in the New Testament. In Acts 28 Paul journeys to Rome to await trial before the Emperor. When Roman Christians hear of Paul’s arrival they leave the city to meet him, with the obvious intention to return with him to Rome. In Jesus’ famous parable of the ten virgins there are five wise virgins who have enough oil in their lamps and five foolish ones who do not. The virgins are waiting to meet the bridegroom only to be taken to the ultimate destination of the wedding banquet. 

Meeting Jesus in the air is, as Chrysostom points out, a vindication of those who know their king (cf. Josephus, JW 7.100–2). They celebrate his arrival by publicly meeting him on the journey down to welcome and honor him.

The Good News about Easter - We're NOT going to Heaven

At least not as our ultimate destination.

Unfortunately, most Christians are confused about what scripture teaches about life after death. Imprecise language in the pulpit and popular worship music isn’t helping the situation much either. The hymn, “I’ll Fly Away,” is a perfect example of inaccurate eschatology,[1] but most people know it far better than 1 Corinthians 15. Preachers are often fond of proclaiming their excitement about going to heaven. There is even a best-selling book describing a young boy’s description of heaven based on his near-death experience.[2] As will become clear below, I’m not trying to discount Christian hope in life beyond the grave. I’m also not trying to deny that heaven is a place for believers, but I do want to clarify it in light of what Scripture teaches, "heaven" is not our ultimate destination.

Most Christians think of heaven as the place you go to be with God forever after you die. Typically it is thought of as a city in the clouds where people spend time with God. But this is a terribly incomplete description of what the Bible teaches about life after death. It is a description of eschatology that ignores the significance of Jesus’ resurrection as the foundation of Christian hope.

The early Christians believed that Jesus was raised from the dead and that eventually they would be too. The Christian hope is that God will raise believers from the dead when he judges the earth at the end of time. The early believers did not eagerly desire to “go to heaven.” Instead, they longed to participate in the resurrection of Jesus. Heaven is merely a pit stop on the way to a more glorious future – a new earth filled with God’s presence!

Consider some of these passages:

“³⁸ For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. ³⁹ And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. ⁴⁰ For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6.38-40)

In his “bread of life” sermon Jesus declares that it is God’s plan to raise the dead and Jesus will participate in raising the dead! This is a bold declaration that surprisingly will be previewed in the resuscitation of Lazarus in John 11.

To the Roman church Paul wrote,

“And if the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit dwelling within you.” (Romans 8.11)

Romans 8 is a masterful description of how our hope in God’s future shapes how we live in the present. Paul is emphatic that if we are believers then we have the Holy Spirit (Rom 8.9), which in turn allows us please God—an impossible calling without the Spirit of God dwelling in us (Rom 8.1-8).

To the Philippians, Paul described his overwhelming desire was:

 “¹⁰ to know [Christ] and the power of his resurrection and the sharing in his sufferings, being conformed to his death, ¹¹ if somehow I might attain to the resurrection from the dead. . . ²⁰ For our citizenship is in heaven and from there we eagerly await a Savior – the Lord Jesus Christ, ²¹ who will transform our lowly bodies to the same form of his glorious body by the energy which enables him to subject all things to himself.” (Philippians 3.10‒11, 20‒21)

Paul describes his hope as the resurrection (Phil 3.10) and confirms that it the hope of all believers to have our bodies transformed (Phil 3.21).

Jesus, speaking to his host a dinner party said, “¹² When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. ¹³ But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, ¹⁴ and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” (Luke 14.12‒14)

Here again, we see Jesus describing how we live today as relevant for the resurrection!

The hope of resurrection is pervasive throughout the apostolic preaching (Acts 2.22-32, 36; 3.13-16; 4.33; 5.29-32; 10.39-43; 13.30-39; 17.2-3, 18, 31-32; 23.6-8; 24.14-16, 21; 26.6-8, 23). The most detailed passage on resurrection is found in 1 Corinthians 15. I would of course suggest reading the entire passage, but there is only space here to quote portions of it:

 ¹⁴ And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. ¹⁵ And we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. [. . .] ¹⁷ And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. ¹⁸ Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. ¹⁹ If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. ²⁰ But now Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. ²¹ For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. ²² For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. ²³ But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

³⁵ But someone may ask, ‘How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?’ . . .

As usual, Paul answers his own question.

It [the body] is sown perishable, is raised in imperishability; ⁴³ it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; ⁴⁴ it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

He goes on,

⁵¹ Listen, I tell you a mystery: All will not fall asleep, but all will be changed— ⁵² in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. ⁵³ For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. ⁵⁴ When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying having been written will be, “Death has been swallowed up in victory” [Isa 25.8] (1 Corinthians 15:14-15, 17-23, 35, 42-44, 51-54)

Notice the significance of Jesus’ resurrection for Paul. If Christ is not raised, our faith is useless (v 14), we are lying about God (v 15), we are still dead in our sins (v 17), anyone who has put hope in Christ believed a stupid lie (v 18) and Christians should be pitied as fools (v 19). Apparently, there were some Christians in Corinth suggesting that there is no resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:12-13, 16). Jesus’ resurrection is, according to Paul, the foundation of Christian hope. Not only does it define what Christians believe happened to Jesus in the past, but it shapes their hope for the future – resurrection on the last day!

If resurrection is something that happens at the return of Jesus, as 1 Corinthians makes clear, then what happens to believers when they die? According to the New Testament, when believers die they are in the presence of Christ (2 Cor. 5.8; Phil 1.23; Rev 6.9-11; 7.14-17; 14.13; 20.1-6). Then, at the end of time, when God judges all of humanity, the righteous will be given new glorious bodies and the wicked are judged. Resurrection properly describes the stage of humans receiving new bodies at the final judgment. Until that great day, those who have “fallen asleep” in death are in the presence of Christ awaiting the full glory of new bodies.

Because he was raised, we believe we will be raised. Our bodies will be transformed to be like his. The prayer we learned from Jesus will be answered. God’s kingdom will have come and his desires will be done on earth as they are in heaven (Matt 6.10). Finally, John’s vision will be fulfilled,

“Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ⁴ He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” (Rev 21.3-4)

---

[1] Eschatology is broadly defined as “the study of last things.” It comes from two Greek words‒ eschatos and logos. Eschatos means “end.” It can refer to the last in an order (1 Cor. 15.8), the “last” penny of a debt (Matt. 5.26) or “end” of the earth as in the “furthest region” (Acts 1.8). Logos means “word,” “teaching,” or “study.” The word “Eschatology” did not come into existence until 1844. It was developed by theologians to try and describe a branch of systematic theology.

[2] Todd Burpo with Lynn Vincent, Heaven is for Real: A Little Boy’s Astounding Story of his trip to Heaven and Back, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2010).

Resurrection in Romans

Could someone be so presumptuous to suggest that the masterpiece of Romans has been misunderstood? J. R. Daniel Kirk is precisely that presumptuous in his debut book, Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God. He argues that for too long, scholars have been asking the wrong questions and thus arriving at ill formed conclusions about Paul’s master epistle. Chiefly, Kirk considers the way in which Romans is read as a theological abstraction thoroughly problematic. Instead of reading Romans looking for definitions and doctrines, the standard approach to Romans in a post-reformation context, Kirk is concerned to describe “God’s identity” which is inseparable from his covenant obligations to Israel.

Thesis:

It is refreshing that Kirk’s rereading is not based on ideological criticism, so popular nowadays, but rather on a close reading of the text. Analyzing Romans through the lens of a theme found in every major section of the text he identifies what he sees as the “hermeneutical key” to the book – the resurrection of Jesus. So, his thesis reads, “In Romans, the resurrection of Jesus becomes Paul’s key for demonstrating that the promises contained in the Scriptures have been fulfilled in the Christ event.” Thus, “Resurrection is the most pervasive theme of the letter and it functions throughout as a hermeneutical key for reinterpreting the Scriptures and stories of Israel” (8).

Reading resurrection as the key to Romans addresses three major concerns of the letter. First, Kirk contends that it is because of the resurrection that Paul can read scripture the way he does. It has long been recognized that Paul’s use of the OT is especially pervasive in Romans and, in Kirk’s view; it is the resurrection that provides the lens through which Paul is reading the OT. Second, it is because of the resurrection that Paul can contend Gentiles are now included among the people of God. Third, Kirk wants to read Romans as concerned with theodicy. How can God be faithful to his covenant if the majority of Israel does not believe? Kirk suggests, “Resurrection simultaneously provides the means for vindicating humanity and for vindicating God” (11). It is in resurrection that God can vindicate the righteous and thereby vindicate himself as just. Kirk’s argument about resurrection, then, provides the key to Paul’s hermeneutic, Gentile mission, and theodicy.

Summary:

Kirk is exactly right to find resurrection as a thread running throughout Romans (Rom 1.4, 16-17; 4.16-23; 5.9-10, 15-21; 6.1-23; 7.1-6; 8.1-39; 10.1-13; 11.13-15; 13.8-14; 14.1-12; and 15.12). Before analyzing each text, however, he provides a very succinct second chapter (pgs 14-32) on resurrection in Second Temple Judaism. He focuses on Daniel and 2 Maccabees and compares 2 Baruch, 1 Enoch, Psalms of Solomon, Apocryphon of Ezekiel, and even Josephus. Following George W.E. Nickelsburg’s Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism, Kirk analyzes the literature by asking what function resurrection serves in the various stories of God’s interaction with humanity. He sees resurrection serving four purposes: [1] justice for the oppressed, [2] “motivation for righteous behavior”; [3] “restoration of creation”; and [4] “the restoration of Israel” (15).

Next, he turns to analyzing the texts in Romans were resurrection shows up. In chapter three Kirk shows that resurrection frames the letter in two structurally significant passages (Rom 1.1-7; 15.12). As he looks as how Paul describes Jesus’ resurrection, Kirk most helpfully points out, “The resurrection of Jesus, and of Jesus alone, exacerbates the theodicy problem that resurrection is intended to solve: is the God of Israel not capable of delivering his people and rewarding them for their faithfulness?” This, then, is why Paul turns to the scriptures of Israel to explain how it is that God is still just in raising the Messiah alone. This sets the stage for Paul’s overwhelmingly Christological readings of the OT. In Kirk’s mind, Paul is from the outset (Hab 2.4 in Rom 1.17) setting the course of “resurrection hermeneutics,” which  “will lie at the heart of defending God’s fidelity to the promises contained in Scripture and will do so by demonstrating that the people of God consists of both Jew and Gentile living out the obedience of faith” (55).

Chapter four of Unlocking Romans turns to Romans 4. Here, Kirk sees Paul rereading the Abraham narrative through the lens of Jesus’ resurrection. Rather than the readings of Abraham as Torah obedient, Paul reads him as a “type for God’s faithful people” (64) based on his belief in the God who raises the dead. So the “kind of faith” that “has tied both Jews and Gentiles to Abraham’s paternity” is “resurrection faith” (66). Therefore, the people of God are defined, not by Torah, but “by participating in the progeny raised up through God’s resurrection power” (83).

Chapter five, focused on Romans 5.9-10, argues that Paul “rework[s] every major function” that resurrection performed in Second Temple Judaism (85). Justification is not a future declaration that occurs based on Torah obedience, but a present reality vindicated by the resurrection of Jesus and those who participate in him. I think Kirk is correct, but his argument would have been much stronger if he had expanded his comparative analysis beyond 4 Ezra and included other Second Temple texts.

Chapter six provides an overview of Romans 5.12-8.11 by addressing the role of the Law. Kirk returns to the law in chapter eight (focused on Romans 10.6-13). In chapter six he argues that even though Paul cites scripture much less in 5.12-8.11, he is still very much focused on rereading Israel’s story through his resurrection hermeneutic. This is a very important, yet often overlooked, observation. Interestingly, sin/death is portrayed as a reigning power (Rom 5.13-14) to which the law has become aligned. This is a stark contrast to other Second Temple theologies. For example, in Psalms of Solomon 14.1-2 obedience to the law aligns one with God. To explain the role of the law, Kirk uses the metaphor of a vicegerent unwillingly put into the service of king Sin’s desires (81). The “I” of Rom 7.7-25 is “Adam” the man of the age of sin (cf. Rom 5.13ff.). Following E. P. Sanders Kirk finds Paul’s understanding of the law is not based on anything inherently problematic in the law itself, but rather retrospectively shaped by the resurrection of Jesus.

Before returning to the role of the law, Kirk follows Paul for an extended look at eschatological hope embodied in one of the most beautiful passages in all Scripture (Rom 8.12-39). Scholars have found echoes of numerous OT stories and themes in Romans 8, including Adam and creation, Abraham, the exodus, Davidic kingship, return from exile, and eschatological consummation. Kirk shows how Paul has all these themes in view (to varying degrees) but that each of them is reshaped by the resurrection of Jesus. So, “Whatever eschatological vision Paul may have had to work with in his Jewish toolbox, his own rendering of the story is profoundly resurrection-christological” (137).

Chapter 8 focuses on Romans 10.6-13 and returns to the question of the Law’s role. In fact, it seems to me that Kirk is allowing this later passage to shape how he reads Rom 5.12-8.11. In Kirk’s view, Romans 10 makes resurrection the quintessential “act of God” which must therefore define the faith of Israel as God’s people. This is relevant to Torah, because the resurrection displaces Torah’s role in most other Second Temple Jewish theologies. Paul’s use of Deut 30.12-13 in Rom 10.6-9 is particularly interesting because of the way Paul revises the text in an acceptable way to Jewish ears to support a radically different perspective than other Second Temple interpreters (167-168). Again, Kirk finds Paul reading scripture through the lens of the resurrection.

Chapter 9 is provocatively titled, “Resurrection and the Future of Israel” and focuses on Rom 11.15. Though there are numerous exegetical and theological questions in Rom 11, Kirk observes “the main contours [of the argument] are clear enough”: [1] “the current situation of Israelite disbelief and Gentile acceptance of the gospel is part of God’s mysterious plan of blessing the Gentiles by means of ethnic Israel” and [2] “the current disbelief of ethnic Israel is not permanent” (181). Israel’s hope as God’s chosen people is reshaped by Paul’s resurrection hermeneutic. Kirk is adamant that this Israel-as-resurrected interpretation, however, is not an argument for an eschatological ingathering of ethnic Israel (190). Thus Kirk provides an interesting argument for the salvation of Israel without foraying into a wild system as to how that might happen.

Chapter 10 turns to the how resurrection informs Paul’s ethical exhortations in Rom 13.8-14; 14.1-9. One of the great strengths of Kirk’s thesis is that resurrection, unlike justification, runs through every major section of Romans. Since the resurrection has become the cornerstone of God’s justice, ethical thought must also undergo a rereading via resurrection hermeneutics. There could have been much more here in regard to how Paul allows resurrection to reshape his ethics, but most of the chapter was spent arguing that Paul is in fact referring to resurrection despite other interpretations.

Kirk’s last chapter provides a summary conclusion that focuses on some contemporary applications of Paul’s resurrection hermeneutic. Not surprisingly, this chapter focuses on how Paul reads scripture, engages in a Gentile mission, and responds to the theological problem of evil (theodicy). It is a very clearly written chapter that ought to be required reading for undergraduates. It shows how resurrection shapes Paul’s thought in Romans and its implications today. Kirk opposes reading Romans looking only for soteriology, disdains how ethnic and even theological divisions have separated the church, and contends for an “already/not yet” apocalyptic eschatology to shape a humble response to the problem of evil. This chapter takes a decidedly more preachy tone, but it serves well an attempt to give some application to the argument.

Evaluation:

Unlocking Romans is a revision of Kirk’s doctoral dissertation “Resurrection in Romans: Reinterpreting Romans the Stories of Israel in Light of the Christ Event,” which was overseen by the master of NT use of the OT, Richard B. Hays. In many ways Kirk follows Hays’ impressive work on Paul’s use of the OT (Echoes of Scripture and Conversion of the Imagination) while still offering his own contribution by focusing on resurrection. I do wonder what the intended audience was for this book. Citations of German and French articles and commentaries makes me think the audience is primarily academic, but then why not include more material from the dissertation? Most undergraduate students would probably find Kirk’s book difficult reading, so I am at a bit of a loss as to who I would recommend this book to other than those keenly interested in Pauline theology. I think it deserves recommendation but non-specialists will probably have a difficult time.

I am always impressed when an argument unfolds that helps a reader see something in the text that was always there. I finished this book and thought, “Well of course it’s about resurrection!” But then, I began to reflect on how often Romans is preached and taught without recognition of resurrection’s significance in Paul’s thought. I am thankful for J. R. Daniel Kirk for showing us what was always there but we had lost the eyes to see through centuries of looking for soteriology.

The phrase “resurrection hermeneutic” is quite helpful and I thought Kirk could have exploited it more than he did. Perhaps, it could be modified into “Christological resurrection hermeneutic” but then it becomes quite a mouthful. Regardless, the concept is very helpful for understanding Paul. I wonder how this might be applied to Paul’s other letters and to see if the shoe fits? Overall, I found Kirk’s book to be a fascinating reading of Paul that is correct in identifying resurrection as crucial to Paul’s thought and argument in Romans.

Despite, the many strengths of this book I still have numerous questions and some disagreements. Throughout his book, Kirk disparages Francis Watson’s reading of Paul’s hermeneutic (pg 45 footnote 58; pg 47 footnote 66; pg 48; pg 99 footnote 6; pg 209 footnote 3). Watson suggests that Paul’s is not imposing his readings on the OT, but rather finding two dissonant voices in the OT and siding with one against the other (Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith). Kirk is thoroughly dissatisfied with Watson’s reading because he sees Paul only able to read the OT the way he does after the resurrection. I think both Watson and Kirk are correct. Paul’s hermeneutic was radically reshaped by the resurrection. But, as Watson argues, Paul would have to justify that hermeneutic by reading the OT. He would not have been comfortable imposing his theology on the text nor would he have been convincing to those whom he wrote if he had done so. I think Kirk points this direction when he cites Richard Hays describing “the circularity of Paul’s hermeneutic” (pg 174 footnote 43). Paul reread the OT in light of the resurrection, but he did not consider that rereading an imposition.

I have other unanswered questions. If the law is displaced by resurrection and placed alongside the age of sin and death, what is its enduring value for Christians? Why does Paul appeal to it so strongly? Is it just the vestigial remains of his once very Jewish faith that has been transformed in the wake of resurrection? I know that Kirk does not want to read Paul as something other than a Jew, but how would his rereading have sounded to other Jewish ears? How could he justify his reading from the text itself if in fact it was so radically reshaped by the resurrection? As a whole, I think Paul’s understanding of the law required much more attention. As a prime example, Romans 7.7-25 received only a page of comment (124). So, “resurrection hermeneutics” still has some explaining to do when it comes to the law.

I repeatedly found myself saying, “Yes, resurrection, but where is the Holy Spirit?” I think this relates to Paul’s view of the law as well. What role does the Holy Spirit play in displacing the Torah? How does the resurrection reshape Paul’s theology of the Spirit? It’s not that Kirk ignored the Holy Spirit, I just think it merits more consideration especially in Romans 8. How does the Holy Spirit figure in “resurrection hermeneutics”?

These questions were prodded by a penetrating study of Romans. Unlocking Romans is a fine example of closely reading Paul’s master epistle and show us something that we should have seen all along.