Good morning, RDP.

I'm hoping this new sub-forum will be helpful for people looking to make sense of those biblical passages, and "extra-biblical" ideas, used by the various Revivalist sects to bully, blame or befuddle others into accepting their heresies.

Anyway, onto the discussion at hand.

In the various Revival groups the general consensus seems to be that when Jesus returns 'we will rise to meet him in the air'. So, just wondering, from the original Greek, does this actually mean that we (believers in Christ) will, in the twinkling of an eye, actually meet up with Jesus somewhere just above the jet-stream or something? 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 is the pericope in question, and it's used by Revivalists to justify their "meet the Lord in the air" mantra. When asked what their great hope is, orthodox Christians invariably talk about being (1) forever with Jesus, or (2) being in the presence of God, or (3) sharing in a new heaven and earth. But Revivalists seem to want to make it only as far as the stratosphere! And because they've inherited the Pentecostal / Arminian position on human striving, Revivalists don't even have the assurance that they'll get that far! Hence the oft-used threat: (do this / don't do that) "...or you won't meet the Lord in the air."

First point: the Greek text has been satisfactorily translated into English. However, what often isn't appreciated is much of the language one finds in Scripture is (a) phenomenal, which simply means that statements are made according to how things appear, rather than how they actually are (e.g. the sun "rises" in the East, and "sets" in the west); or (b) metaphorical, in that particular words and phrases imply more than what they actually state. In other words, much biblical language is figurative, and is so because the biblical authors used the standard communication conventions of their times and cultures.

Let's consider verse 14 as an example. "Now we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve like the rest who have no hope." The issue that underpinned Paul's pastoral teaching on the great hope for Christians, was an assumption made by the Thessalonian believers. They had mistakenly thought their transformation in Christ was complete, and that it indicated they were living the very last of the "last days". They believed Christ's return was on the brink, the recent death of one or more of their number severely shook their collective faith. Physical death, you see, simply shouldn't have happened--or so they thought. Greeks believe physical death was more or less permanent. Paul responded by explaining the recently dead in Christ suffered no eternal impediment due to their physical demise, as death of the flesh didn't equate to death of the spirit. Importantly, notice Paul referred to death as "sleep". In both the Semitic and Greek cultures "euphemism" was commonly applied to certain physical functions, death being principle among them. By taking literally a statement that was intended to be understood figuratively, Revivalists have incorrectly assumed the New Testament teaching was one of the human soul / spirit being unconscious until the physical resurrection (cf. this position against Paul's very clear inference in Philippians 1:20-26).

When Paul went on to briefly explain the Parousia to them, he used phenomenal language coupled with a Greek figure-of-speech known as "merism". This feature implies referring to a complete thought by enumerating certain of its parts or sub-elements. The early Christians accepted the world-view regarding the universe current in Greco-Roman culture: gods above, hell and death below, life existing somewhere in the middle. Ergo, Jesus would descend from heaven (i.e. from above), and believers would ascend from the earth (i.e. from below) to meet with him somewhere in the middle -- "in the clouds", as it were. The main point of our passage relates to the sudden, or violent shift that would take place in their location and circumstances at Christ's return. In verse 17 the Greek word αρπαγησομεθα is used to describe the act of being "caught up", or "snatched" away from their former existence. The same word is used by Luke in his Acts of the Apostles to describe Philip's miraculous relocation after ministering to the Ethiopian Eunuch. What Paul sought to impress on the Thessalonians was the dead wouldn't be forgotten when Christ returned for his own. But by the same token, those who were alive to witness the event would experience precisely the same translation into Christ's presence. Paul's teaching was that the dead in Christ enjoyed the same hope as the living, which was one moment people would be going about their lives according to their former existence; in the very next moment they would be ushered into Christ's presence to begin their eternal existence. Where Revivalists envision a "floating heavenwards", Paul envisioned an immediate and permanent physical translation into the very presence of Christ!

Also, as this day is referred to as 'that great and terrible day' of Judgement does that mean that every single person in the whole human race that ever lived will be judged in one second flat, or do you think (does the Greek infer) a different time frame i.e. a day as in a day is like 1000 years? Again, what's being applied in the phrase, "the day of the Lord" is figurative language. Time remains a created construct; God exists outside of time, hence time itself loses its referential meaning with respect to him. The main point is the fact of God's judgment, and not the duration taken to reach it. Oh, and of course the statement (see 1 Peter 3:8), "...with the Lord a day is like a thousand years..." demonstrates yet another two literary devices shared by Hebrews and Greeks: the first being "simile", the second you would probably recognise by the term "hyperbole". It's important to understand that Scripture doesn't teach that one day with God literally equals 1,000 years of human reckoning. Not by a long shot!

On the day of Judgement, will those sins that we have acknowledged, confessed to God and been forgiven of still be taken into account when determining one's reward versus loss of reward? To begin with let me suggest that one is either redeemed by Christ's sacrifice or one isn't. Forgiveness is either complete in its effects, or it isn't. Revivalists lack assurance because Revivalist "salvation" is works-based, and is completely dependent on human striving. Christians, however, can enjoy assurance because our salvation isn't based on anything that we might do, it's based solely on what Christ has done. Now with respect to final rewards versus the potential loss of reward; which as you correctly pointed out is distinct from, and separate to, eternal salvation, it's at this juncture human choice becomes necessary. We can choose to repent of our wrongs, and change, or we can choose not to. I'd personally recommend that the best and safest course of action would be to keep very short accounts with God.

Blessings,

Ian