Bad Interpretive Logic

Commentators often make interesting interpretive adjustments when they encounter certain words and concepts in prophetic contexts; they do not allow them to keep the meaning they have elsewhere. Our present passage in 1 Thessalonians furnishes two examples important for our understanding of God’s prophetic word: (1) Paul’s desire to be present in Thessalonica and (2) the hoped-for length of his absence—“for a short time” (1 Thess 2:17). These concepts generate little controversy in non-prophetic contexts like this but create problems when they appear in prophetic passages.

Paul’s Desired Presence

F. F. Bruce makes an interesting comment about 1 Thessalonians 2:17–3:13, a passage in which Paul expresses his concern for the church during his absence: “Funk calls it ‘the apostolic Parousia,’ because in it the apostle’s authority is made effective in the church addressed as though he were actually present.”¹ Bruce and Funk refer to this passage as “the apostolic Parousia” even though Paul does not use the Greek word parousia. They do so because that word captures the Apostle’s meaning. Paul laments being taken from the Thessalonians “in presence (Gk. prosōpon)”; he longed “to see [their] face” (1Thess 2:17). He remembers the time when he was with the church there (1 Thess 3:4). His desire is not to see the church in passing; he desires an extended visit in order to perfect their faith (1 Thess 3:6, 10). Parousia means “presence” and these writers use it to reflect the Apostle’s desire.

Elsewhere, Paul uses parousia to express similar sentiments. In his letter to the Philippians, he says,

I know that I shall abide and continue with you all for your furtherance and joy of faith; that your rejoicing may be more abundant in Jesus Christ for me by my coming (Gk. parousia) to you again.… Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence (Gk. parousia) only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (Phil 1:25–26; 2:12)

This non-prophetic passage provides a clear meaning for parousia—Paul wants the Philippians to rejoice about the prospect of his future presence with them. He reinforces this meaning by using “absence” as the antonym of parousia. Paul is not desiring a point-in-time event; he is longing to be present with the Philippians for an extended period.

Many commentators recognize the primary meaning of parousia—i.e. “presence”²—in such non-prophetic contexts. Gerald F. Hawthorne, for example, does so in his comments on Philippians 1:26: “[Paul’s] efforts would be brought to bear on the problem not by letter but by his presence (parousia) among them again.”³

This situation changes, however, when Jesus and the apostles use parousia in a prophetic context. Our current passage in 1 Thessalonians provides an example: Paul asks, “What is our hope or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming (Gk. parousia)? Is it not you?” (1 Thess 2:19 ESV). In such contexts, almost all writers make this word refer to a point-in-time action at the end of the messianic (church) age. Even F. F. Bruce—whose scholarship I greatly appreciate—does this when he says Paul is referring to the parousia of Christ as a “great event” and an “event at the end of time.”⁴ In his commentary, Bruce uses parousia to refer to a state of being in a non-prophetic context—the longed-for presence of Paul with the Thessalonians—and, three pages later, makes it refer to a point-in-time prophetic event at the end of history. 

Why does a prophetic context demand a different definition? Why not keep parousia’s primary meaning of “presence”—as Young’s Literal Translation does—in every context unless there is a compelling textual reason to do otherwise?

Paul’s Desired Timing

Our passage provides the opportunity to discuss another example of how commentators change word meanings in prophetic contexts. This one deals with the many time statements that occur in the New Testament. Paul tells the Thessalonians that he has been “taken from [them] for a short time (Gk. hōra),” or “for the space of an hour” (1 Thess 2:17 YLT). In such non-prophetic contexts, commentators accept this time statement at face value. Thomas L. Constable, for example, makes a simple observation in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: “[Paul] hoped the separation would be brief.”⁵ There is no need to make the Greek word hōra mean anything other than a brief period in these situations.

But things change when the same word occurs in a prophetic context as it does when the Apostle John says: “Little children, it is the last time (Gk. hōra): and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time (Gk. hōra)” (1 John 2:18). In this case, the same commentary I just quoted abandons brevity:

This is a clear indication that history has entered a climactic era: the last hour. Despite the lapse of centuries since John wrote, the climax of all things impends in a special way.⁶

Here, hōra, according to this commentator, cannot mean “a short time” (1 Thess 2:17); it must mean an era and centuries!

The same phenomenon occurs with other time statements. When Jesus says, “Rise up, let us go; lo, he that betrayeth me is at hand” (Mark 14:42), commentators do not quibble about Jesus’ meaning: this means “Judas … was just now coming upon him.”⁷ But the same phrase in a prophetic context, according to many writers, requires a different meaning. Peter says, “The end of all things is at hand” (1 Pet 4:7). Concerning Revelation, John says “the time is at hand” (Rev 1:3) and an angel says, “Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand” (Rev 22:10). In such cases, the commentators do not allow “at hand” to have its usual meaning; they say here it means “we must all live in expectancy”⁸ for the event, or something similar.

I will provide one more example. In the first phase of Paul’s arrest and imprisonment, the Jews wanted to have him transferred from Caesarea to Jerusalem, “But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself would depart shortly (Gk. tachos) thither” (Acts 25:4). John B. Polhill says this means that Festus “would be returning to Caesarea soon.”⁹ But John uses the same word to describe his Revelation visions:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly (Gk. tachos) come to pass. (Rev 1:1)

And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly (Gk. tachos) be done. (Rev 22:6)

Revelation is a strong prophetic context, so commentators interpret “shortly” in a manner that differs from Polhill’s comment on Festus’ words in Acts 25:4. Here is one example: 

The word “soon”¹⁰ … means that the action will be sudden when it comes, not necessarily that it will occur immediately. Once the end-time events begin, they will occur in rapid succession.¹¹

Nobody suggests that Festus meant his departure would not “necessarily … occur immediately,” but that it would “be sudden when it comes.” Why force “shortly” to have this meaning in Revelation?

For many commentators, time-stamps have meanings that depend on whether they occur in prophetic contexts.

Conclusion

Commentators assign inconsistent meanings to parousia and time statements because their assumed prophetic models require it. All the existing models¹² assume that the parousia of Christ is a point-in-time event at the end of the messianic (church) age. They teach that expressions like John’s “last hour” (1 John 2:18 NKJV) refer to the end of history. If these assumptions are correct, the usual meaning of such terms cannot stand in prophetic contexts. To my engineering mindset, these prophetic models force us to use bad interpretive logic.

I suggest there is a better alternative. Jesus associated his parousia with the temple’s fall in his generation (Matt 24:3, 27, 34, 37, 39). John spoke of the “last hour” as a present reality. The inmillennial prophetic model I have documented in this blog and elsewhere allows us to keep the same meaning for these terms whether Paul is talking about his return to Thessalonica or Jesus is talking about his return to destroy the temple.

This prophetic model eliminates the need to interpret Scripture inconsistently.

1. F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Word Biblical Commentary, eds. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982), 54. Bruce is quoting R. W. Funk, Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God (New York: Harper, 1966).
2. See, for example, Henry George Liddell et al., eds., A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 1343.
3. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians, Word Biblical Commentary, eds. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983), 52. Emphasis added; Greek transliterated.
4. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 57, 73 (emphasis added).
5. Thomas L. Constable, “1 Thessalonians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 697.
6. Zane C. Hodges, “1 John,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 891 (bold in original; italics mine).
7. John Gill, An Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, 9 vols. (1809–10; repr., Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1989), 7:483.
8. Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, 2 vols. (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1996), 2:421.
9. John B. Polhill, Acts, vol. 26 of New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1992), 489.
10. That is, shortly.
11. John F. Walvoord, “Revelation,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 928.
12. I provide a summary of these models here.