Recently Dr. Tim LaHaye, Dr. Ed Hindson, and I did a weekend prophecy conference in the Philadelphia area. As usual, we had a time of questions and answers about Bible prophecy. One attendee turned in the following written question:

The Greek word for “meet” in 1 Thess. 4:17 is a technical term, used of an arriving dignitary or special guest, approaching the city of his destination. Residents would then go out to meet him and accompany him back to hisdestination. The word is only used in two other passages: Acts 28:15 and Matt. 25:1, 6. To do justice to the Greek word, Christ’s destination would be earth, not back to heaven, we would meet him in the clouds and accompany him back to earth. How do you explain that from a pre-trib view?
I want to take the rest of this article to point out the errors of assumption in this question and give a pre-trib reply to the question.

False Assumptions

Latent within the above question are false assumptions that must be corrected before anyone, pre-trib or anti-pre-trib, can respond to such a question. The Philadelphia questioner’s major, big-time error is his belief that the Greek word for “meet” is a technical term. (A technical term, as used here, refers to a word that would have specific connotations implicit in the word itself.) Here we have an example of a widely held belief in academic circles that is categorically wrong. So what is the error and how did it get started?

Origin of The Error

Taking the last question first, we can trace the source of the error to a German scholar named Erik Peterson. Peterson wrote an article in 1930 saying that the Greek word “to meet” (apantêsis) “is to be understood as a technical term for a civic custom of antiquity whereby a public welcome was accorded by a city to important visitors.” Interestingly, it was in 1930 that English-speaking scholars Moulton and Milligan published their famous work on extra-biblical use of Greek vocabulary around the time of the New Testament. Moulton and Milligan say about “to meet” (apantêsis): “The word seems to have been a kind of technical term for the official welcome of a newly arrived dignitary . . .”

The belief that Paul’s use of “meet” in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is a technical term was then taken by those opposing pretribulationism as a knock-out punch against our understanding of Scripture. For example, posttribulationist Robert Gundry alleges: “This connotation points toward our rising to meet Christ in order to escort Him immediately back to earth.” Robert Cameron, a posttribulationist of a century past declares:

A very definite truth is settled, however, by the word translated “to meet,” which has a distinct and definite meaning. It is only used three times in the New Testament, and in every case it means to meet and to return with the person met. Therefore, those caught up, meet the Lord and return with Him.
Actually, “to meet” is used four times in the New Testament (Matt. 25:1, 6; Acts 28:15; 1 Thess. 4:17).

More recently, I was at a national conference a few years ago when premillennial, posttribulationist, Rodney Stortz, attempted to dismiss the possibility of a pre-trib rapture by stating the “technical term” argument of “to meet.” In a chart I picked up at the conference, under a reference to 1 Thess. 4:13-18, Stortz said, “The word “meet” in these two verses is a technical Greek military term describing the returning military hero. The people used to go out “to meet” him and escort him back to the city.”

A Few Quick Points

I will make a few quick points before I get into the heart of my rebuttal. First, neither Peterson nor Moulton and Milligan say that the Greek word “to meet” (apantêsis) includes the notion of returning with the dignitary to the place from which the greeting party came from. The idea of returning from whence one came appears to be a notion added by overly zealous posttribulationists in an effort to disprove pretribulationism. In fact, Milligan did not believe that the word “meet” implies that the dignitary return back with the greeters as noted in his commentary on 1 Thessalonians:

The thought is that the ‘raptured’ saints will be carried up into the ‘air,’ as the interspace between heaven and earth, where they will meet the descending Lord, and then either escort him down to the earth in accordance with O.T. prophecy, or more probably in keeping with the general context accompany Him back to heaven. (emphasis added)
This is why F. F. Bruce warns that “there is nothing in the wordapantêsis or in this context which demands this interpretation; it cannot be determined from what is said here whether the Lord (with his people) continues his journey to earth or returns to heaven.”

Second, even if “meet” was a technical term in the way that some posttribulationists insist, which it is clearly not as will be demonstrated shortly, it would not follow that their return to earth would have to be immediate. Why could not, based upon a supposed meaning of the word, the return occur a little over seven years later?

Third, “meet” cannot be established as a technical term for the formal reception of a dignitary from New Testament use, as Rodney Stortz claims, since only two of the four instances may mean that. It cannot be established from an overall biblical use of Old and New Testaments. Thus, if there is any basis for saying that it should be understood as a technical term in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 the case would have to be made from its use in extra-biblical instances. Yet, this cannot be done either, as I am about to demonstrate.

A Posttribulationist Provides Rebuttal

In the summer of 1995, I was in a seminary library looking through the most recent releases of theological journals when I noticed a very interesting article. It was written by a posttribulationist who rebuts the notion that “to meet” is a technical term at all. Cosby confesses that while a college student he was dissuaded from pretribulationism to posttribulationism. Cosby tells us,

while doing my doctoral studies, . . . I translated Erik Peterson’s 1930 article . . . His citations of material from ancient Greek papyri, inscriptions, and literature found fertile soil . . . I was completely persuaded by his explanation that Paul’s use of apantêsis in 1 Thess. 4:17 presupposed a well known custom: the Hellenistic formal reception.

. . . While reviewing Peterson’s assertions, I discovered to my horror that some of them are simply not persuasive. . . . What began as an effort to strengthen Peterson’s argument became a disturbing exercise in scholarly honesty.
What did Cosby find when he applied honesty to his scholarly research? He found the following:

One cannot responsibly claim that apantêsis is a technical term on the basis of its percentage of use in passages describing formal receptions. . . . Sometimes apantêsisdescribes a formal greeting of a dignitary, but often it does not. . . .

. . . Yet only a minority of the uses of these terms describes formal receptions. . . .
Cosby continues to state the result of his findings:

The dominate scholarly understanding of apantêsis in 1 Thess. 4:17, based on the work of Peterson, does not sufficiently account for the differences between Paul’s words and description of receptions of dignitaries. All of the main elements of Hellenistic receptions found in ancient papyri, inscriptions and literature are missing from 1 Thess. 4:15-17. Asserting that Paul assumed his readers would automatically fill in such details lacks cogency when we compare Paul’s words with these accounts. If he truly assumed his audience would presuppose these details, then he deliberately reversed most of the usual elements. Claiming that apantêsis was a technical term carrying with it a standard set of expectations is not convincing. Furthermore, even if one assumes that Paul understoodapantêsis in this way, the evidence demonstrates that he did not read such meaning wholesale into his description of the Parousia.
What does Cosby mean by that last sentence? He concludes that Paul had a greater tendency, when he uses technical terms from the Greek language in general, to stand them on end. That is, Paul would use them as a polemic against the stock meaning of the day by reversing a latent implication. Cosby explains:

Peterson, therefore, was incorrect in reading the Hellenistic formal reception into 1 Thess. 4:13-17. The text itself does not support his assertion that Paul’s use of apantêsis in 4:17 brings with it the entire baggage of the custom of greeting dignitaries. And if it did, we should admit that Paul deliberately reverses conventional expectations, which would actually fit what we know about his use of other conventions.
So why have some scholars thought that this was a technical term supporting their belief that “to meet” carried their suggested meaning? Cosby provides the following suggestion:

the details come much more from Christian visions of the Parousia than from Greco-Roman models. Interpreting Paul’s words in light of descriptions of Hellenistic receptions is helpful, but not as Peterson and others have envisioned. Such passages provide insight into the sociological background for 1 Thess. 4:13-17, but for a reason the opposite of what Peterson believed. Instead of being a cipher for understanding what Paul meant through the supposed use of a technical term, they function more as a foil—a loose pattern to play against when describing the coming of the heavenly king.
Conclusion

The pre-trib reply to the opening question is that the premise of the question is just flat out wrong. Posttribulationist, Cosby, has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt and concluded “that Peterson’s exegesis was eisegesis.” 1 Thessalonians 4:17 does not specifically say or imply the direction of Christ’s party once we all meet in the air. 1 Thessalonians 4:17 does say, “we will always be with the Lord.” I take it from John 14:1-3, which I believe is a parallel passage to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, that Christ takes us back with Him to the Father’s house. Thus, what 1 Thessalonians 4:17 lacks, John 14:1-3 supplies. After more than seven years, Christ, His bride, and the elect angels will then return to planet earth, not as a dignitary to be welcomed by the world, but as One who returns as a conquering judge.

Maranatha!

In the August 1999 issue of Pre-Trib Perspectives I wrote an article entitled “Scary Gary and Y2K.” Speaking of the Y2K computer bug, I said the following: “It won’ t happen. The Y2K problem is being fixed. Western Civilization will continue down the same road next year that it is on today.” Not only did Gary North predict that the Y2K computer glitch would lead to the death of 1.5 billion people, he said this whole ordeal is the judgment of God.

The Y2K crisis is systemic. It cannot possibly be fixed. I think it will wipe out every national government in the West. Not just modify them- destroy them. I honestly think the Federal government will go under. I think the U.S.A. will break up the way the U.S.S.R. did. Call me a dreamer. Call me an optimist. That’ s what I think. This will decentralize the social order. That is what I have wanted all my adult life. In my view, Y2K is our deliverance. Just don’ t be in a city when deliverance occurs.[i]

I wrote my earlier article well before the events of the Y2K computer problems were supposed to unfold because I became convinced that it would amount to nothing more than a whimper. While I know that we are only about a week into the new year and supposedly we could still have real problems ahead, I don’t think it will amount to much more than we have already experienced, which is barely a whimper. Frankly, I did nothing to prepare for Y2K and so far I have not experienced one problem, nor do I know of anyone who has.

Y2K and God’s Judgment

Not only did Scary Gary, as some of his secular critics call him, contribute to ruining many aspects of many people’s lives by promoting irresponsible speculation about Y2K, he said it would undoubtedly be the judgment of God. If the Y2K computer problem was to be the judgment of God, as Dr. North declared, then it is strange that humanity can avoid this judgment without repentance. When God’s judgment truly falls no human action can do anything to avoid it. God is Sovereign and always accomplishes what He intends to do. Gary North claimed that he spoke for God, when in fact he did not. On January 5, 2000 North did write the following in response to an article criticizing him on Y2K:

I am certainly willing to say that my assessment of the threat, as things have played out, was incorrect. I did not think that fix-on-failure would work as well as a $500+ billion expenditure seems to have worked so far. I am indeed perplexed by the fact that those companies, nations, and local governments that spent almost nothing to fix y2k seem to be performing as well as, say, Microsoft. Did I expect this? No. Did Koskinen expect this? No. What mainstream source went into print with this message as recently as a week ago?

There was no 72-hour storm, no brownouts or blackouts. We were told by those in authority that there would be. They were wrong. Now, let me say here, they were closer to the truth than I was. But the perplexing truth, so far, is that the bell-shaped curve did not appear. There have been no big events. But, statistically speaking, there should have been some, somewhere. The governments of the world was planning on at least some. That was why there were no New Years Eve vacations for policemen anywhere in the industrial world. So, the middle of the road position was also wrong. I mean, so far, it was wrong. It sure seems wrong. (www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/7104)

Even though Dr. North admits he was wrong, I have not yet seen him speak to the issue of his linking in no uncertain terms Y2K with the judgment of God. He has yet to repent of his false notion that the Y2K computer roll over was the means of God’s wrath. This was the main point I was making in my article on Dr. North last August.

As indicated in Dr. North’s words noted above, he says that his concern was warranted because of all the experts who believed that Y2K would bring disaster and spent so much money on the problem. However, I have read many who contradicted North’s with facts and information that failed to make its way onto Dr. North’s extensive Y2K internet site (www.garynorth.com). I noted a couple of books in my August article that contained a great amount of information that would lead one to the opposite conclusion than that of Gary North.

A couple of books that I would recommend about Y2K are, Dave Hunt’ sY2K: A Reasoned Response to Mass Hysteria (Harvest House), and Arno and Joel Froese’ s When Y2K Dies (Olive Press). These two books provide solid and recent information that convinced me that the millennium bug is being fixed and will not bite (or should I say byte) too hard, if at all.

Theology is Important

I pointed out that Dr. North’s theological views of postmillennial preterism greatly impacted his analysis of the Y2K computer problem. Since he was looking for the collapse of America and Western civilization, he has grasp at every potential crisis and proclaimed each event as a judgment of God. Who would be foolish enough to continue following his advice? I noted many of his past failures even before his Y2K fiasco. It makes a difference what you believe the Bible teaches. It makes a difference what you believe or don’t believe the Bible teaches about Bible prophecy. Dr. North’s postmillennial preterism is not only unbiblical, it cannot stand the test of practical significance. However, the beliefs of those of us who take Bible prophecy literally are coming into focus with each passing day.

Gary North, and others like him, make fun of those of us who are looking for the Lord’s return at any moment. This is what the New Testament teaches. We are looking for a person, who we love, to return and take us to be with Himself, not for the collapse of Western civilization. That will come one day during the future seven-year tribulation period. Until our Lord returns, we are to be found faithfully preaching the gospel throughout the world and discipling converts in the Word of God.

We can see, with Israel back in her land, that God is setting the stage for the end time drama of the tribulation. Increasingly, Jerusalem in becoming a burdensome stone for the nations. Even now, President Clinton apparently believes that he can build for his failed presidency a positive legacy by trying to solve the Middle East crisis. Indeed, it would be a feather in his cap, but whatever comes out of the current “Peace Process,” will only serve God’s purpose of moving the world toward the tribulation.

Every where we look we see God setting the stage for the next era of history. Globalism in the realms of politics, religion, commerce, and human endeavor is rampant. The current European Union is preparation for Rome’s revival under Antichrist. The church becomes increasingly apostate and ecumenical with each day that passes. Russia and her Arab coalition is being prepared for the God and Magog invasion of Israel. Israel’s ancient enemies are being reconstituted to become her end time rivals. Instead of producing a Y2K glitch, computers and technology as a whole are preparing the world for enforcement of the mark of the beast during the second half of the tribulation. The whole world is in a downward spiral when it comes to the things of God, as is evidenced by the increasing persecution and disdain of any thing Christian in so much of the world. God’s wrath will come, but it will be the tribulation period, not some man made computer programming error.

Conclusion

Peter tells us, ” Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation” (2 Peter 3:24-15a). If ” these things” have already taken place in the past, then the admonition to ” be found by Him in peace, . . .” would not make sense in the present. But because we do look for these things in the future we are to assume the posture of diligent service to our Lord, till he arrives. What you believe about the future impacts you in the present. I don’ t know about you, but we are looking for the any-moment return of our Lord. Come quickly Lord Jesus! Maranatha!

Endnotes
[i] Quoted by Rob Boston, ” Apocalypse Now?” Church & State (March 1999), p. 8.