That was Easy
John of Japan challenges:
“Fine. Prove it. I'll seek truth, and then believe your truth when you present it. Show from the Greek, or quote a scholar or lay out the Scriptures--anything but just bald statements with no proof, which is what you are doing now.”
Child’s play--so I found one, but if I produced a million it wouldn’t matter to John because if you disagree with his position then he thinks you don’t understand Greek. We don’t have to be Greek scholars to grasp enough Greek to see the error in some of John’s assertions. In the end it’s not really about Greek at all, but a particular slant on theology (and against preterism).
Here is the link so you can read the whole post by Dr. Kelly Birks.
http://worldwithoutend.info/wwewp/?p=235
Actually this is the first time I’ve heard of Dr. Birks so I don’t know if I agree with eveything he says or not (like all Baptists or futurists not all preterists agree with one another completely) but I find his comments on aer vs ouranos spot on.
So John let me thank you for helping me to find yet another Preterist resource—I plan on reading more of his work and the material found on his site.
And with no further ado here is a copy and paste of just part of the material on this page: (I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest John will disagree with Dr. Birks)
Arndt and Gingrich- “A Greek- English Lexicon of the NT and other Christian Literature” on Pg. 109 of the 1979 edition, give the basics of the word harpazo as, “snatch, seize, take suddenly and vehemently. To grasp something quickly, eagerly, with desire.” The lexicon includes the idea of force in the action: Paragraph 2, a. “To seize or claim for one’s self ”: Paragraph 2, b.
What stands out so clearly in all of the major (and minor) lexicons is that nowhere is it stated that the word “harpazo” contains within it the any additional phrasing for “up” (anotello, ano, etc). All we would need to find in order to substantiate the “up” or “away” sense that traditionally has been added to the meaning, is to locate a word formed like, “anoharpazo”, or some such. But there is no such compound word that would verify the “up” or “away” sense that commentators have assigned to the word. Assigned without lexical “etymological” authority apart from the author’s own comments, I might add. Now to the primary text at hand….
1 Thess. 4: 17.
“Then we which are alive and remain shall be ‘caught’ (harpazo- no “up” “away” etc, indicated in the syntax of the text nor in the Greek word itself), together with them in the clouds (a cloud coming reference to divinity appearing- i.e. Jesus is divine. See Dr. Randall Otto’s work, “Coming in the Clouds”), to meet the Lord (‘meet’ is “apantesis’, Moulton and Milligan in their Greek Grammar, vol. 1, pg. 14, say, “It seems that the special idea of the word was the official welcome of a newly arrived dignitary.”), in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” Critical to an understanding of the text at hand is the word “air” from the Paul’s use of the Greek, AER. (Pronounced, “ear.”)
Strong’s Greek Dictionary, entry 109, defines it as:
From “aemi”, to breath unconsciously, to respire. By analogy, to blow.
(1) The air, particularly the lower and denser air as distinguished from the higher and rarer air.
(2) The atmospheric region.
Please note Strong’s root definition followed by the primary meaning of the word that Paul uses in 1 Thess. 4: 17. It is in reference to the “place” of respiration. The idea of the exchange of oxygen within ones immediate sphere, is what is the associative understanding. Paul is not saying that we meet the Lord in the harpazo, in our lungs! Understand what Paul is driving at. He is speaking of a spiritual meeting with the Lord, “within” ourselves. Within our spirits. Why did he use this particular form of explanation here? So that the Thessalonians, who could not conceive of the nature of the harpazo at Christ’s Parousia in the least (and we don’t do a very good job of it either), would begin to grasp that the meeting with the Lord was to be a personal meeting “within” the believer. Each believer was to have his or her own meeting with the Lord. If Paul had meant to communicate that this meeting was of a physical nature relative to joining the Lord in a place high above the planet surface, which Strong refers to as the place of “rarer” air (thinner air, high above the planet), then he would in all likelihood have used the Greek word “ouranos”. This is the primary word for the sky high above. The place of rarer air. There would have been no misunderstanding whatsoever if he had used ouranos. “Ouranos”: “To lift, to heave.”- Vines, Pg. 548. Paul chooses the more spiritually descriptive word AER, in order to communicate the primary defined meaning that Strong actually gives us. Christ would meet the believer within. It is an analogous to ones spirit that is within their body.
John Noe (a colleague of Mr. Stevens) sees this in his work, “Your Resurrection Body and Life”. On Pg. 52 he says, “For believers alive today, this gathering is still relevant. It takes place in the spirit realm, ‘in the air’ inside you (Strong’s # 109-author),that is, your spirit. Rapturists, as we outlined in chapter one, have failed to differentiate this AER ‘air’ inside you from the ‘ouranos’ air up in the sky. Consequently, they have also failed to apply a spiritual sense to Paul’s symbolic language. They insist this is a vanishing act by living Christians into outer space. How absurd! This ‘air’ is the heavenly realm of the spirit. And we are spirits.”
Paul’s use of the Greek words “harpazo” and “aer” in 1 Thess. 4: 17, clearly then places the traditional idea of physical bodies rising off of the planet surface and into the heaven above, into the arena of the unlikely, if not the impossible. Had Paul meant to clearly communicate that believers would rise physically off the planet surface and into the sky above the planet, he would have used the Greek word “ouranos” which has no argument within it whatsoever as to it’s “the-sky-above”, meaning.
What about the NT use of the Greek word AER that we have been alluding to?
The Greek word AER is used seven times in the NT.
(1) Acts 22: 23, “And as they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the AER…”
Ever tried to throw dust into the air? Try it and see how high up you can get it. Not very high I assure you, (especially if there is a breeze). This is the point for Luke using the word AER here in Acts 22: 23 as opposed to “ouranos.” The Jews could only get it as high as their immediate sphere. Perhaps a few feet at best. It would have been within the space that contained the air that they themselves were breathing.
(2) 1 Cor. 9: 26, Paul says, “…so fight I not as one who beats the AER.” Here, he uses a boxer’s terminology for comparing the discipline of athletics with the discipline of the Gospel work of preaching. How far do you think the boxer could swing at the air? No further than the length of his arms, right? He boxed within his immediate sphere. Why did Paul not use the word “ouranos” to describe the actions of a boxers training? Simply because it would have been ridiculous to do so. Neither the boxer nor the participant in the harpazo would reach into nor elevate off into the heavens above the planet. There is a specific reason as to why Paul used AER to describe the nature of the harpazo event.
(3) 1 Cor. 14: 9, As Paul instructs the Corinthians in true and false tongues, he teaches them that without speaking words in a language that everyone could understand, they would merely be “speaking into the AER.” Paul did not want the Corinthians to think that their words would be heard high above the city, up into the upper atmosphere. But rather, that those within their immediate sphere would be able to hear. Those who shared the same “aer”. That which was a part of their respiration (Strong’s #109). It was something to be experienced within their immediate sphere.
(4) Eph. 2: 2 Speaks of Satan being the “Prince and Power of the AER.” His realm was the arena of the spiritual, not the physical. He related to people within the sphere of their spirit, and not in the physical heavens above. His power was over the unregenerate mans life, not the molecules within the created carbon based system. His battle was over the lives of men and not over upper ether “real estate.” After Paul says that Satan was the Prince of the AER, he speaks that he (Satan) was the spirit, “that now works in the children of disobedience.” Again, the arena of Satan’s power was over the lives of men in an inner sense.
(4) 1 Thess. 4: 17. (Already covered).
(6-7) Both Rev. 9: 2, and 16: 17 speak in highly symbolic terms concerning the fact that in Johns vision (which is highly apocalyptic in nature and should only be pressed for literalism when the context demands it,) he says he sees the AER darkened and the angel pouring out his vial into the AER… Was the angel “really” pouring out a literal “bowl” containing something physical into the sky above? Of course not. As is typical with the use of the word AER, it is a reference to the realm of the spirit, as Noe points out, that is the arena of the angel’s dealings.
If you want to read the whole article Dr. Birks does an excellent job of destroying the rapture and making other preterists points, but that is beyond the point here—I’m showing the bias of John’s greek bias in his war on preterism. But for those of you interested here again is the link.
http://worldwithoutend.info/wwewp/?p=235
