The Rapture? (I Thessalonians 4:17)

Which letter talks about “meeting the Lord in the air”? I Thessalonians (I Thessalonians 4:17)

Paul’s First Epistle to the Thessalonians is considered by many to be the earliest of his canonical letters. This correspondence contains the only biblical reference to what has become known as “the rapture”. Paul informs that Jesus, not an emissary, will return and meet believers “in the air” (I Thessalonians 4:17).

Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. (I Thessalonians 4:17 NASB)

Paul affirms that both living and deceased believers will meet “in the clouds...in the air”.

In the Bible, clouds are commonly connected to the visible presence of God (Exodus 13:21, 14:19, 19:16, 24:15, 40:34-28; I Kings 8:10-11; Isaiah 19:1; Ezekiel 1:4, 28; Mark 9:7; Acts 1:9)

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) interjects:

“Clouds”—not simply because clouds suggested themselves as convenient vehicles for transportation through space but because clouds are a regular feature of biblical theophanies; the divine glory is veiled in clouds, shines forth from them and retreats into them. Cf. the thick cloud of Sinai when Yahweh came down to impart the law to his people (Exodus 19:16) and when Moses went up to receive the revelation (Exodus 24:15-18), or the cloud that enveloped the divine presence in the wilderness tabernacle (Exodus 40:34) and in Solomon’s temple (I Kings 8:10, 11; cf. Psalm 97:2). Specially relevant to the New Testament background are the “clouds of heaven” with which “one like a son of man” came to be presented before the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7:13 (cf. Mark 13:26...Mark 14:62...Revelation 1:7). Similar theophanic imagery appears in the narrative of the transfiguration (Mark 9:7)...and ascension (Acts 1:9): the “cloud” which received Jesus out of the disciples’ sight on the latter occasion has a bearing on the angelic assurance that he would come “in the same way” as they had seen him go (Acts 1:11). (Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Word Biblical Commentary), 102)

Believers will meet Jesus in the “air” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “sky” (CEV). The Greek aer conveys the atmosphere, the space between the heavens and earth in Jewish cosmology.

Gene L. Green (b. 1951) defines:

The place of this meeting is in the air. At times this expression (eis aera) means simply “up” (Achilles Tatius 7.15.3; Josephus [37-100], Antiquitates 7.327 [7.13.3]), and it may be that the apostle has nothing more in mind here. On the other hand, the air was understood as the habitation of malignant supernatural powers (Ephesians 2:2), and, according to the common conception of the day, the air was “filled with gods and spirits” (Plutarch [46-120], Moralia 274B). But there does not appear to be any connection between this statement and that belief. It was also believed that the air was filled with “souls” (Diogenes Laertius 8.31-32), and by way of contrast the extraordinary affirmation of the apostle was that the resurrected and the living believers, and not simply their souls, will meet the Lord in the air. Paul does not elaborate on how this could happen, but we know from his other writings that he expects a transformation of the mortal human body to state of immortality (Philippians 3:20-21; I Corinthians 15:35-37). (Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 228)

Ernest Best (1917-2004) concurs:

The meeting with the Lord takes place in (εἰς can hardly have the sense of direction here but is equivalent to ἐν; these prepositions are often confused in the papyri) the air. The Lord comes down; the risen and the surviving are snatched up; the air therefore lies between heaven and earth. It is the area of the planets and the stars, the dwelling place of evil spirits and supernatural powers (Ephesians 2:2). (Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (Black’s New Testament Commentary), 199)

This detail is striking to the uninitiated and is irregular even by Biblical standards. Gordon D. Fee (b. 1934) informs:

The more surprising element in this description is the final phrase “in the air.” Although, for those familiar with the passage this seems like a natural thing to say, the fact is that this is the only occurrence in Paul’s letters of this word with its proper first meaning, referring to “the atmosphere immediately above the earth’s surface” (BDAG) — although it is also used in a negative sense to refer to the abode of the present powers of darkness (Ephesians 2:2). But this is “surprising” to us only because Paul has no reason elsewhere to speak of this “space” at all. His reason for doing so here has altogether to do with the present imagery. The Lord himself is descending “from heaven,” and those who are being caught up to meet him are “from earth.” Hence their place of meeting is “in the air,” thus referring to the space between heaven and earth. (Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 181)

Despite the anomaly, there are some parallels in Jewish tradition. Victor Paul Furnish (b. 1931) examines:

Elements of the Jewish apocalyptic tradition are...evident in the reference to believers being “caught up in the clouds...to meet the Lord in the air” (I Thessalonians 4:17a). The notion of a “rapture” to heaven of certain righteous individuals is found in various Jewish texts, both canonical and noncanonical (e.g., of Enoch: Genesis 5:24; Wisdom of Solomon 4:11; I Enoch 71:1, 5, 14-17; II Enoch 67:2 [A]; of Ezra: 4 Ezra 14:9), and clouds are associated both with divine appearances (e.g., Exodus 19:16; Ezekiel 10:3-4) and travel between heaven and earth (note especially the descent of the Son of man, Daniel 7:13; Mark 13:26...and the ascent to heaven of two faithful witnesses, Revelation 11:12). According to the present scenario, however, the meeting with the Lord is to take place “in the air,” the region which, according to ancient cosmology, is just above the earth (II Enoch 29:4, 5). (Furnish, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 103)

Believers do not fly to meet Jesus in the air, but rather are “caught up” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). The Greek harpazo implies force; “snatched” is not an unreasonable translation. The verb is in the passive voice implying that God is the one taking the action.

Charles A. Wanamaker (b. 1949) surveys:

The verb ἁρπάζειν is used in Genesis 5:24 (LXX) for the taking up of Enoch to heaven and by Paul in II Corinthians 12:2 and II Corinthians 12:4 to refer to his own ascent into the third heaven. In these instances, as in I Thessalonians 4:17, it implies that the ascent is brought about by a force outside the individual. (Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 175)

The same term is also used of Philip’s relocation to Azotus (Acts 8:39).

Though the term “rapture” does not appear in the Bible, it originates from the Latin translation of the Greek verb rendered “caught up”: rapiemur, the first person plural future indicative passive form of rapio. The cognate rapturo is the dative/ablative singular form of the future participle of the same verb.

Jeffrey A.D. Weima (b. 1960) comments:

This verse contains the one explicit reference in the New Testament to the “rapture”—the sudden removal of believers from earth and their reunion with Jesus in the air at the Second Coming. The word “rapture” does not actually occur here but originates from the Latin translation in the Vulgate of the Greek verb harpazō. Elsewhere, this latter term refers to the violent action of being “taken by force” or “snatched away,” usually to the benefit of the one being taken. (Clinton E. Arnold [b. 1958], Romans to Philemon (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 422)

Dispensational eschatology has developed its concept of the rapture from this passage. Charles E. Hill (b. 1956) traces:

Clement of Alexandria [150-215] curiously referred Paul’s statements to the experience of the believer at the time of death, but the association with the Parousia is evident in the text and is recognized by the great majority of interpreters...J.N. Darby [1800-1882] popularized, though evidently did not originate, the notion of a “secret rapture” to come without warning or accompaniment, leaving the world bereft of Christians to face the antichrist, seven years of tribulation, and the wrath of God. All this would precede Christ’s return to earth and the ensuing millennial reign. Darby’s understanding has become a hallmark of dispensational premillennialism. (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 1111)

James H. Grant, Jr. (b. 1976) surveys:

Dispensationalists...argue that other passages describe the details of the second coming of Jesus, in Daniel and Revelation and Ezekiel. They also construct a theology of pretribulational rapture from other passages, but then they argue that...I Thessalonians 4:17, is the description of that event. For the other dominant views of Christ’s second coming, there is no distinction regarding the timing of the event. The rapture takes place during the time of Christ’s second coming. But in this particular view called dispensationalism, the event described in I Thessalonians 4:16, 17 is a unique event that is called “the rapture,” and it is different from the event described in Matthew 24:29-31 or any other passage that describes the second coming. (Grant, 1 & 2 Thessalonians: The Hope of Salvation (Preaching the Word), 124-25)

Leon Morris (1914-2006) responds:

It may be from this he [Paul] intends us to understand that the rapture will take place secretly, and that no one except the saints themselves will know what is going on. But one would hardly gather this from his words. It is difficult to see how he could more plainly describe something that is open and public. (Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians: Revised Edition (New International Commentary on the New Testament, 145)

Speculation as to the purpose of this meeting has developed from the word translated “meet” which developed into a technical term, whether it is intended here or not. If so, it would entail a welcoming party for a visiting dignitary.

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) analyzes:

The meeting place is said to take place in the clouds or in the air, not in heaven...A royal visit to a city would be announced by a herald (see Psalm 24:7-10) and might well also be announced by a trumpet blast meant to alert those in the city that the king was coming...This imagery is pursued further in I Thessalonians 4:17 with the use of the term apantesin. For example, Cicero [106-43 BCE] says of Julius Caesar [100-44 BCE]’s victory tour through Italy in 49 B.C.: “Just imagine what a meeting/royal welcome (apantesis) he is receiving from the towns, what honors are paid to him” (Ad. Atticus 8.16.2; cf. 16.11.6 of Augustus [g6 BCE-14 CE]: “the municipalities are showing the boy remarkable favor...Wonderful apantesis and encouragement”). The word refers, then, to the actions of the greeting committee as it goes forth from the city to escort the royal person or dignitary into the city for his official visit. “These analogies (especially in association with the term parousia) suggest that the Lord is pictured here as escorted the remainder of the journey to earth by his people — both those newly raised from the dead and those remaining alive.” (Witherington, 1 and 2 Thesssalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 138)

Earl J. Richard (b. 1940) adds:

It is generally admitted that the term for the meeting, apantēsis, became in the Hellenistic world a technical expression for the public, civic welcome accorded important visitors (TDNT 1:380-81). Such processions of leading citizens going out of the city walls to welcome and accompany an approaching visitor would have been common in Hellenistic times (Berliner griechische Urkunden 2.362.7.17; Polybius [200-118 BCE], History 5.26.8; Josephus [37-100], Antiquities of the Jews 11:8:4; Cicero [106-43 BCE], Letters to Atticus 8.16.2; 16.11.6; Chrysostom [347-407, Thessalonians: Homily 8.62.440) and would have been used by Paul to describe the triumphal meeting of believers and their Lord at the end-time. A second avenue of research points to Jewish background for this term, for in the Septuagint it is used for meetings with Abraham and David (Genesis 14:17; II Samuel 19:16) and for the Israelites’ encounter with God at Sinai (Exodus 19:17). So it has been suggested that Paul was influenced by such usage, especially theophanic imagery, in formulating his thought. It is thus possible that a double influence is at work here. Regardless, whether Paul thinks of Septuagint language or Hellenistic custom, the readers, whose acquaintance with Jewish scriptural background would have been weak, would certainly have understood Paul’s suggestive imagery. (Richard, First and Second Thessalonians (Sacra Pagina), 246-47)

The living believers ascend while Jesus descends. The glad reunion occurs in the air, the midpoint between both parties. Since the believers cannot get there without help they are “caught up.” The imagery epitomizes the partnership between God and humanity as God takes the necessary action to meet humanity in the middle. In this way, God allows the believers the privilege of participating in uniting with Jesus.

How do you envision this scene? Why do the believers not simply wait for Jesus to reach the earth? What is the meaning of this meeting? What happens next?

Presumably the believers and Jesus will not remain suspended in the air indefinitely. The next logical stop is a voyage either to earth or heaven.

David J. Williams (1933-2008) speculates:

We are not told what will follow that meeting in the air, but the imagery suggested by apantēsis...points to the earth as their final destination (the citizens who had gone out to meet him, escorting the new arrival back to their city). Paul, however, is not concerned to answer our questions as to what will follow, except to say that the saints will be with [syn] the Lord forever (cf. II Corinthians 13:4; Philippians 1:23 for the same use of syn to mark our eternal companionship with Christ). (Williams, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (New International Biblical Commentary), 85)

Jon A. Weatherly (b. 1958) concludes:

Speculation is rife as to whether the Lord leads his people to heaven or back to earth after this meeting. It must suffice to make two observations at this point: (1) nothing in this text expresses or implies anything on the subject; (2) the point which Paul does stress here is not where these events will conclude but with whom, as the next sentence indicates. (Weatherly, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (The College Press NIV Commentary, 161)

Paul’s emphasis is that there will be no subsequent parting: “We shall always be with the Lord” (I Thessalonians 4:17).

The text invites many other questions, queries that have persisted into the present. For instance, the passage reveals no indication of timing. This is because Paul does not include this statement to satisfy eschatological curiosity. His primary purpose is to assure the Thessalonians that the dead and living will be together; no believer is left behind.

This has proven problematic. Angus Paddison (b. 1979) records:

In The City of God, XX...Augustine [354-430] wrestles with the apparent problem–are those who will be found alive upon Jesus’ return never to experience death? Augustine considers the possibility that while we are being carried through the air, the living pass with ‘wondrous swiftness’ from death to immortality. (Paddison, Theological Hermeneutics and 1 Thessalonians (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, 124)

The First Epistle to the Thessalonians is written very early and addresses the issue of what happens to believers who die before Christ’s return. There was a sense that the second coming (or Parousia) was imminent. Paul’s own hopes of living to that day are hinted at with his inclusion of himself among the living, “we who are alive” (I Thessalonians 4:17). As such, there was a very real concern that the deceased had truly missed out.

Paul Nadim Tarazi (b. 1943) cautions:

The New Testament generally and Paul’s epistles particularly are not comprehensive theological treatises divided in a series of well designed chapters. It is thus wrong to imagine that these two verses [I Thessalonians 4:16-17] contain the whole of the early church teaching on the coming of the Lord Jesus. The reason is that Paul is usually satisfied with the emphasis on the specific point of importance to his addressees. Now in this text the Thessalonians are not inquiring about the Lord’s coming as such, but rather about the fate of their deceased relatives and friends; consequently the Apostle’s answer is restricted to that. (Tarazi, 1 Thessalonians: A Commentary (Orthodox Biblical Studies), 149-50)

Eschatology is actually an afterthought to this passage. The real issue is death and Paul’s objective is to provide assurance.

N.T. Wright (b. 1948) affirms:

Paul’s purpose here is not speculation, but comfort. We, for different days, may need to change the imagery to make the point. We may find it more intelligible to speak of Christ’s ‘appearing’ – as Paul himself does elsewhere – than his downward ‘descent’. But his point is that we can be confident in God’s future purposes for those Christians who have died. There will be grief, of course; but there is also hope. (Wright, Paul for Everyone: Galatians and Thessalonians,126)

David Luckensmeyer (b. 1974) pronounces:

I Thessalonians 4:17 contains the climax of the pericope and the strongest affirmation of the Jesus-followers in Thessalonica. When Paul employs the motifs of translation, meeting the Lord and of always being with him, he offers a basis for community identity and existence which transcends the current social disintegration — even death. (Luckensmeyer, The Eschatology of First Thessalonians, 268)

Linda McKinnish Bridges (b. 1953) applies:

The scene Paul paints with literary energy and flair in I Thessalonians 4:16-17 is a dramatic reminder that God is present. God is present in the midst of the demonic world. God is present in the middle of death. God is present in the midst of loneliness and sorrow. God is present and powerful. The members of the community in Thessaloniki, therefore, need not be afraid. They will always be with the Lord; they will always be with their loved ones. This is the comfort that Paul provides. The highly dramatic metaphors and symbols help Paul to articulate that assurance—that God is always present, even in death. (Bridges, 1 & 2 Thessalonians: (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), 127)

Death separates, Christ reconciles. Deceased believers have not only not missed their reunion with Jesus but will also be reunited with living fellow believers.

Do you have faith that you will see your loved ones after they have died? If so, what is this assurance based upon?

“We want to reach the kingdom of God, but we don’t want to travel by way of death. And yet there stands Necessity saying: ‘This way, please.’ Do not hesitate, man, to go this way, when this is the way that God came to you.” - Augustine (354-430)

The Silence of God (Habakkuk 2:20)

In what minor prophet does this appear: “the Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silent before him”? Habakkuk (Habakkuk 2:20)

The first two of Habakkuk’s three chapters consist of a dialogue between the prophet (Habakkuk 1:1-4, 1:12-2:1) and God (Habakkuk 1:5-11, 2:2-20). Habakkuk is unique in that he has the audacity to openly question the Almighty. First, the prophet is upset with God’s presumed indifference in the face of clear injustice (Habakkuk 1:2-4) and then he objects to the action God is taking (Habakkuk 1:12-2:1). God has seemingly sided with idolaters.

God responds by assuring Habakkuk that the perpetrators will face repercussions in the form of five woes (Habakkuk 2:6, 9, 12, 15, 19). The discourse concludes addressing the absurdity of idolatrous worship (Habakkuk 2:18-20). God gets the final word in the conversation, reassuring:

“But the Lord is in His holy temple.
Let all the earth be silent before Him.” (Habakkuk 2:20 NASB)

Contrary to popular belief and despite the apparent silence, God is in fact on the job. Yahweh is not a helpless bystander but is rather perched in a position of power ready to act.

Specifically God “is in His holy temple” (Habakkuk 2:20 NASB). The temple in question likely indicates a broader spiritualized definition not limited to the Jerusalem temple (Micah 5:2).

Thomas Edward McComiskey (1928-1996) notes:

From early times the earthly sanctuary was believed to be a replica of the sanctuary of heaven. That the heavenly temple is in view here is suggested by the similar words of Psalm 11:4: “The LORD is in his holy temple; the LORD’s throne is in heaven”...It is from his heavenly throne that “his eyes behold, his gaze examines humankind” (Psalm 11:4); all human beings are therefore called upon to do him reverence. (McComiskey, The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, 876)

O. Palmer Robertson (b. 1937) defines:

The temple, from the time of its dedication by Solomon, was established as the source from which divine instruction and help would go forth. Even if God should have to chasten disobedient people, the consecrated temple would remain as the place where God would hear, forgive, and teach his people the good way (I Kings 8:36)...The temple stood in the midst of Israel as the place of his presence and his lordship among his people. The term for temple (hekal seldom describes the palace of an earthly king in Scripture. But it appears in a succession of narratives as the place from which God would rule in Israel, including the tabernacle in Shiloh (I Samuel 1:9, 3:3), Solomon’s temple (I Kings 6:1-2; etc.), Ezekiel’s temple (Ezekiel 41:1, 4, 15); and the temple constructed after the restoration from exile (Zechariah 8:9; Haggai 2:15, 18). From a new covenant perspective, the equivalent concept is applied to the body of Jesus Christ (John 2:19), the body of the individual Christian (I Corinthians 3:16-17), and the corporate community of the Christian church (Ephesians 2:21)...The essence of the idea of the Lord’s temple may be seen in the declaration in the book of Revelation concerning the absence of the temple in the new heavens and new earth. The Lord God Almighty and the Lamb will be the temple of the new Jerusalem (Revelation 22:21). The presence of God and Christ shall so permeate the final city that no need shall exist for a temple building. (Robertson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 210-11)

The prophet’s truest encouragement comes from God’s very identity. Like Job (Job 42:1-6), Habakkuk needs to see God not only for what God does but who God is.

God’s capability is juxtaposed with the ineptitude of false idols who say and do nothing. Waylon Bailey (b. 1948) exclaims:

What a contrast! The idol sits where it is put without the ability to hear or to respond, but the Lord resides by his almighty power in his holy temple ready to respond to the needs of his people...The verse pictures the contrast between those who are no gods and the one who is in heaven ready to respond to human need and to human questions. Habakkuk himself knew from experience that he could take his questions to God’s temple in heaven. (Kenneth L. Barker [b. 1931] and Bailey, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuh, Zephaniah (The New American Commentary), 349)

James Bruckner (b. 1957) concurs:

In Habakkuk 2:19 created wood and stone are worshiped but are silent when asked for guidance. But created wood and stone will speak by Yahweh’s word (Habakkuk 2:11). They will be God’s witnesses against those who have trusted in them and made them with unjust profits, at the expense of the earth, towns, and others’ blood (Habakkuk 2:8). (Bruckner, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah (The NIV Application Commentary), 234)

In spite all of the nation’s misfortune, God is not powerless. The idolaters have not won.

Habakkuk’s critique can be paraphrased by the question “Where are you?” The answer is that God is seated where the Almighty is supposed to be; where Yahweh has always been.

What does Habakkuk need from God? How does God respond to those needs? What do you need from God? Is it acceptable to challenge God like the prophet? Have you, like Habakkuk, ever wondered where God was amidst gross injustice? Do you believe that God is active in the world? Where do you picture God residing?

The conversation ends abruptly as, given God’s position, the text admonishes to “be silent” (CEV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NLT), “keep silent” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV) or simply “quiet” (MSG). The word (Hebrew: hacah) is actually more forceful. It is an onomatopoeic interjection that can be pronounced, in Hebrew, much like the English “Hush!”

This command is given to all the earth (Habakkuk 2:20), not just Judah (his followers). This audience includes the prophet. The question and answer portion of the program has concluded. The prophet who thought that God was silent is himself silenced by the Almighty.

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) comments:

The final statement in Habakkuk 2:20 points once again to YHWH as the ultimate power of the universe by calling for silence throughout the entire earth as YHWH’s presence is manifested in the holy Temple...Such a call for silence appears also in Zephaniah 1:7, Zechariah 2:13; and Psalm 46:10, and appears to accompany a theophany in which YHWH’s presence is manifested in the Temple. Priests performing the sacrifices and other rituals of the Temple worked in silence before YHWH’s presence, indicated by the opening of the doors of the Temple to expose the Holy of Holies where the ark resided (see I Kings 8:1-11), because human voices are not able to replicate the divine speech of the angels who serve YHWH in the heavenly realm. The metaphor of silence indicates a demonstration of respect for YHWH, and coneys the “otherness” of holy divine speech by the angels who praise YHWH in the heavens. (The Twelve Prophets (Vol. 2): Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Berit Olam), 478)

David Prior (b. 1940) denotes the fitting conclusion:

Habakkuk 2:20’s imperious summons to silence in the presence of the one true God is an apt conclusion to the questioning of the prophet, the agonizing of the people and the chattering of the pagans before their idols. It also marks the only appropriate way to respond to the LORD’s pronunciation of five woes on Babylon. There is nothing more to say or be said. In the light of God’s word of judgment, it is right that ‘every mouth...be stopped’ (Romans 3:19). (Prior, The Message of Joel, Micah & Habakkuk (Bible Speaks Today), 260)

Ironically, the command to silence evokes praise. Though a gap (in which the prophet could reflect in silence) may exist between chapters 2 and 3, the book continues and concludes with a psalm of praise (Habakkuk 3:1-19) addressed to the Lord who saves his people (Habakkuk 3:13). Habakkuk’s final chapter sits in stark contrast to the book’s first two units, evidence that God’s affirmation has had a profound effect on the prophet.

Habakkuk 2:20 marks the bridge from despair to praise. James D. Newsome (b. 1931) pinpoints:

The whole of the psalm in Habakkuk 3 resonates to the nature of God as a transcendent and awe-inspiring Deity. But there is a special sense in which Habakkuk 2:20 has communicated to generations of Jews and Christians the reverence and respect due to God, especially in moments of worship. (Newsome, The Hebrew Prophets, 99)

Do you find God’s words to Habakkuk assuring (Habakkuk 2:2-20)? Has God ever converted your complaints into worship? Why does God silence Habakkuk? Is there a place for silence in communal worship? When are you silent before God?

“Silent solitude makes true speech possible and personal. If I am not in touch with my own belovedness, then I cannot touch the sacredness of others. If I am estranged from myself, I am likewise a stranger to others.” - Brennan Manning (b. 1934), Abba’s Child: The Cry of the Heart for Intimate Belonging, p. 58

It’s All Good!?!?! (Romans 8:28)

What works for good with those who love God? Everything (Romans 8:28)

Romans 8 is one of the most encouraging chapters of the Bible. Its thrust is assurance and its most famous verse is Romans 8:28.

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. (Romans 8:28 NASB)

Romans 8:28 marks the beginning of the end of a prominent section of the epistle (Romans 8:18-30) and is, not surprisingly, one of the Bible’s most beloved verses.

Robert J. Morgan (b. 1952) acclaims:

Romans 8:28 is the favorite verse of millions around the world. It’s arguably the greatest promise in the Bible, for it summarizes all the others. It’s the biblical basis for optimism and the promise that morphs us into resilient sanguines, whatever our temperament. It’s God’s darkroom in which negatives become positive. It’s His situation-reversal machine in which heartaches are changed into hallelujahs. (Morgan, 100 Bible Verses Everyone Should Know by Heart, 114)

This same affirmation can also be one of the Bible’s most difficult lines. D. Edmund Hiebert (1910-1995) explains:

Faced with the sufferings and catastrophic experiences of life, many believers and even Christian leaders have found it difficult to accept this categorical assertion. During World War II a prominent preacher designated Romans 8:28 as “the hardest verse in the Bible to believe.” (Zuck, “Romans 8:28-29 and the Assurance of the Believer”, Vital Biblical Issues: Examining Problem Passages of the Bible, 142)

The verse is also one of the most Bible’s misunderstood and misused passages. Larry Osborne (b. 1952) tantalizes:

No verse gets misquoted more often when it comes to trying to make sense out of life’s trials. Christians and even non-Christians who have a nodding acquaintance with the Bible quote it more often than all other verses combined. It’s the favorite proof text for the everything-is-good-if-you-wait-long-enough crowd. It’s plastered on coffee mugs, posters, greeting cards, and all kinds of junk...It sounds well. It sells well...But Romans 8:28 doesn’t say or mean what most people think it does. It doesn’t even apply to a large percentage of those who turn to it for comfort. (Osborne, 10 Dumb Things Smart Christians Believe, 89)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) agrees:

It is a statement whose precise meaning is obscure in any case but has also become dangerously distorted by being used out of context. For some Christians the verse has become a kind of pious slogan used to mollify grief or assuage anger in the face of hard experience, having the bromidal effect of, “Don’t worry, God will make everything turn out all right.”...In fact, Paul does not claim that absolutely everything works out fine for every person, whether they “love God” (one of the few times he uses this traditional designation for the pious; see I Corinthians 2:9; James 1:12, 2:5) or not. (Johnson, Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 141-42)

A lot of the misunderstanding is attributed to the passage’s traditional translation, particularly the King James Version. Robert Jewett (b. 1933) discloses:

The old-fashioned translation of Romans 8:28 is somewhat misleading: “Everything works together for good to those who love God.” This translation often led to the false conclusion that God causes everything, including all evil, and that every evil intent has a specific purpose in the divine plan. Paul is actually stating something much more limited and more reasonable. It is not that God causes all evil, but that in everything, whether good or bad, God works for good. (Jewett, Romans (Basic Bible Commentary), 100)

Most modern translations have altered the wording to demonstrate this reality.

The verse begins with the appeal to a shared understanding - “we know.” Paul uses this expression six times in Romans (Romans 2:2, 3:19, 7:14, 8:22, 26, 28). Solomon Andria(tsimialomananarivo) (b. 1950) supposes:

Paul uses the words we know to introduce a truth that would be well known to both Jewish and non-Jewish believers in Rome. But knowing something intellectually is not the same as understanding it and grasping its implications. So Paul sets out to explain the truth. (Andria, Romans (Africa Bible Commentary Series), 157)

Some have seen this shared understanding as emanating from an accepted axiom. Peter Stuhlmacher (b. 1932) informs:

The tradition concerning which the apostle reminds the Romans extends...further. According to a common Jewish teaching, a person should get in the habit of saying, “Everything which the All-merciful does, he does for the good” (Babylonian Talmud Berakoth 60b). Paul takes up this tradition and applies it to the matter...discussed. (Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, 136)

Consequently, Romans 8:28 did not represent an entirely new paradigm for the Romans. Even so, though similar expressions were prevalent during the period, Paul is not appealing to tradition as the basis for his statement is something new - Jesus.

Leon Morris (1914-2006) determines:

It is not difficult to cite sayings from the ancient world of the “In the end everything will turn out all right” type, and it is urged that Paul is not simply repeating a commonplace, and moreover one that leaves God out. Nor is it likely in the sense in which we find this thought in the Old Testament and Jewish writings (cf. Genesis 50:20; Ecclesiastes 8:12; Sirach 39:24-27), in the first instance because they do not say what Paul is saying and in the second because of necessity they omit what Christ is doing and that is central in Paul’s present argument as it moves on to the way of salvation. (Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 330)

As Morris alludes, some have seen the Joseph saga (especially Genesis 50:20) as an exemplar of Romans 8:28. Matthew N.O. Sadiku (b. 1955) compares:

Joseph is a good example of how God works evil plans for good for those who love him. All things worked together for Joseph’s good because God’s purposes could not be thwarted. Like in the case of Joseph, what happens to us at times may not be “good,” but God has a way of making it work for our ultimate good. (Sadiku, Romans: A Pentecostal Commentary, 131-32)

Donald R. Sunukjian (b. 1941) disagrees:

The story of Joseph does not really fit the teaching of Romans 8:28. The point of Genesis 50:20 is that God used the brothers’ evil intentions to bring about good circumstances in Joseph’s life. But that’s not the point of Romans 8:28...The point of Romans 8:28-30 is that God will work in your sufferings and weaknesses to produce the good character of Christlikeness. (Sunukjian, Invitation to Biblical Preaching: Proclaiming Truth With Clarity and Relevance, 133)

Paul is not drawing from popular wisdom, Old Testament experience or brilliant conjecture. Romans 8:28 is developed from conviction and personal experience.

Manfred T. Brauch (b. 1940) reminds:

Apart from anything else which might be said about this text, it is clear within the context of Romans 8 that it expresses Paul’s deep faith and trust in the loving purposes of God. We must remember that this affirmation is not the result of abstract rationalization or theologizing. It is, furthermore, not a word which emerges from the lips of one whose life coasted along in serenity, uninterrupted by the stresses and strains, the pains and perplexities, the turmoil and tragedies which most human beings experience to one degree or another. (Brauch, Hard Sayings of Paul, 48)

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) adds:

‘We know’ that this is so, says Paul, speaking as one who had proved its truth in his own experience, finding, for example, that his hardships turned out for the furtherance of the gospel (Philippians 1:12) and that his sorest and most disagreeable trials were the means by which the power of Christ rested on him (II Corinthians 12:9-10). (Bruce, Romans (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 162)

Given Paul’s experience and the context, there has been discussion as to what is included in the term “all things” and even what part of speech it entails. This expression could technically be the grammatical subject of the verse (instead of “God”). Some manuscripts eliminate the confusion.

F. Leroy Forlines (b. 1926) explains:

Some Greek manuscripts have a longer reading, adding “God” (Greek, ho theos) as the subject of the verb “works together”...Neither the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text nor the United Bible Society Text includes this...The commonly accepted reading is referred to as the “shorter reading.” (Forlines, Romans (Randall House Bible Commentary), 230)

Contextually, God is the more likely subject. Romans 8:28 marks a turning point in the chapter as the prime mover shifts from “the Spirit” to “God”. God is the subject of most of the verbs, evidence that God is also the one doing the work in the processes discussed.

As to what “all things” entails, Brendan Byrne (b. 1939) defines:

“All things” could refer to or at least include the non-human created world (“creation” [Romans 8:19-22]) and the Spirit (Romans 8:26-27). But Paul is more likely to have in mind the sufferings of the present time (Romans 8:18) that form the context for hope. Other things being equal, these would normally be considered “evil.” But for those whose lives are enveloped in God’s love even these things work for “good”. (Byrne, Romans (Sacra Pagina Series) , 267)

Kenneth Boa (b. 1945) and William Kruidenier (b. 1948) concur:

The suffering (Romans 8:17) and groaning (Romans 8:23) that Paul has been discussing is what is in view in Romans 8:28. When we find ourselves in trying circumstances in life, we can know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. (Boa and Kruidenier, Romans (Holman New Testament Commentary), 259)

Thomas R. Schreiner (b. 1954) determines:

In saying that all things work together for good πάντα [“all things”] focuses especially on sufferings and tribulations, but the all-encompassing character of the term should not be ignored. What is remarkable, though, is that even suffering and tribulation turn out for the good of the Christian. The idea expressed here cannot be compared to Stoicism or to a Pollyanish view of life. The former is excluded in Paul’s creational theology, which posits God as the Lord, creator, and personal governor of the world. The latter is a misunderstanding of the text, for the text does not say all things are intrinsically good or pleasant, but instead that the most agonizing sufferings and evils inflicted on believers will be turned to their good by God. (Schreiner, Romans (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 449-450)

Given that suffering is included prominently beneath the umbrella of “all things”, many find the passage difficult to stomach. Anne Graham Lotz (b. 1948) admits:

You may immediately question how the pregnancy of your unmarried daughter can work for your good, or how God can work even a divorce for your good, or how the loss of your job can be for your good, or how your terminal illness can be for your good. If, by “good,” Romans 8:28 meant your comfort, convenience, health, wealth, prosperity, pleasure, or happiness, we would all question it! But your ultimate good is conformity to the image of Jesus Christ. And when you are in God’s will—“called according to his purpose”—everything God allows into your life is used by Him to make you like Christ. Everything! (Lotz, The Vision of His Glory, 27)

As Lotz underscores, one of the keys to interpreting the verse is one’s definition of good. Ernst Käsemann (1906-1998) acknowledges, “In the underlying tradition of antiquity it means the happy outcome of strange earthly events, and the use in Judaism is much the same (Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 243).”

In this context, the term takes on a different meaning. Karl Barth (1886-1968) defines:

The Good is the beholding of the Redeemer and of Redemption, the attainment of the living Point beyond the point of death, the beginning of that awaiting which is no awaiting, of that not-knowing which is the supreme apprehending, and of that apprehending of sin and death, devil and hell, which is the supreme not-knowing. The Good is the very love of God towards men who stand before Him rich and well-clothed, because they are still poor and naked. (Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 320)

D. Stuart Briscoe (b. 1930) distinguishes:

It is eternal rather than temporal good which God has in mind. He works “according to His purpose,” which is far grander than the alleviation of the unpleasantness of the present or a guarantee of plain sailing under cloudless skies in the foreseeable future. He is in the “good” business of making redeemed sinners like their elder brother, the Lord Jesus, and even a cursory glance at the way the Father exposed the Son to the realities of life and death should be sufficient to remind us that we can expect the same kind of processes to work in our lives with the identical and ultimate result—conformity to Him. (Briscoe, Romans (Mastering the New Testament), 176)

Randy Alcorn (b. 1954) clarifies:

Romans 8:28 declares a cumulative and ultimate good, not an individual or immediate good...When Paul says, “for good,” he clearly implies final or ultimate good, not good subjectively felt in the midst of our sufferings. As his wife, Joy, underwent cancer treatments, C.S. Lewis [1898-1963] wrote to a friend, “We are not necessarily doubting that God will due the best for us: we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be.”...We define our good in terms of what brings us health and happiness now; God defines it in terms of what makes us more like Jesus. (Alcorn, If God Is Good: Faith in the Midst of Suffering and Evil, 288-89)

An improper view of what is “good” has led to an improper understanding of the passage. Henry T. Blackaby (1935) and Richard Blackaby (b. 1961) note:

People often misunderstand Romans 8:28. Some assume that this promise means God will turn every bad situation into a good situation. But the Bible doesn’t say that. It says that God can use any situation—even the worst experience—to produce good results in a Christian’s life. (Blackaby and Blackaby, TruthQuest: TQ120a, 40)

While this discussion of “good” does not eliminate suffering, it is equally comforting. R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) advises:

These words have eternal rather than our temporal good in mind...The specific good will be seen when we are glorified as we are conformed to the image of Christ. The Christian should not view present distresses and reversals as ultimately destructive. In some manner they are preparing us for the future revelation of God’s glory. (Hughes, Romans: Righteousness from Heaven (Preaching the Word),167)

Not all actions are good, but they are being worked towards a good purpose. This is a powerful promise but its benefits are not universal. Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) cautions:

It is crucial to the argument here that Paul is talking about Christians. For Christians who are called, all things work together. Paul is not talking about some evolutionary or inevitable process that happens like magic for believers. He is referring to the sovereignty and providence of God over all things and processes. God is the one who works things out, as the alternate textual reading, which inserts ho theos, “God,” makes even clearer. (Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 226-27)

Grant R. Osborne (b. 1942) analyzes:

This is promised to those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. In the Greek, the two frame the promise, with “to those who love him” at the beginning of the verse. The question is whether this is restrictive (it works only for Christians when they love God) or comforting (by nature all Christians love God and are called). The latter is far more likely, for this is a passage of encouragement rather than warning. (Osborne, Romans (IVP New Testament Commentary), 220)

Paul J. Achtemeier (b. 1927) sees a parallel in a parable:

There is another parable of Jesus appropriate to this passage from Romans...and that is the parable of catching and sorting of fish (Matthew 13:47-50). It is a parable of final judgment, when good is separated from bad. To those who find in Jesus the expression of God’s faithfulness to his commitment to the redemption of creation, anticipation of such a judgment is a matter of joy rather than fear, since judgment is another expression of the certainty of the future being in God’s hands. That of course is the point emphasized in Romans 8:28-30. Judgment that apart from Christ can only induce fear can, with the guarantee of his presence provided by the Spirit, be a cause of joyful anticipation. Taken together, these two passages tells us of a coming judgment (Matthew 13:47-50) which we may face with confidence. (Achtemeier, Romans (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 147)

Arland J. Hultgren (b. 1939) summarizes:

Paul is saying that God works for the good of all who love him in every conceivable situation. Whatever one faces (including suffering), God is present and active to work for a good outcome, which may well be realized only eschatalogically in final salvation, but ultimately the promise is sure. That perspective coheres theologically with the rest of this section (Romans 8:18-30), which sees suffering – both on the part of humans and of the rest of creation – in light of eschatalogical hope. (Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, 326)

Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984) adds:

Returning to Romans 8:28, it is not that in some magical way everything really is fine, even when our observation and experience sees and feels the sorrows of the present world. No, it is because God is the infinite God He is that in spite of the abnormality of all things now, He can in the midst of the battle bring good for His people out of abnormality. (Schaeffer, A Christian View of Spirituality, 206)

The verse presumes a God who is not only active in the world but present with us in our suffering. N.T. Wright (b. 1948) illumines:

Romans 8:28 is a much-loved promise for many who have learned by it to trust God in the many varied and often troubling circumstances of our lives. The world is still groaning, and we with it; but God is with us in the groaning, and will bring it out for good. (Wright, Paul for Everyone: Romans, Part One, 156)

This should provide the Christian with blessed assurance. John Piper (b. 1946) expounds:

Once you walk through the door of love into the massive, unshakable structure of Romans 8:28 everything changes. There come into your life stability and depth and freedom. You simply can’t be blown over any more. The confidence that a sovereign God governs for your good all the pain and all the pleasure that you will ever experience is an incomparable refuge and security and hope and power in your life. When God’s people really live by the future grace of Romans 8:28—from measles to the mortuary—they are the freest and strongest and most generous people in the world. (Piper, Future Grace, 123)

How would you put this verse into your own words? How do “we know” the truth of Romans 8:28? Is this a hard verse for you to believe? What is the hardest Bible verse for you to accept? Have you ever found comfort in Romans 8:28? What is your favorite part of Paul’s affirmation? Does “all things” include our own sinful acts? Whose good is being worked towards? What do all things work towards to those who do not believe? Does this verse imply that everything falls within the scope of God’s will? What elements are working together to produce good?

Much ink has been spilled as to what is working together for the ultimate good. John Murray (1898-1975) recounts:

Some of the ablest expositors maintain that “work together” does not mean that all things work in concert and cooperation but that all things work in concert with the believer or with God. But it is unnecessary and perhaps arbitrary to depart from the more natural sense, namely, that in the benign and all-embracing plan of God the discrete elements all work together for good to them that love God. It is not to be supposed that they have any virtue or efficacy in themselves to work in concert for this end. Though not expressed, the ruling thought is that in the sovereign love and wisdom of God they are all made to converge and contribute to that goal. Many of the things comprised are evil in themselves and it is the marvel of God’s wisdom and grace that they, when taken in concert with the whole, are made to work for good. Not one detail works ultimately for evil to the people of God; in the end only good will be there lot. (Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, 314)

C.E.B. Cranfield (b. 1915) counters:

The...rendering ‘work together’ makes too much of the separate meanings of the components of the Greek compound verb: it is better translated by some such expression as ‘prove advantageous’, ‘be profitable’. Paul’s meaning is that all things, even those which seem most adverse and hurtful, such as persecution and death itself, are profitable to those who truly love God. (Cranfield, Romans: A Shorter Commentary, 204)

Douglas J. Moo (b. 1950) concurs:

This verse may not be promising that all things will work together for good. I have heard the verse preached with just this point as the central emphasis. God, so the preacher argued, does not promise to bring good to us in every situation. Rather, as a cook combines ingredients to make a tasty dish of food, so God mixes together the circumstances of life in such a way as to ultimately bring good to us...There are two reasons for hesitating to embrace this “mixing” idea. (a) The verb used here (synergeo) may not mean “work together.” To be sure, in its three other New Testament occurrences, it does seem to have this meaning (see I Corinthians 16:16; II Corinthians 6:1; James 2:22). But the verb often lost the “with” idea in the period Paul was writing...(b) Even if we do translate “work together,” it is by no means clear that “all things” are working with each other. It is equally plausible that Paul means that all things work together with the Spirit, with God, or with believers to produce good. (Moo, Romans: The NIV Application Commentary, 277)

The practical question is whether the believer has a part in the working out of all things together for good. Dale Moody (1915-1992) descries:

Romans 8:28 says that God “co-operates for good with those who love God, and are called according to his purpose” (NEB), yet for centuries now the KJV of 1611 has been followed which says “all things work together for good,” as if human co-operation is excluded from God’s purpose. The human co-operation of faith, hope and love has been blasted as synergism, yet Paul uses the Greek verb synergei! (Moody, The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation, 314)

David L. Bartlett (b. 1941) concludes:

Paul is not saying that for Christians everything is always for the best. He is saying that in everything God works towards the best in partnership with those who love God...Christians do not need to say that every tragedy or loss is part of God’s plan. We can say that in every tragedy or loss God is still God and still moves our lives and all of history toward what is good...Even when contemplating the enormous tragedies of human history, natural disaster, or human viciousness, faith reminds us that God is still at work in the midst of evil, working toward the good. The question, Why did God let this happen? is unanswerable. The questions we may begin to answer are, What can God do with this evil to help bring about the good? How can we be God’s partners, God’s servants in the work? (Bartlett, Romans (Westminster Bible Companion) 78)

“If all things do not always please me, they will always benefit me...This is the best promise of this life.” - Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892)