Because I did not consider this discussion worth even considering, I completely ignored it after my first comment until today, to my surprise, I found this comment, which I have to admit is not simply being irreverent about the scriptures.
I'm sorry, 4runner, but I have to disagree with your assessment of this text. This doesn't support the concept of the rapture as it is commonly understood. Too often this is seen as describing the Christian's journey to heaven with Christ. However, the Greek word for 'meet' (apantesis), in v. 17 above, bore very distinct connotations in the ancient Greco-Roman world. It designated an event where either the emperor or some other dignitary was making an official visit to a given town or city, the citizens of that city, or a delegation of citizens, would expressly go out from the city to meet the emperor or dignitary and then escort them the rest of the way into their city. What is therefore being discussed here is not a 'rapture' where Christians are whisked off to heaven, but rather where Paul intended to comfort his audience by assuring them that they and their now-dead loved ones have indeed placed their lives in the correct hands; that is, that Jesus is Lord, not Caesar.
I have to admit that, when discussed in this light, this is a legitimate subject for discussion.
This, however, does not for even a moment mean I give any credence to the argument.
It indeed seems that this argument is correct, when the opinions of so many recognized "experts" are considered. But these "experts" are, in at least this case, mistaken.
Because so many widely recognized experts agree with this analysis, I am going to do something I have never before done in this forum. I am going to quote from an analysis of this subject that is so thorough and so obviously unbiased that it is authoritative.
This analysis is the Bulletin for Biblical Research 4 (1994) 15-34, © 1994 Institute for Biblical Research, and is titled "Hellenistic Formal Receptions and Paul's Use of APANTHSIS in 1 Thessalonians 4:17." It was written as a conclusion in Doctoral research by Michael R. Cosby of Sioux Falls College.
This paper is particularly authoritative in this subject because it was written by an opponent of the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture, and because it is the report of a study undertaken to absolutely prove the correctness of the analysis given above by dcyates. But what the author found instead of what he was looking for was indisputable proof that this analysis is incorrect.
Cosby begins this report by saying,
"In 1930 Peterson published 'Die Einholung des Kyrios,' an article providing quotations from ancient papyri, inscriptions and literature in order to demonstrate that behind Paul's words in 1 Thess 4:17 stands the custom of the Hellenistic formal reception of a dignitary. This viewpoint, widely held among biblical scholars, states that Paul presupposed that his readers in Thessalonica would understand his description of the Parousia in light of such receptions. Thus the formal elements of these welcoming celebrations are unstated parts of the text because of Paul's use of the technical term APANTHSIS.
"The present study, which ironically began as an attempt to strengthen Peterson's case, reveals that APANTHSIS was not a technical term and that all of the main elements of Hellenistic receptions are missing from 1 Thess 4:15-17. An analysis of the ancient descriptions of these receptions shows that most of their usual elements are actually the opposite of what we find in Paul's description of the Parousia. Instead of being a cipher for understanding what Paul meant, they function more as a foil—a loose pattern to play against when describing the coming of the heavenly king."
Further on in the report, he says,
"Recently, with the prophetic beliefs of my youth glimmering as fanciful dreams of a bygone era, a new threat to dogma raised its ten horns and seven heads out of the apocalyptic sea of chaos. While reviewing Peterson's assertions, I discovered to my horror that some of them are simply not persuasive. The potential demise of Peterson's widely accepted argument posed eschatological terror for me. For years I have taught students on the basis of his understanding. For years I have dispensed with the bothersome teaching about the Rapture of the Church by using his explanation. But what if Paul did not have in mind the formal reception of a king when he described the victorious return of Christ?
"In retrospect I realize that my commitment to Peterson's view was based somewhat on my desire to distance myself from the childhood teachings that were now a source of embarrassment. My emotional commitment prevented me from even wanting to notice any problems with his reconstruction. What began as an effort to strengthen Peterson's argument became a disturbing exercise in scholarly honesty."
In the body of the paper Cosby gives the reasons for his conclusion, which can be summarized shortly by the two following findings.
The first finding was that:
A computer search of the Greek literature written during the several centuries surrounding Paul's era using the "Thesaurus Linguae Graecae" (TLG) produced 91 pages of citations of passages that employ forms of APANTHSIS Yet only a minority of the uses of these terms describes formal receptions. For example, in the passages located, Philo Judaeus uses forms of this word 27 times, but not once to describe the meeting of a dignitary. Similarly, Josephus employs them 92 times, but only ten times in descriptions of formal receptions. In the LXX forms of APANTHSIS are used frequently in 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles and sporadically in other books, particularly 1-3 Maccabees. Often it designates the hostile meeting of armies, although it also describes virtually any kind of meeting.
Of the many occurrences of forms of APANTHSIS in Diodorus Siculus' Bibliotheca historica, most involve the meeting of soldiers in battle, and the same is true for the historical work of Polybius. Sometimes a form of APANTHSIS describes a formal greeting of a dignitary, but often it does not. And some descriptions of such receptions do not use any form of APANTHSIS (or any of the verb forms of this word).
The second finding was that:
When some form of APANTHSIS was used in regard to formal meetings to escort a dignitary back into a city, it essentially always was accompanied by a series of formal elements, all of which are totally missing in 1 Thessalonians 4.
Cosby ended the article with these words:
"Only after a period of about a year was I able to admit the possibility that Peterson's exegesis was eisegesis. With great hesitation I carefully examined the data, and honesty forced me to admit I had been wrong. In a way this was a triumph, for it illustrated again the power of the text to transform the view of the reader.
"At this point, with only a small amount of residual resentment, I admit that the text of 1 Thess 4:13-17 leaves open the matter of whether or not the Christians are caught up in the air in order to escort the Lord back to earth. By comparing this passage with the other New Testament texts that speak of the Parousia it remains clear, at least to me, that the Parousia in Paul's mind included divine reward of the righteous and judgment of the wicked. But honesty forced me to defuse the most effective bomb in my historical arsenal that so readily destroys the fanciful notion of the Rapture. How much of our scholarship do we perform while looking over our shoulders at the beliefs of our youth that have become sources of embarrassment to us as scholars?"
You can read the entirety of this report at:
http://www.ibr-bbr.org/IBRBulletin/BBR_1994/BBR_1994_02_Cosby-Apantesis1Thes.pdf
As I said, in all my experience in this forum, I have never before appealed to the authority of another scholar. But this paper is so authoritative and convincing that I, in this first and perhaps last case, present the findings of a different scholar.