Читать книгу 1–2 Thessalonians - Nijay K. Gupta - Страница 7

“Everything that is done in the world is done by hope” —Luther

“Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless” —G.K. Chesterton

“Faith goes up the stairs that love has built and looks out the windows which hope has opened.” —Charles Spurgeon

Paul’s message to the Thessalonian church in 1 Thessalonians can be summarized in one word—“hope.” Hope, for Paul, was not a word representative of mere longings or wishful thinking. It was, not unlike we see in Hebrews, something certain, but invisible. Hope was the word Paul used to talk about the invisible (but real) future promised by the invisible (but real) God who gave the most certain assurances of the fulfillment of his promises in the death and resurrection of Messiah Jesus as well as the “deposit” of the Holy Spirit.

The word “hope” only appears a handful of times in these letters (1 Thess 1:3; 2:19; 4:13; 5:8; 2 Thess 2:16), but it represents well Paul’s central emphasis: in the tumult, chaos, confusion, and rough-and-tumble of life, you must trust God and God’s future by moving forward in faith and faithfulness. Hope is his word for a targeted faith, anticipatory faith, quite similar to what we see in Heb 11:13. According to Hebrews, the Old Testament people of faith did not live in the world of the final fulfillment of God’s promises, but “saw it all from a distance and welcomed it” (NLT). Another translation says they “greeted it from afar” (RSV). While they obviously never reached it, they mapped their journey towards it, as it were, and ran with outstretched arms. Their job, in their time, was not to get to the destination, but to live their present life in the light of that hope, to navigate their vessel (to change the metaphor) according to that beacon.

Hope, in the Christian vocabulary, is a worldview word. If “faith” represents the reliance on an alternative reality based on the revelation of God according to his work and words vis-à-vis the past and present, then “hope” involves the sustaining of a present alternative view of reality based on what God has promised to do in the future. Christians do not look ahead simply in order to be done with life and float away to eternal bliss in heaven. They lean on hope to survive, live, and even thrive in the present by seeing through God’s eyes, and particularly God’s promises about what he is going to do.

We might better understand what Paul says in 1 Thessalonians, and why he says it the way he does, by thinking through the social nature of how we understand reality. Social anthropologist Clifford Geertz explains that all humans develop “webs of significance” that sustain a larger world around us. It is that intertexture of symbols, relationships, and frameworks that give us stability and comfort in life.1 However, there are always threats and challenges to our world-structure. The question that remains is whether or not one’s symbolic world-system can accommodate and maintain its integrity in light of perplexities. Geertz goes on to argue that religious systems are particularly designed to secure and stabilize the human and community under just such circumstances if they are fit for the task.

What does this have to do with Paul? It is easily recognized that Paul writes 1 Thessalonians to a community that is beginning to lose its confidence and foundation of its faith. There are problems, questions, and perplexities on many levels and in a variety of areas. This triggers a kind of “fight or flight” reaction that could cause serious problems in the future. Paul, though he was not a modern social anthropologist, knew that he had to help them re-establish terra firma beneath their feet and their weak knees. He did so by anchoring their faith to the past (and their exemplary reception of the gospel), to the present (as they have shown ongoing resilience and love in recent times), and especially their future (as their hope is in a coming Lord Jesus).

This letter, 1 Thessalonians, is Paul’s work as a master-builder who shapes a distinctly Christian worldview that profoundly brings together heaven and earth. Christians live in “waiting” (1:10), as they have one eye on the sky and anticipate the descending rider-of-the-clouds (4:17). They do this, not to abandon the physical earth, but to await the Sovereign and Judge who will finally bring justice to an unjust and cruel world. However, if one eye looks up and forward towards the future return of the Lord, the other eye is fixed on the earthly work of today. Paul uses the language of work throughout the letter—the Thessalonians’ work (1:3), Paul’s unending manual labor (2:9), the ministry of the apostles (3:5), and the expectation that all Christians will live daily lives of honest and fruitful productivity (4:11; 5:13). Christian hope is not star-gazing. Christian hope is not lazy—Paul made sure of it. Martin Luther echoes a Pauline conviction when he writes that “Everything that is done in the world is done by hope,” but that hope is seen in the doing of life.2

Christians live in hope, an idea captured remarkably well by Aristotle’s pithy saying, “Hope is the dream of a waking man.”3 I think Paul would have adjusted this a bit to say, “Hope in Jesus is the vision that drives believers who work and witness in a dark world as they dream of a redeemed tomorrow” (1 Thess 5:8; 2 Cor 5:7).

Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Church

The City of Thessalonica

In 316 BC, Thessalonica was built on the site of Therme below the Hortiates mountains. Macedonian military leader (and later king) Cassander named this city he founded after his wife, the daughter of Philip II and half-sister of Alexander. Thanks in no small part to Thessalonica’s port, it became a prominent city.4 In 187 BC, King Philip V (221–179) permitted Thessalonica to issue its own coinage, further boosting its economy.

When Rome took control of Macedonia (168 BC), it was divided into four republics and Thessalonica became capital of the second district. In the following years Thessalonica made several important political moves; firstly, it refused to support a revolt against Rome among Macedonian cities led by Andriscus (149 BC). Instead, it hailed Roman praetor Metellus, suppressor of the revolt, as “savior.”5 A few years later, Thessalonica was named the capital of the province of Macedonia. The Romans took special interest in this city largely for its size and location.6 They built the Via Egnatia, a roadway that ran east-west from Dyrrhachium on the Adriatic Sea to Thessalonica. It was intended, in the first place, for military use, but became a major thoroughfare for trade and travel more broadly.

About a century later, after Julius Caesar was murdered, Thessalonica again shrewdly supported Octavian and Mark Antony over and against Brutus and Cassius. In return for this loyalty, Antony bestowed upon Thessalonica the status of civitas libera (free city). This special privilege meant that Thessalonians could operate with considerable autonomy while also receiving support from Rome.7 Additionally it received tax concessions. It is no exaggeration to say, then, that this status “ushered in a prosperous new era for Thessalonica.”8 By the time of Paul, Thessalonica was a large, cosmopolitan city; Antipater of Thessalonica referred to it at the “mother of all Macedonia.”9 The largest ethnic population in Thessalonica at that time was Greeks, but there is evidence for the presence of other groups including Italians, Thracians, and Jews.

Religion in Thessalonica

The religious atmosphere in Roman Thessalonica was diverse. While traditional Greek deities were widely honored, including Zeus, Asclepius, Aphrodite, and Demeter, the city also dedicated worship to Egyptian gods such as Serapis and Isis. In 1917, an ancient temple was discovered in Thessalonica that is now called the Serapeion. This temple probably dates to the third century BC. Thessalonians also had an interest in the myth of Cabirus. We learn from Clement of Alexandria the legend of two brothers who killed a third sibling and buried him at the foot of Mount Olympus. Cabirus is depicted in worship as a young man with no beard. Devotees worshipped the murdered Cabirus as a savior who would return and bless the people, especially the poor.10

We should also add that Thessalonica established a cult in honor of the goddess Roma. Furthermore, they built a temple for Caesar. The Thessalonians, as noted above, understood the significance of showing loyalty and respect to Rome. Coins have been discovered that identify Caesar as divine. To challenge the divinity of Caesar would be a threat against Rome itself. This may offer important background for understanding the seriousness of the threats against Paul and his ministry when he was brought before the city officials (the politarchs) on the accusation that he was supporting a rival king named Jesus (Acts 17:5–6).

Paul in Thessalonica

While Paul mentions his coming to Thessalonica in 1 Thessalonians, the book of Acts contains a number of details about his experience there.11 While in Troas (Asia Minor), Paul received a vision of a “man of Macedonia” begging him to cross over into Macedonia to help his people (Acts 16:9). Paul and Silas wasted no time setting sail into Samothrace and Neapolis to bring the gospel to the Macedonians. He eventually went to Philippi where his ministry caused a stir and locals accused them before the authorities. They were beaten and imprisoned, but the Lord miraculously delivered them. Before departing from Philippi, Paul and Silas encouraged the new believers there including Lydia, the first convert of Europe.

Paul and Silas travelled through Amphipolis and Apollonia to Thessalonica. They went to the Thessalonian Jewish synagogue and Paul preached about Messiah Jesus on three Sabbath days (17:1–2). Luke recounts that “Some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women” (17:4).

Some jealous Jews incited “ruffians” (F. F. Bruce refers to them as a “rent-a-mob”!) to turn the city against Paul and Silas. Unable to locate the two strangers, the mob attacked Paul’s host Jason and other new believers in Jesus. They were brought before the city authorities under this accusation: “These people who have been turning the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has entertained them as guests. They are all acting contrary to the decrees of the emperor, saying that there is another king named Jesus” (Acts 17:6–7).

While Jason and the others were released when they posted bail, still the city was perturbed by this matter. Paul and Silas took their leave under the cover of darkness, making their way to Beroea (17:10). Luke makes it a point to say that the Jews there were more receptive to the gospel than in Thessalonica (17:11). Still, Paul’s Thessalonian troubles were far from over. Some Jews from Thessalonica heard about Paul’s successful ministry in Beroea and travelled there to turn those people against him as well (17:13). Thus, Paul was forced on to Athens. After Acts 17, Luke offers no more clues regarding the situation in Thessalonica.12 What we surmise about the situation that led to Paul’s writing of the Thessalonian letters must come primarily from historical reconstruction and guesswork based on information from the letters themselves.

The Church of the Thessalonians

Before considering the exigencies that gave rise to 1–2 Thessalonians, it behooves us to consider the nature of the church of the Thessalonians. According to Luke, some Jews responded positively to his preaching, a great number of “devout Greeks” and “not a few leading women” (Acts 17:4). As for the first group, Luke’s some is probably a small number, given how he represents the overall offense of Paul’s gospel to the Jews in Thessalonica (e.g., versus Beroea). Who are these “devout Greeks”? They are Gentile “god-fearers,” non-Jews who attached themselves in some way to the Jewish synagogue. Perhaps they were attracted to Jewish morality, worship of this one particular god, or the Jewish festivals.13 Some scholars have expressed doubts about the historical reliability of Luke’s account, especially because Paul characterizes the Thessalonian believers as those who turned away from idols to the one God and to Jesus (1 Thess 1:9–10).14 This appears to some to mean that the church was comprised almost exclusively of Gentile idol-worshippers who would have had no association with Judaism.15 However, as Todd Still notes, if Paul had attracted Jews and god-fearing Gentiles away from the synagogue towards faith in Jesus, this would explain Jewish hostility against Paul that is attested in both Acts and 1 Thessalonians (see 1 Thess 2:15).

If Paul did have some success in luring God-fearing and well-off Gentiles away from the synagogue by his preaching and continued to poach on Jewish preserves even after he had been cut off from the synagogue, then it is reasonable to think that he would have provoked a negative Jewish response. Not only would the Jewish community have viewed Gentile adherents as potential proselytes, but they would also have valued their financial and social support. While Jewish jealousy or zeal incited by Paul’s missionary activity among synagogue adherents only partially explains Paul’s conflict with Thessalonian Jews, it may well have been a primary reason that Paul encountered Jewish opposition in Thessalonica (and elsewhere).16

The third category of people Luke mentions in Acts 17:4 is “leading women,” women of wealth and influence (i.e., elite). It is possible that these women were benefactors to the Jewish community in Thessalonica. Lynn Cohick offers the example of Capitolina, a Gentile woman who gave money to the synagogue at Tralles (Asia Minor).17 This aligns with other examples in the New Testament of women of means attracted to the gospel of Messiah Jesus (such as Phoebe, Romans 16). Although the church must have had a few wealthy believers, the majority of the church would have been relatively poor, the kind of people who work with their hands (1 Thess 2:9; 4:11; 5:14).18 How large was the church in Thessalonica? Narrowing this number down is impossible, but Eugene Boring is probably correct that we are talking about dozens, not hundreds.19

Excursus : Was the Church of the Thessalonians a Male-Only Guild?

Richard Ascough has made the argument that the church in Thessalonica may have started as an artisan guild or association that, as a group, embraced Paul’s good news about Messiah Jesus.20 Firstly, he notes that Thessalonica had many guilds of various kinds. Secondly, Paul himself refers to working with hands (4:11), which may identify his readers as co-members of an artisan association. For Ascough, this would align with what appears to be a sole focus of the letter on men (see 1 Thess 4:4), thus he proposes that the church would have been nearly male-only, as some guilds were gender-exclusive in Antiquity.21 He notes, on this matter, how apt Paul was in this letter to refer to this church as “brothers.” Ascough also appeals to 1 Thess 1:9, how the Thessalonians turned (plural) away from idols to serve (plural) the living and true God, as evidence for the collective nature of their conversion.

This theory has piqued the interest of several scholars.22 However, we must be careful not to turn possibilities into probabilities. After all, as Lindsey Trozzo notes in her critique of Ascough’s theory, Paul is not necessarily using the language of working with hands in 4:11 in a technical sense.23 Also, Trozzo argues that there is insufficient evidence to assume that artisan guilds were gender exclusive.24

Furthermore, what would stop Paul from encouraging them to include women in their believing community?25 As M. Johnson-DeBraufre also urges, even if it were true that this church was guild-like and was male-only, does that imply the complete absence of women?26 As early churches often met in houses, Johnson-DeBraufre wonders where believing women might have heard Paul’s letter in these spaces, as assistants, slaves, relatives, and otherwise.27 We ought to be careful not to narrow Paul’s language of siblingship to men only. There is ample evidence from Paul’s letters that the term adelphoi (lit. “brothers”) is inclusive of women as well (hence NRSV: “brothers and sisters”).28 Just because specific women are not named does not mean they are not there.

Why Did Paul Write 1 Thessalonians?

Paul was not a “writer” in the sense that he did it as a hobby, or even vocationally. He wrote to communicate, but he much preferred being face to face (1 Thess 2:17; 3:10). In that sense, he echoes the sentiment of 2 John 1:12: “Although I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink; instead I hope to come to you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.” He was an apostle with a mission and message, but clearly he was like a pastor, wanting to guide his own flock; or like a mother wanting to care for her children (1 Thess 2:7). Paul did not typically write letters to update his churches on his situation or simply to check in on them. His tendency was to write as a form of problem-solving, whether to correct, pacify, comfort, encourage, etc. It behooves us to ask, then, why did Paul write 1 Thessalonians?

Again, the challenge in answering this question is that the only real evidence we have (aside from some of the information listed above related to Acts 16–17) must come from guesswork based on the letter of 1 Thessalonians itself. Howard Marshall underscores the difficulty with this illustration: “It is rather like the problem of trying to form a picture of a modern church simply on the basis of the official minutes of its business meeting; we should know very little about what actually happened in its services and other activities or about the kind of people who made up the congregation.”29 Nevertheless, we ought to learn what we can and be able to distinguish what is certain from what is probable, and then also consider what is plausible.30

Persecution and Pistis

The first thing that is clear in Paul’s letter is that the Thessalonians experienced persecution from the beginning (1:6; 2:14). This would not have been a state-enforced persecution, but rather harassment from community members who were troubled by their newfound religion and practices (again, note the scenario in Thessalonica in Acts 17:1–10a). Thessalonian believers in Jesus would have been taught by Paul to devote themselves exclusively to the one God, thus they would have withdrawn from local pagan rites, festivities that typically had important political dimensions. They would have been charged with “atheism”; as Philip Esler explains, “To be respectable and decent meant taking part in the [local, religious] cult; old was good and new was bad; Thus, religion served to strengthen the existing social order. To deny the reality of the gods was absolutely unacceptable—one would be ostracized for that, even stoned in the streets.”31

With this kind of context in mind, most scholars presume that the persecutors were Gentiles, not Jews. Such a view, though, would discount Luke’s information in Acts 17 where it would seem Jews played a major role in the hostility against Paul’s ministry and local allies. Again, the scholarly tendency is to put doubt on Luke’s account for two reasons. Firstly, some argue that Luke has certain theological and narrative habits that shape how he presents Paul’s ministry, in this case leading to doubts regarding the historicity of his version of the situation in Thessalonica. Secondly, such a view seems to contradict what Paul writes in 1 Thess 2:14, that the Thessalonian believers “suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they [the Judean churches] did from the Jews.” The implication here seems to be that the Thessalonians were persecuted by Gentile Thessalonians while the Judean believers were persecuted by Jewish neighbors. However, the meaning of the word for compatriots here (symphyletēs) is contested.32 Again, many scholars assume that Paul is referring to Gentile Thessalonian “compatriots,”33 but when Paul proclaims that the Jews “drove us out” (1 Thess 2:15), why could not the same Jews that drove Paul out of Thessalonica also persecute the Thessalonians believers?34 First Thessalonians 2:14–16 makes good sense in Paul’s argument if Paul is connecting Jewish persecution in Judea to Jewish persecution in Thessalonica.35

My inclination is to find a way to bring Acts 17:1–10a together with what Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians. While the implication of 1 Thess 1:9–10 is that the Thessalonian believers were largely Gentiles (forsaking idol worship), it very well may be that they were Gentile god-fearers prior to meeting Paul (see above, The Church in Thessalonica, 6–7). Again, some scholars consider it incredible that Paul might assert this about Gentiles who had already turned to the God of Israel.36 However, this assumption is misguided. Paula Fredriksen explains that Gentiles who chose to “visit with” Jews and their God felt “free to observe as much or as little of Jewish custom as they chose—free, indeed, to continue worshiping their own gods.”37 Shaye Cohen makes the same case about the possibility of god-fearers as polytheists, and seeks to help moderns understand how ancient Greeks and Romans thought.

Those who see Judaism and Hellenism as discrete entities are perplexed by the phenomenon of the God-fearers. Some have even questioned their existence. After all, how can gentiles become a “little bit Jewish”? And why would they want to? The explanation is to be sought in the other conception of Hellenism discussed above. Many Greek and Romans adopted the gods (e.g., Isis, Cybele, Mithras, Jupiter Dolichenus) and practices of various “barbarian” nations without converting or losing their identity. Similarly, thinking that the God of the Jews was like the god of other nations, they added him to their pantheon.38

The theory that I find most plausible related to the Thessalonian church is this: a group of Gentiles were attracted to Jewish life and became associated with a synagogue (hence Acts 17:4). They maintained an interest in multiple gods, but also honored the god of Israel. Perhaps it was not too long after this interest that Paul introduced them to Messiah Jesus and many of them came to believe Paul’s gospel. This situation would, indeed, anger certain Jews in just such a way as we see in Acts 17 and also in 1 Thess 2:14–16, if symphyletēs refers to Jewish Thessalonian compatriots. Paul could write that they had turned from idols to serve God because they had not done so as god-fearers despite their prior interest in Israel’s god.

Excursus: Gentile Believers Incorporated into Israel’s Story through Jesus

It is often pointed out that Paul does not quote the Old Testament (LXX) in 1 Thessalonians, and that this fact probably means that the Thessalonian believers were Gentiles who did not know the Jewish Scriptures.39 That they were mostly Gentiles is almost certain, but the assumption that Paul consciously avoided quoting Scripture for that reason is hasty. First Thessalonians is saturated with Old Testament imagery, motifs, expressions, and ideas. Paul clearly crafts their identity in such a way as to draw them into the story and even the identity of Israel. They are ekklēsia as the people of God (1:1). They are beloved of God (1:4), as Israel is; they have been made precious to God (1:4). They are recipients of Israel’s good news (1:5), the “word of the Lord” sounded forth from them (1:8), they will be rescued from Yahweh’s wrath (1:10). They are taught how to “walk” with God (4:1), to obey his will regarding holy consecration (4:3, 7). They are identified as those separate from “the Gentiles who do not know God” (4:5). They are true light (5:5), those destined for salvation (5:9). If Paul was trying to communicate in a non-Jewish style, he failed.40 While Paul did not feel the need to make explicit arguments from Scripture, he was clearly drawing these Gentiles into the story and identity of Israel through Messiah Jesus.41

It is possible that Jews from the synagogue where these Gentiles once worshiped (as god-fearers) tried to maintain an ongoing relationship with them, hoping to “win them back,” so to speak, even if through fear. Perhaps they urged, “We cannot ensure you will survive the wrath of God if you continue on following this Jesus.” The fear of wrath may have scared the Thessalonians enough they lost some security in their identity in Jesus. Paul, then, wrote 1 Thessalonians as a form of subversive rhetoric, trying to undo any of the damage done by fear-inducing words from opponents. His clear message to them in 1 Thessalonians is that their hope is found in Jesus alone; through him they are secure as God’s beloved, his chosen people. Paul would not have been saying this over and against Jews, but rather in affirmation of Gentiles incorporated into the people of God through Messiah Jesus. Thus, Paul can argue that he wants Gentiles saved, while the Jews (particularly those hostile to believers in Jesus) displease God by preventing this (1 Thess 2:15).

Knowing of the Thessalonians’ persecution (1 Thess 3:1–6), Paul and his apostolic associates were concerned about the Thessalonians’ pistis. Typically this word is translated “faith” (1:3, 8; 3:2, 5–7, 10; 5:8). However, pistis is a polyvalent Greek noun and can cover a range of meanings from belief to trust to faithfulness and loyalty. The way that Paul talks about the strength of the Thessalonians’ pistis he is almost certainly not referring to their beliefs as such. Rather, pistis was a term used in the Greco-Roman world especially in relation to loyalty.42 Also, around the time of Paul, Jews in particular were using pistis as a way of referring to pledges of loyalty within a covenantal relationship.43 Particularly in chapter 3 of 1 Thessalonians, Paul refers to his concern for their pistis in the context of affliction. Timothy was dispatched to see about their pistis lest the tempter overwhelm them (3:5). Paul was not worried about their belief per se, but the “whole package” of their commitment to the Messiah and their complete trust in him. The best terms to translate pistis, then, are probably “trust,” “loyalty,” or “faithfulness.”44

Sexual Purity

A second matter that Paul addresses in the letter relates to sexual purity. Paul calls for control over the body, lest they succumb to heathen lust (4:3–4). The Greco-Roman lifestyle was highly permissive when it came to male sexuality. Men often had sex with multiple people, though it was considered especially inappropriate to commit adultery by sleeping with another man’s wife. Paul called for a strict kind of holiness and purity that sought to honor one another and God (4:6).

The Dead in the Messiah

A third problem in Thessalonica apparently pertained to the death of some members of the church (4:13–18). Paul felt the need to comfort them by urging that the recently-deceased believers would be especially honored at the return of the Lord. Many scholars believe that the Thessalonians naively thought that everyone would remain alive until the return of the Messiah, so the death of church members was perplexing and even traumatizing. This is possible, but it does not account for the unusual emphasis Paul places on the dead in the Messiah being lifted up first, before the living at the return of the Messiah (4:15). Why would they receive this honor of priority? A minority of scholars (including myself) hypothesize that those who died may have been martyred, killed by persecutors.45 This view accords well with how it could be possible that several people died in the same small believing community around the same time a short while after Paul left. Furthermore, it explains why Paul focuses on their position of honor—those who died for their allegiance to Messiah deserve such a special role.

Excursus: Hypothesizing a Clandestine Attack

One scenario that could bring several issues together in 1 Thessalonians is the consideration that the opponents of the believing Thessalonians planned some kind of clandestine attack. Let’s say certain upset Jews, (former) friends of these god-fearers-turned-Jesus-followers, secretly attacked their workshop or apartment building. Let’s say they set it on fire at night. This could explain how some people died at once. It could also explain why some are “weak” (injured?) and others are “faint hearted” (5:14). Furthermore, what if these same Jews blamed this fire on “the wrath of God” because these god-fearers began to follow Paul and worship Messiah Jesus (whom these Jews would have considered a false messiah)? What if these Jews tried to convince the Thessalonian believers that they could reclaim “peace and security” if they forsook Jesus and returned to the synagogue (5:3)? What if Jewish prophets “prophesied” further doom if they did not (see 5:20–21)? Paul’s wider message would be clear in response to this: Jesus is Lord, he is judge, salvation and hope are centered on him.

Coming of the Lord

The last major concern that Paul raises relates to the timing of the coming of the Lord (5:1–11). Paul is unwilling to say more than that it will be unexpected (5:2–3). He turns their attention away from timetable theories towards faithfulness and upright behavior today. The timing doesn’t matter if, in waiting for the master, you are always at work in your duties (see Luke 12:41–48). Somewhere along the way, a fear struck them that they might not be ready. Paul comforts them by reminding them of their firmly-anchored identity in the Messiah (5:9), but challenges them to live faithfully in light of that identity.

Minor Concerns?

The above issues (persecution, sexual purity, the dead in the Messiah, the coming of the Lord) are Paul’s main concerns in 1 Thessalonians, but potentially he was also addressing other, minor matters. For example, there is some evidence that the church may have had internal divisions and communal problems; Paul seems to briefly address these (see 4:9–11; 5:12–15). Also, Paul may have had a small concern for those he calls ataktoi (“the idle troublemakers”), but his mention of them is brief enough that it is not significant at this point for him (5:14; it becomes a major problem by the time he writes 2 Thessalonians). Also, is it possible that the Thessalonian believers had been thrown into confusion by (false?) prophecies (5:20–21)? Again, this is plausible, but the brief mention offers little information.

Paul on Trial?

A final matter worth considering as a reason for 1 Thessalonians pertains to whether Paul felt the need to defend himself (especially in order to maintain the integrity of the gospel he preached). Many scholars, including myself, detect a defensive tone in Paul’s self-description in 2:1–12. Paul felt the need to say that he was not deceitful, nor did he resort to trickery. He was not a flatterer, nor motivated by greed or popularity. He did not want their money and tried to remain blameless before them. In chapter three, he communicates his relief when he heard the report from Timothy that the Thessalonians remembered him fondly and wanted to see him (3:6).46

But why would Paul feel the need to defend his integrity? Perhaps, when he had to flee spontaneously at night (see Acts 17:10a), suspicions arose about Paul’s sudden disappearance. As Michael Holmes explains, Paul was concerned

that his behavior and that of his companions might be misunderstood—or, more likely, misrepresented—in a way that would call into question the validity and integrity of the gospel itself. Religious charlatans and frauds were a dime a dozen in the ancient world, and the way Paul and Silas slipped out of town in the middle of the night would have made it only too easy to pigeonhole them as just one more pair of rip-off artists out to scam people. From there it was only a short step to the conclusion that their message was no more truthful than they were, and thus the people might reject it along with them.47

Images and Themes in 1 Thessalonians

There is no denying that Paul loved using metaphors and images to help his churches understand their identity in God through Messiah.48 He loved to use word pictures to capture what it means to serve Messiah Jesus. His letters are peppered with dozens of metaphors, but we can easily identify three key “images” that dominate 1 Thessalonians in particular: family, cult, and military.49

Family

There is no more powerful and comprehensive metaphor used in 1 Thessalonians than that of the church as family. It is easily recognized, even from the first verse, that God is called Father (1:1; cf. 1:3; 3:11, 13). More striking than that, though, is the frequency with which Paul calls the Thessalonian believers brothers and sisters (adelphoi).50 The community of Messiah Jesus is more than a club of like-minded religious people. They belong together in the most intimate kind of relationship that can be conceived.51 So well-known did this image become of early Christianity that in the second century outsiders accused Christians of being incestuous because some were married who called each other brother and sister.52

Paul does not explain why he calls the Thessalonians “brothers and sisters,” but undoubtedly this would have been explained when he first taught them about their faith. Paul would have preached about the unique sonship of Messiah Jesus, Son of God, and that all may also become children of the one God through Jesus, Gentiles receiving the blessing of being included in the unique adoption of Israel (Rom 8:29; Gal 4:5; cf. Rom 9:4; Col 1:13; Eph 1:5).

For Paul, to be “brothers and sisters” through the Messiah is not merely a term of endearment, nor simply a theological construct; Paul expected the reality of this theological truth to create an intimate community. Beginning in 4:9, Paul addresses the matter of philadelphia—sibling-love. It was encoded into their corporate life to express this kind of kinship love and Paul commends them for this. He expected—and found—deep affection within this group.

As for Paul’s own relationship with the Thessalonians, part of his purpose in writing the letter, no doubt, is to underscore his love and affection for these suffering fellow-believers. Thus, when he calls them “brothers and sisters,” not only does this remind them that they are siblings to each other, but also that he is their brother through Jesus. Yet, he is not unwilling to mix metaphors, even familial ones! He also portrays himself in comparison to a mother tenderly nourishing her beloved (2:7) and also a father encouraging his children (2:11–12).53 When Paul writes about the pain he felt having to leave them prematurely, he says that “we were made orphans by being separated from you” (2:17). Only such a profound word-picture could convey the heartbreak he felt at being removed from their presence.54 For Paul, again, the church was not like a family, it was family.55

Cult

In 1 Thessalonians, the second key image from which Paul draws comes from the Jewish cult, particularly Jewish notions of holiness, purity, and sacrifice.56 The foundation for how Jews understood holiness comes from their idea of a holy God, a God who is all-powerful, perfect in all righteousness, and yet also perfect in love and mercy.57 When God brought Israel out of Egypt, he called them to be a holy nation (Exod 19:6), a people set apart for himself. Their way of life was meant to be in contrast to that of the sinful world, and also they were intended to display the true nature of their God.58 Holiness and purity were also important when it came to temple service and sacrifice. Priests must be consecrated, and part of their priestly service was to “distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean” (Lev 10:10). Very specific protocols existed for how things were to be done. Atoning animals offered in sacrifice must be without blemish (see Lev 1–9; Num 28–29). The same is used in the New Testament of Jesus, a lamb “without defect or blemish” (1 Peter 1:18); and, again, the same is used to characterize believers (Eph 5:27).

One of Paul’s favorite ways to refer to believers is “saints” or “holy people”—typically he begins his letters addressing his churches with this label (so 1 Cor 1:1–2). Though he does not use this title in 1 Thessalonians, he does refer several times to the importance of their becoming holy in view of the return of the Messiah (see 3:13; 5:23). In 4:3, he summarizes God’s will for them as hagiasmos, “consecration” (often translated “sanctification”). As James Thomson notes, while it would not have seemed strange to Gentiles to relate religion to purity or holiness, “Paul extends the sphere of holiness from the cult to include aspects of daily life, including sexual relationships.”59

Both of the two wish-prayers in 1 Thessalonians (3:13; 5:23) use holiness language in relation to the presentation of the Thessalonians before God at the return of Jesus, such that it is almost as if they will be offered as a living sacrifice then. Paul sees it as his pastoral duty to prepare this eschatological offering, and he is particularly anxious that this sacrifice is perfect. This would make sense in light of Rom 15:16 where Paul portrays himself as an apostle-priest responsible for the offering of the Gentiles such that they may be “acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.”60 Ultimately, Paul’s use of cult language (holiness, purity, sacrifice) has to do with his understanding that believers owe their whole life in dedication and service to the redeeming God. Paul’s emphasis on the day of reckoning in this letter is not meant as a threat (which would stand at cross-purposes with his desire to comfort them), but as an indicator of the will of the One who truly matters.

Military

Though it explicitly appears only briefly, mention should also be made of Paul’s use of a military image: “Since we belong to the day, let us be sober, and put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation” (5:8). Paul was clearly encouraging them to close ranks, as it were, and be vigilant in the face of opposition. Occasionally in his letters Paul did use war metaphors (Rom 13:12; 2 Cor 6:7; 10:4; cf. Eph 6:11–17). He wished to represent the present time as one of opposition against evil—hence his appeal to the Thessalonians needing to continue to live as people of day and light, not darkness and night. Roman soldiers were known for resoluteness and bravery, and their unswerving allegiance to the sovereign. So too the Thessalonians were called to be intrepid in the face of persecution and to war against darkness in service of the Lord Jesus. It should be emphasized, though, that while Paul may have drawn from Greco-Roman language of warfare,61 he did not endorse Rome’s way of bringing peace (i.e., through bloodshed). The “armor” he summons them to don is that of loyalty, love, and hope (5:8). Their “warfare” should not be characterized by violence, but nevertheless they should be on the offense in the mission of the gospel, and not simply on the defense. Their faith should carry the marks of resoluteness and fearlessness as God goes before them and empowers them. The Messiah has called them, no doubt, to a peace-keeping and peace-making mission, but it ought to be anything but passive.

Perhaps today some balk at the use of warfare language in relation to Christian theology and life, but Paul was not an especially macho or aggressive person. Rather, he was attuned to the reality of a cosmic war being waged against the forces of evil. When he writes to the Romans, he warns them about “what time it is.” It is almost time for the day to dawn, for the Messiah to return. However, that does not mean that it is time to sit back and wait for him to descend. Quite the opposite: “Let us then lay aside the works of darkness and put on the armor of light” (Rom 13:12). Waiting for the Parousia involves “active waiting,” readiness such that we are found doing the work of the kingdom when the Lord visits us unexpectedly. If we really believe we have a battle to win against evil, we will be all-the-more serious about making every moment count. That was a message Paul wanted the Thessalonians to learn well.

Along with the above key images in 1 Thessalonians, we can add a number of important themes: wrath and salvation, trust and work, hope and endurance, thanksgiving and joy, and—last but not least—love.

“Wrath” and Salvation

For some reason, the Thessalonians were particularly concerned with the end of the world. Certainly Paul taught them about things yet to come, but he would have wanted neither to instill fear nor paranoia. Still, in his first letter he did not shy away from talking about divine wrath. For Paul, wrath (orgē) was not about an unbridled divine fury that might break out at any time for any reason. Rather, the divine orgē was about God’s anger for justice, his disgust at a world spun out of control, and his passion for re-calibrating the world he created so that it lived according to the standards of equality and peace for which he originally made it.

Paul warned the Thessalonians of this impending judgment day, and instead of them fearing it, they could take heart that Jesus was the Rescuer and that they were not going to face the judgment of God’s justice-anger (1:10). They had the hope of a sure salvation (5:8) because God has made their position secure through Messiah Jesus (5:9). Instead, those who seek to do evil, to hinder the reconciling and redeeming gospel, will face wrath because they do not wish for all to know God’s salvation in Jesus.

Loyalty and Work

Another important theme in 1 Thessalonians involves pistis and ergon— “loyalty” and “work.” There has been an unfortunate tendency in Christian history in the past few centuries to make “faith” something opposed to “work,” but in 1 Thessalonians these words make a happy pair: “work of trust” (1 Thess 1:3). “Work” is the outworking of “trust.” Paul commends both. Their “trust” is known throughout Macedonia as they follow Jesus despite great opposition (1:8), and Paul was comforted by Timothy’s “good news” of their ongoing allegiance to the Messiah (3:6).62

First Thessalonians is most well-known by Christians, and even in scholarship, for Paul’s teaching about eschatological events. No doubt Paul gave attention to what is penultimate and ultimate. However, it is unfortunate that his Thessalonian letters are not equally known for Paul’s teaching on the importance—and even the goodness—of work. Paul reminds the Thessalonians of his work and toil as he made his own living while in town so as to prevent being a financial burden on any of them (2:9). We learn from 1 Corinthians that Paul knew the privileges extended to apostles to be free from manual labor so as to devote his full attention to preaching the gospel and equipping churches (see 1 Cor 9:6–7). Paul even goes so far as to say that the Lord Jesus commanded the apostles to take gifts from believers to support their daily needs—and Paul sometimes chose to “disobey” that command! But why? Why did Paul work? From his ministry in Thessalonica we learn that he wanted to stay above reproach when it came to money. So many con men paraded through town and took money from gullible locals. Paul wanted to protect the integrity of the gospel.

Another key point that Paul underscores is the importance of daily work in order to continue to be productive in the community and to care for any needs. Some lagged on their work, perhaps even began leeching off of wealthy, sympathetic fellow-believers. As generous as this might be, Paul wanted to encourage each person to be responsible and productive as they are able. Paul tells the Thessalonians to put their hands to good use, to focus on being a contributor to the community “so that you may command the respect of outsiders, and be dependent on nobody” (4:11–12). Raymond Collins offers a salutary reminder that Paul teaches us what it means to be human in his work.

How we work is a matter of imitating the example of the apostle Paul and his companions. Working is a way of being a responsible co-citizen within society. How we work is also a matter of responsible participation in the ongoing creation of God, whose own tale of creation is cast in the form of a story about someone at work (Gen 1).63

Hope and Endurance

This introduction began with a reflection on “hope” (elpis) as a central theme for 1–2 Thessalonians. I will only briefly touch upon this again. Paul mentions that he gives thanks for their “endurance of hope”—the perseverance and tenacious forward-march that is produced by a hunger to embrace God’s promised future. Interestingly, Paul says that his hope is the Thessalonians (2:19). How can he say this? Because he sees the power of God at work in their trust in God and believing allegiance to the Messiah, and he foresees God’s validation of his ministry work as God judges their lives. Paul’s hope wasn’t “blind.” He could see it in the lives of his children.

Paul was a bit fearful that they might lose their hope, having lost loved ones and beginning to lose their focus (4:13). Paul does not tell them to stop grieving. He does not tell them to “put on a happy face.” Grieve, yes. But grieve with hope. Grief with hope is lament without despair.

I am reminded of Hosea 6:1–3.

Come, let us return to the Lord; for it is he who has torn, and he will heal us; he has struck down, and he will bind us up. After two days he will revive us, on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him. Let us know, let us press on to know the Lord, his appealing is as sure as the dawn; he will come to us like the showers, like the spring rains that water the earth.

His appearing is a sure as the dawn. He will heal us. He will raise us up. Paul may have even been thinking about such verses when it came to the death of some beloved Thessalonians. Hope is walking in the light of the future dawn. Christian hope is anticipatory imagination. Christian hope is the capacity to actualize and embrace the power of God’s promised (and, thus, certain) future in the present through Jesus. Hope is less a wish and more a muscle that must be exercised (see Rom 5:3–5). And we exercise hope by enduring trust and hard work.

Thanksgiving and Joy

In light of the perilous ministry life that Paul endured, it is striking that his letters, not least 1 Thessalonians, are characterized by thanksgiving: he is thankful for his Thessalonians brothers and sisters who accepted the gospel with joy and faith (1:6; 2:13) and who show great resilience in affliction (1:2–3). Paul himself rejoiced in their life (2:19–20). They became a source of deep happiness for him (3:9). He passed on a ministry of thanksgiving to them as well (5:18).

Thanksgiving and joy require faith and hope. It is easy to wallow. It is convenient to complain. It is a discipline to release oneself from worldly comparison, from “keeping up with the Joneses,” and to learn to live a quiet life (4:11). Paul tells the Philippians, writing to them from prison, that he has learned how to be content; sometimes you have a little and sometimes you have more (Phil 4:11–12). He trained himself not to wager his joy on stuff so that he could always be thankful.

Love

I would be remiss not to include love (agapē) in the list of themes for 1 Thessalonians. This completes our discussion of the faith-hope-love triad, and it also represents well the emphasis Paul places on love as the deepest expression of true discipleship. Love, for Paul, is not mere sentimentality, nor a fleeting or occasional emotion. He basically commences the letter by reference to how love can inspire labor—we are most motivated to work hard on behalf of what we love (1:3). Reference to their steadfast love appears in 3:12. But I wish to focus on 4:9–10. Here Paul reminds them of how they should love one another like family (philadelphia—“sibling love”). David deSilva offers a nice, succinct illustration of what this kind of sibling love looks like: “Rather than insisting on having one’s own way at the cost of a brother or sister’s well-being, the loving sibling will forgo his or her rights in order to safeguard the well-being of the other.”64

At the end of 1 Thessalonians, Paul offers a few instructions to the Thessalonians, one of which especially captures his understanding of love—dedicate yourself to caring for the weak (5:14). In the competitive Greco-Roman world it only paid off to help those who can help you. Paul radically cuts through this quid pro quo mentality to focus on cruciform love, a kind of pure generosity that places an interest and care on the other. The Messiah would, of course, have served for Paul as the prime model (see Rom 15:3)—just as Matthew points to the fulfillment of Isa 53:4, “He took our weaknesses and carried our diseases” (Matt 8:17 NET). To care for the weak (1 Thess 5:14) is to live out the ministry of love demonstrated by Jesus.

2 Thessalonians: The Story Continues65

First and Second Thessalonians is not the only example of a set of texts written to the same church. We have two letters that Paul wrote to the Corinthians, for example. However, those Corinthian letters are quite different, dealing with a separate (though not unrelated) set of problems. The challenge we face with 2 Thessalonians, in relationship to 1 Thessalonians, is that these two letters are very similar. Also, we do not have further information (e.g., from Acts) to fill the modern reader in on what happened after 1 Thessalonians. Again, we are left to read 2 Thessalonians and try to guess how the story continued after the first letter. At the very least we can say confidently that things did not get better for the Thessalonians after Paul’s first letter; rather, they worsened.66 It appears that they are experiencing even more persecution. Furthermore, they appear to need teaching on how things will happen and turn out at the Lord’s impending intervention. David deSilva summarizes aptly the probable situation that gave rise to this second letter to the Thessalonians.

The believers had made some positive progress in the direction that 1 Thessalonians has urged them, as Paul affirms their growing mutual love and the steadfastness of their faith. Relationships with the community are sufficiently strong and have become sufficiently primary for most members that Paul believes the Christians can now use shaming and shunning within the group to reinforce certain believers (2 Thess 3:14–15). Nevertheless, the pressures from outside the group continue to demand Paul’s attention—he continues to encourage the Christians to resist that pressure.

A second issue revolves around a misunderstanding of Christian eschatology, thinking that “the Day of the Lord has arrived” (2 Thess 2:2). Indeed, it is possible that such a misunderstanding arose from the discussion of 1 Thess 5:1–11 and perhaps from some glossing of the copy or copies of that letter circulating among the other house churches in Thessalonica. Finally, the “idle” or “disorderly” (ataktoi) of 1 Thess 5:14 emerge here as a more evident problem requiring the believers’ direct intervention (2 Thess 3:6–15).67

Persecution

In the first letter, Paul takes the role of comforter and encourager to those Thessalonians who face opposition. In the second letter, Paul’s tone is more serious, and he emphasizes not only future relief for these beleaguered believers, but also inevitable judgment upon the persecutors.68

Eschatology

The second chapter of 2 Thessalonians appears to comprise the main teaching that Paul wanted to pass on. Apparently somehow the Thessalonians came to believe that the “Day of the Lord” arrived.

As to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we beg you, brothers and sisters, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the Day of the Lord is already here. (2 Thess 2:1–2)

Paul’s reference here to being taught (spirit/word/letter) about the arrival of the Day of the Lord appears to imply that some group was impressing this notion on them—further evidenced by his next warning that they be deceived by no one (2:3). Who would have taught them this is unclear.

Traditionally, scholars have assumed that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians to correct a misunderstanding of his earlier instruction that the Day of the Lord will come suddenly (cf. 1 Thess 5:2). Here in 2 Thessalonians, according to this view, the Thessalonians “can relax because the apocalyptic signs that must precede the coming of that day have not yet occurred, namely, the apostasy, the appearance of the lawless one or son of perdition who is anti-God, and the activity of Satan with portended signs and wonders.”69 However, 2 Thessalonians does not offer a point-by-point timeline of eschatological events. There is a bigger concern at work in this text.

My own hunch is that the same Jews that persecuted the Thessalonians somehow convinced them that the “Day of the Lord” has dawned—not completely, but insofar as the traumatic events experienced in their community (e.g., deaths) are evidence of divine displeasure.70 Perhaps their message to the Thessalonian believers was this: We are beginning to see the wrath of God, repent and return to our community. It may not be too late. If this is the case, Paul’s letter carries the urgent task of re-establishing their identity in the community of Jesus and that the Thessalonians are safe and secure in Messiah Jesus alone.

In the central section of 2 Thess 2:1–12, Paul’s main points about eschatological events are these:

• Things will get much worse before they will get better—expect a great “rebellion” among those who claim to know God (2:3)

• There will be a great enemy that is characterized by disobedience to God (the Lawless One) (2:3–4); he serves under Satan and will deceive others through miracles (2:9–10)

• God has allowed there to be a “restrainer” to hold back the Lawless One (2:6–8)

• Despite how harrowing these happenings will be, the Lord Jesus will destroy the Lawless One effortlessly when he returns (2:8)

There are some similarities between Paul’s teaching here and Jesus’ eschatological discourse in Matthew 24. Jesus explains that deceivers will come (24:4–5), wars and disasters will multiply (24:6–8), persecution will intensify (24:9), apostasy and betrayal will mar the church (24:10), false prophets will mislead (24:11), lawlessness will corrupt love (24:12)—but the one who endures to the end will be saved (24:13).

So also Paul says: We are thankful for you, beloved Thessalonians, because you are the “first-fruits” of Thessalonica, and you have held fast to the truth. Glory will come. Stand firm (2:13–15). Paul narrates the future, not to assuage curiosities, nor even to diffuse panic, but to demonstrate the losing side is going to lose—not because it is weaker per se, but because ultimately it is lawless and wicked. If the Thessalonians have become confused about which side to stand on to survive the coming wrath, Paul offers an important clue—follow the obedient and righteous ones.

(No) Work

A third important issue that Paul handles is that of a group he calls the “idle troublemakers” (3:6–12). Already in 1 Thessalonians he warns the idle (1 Thess 5:14), but in this letter the problem with them seems to have worsened such that his rebuke is stern. It is possible that, in a state of emergency and discernment in the church in light of what seems like apocalyptic signs, some local leaders “dubbed” themselves spiritual leaders (perhaps imitating the authority of Paul). They are rebellious insofar as they undermine the community life by being mere “busybodies”—people who meddle and pontificate, but get nothing done (2 Thess 3:11). They disrupt the productive, daily life of the community and they ignore the teachings Paul passed on to the Thessalonians.

Paul seeks to distance himself and the church from these troublemakers by first pointing out his own habit of working for a living. Paul did not expect the church to feed him, so these idle men should not. Paul toiled day and night, even though he had the “right” to receive material benefits from them (3:9). Still, he wanted to model the principle, “Those unwilling to work will not get to eat” (3:10 NLT). Paul wanted to underscore the value of good, honest work, self-reliability. It is not that people should ignore the needs of others—after all, he wrote in his earlier letter that they should devote themselves to the weak, no doubt feeding them if need be (1 Thess 5:14). The focus here is on those who refuse to work, not those who cannot work.

Ultimately, though, even though some believers were acting in a rebellious manner, Paul makes it a point to say that, though they ought to be “shamed” (3:14), they should not be treated as enemies, but rather as erring brothers (3:15).

Themes of 2 Thessalonians

Many of the themes that appear in 1 Thessalonians also can be found in 2 Thessalonians (e.g., faith/trust, love, salvation), but here we will focus on two key themes particularly distinctive to 2 Thessalonians.

Dignity and Honor71

At some point and for some reason, the Thessalonians were doubting their sense worth and dignity. In the Greco-Roman world, the social value of honor was the most important capital. Paul spends ample time in 2 Thessalonians reminding them that, despite all the goings-on in their community in recent days, they are people of worth and value before God. Paul can give thanks for their faith and love because it is right to do so (1:3). He can boast in them, they are acting with honor before God (1:4). Their suffering is not a sign of shame—quite the contrary. In fact, through this suffering, paradoxically, they are being made worthy of the kingdom of God (1:5). They can look forward, not to rejection and destruction, but rather to glorification when the Messiah returns (1:12; 2:14).

It is all too easy to seek out self-value from society, and when the going gets rough, it’s more comfortable to go with the grain of culture. The Thessalonians struggled with the pressures coming from those around them, unhappy with resistance to their new faith. Paul was trying to enlarge their vision to see how what they are doing—in loving and caring for one another and others despite this opposition—was adding to their future glory and that they would be vindicated and honored in the end.

Justice and Peace

Related to the concern about dignity, Paul also seeks to handle the inevitable question that comes to those who suffer—is God fair (theodicy)? Can God be trusted to do what it right? Why does he keep silent and invisible? What have I done such that he won’t rescue me?

Paul responds to the Thessalonians’ suffering by pointing to a future hope—God will rebalance the world at the right time. While it is difficult to wait for that right time, it is sure and he can be trusted to work it all out.72 Suffering and wrath are not ultimate things, they are penultimate things. I would like to echo here the point Michael Gorman makes in relation to judgment language in the book of Revelation:

Revelation’s visions of judgment symbolize God’s penultimate (next-to-last) rather than ultimate (final) activity in human history. That is, judgment is a means to an end; the goal being eschatological salvation, the creation of a new heaven and new earth in which humanity realizes its true raison d’etre as reconciled peoples flourishing together in the presence of God and the Lamb.73

Much the same could be said of 2 Thessalonians. All the apocalyptic turmoil that Paul prescribes is far from the end-vision of salvation and God’s redeeming justice. Despite what looks like eschatological chaos, the ultimate hope is harmony. Thus, Justice in 2 Thessalonians should be joined by his brother Peace.74 Paul’s ultimate interest in peace (eirēnē) is demonstrated in how he ends this letter: “Now may the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times in all ways. The Lord be with all of you.” Peace is not only what will exist in the end, when the apocalyptic dust has settled. Believers can embody and live out lives of peace-making and peace-keeping now.75

Who Wrote 2 Thessalonians?

In the above examination of 2 Thessalonians, we have taken for granted that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians. However, especially since the early twentieth century, scholars have wondered whether Paul wrote it, or it was written by someone else in his name (i.e., pseudonymous).76 For most of the twentieth century, more and more scholars accepted the arguments for 2 Thessalonians being pseudonymous. The reasons for this are many and vary somewhat from one scholar to the next, but these features tend to be raised when 2 Thessalonians’ authenticity is questioned: copycat, style, historical implausibility, tone, pseudonymous “tells,” and theological differences.77

Against Pauline Authorship

Copycat

A first, and perhaps the most decisive, reason that some scholars believe 2 Thessalonians is pseudonymous is its relationship to 1 Thessalonians, in particular how similar it is.78 Edgar Krentz points to several identical (or nearly-identical) features: identical salutations (1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1), both have long thanksgivings, both include a second thanksgiving in the middle of the letter (1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:13), both have letter bodies which close with “a request to God expressed by a volitive optative.”79 Both letters also ask the “God/Lord of peace” to do something (1 Thess 5:23–24; 2 Thess 3:16). Additionally, both letters use the same rare word kateuthynai, although in different contexts (1 Thess 3:11; 2 Thess 3:16). Krentz’s point here is not to show similarities, but rather what seems like copying or a conscious dependence on the first letter. This leads to the natural question, “Why would Paul copy himself in this almost mechanical way?”80 The implication is that Paul would have no need to copy himself, but this is the kind of thing that a pseudonymous writer would do, having 1 Thessalonians in his possession and wanting to create another letter that appears Pauline.81

Style

Every writer has his or her own writing personality or style. One person (today) says “you know?” at the end of a sentence, while another says “you know what I mean?” Some scholars, examining the “styles” of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, note a difference.82 Second Thessalonians employs certain turns of phrases (such as “good hope” and “eternal comfort”) that don’t resonate with the style of Paul’s other undisputed letters (like 1 Thessalonians, but also Galatians, Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Philippians, and Philemon).83 Another possible difference in style is the author of 2 Thessalonians’ preference for longer and more complex sentences.84 Christina Kreinecker has argued recently that 2 Thessalonians diverges from 1 Thessalonians in the way that the author makes requests (using the verbs erōtaō and parangelō).85

Historical Implausibility

A third matter involves the discovery of features of a text that simply do not fit into the timeline of a historical Paul. For example, some scholars have noted the two appeals to “tradition” in 2 Thessalonians (2:15; 3:6)—is this not language that is indicative of a more developed age of Christianity, rather than something Paul would have appealed to in AD 51–52?86

Another issue that has raised questions about historical plausibility is the way that the Lawless One is portrayed in 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12 as what appears to be Nero back from the dead (hence, Nero redivivus). Some scholars argue that if this Lawless One is a return of Nero, then the author of 2 Thessalonians must have already thought Nero was dead—and he died in AD 68, a time too late to fit into Paul’s ministry to the Thessalonians.

Tone

Several scholars have raised the issue of the difference in tone between 1 and 2 Thessalonians. It appears that the tone of 2 Thessalonians is impersonal and formal, while that of 1 Thessalonians is more affectionate and intimate.87 The difference is so stark that it seems to some that this is probably not the same Paul.

Pseudonymous “Tells”

Perhaps one of the most important arguments made by those who do not think Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians is that the text features elements that seem like a pseudonymous “tells” or giveaways. The best example of this is 2 Thess 3:17 where the author directly states: “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the mark in every letter of mine; it is the way I write.” Could this be a pseudonymous writer trying too hard to present himself as Paul? As Krentz facetiously comments: “The author of 2 Thessalonians doth protest too much, methinks.”88

Theological Differences

A final matter in this debate specifically relates to theological divergences in 2 Thessalonians compared to 1 Thessalonians. As this argument goes, in 1 Thessalonians, Paul’s eschatological emphasis is on the soon-coming return of Jesus. However, in 2 Thessalonians the point is the opposite. Linda McKinnish Bridges offers this summary of how 2 Thessalonians is different: “The motion slows; the action shifts into low gear. The author of 2 Thessalonians states that a series of selected events must first take place before the end. The list is long, systematic, and highly descriptive, using stock imagery from the world of apocalyptic language.” She summarizes, “In 1 Thessalonians the end is near. In 2 Thessalonians, however, the end is way out of sight!”89

To be fair, among those Pauline letters that scholars consider pseudonymous or deutero-pauline (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1–2 Timothy, Titus), it is harder to make the case for 2 Thessalonians than, for example, 1 Timothy.90 The case made against the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians does not rely on any silver bullet, but rather on cumulative evidence. Now we turn to responses to the above arguments for pseudonymity as well as other factors that offer support for authenticity.

Defending Pauline Authorship

What can we say in response to the copycat or mimicking dynamics of 2 Thessalonians in comparison to 1 Thessalonians? Leon Morris sees the dependence as a point in favor of authenticity—it is as equally likely that 2 Thessalonians is “Paul being Paul” (so to speak) as it is that it was someone else copying him.91 Howard Marshall adds that the high level of structural similarity between the two letters could be explained by the short time between Paul’s writing.92 Gordon Fee offers his own point that, though some structural elements are the same, the way that structure is filled is different. The pseudepigrapher would have been simultaneously working in a dependent way (borrowing skeletal features of 1 Thessalonians) and a creative way (introducing his own ideas and arguments).93 While the “copycat” nature of 2 Thessalonians is admittedly noticeable, it is very difficult to determine what this means for the nature of its authenticity. The arguments based on style fall prey to the same methodological criticism.94 Analysis of the style of 2 Thessalonians is simply inconclusive. Andrew Pitts has recently investigated its style based on insights from linguistics and especially in light of “register influences.”95

The matter of historical implausibility is potentially more significant, but the two issues often raised (appeal to “tradition” and the Lawless One as Nero) can be otherwise explained within Paul’s ministry to the Thessalonians. Paul does mention what he previously taught them several times in 1 Thessalonians (3:4; 5:1–2), and he uses the specific language of “tradition” in 1 Cor 11:2 (cf. Rom 6:17; 16:17). On the matter of Nero redivivus, if a pseudepigrapher were writing after AD 70, Marshall believes it unlikely that the author would refer to this Lawless One setting himself up in the temple (since the Jewish temple was destroyed in 70; see 2 Thess 2:4).96

What about the tone of 2 Thessalonians (as more cold and authoritarian)? Abraham Malherbe defuses this concern aptly:

[I]t needs to be stated that it is fundamentally wrong to compare the language of the two letters in this way. The investigation is shaped by the question of pseudonymity, which means that differences are concentrated on and their significance is exaggerated. There is either no, or at the most insufficient, attention given to how the changes in the situation in Thessalonica may have caused Paul to consciously adopt a different style at points to achieve his present goal, into the one he had when he wrote 1 Thessalonians. All Paul’s letters, after all, have their peculiarities.97

As for 2 Thess 3:17 as a pseudonymous “tell,” the possible scenarios that would give rise for a pseudepigrapher to make such a statement are hard to imagine. The pseudepigrapher would have to be relying on 1 Corinthians 16:21 where Paul also announces, “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand.” How did the pseudepigrapher come to have 1 Corinthians in his possession, and then what would possess him to write a pseudonymous letter to the Thessalonians? If he had a collection of Pauline letters, he would be writing in the second century or later. Aside from the question about why he would write a letter with such specific details to Thessalonica (dealing with issues that would have related to the community in the middle of the first century), there is also the matter of why the pseudepigrapher would make the claim that this is how Paul writes in all his letters (2 Thess 3:17), when knowledge of a wider collection would not demonstrate this.98

The last area of “theological differences” is also not a serious obstacle in view of authenticity. Only a simplistic view of Paul’s theology and how he engages in nuanced ways with churches dealing with various problems can eliminate Paul from the equation of the authorship of 2 Thessalonians. Leon Morris points out that it is rather common for writers with an apocalyptic worldview to “hold to the two ideas of suddenness and the appearance of preparatory signs.”99 John Barclay perhaps says it best:

Apocalypticists are notoriously slippery characters. Many apocalyptic works present conflicting scenarios of the end and inconsistent theses concerning signs of its imminence. That Paul should write both of these apocalyptic passages, and do so within a short space of time, is by no means impossible; why should his apocalyptic statements be any more consistent than his varied remarks about the law?100

Conclusion on Authorship

Despite the surge of popularity in favor of the vote for pseudonymity in the early and middle twentieth century, confidence in this decision has largely waned in the UK and North America.101 Probably many are like me: agnostic.102 I have lost confidence that we have the tools and the samples sufficient to render a judgment of “not written by Paul” on texts like 2 Thessalonians and Colossians. My assumption of authenticity is not borne out of 100 percent confidence, but rather in a lack of persuasive evidence to the contrary. I follow the guidance of Markus Barth in his evaluation of the authenticity of Colossians: in dubio pro reo—“when in doubt, side with the accused” (or as we sometimes say, “innocent until proven guilty”). Those who argue from pseudonymity may have “rescued” Paul from inconsistencies, but they insufficiently explain why someone would write such a letter, in Paul’s name, to one specific church, about issues that relate to 1 Thessalonians and very particular problems there, repeating the first letter quite closely in some ways, and yet obviously wanting to say something new.103 Unless these issues can be resolved, it seems to me to be the most sensible option to attempt to understand the letter as it is written, Paul to the Thessalonians.

1. See Geertz 1973.

2. Later in the commentary we will demonstrate that Paul was likely influenced in his thinking on this matter by the story that Jesus tells in Mark 13:34–37. Even though 1 Thessalonians was undoubtedly written before Mark, Paul probably knew of this kind of Jesus tradition. For a case made that Paul was especially drawing from the Jesus tradition linked to Matthew 24 (more specifically), see Shogren 2012: 31–37; cf. Rigaux 1956: 98–101.

3. See Diogenes 1853: 18.

4. Nigdelis 2015: 2.

5. See Smith 2004: 57.

6. Nigdelis 2015: 4.

7. See Harris 2013: 270.

8. Donfried 2002: 35.

9. Palatine Anthology 4.228.

10. While it was once common for scholars to assume the prominence of this cult in Paul’s time, this is now questioned; see Pillar 2013: 103–5.

11. Some scholars question the historicity of Acts and, thus, its relevance for reconstructing Paul’s experience there. However, this commentary follows the lead of a number of scholars who accept the general accounts of Luke’s narrative understanding that, while he had his own theological interests, he was still intending to convey the history of the earliest church. See Keener 2012.

12. Luke does mention certain Thessalonian believers who cross paths with Paul, namely, Aristarchus and Secundus (20:4; cf. 27:2).

13. See Dunn 2009: 560–61; Runesson et al. 2008: 121.

14. See especially Ascough 2003: 202–3.

15. See Gaventa 1998: 20; Ascough 2015: 9. Richard Ascough argues that Luke’s account in Acts 17 about the first converts to Christianity in Thessalonica being Jews and god-fearers cannot be harmonized with the impression from 1 Thessalonians. He explains: “The natural understanding of this text is that these initial adherents in Thessalonike were not Jewish or even Jewish sympathizers. They were, in fact, non-Jews who worshipped one or more of the many deities in the Greek and Roman pantheon, if not also a few local gods alongside them. The Thessalonian Christ group is thus a Gentile group at its core” (9).

16. Still 1999: 70–71.

17. See Cohick 2009: 187. Bruce Winter also notes a mid-first century AD inscription in honor of the civic patroness Junia Theodora of Corinth; see Winter 1994: 46.

18. See Nestor 2012: 64–65; cf. Witherington 2006: 43.

19. Boring 2012: 210.

20. See Ascough 2000: 311–28; 2003: 186-90; 2010: 53.

21. See Ascough 2003: 186.

22. One commentator of which I am aware, Linda M. Bridges, has taken up Ascough’s proposal and integrated this theory into her commentary; see Bridges 2008.

23. Trozzo 2012: 41.

24. Trozzo points out that Paul’s associate Priscilla herself was a female tent-maker (p. 42), perhaps even co-participant in a guild with her husband Aquila; see Keller 2010: 3; see also Johnson 1992: 322.

25. Trozzo 2012: 43.

26. Johnson-DeBaufre 2010: 99.

27. Johnson-DeBaufre 2010: 100.

28. See Trebilco 2012: 24–25; Horrell 2001: 299–303; Horrell 2005a: 406.

29. Marshall 1984: 4; in relation especially to gleaning from Acts 17:1–10a.

30. For methodology on historical reconstruction, see Barclay 1987; Gupta 2012.

31. Esler 2001: 1200; see also Barclay 1993: 512–30.

32. See Johnson 1999: 282.

33. So Barclay 1993: 514; cf. Witherington 2006: 37

34. On the meaning of symphyletēs in Paul’s time, see Taylor 2002: 784–801. Taylor explains that, while symphyletēs once carried the meaning of blood relation (i.e., ethnic association), it eventually expanded in meaning to cover administrative, military, and political connections. Those who work with a narrower (ethnic) meaning for symphyletēs, Taylor urges, are drawing from a very limited pool of occurrences.

35. See Donfried 2002: 200–206.

36. So Wanamaker: “Such a remark [in 1 Thess 1:9] would seem inappropriate if the majority of his Gentile converts had already turned their backs on pagan religious practices by affiliating with the Jewish synagogue” (1990: 7).

37. Fredriksen 2015: 183–84. Furthermore, Fredriksen notes: “this shifting synagogue population of interested outsiders would have provided Paul with the bulk of his target audience: active pagans who were nonetheless interested to some degree in the Jewish god, and who had some sort of familiarity, through listening, with the Bible” (again 184–85); see also Dunn 2009: 563.

38. Cohen 2006: 47; see also Cohen 1999: 171.

39. E.g., Witherington 2006: 49; cf. Wanamaker 1990: 7.

40. See E. Johnson 2012: 144–45.

41. F. Matera argues much the same for how Paul identifies the Philippian church; see Matera 1999: 122; cf. Cambell 2006: 59–60; cf. Richardson 1969: 200.

42. See Malina 2003: 359.

43. See esp LXX Neh 10:1; also Josephus Ant. Passim.

44. I believe the translation “faith” is best justified when Paul clearly appears to be using pistis in reference to trust that goes against natural senses, “believing the unbelievable,” so to speak; see 2 Cor 5:7. For similar argumentation regarding the best translation of pistis in 1–2 Thessalonians, see Andy Johnson 2016, forthcoming on pistis in 1:3.

45. See Pobee 1985: 114; Donfried 1997: 221–23; Witherington 2006: 139; L. T. Johnson 1999: 285, Donfried and Marshall 1993: 28, and Gorman 2004: 150 are open to this possibility as well; see also Gorman 2015.

46. For a discussion of the scholarly debate related to whether Paul was being defensive or not in 2:1–12, see 50–52.

47. Holmes 1998: 22.

48. See Williams 1999; Collins 2008; Gupta 2010.

49. It should go without saying that Paul used the rich imagery of the identity of Israel (beloved, chosen, etc.) to describe these Thessalonian Gentile believers; see above 12–13.

50. The Greek word adelphos (brother) appears almost twenty times in this one short letter (1:4; 2:1, 9, 14, 17; 2:14, 17; 3:2, 7; 4:1, 6, 10 [x2], 13; 5:1, 4, 12, 14, 25–27). Compare this to Galatians where adelphos appears only four times (Gal 5:11, 13; 6:1, 18, 21, 23).

51. Note how Joseph Hellerman explains that in the Roman world the sibling relationship was the strongest relationship in existence, even stronger than husband-wife or parent-child. Hellerman argues that one entailment of making this theological siblingship association would be that fellow believers would not fight for honor against each other, because siblings do not compete with each other for honor (see Hellerman 2009: 15–25).

52. Beattie 2005: 118.

53. On the motherly image of Paul in his letters, see Gaventa 2007: 3–78; specifically on 1 Thessalonians 2:7, see McNeel 2014: 123–74.

54. See Collins 2008: 18–19; cf. Burke 2003: 135.

55. See Banks 1994: 47–57.

56. See Gupta 2010: 40–42.

57. See Psalm 77.

58. See Goheen 2011: 193: “The lives of the people of Israel look backward to creation; they embody God’s original creational design for the whole of human life. Their lives look forward to the consummation: they are a sign of the goal to which God is taking redemptive history. . . . Their lives are to face outward to the nations; they are to be a contrast community, leading lives that differ from those of the peoples around them. Israel is to challenge the cultural idolatry of the surrounding nations while embracing the cultural gifts God has given it.” This is a nice vision of the fullness of what it meant for the people to be “holy” as a covenantal obligation.

59. Thompson 2011: 72; see also Harrington 2001: 197.

60. See Gupta 2010: 130–32, cf. 155–71.

61. See Krentz 2003: 344–83.

62. On the meaning of pistis in 1 Thessalonians, see above 10–13.

63. Collins 1996: 96.

64. deSilva 2001: 83.

65. Some scholars doubt that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians. Here we operate under the assumption that Paul did write 2 Thessalonians, and a discussion of authorship issues appears at the end of the introduction under the title: “Who Wrote 2 Thessalonians?” (pp. 30–37).

66. Most scholars who hold that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians argue that the second letter must have been written not long after the first; it must have been written before Paul’s visit narrated in Acts 20; see Morris 1975: 30.

67. deSilva 2001: 543.

68. See Marshall 1984: 23; Fee 2009: 241.

69. Brown 1997: 590.

70. John Barclay points to the years 51–52, according to Tacitus, as “particularly ill omened, with prodigies such as repeated earthquakes and a famine.” This may have led the Thessalonians to believe that the Day of the Lord had dawned. But Barclay adds this caveat: “it is not necessary to rely on this precarious, though tantalizing, connection. A fevered apocalyptic imagination can interpret almost any unusual event as an eschatological moment, and divine wrath can explain many types of calamities.” See Barclay 1993: 527–28.

71. See Carter 2010: 282–99, esp. 292–93.

72. See Johnson 1999: 289; also Krentz 1991: 54.

73. Gorman 2011: 138–39.

74. Bassler 1991: 71–85; see also Swartley; Gorman 2015: 142–211.

75. Again, see especially Gorman 2015: 142–211.

76. In 1798, J. E. C. Schmidt argued that, while 2 Thessalonians was probably written by Paul, the section 2:1–12 was a later insertion into the text by a separate writer. In 1903, W. Wrede made a more comprehensive case for 2 Thessalonians being pseudonymous; for an insightful, though brief, discussion of the history of scholarship on the authorship of 2 Thessalonians, see Thiselton 2011: 11–15.

77. It is sometimes noted that 2 Thessalonians includes vocabulary unusual for Paul, but this kind of argument has largely been debunked for two reasons; firstly, each extant letter of Paul contains its own set of distinctive vocabulary based on the specific subjects of that letter in its context; second, we are simply dealing with too small of a sample of Paul’s writings to decide what kind of words count as “unpauline.” Even those who are certain that Paul did not write 2 Thessalonians admit that the study of the vocabulary of this text contributes little to the debate; see Krentz 2009: 444; Menken 1994: 32: “There is a more or less general agreement that, from the point of vocabulary, 2 Thessalonians is no less Pauline than the recognized letters.”

78. So Menken 1994: “This literary dependence is the decisive argument against Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians” (40); see also Boring 2015: 212.

79. Krentz 1992: 6.518.

80. The question is raised by Raymond Brown, 1997: 592. Other scholars who point to this phenomenon as an indicator of pseudonymous dependence include Richard 1995: 21; Esler 2001: 1213.

81. So Bailey reasons: “it is impossible to conceive of a man as creative as Paul drawing upon his own previous letter in such an unimaginative way” (1978–1979: 136); as cited in Still 1999: 51.

82. See Boring 2015: 215–17.

83. See Richard 1995: 22.

84. See Brown 1997: 493.

85. See Kreinecker 2013: 197–220.

86. See Brown 1997: 594.

87. See Furnish 2007: 132; Bridges 2008: 195.

88. Krentz 2009: 469; cf. Collins 1988: 223. Some scholars also think we see an undermining of 1 Thessalonians itself by the so-called pseudonymous author of 2 Thessalonians when he refers to a false letter “as though from us”—some surmise that in this case 2 Thessalonians was possibly written to reject 1 Thessalonians.

89. Bridges 2008: 196.

90. Roose, though, explains that “German scholars almost unanimously view 2 Thessalonians as a pseudepigraph”; see 2006: 109n6.

91. Morris 1975: 23.

92. Marshall 1984: 30–31. G. Beale goes one step further by suggesting that Paul drew heavily from 1 Thessalonians as a conscious strategy: “Could this not be the case especially if he were trying to get them to recall the content of the first letter?” See Beale 2003: 31.

93. Fee 2009: 239.

94. See Marshall 1984: 32.