-- Essays and Articles --
PART3: INTRO TO THESSALONIANS
17. Paul's Travel's Before the Greek Mission
PART3: INTRO TO THESSALONIANS
17. Paul's Travel's Before the Greek Mission
If Paul was born somewhere near Damascus in about 1OCE, he may have begun his travels during his late-teens, around the time Jesus began his three year public ministry. He probably settled in Damascus because it was for him an ideal location for a home-base; being a major 'polis' not too far from the coast, and near the northern border of PaLestine (thus allowing for easy access to both Judea and Asia Minor). Now Paul's movements suggest that he was always slow and deliberate about his travels; so it is possible that by the time of the Crucifixion (c.33CE), when Paul was in his mid-twenties or so, he had already explored a large part of the long eastern coastline of the Great Sea streching from Caesarea to Ephesus, but not much in the way of regions beyond. This more or less constant movement could also explain how Paul apparently missed the public ministry, and the immediate aftermath of the Resurrection.
In any case, Paul was probably back in Damascus when he made first contact with the new Messiah sect. As a more or less 'orthodox' Hellenistic Pharisee, Paul's initial reaction was in full agreement with his zealous colleagues in the synagogue in judging the Jesus-movement a threat to the main pillars of second Temple Judaism. In that regard, Paul would have aided the synagogue in its efforts to resist the unwanted 'followers of Jesus' in Damascus. In due course, it may have been decided to send Paul to Jerusalem to investigate the problem at its source, and perhaps to help with the efforts there. If Paul came to Jerusalem in c.36CE, it would have been just in time to witness Stephen's public preaching, and the violent response it elicited.
Indeed, Paul was so shaken by these events, that he willingly left Palestine and his former life behind him. Going to Alexandria with some of his new friends, he must have helped them to establish a new church in the large Jewish community there. Once he realized that this type of work was precisely what the Lord was calling him to do, it was only a matter of time before he returned home to Damascus to carry on the good work there. The hostility of the authorities in that city is strong testimony to the effectiveness of Paul's preaching there.After his dramatic basket-escape in the night, he moved his base of operations to Antioch, and helped with that church's missionary efforts for a time, before striking out on his own. Given the nature of the events in Jerusalem and Antioch around 48-50, it seems inevitable that Paul would take the mission beyond its current boundaries which already included NE Africa, Palestine, and Asia Minor. For Paul this meant crossing the Aegean Sea to the West; into the very heartland of Gentile territory, deep into thc pagan soul of the Empire as manifested in the Greek 'polis' (especially Athens!).
18. Who Was Silvanus?.
Such a mission was an awesome prospect, even for Paul, and so he was only too glad to share the weight of it with two like-minded disciples: Silvanus and Timothy. Indeed, once he decided to head into Greece/Macedonia, Paul would naturally accept whatever help the church of Antioch had to offer. Of course, Timothy would accompany Paul because he had already proved to be indispensible; but the choice of Silvanus as a missionary partner and fellow apostle was very significant. Goulder rightly supposes "that Silas was not a hard-liner, or Paul could not have taken him for a colleague" (95); but he soon deflates the force of this observation by suggesting that the choice fell to Silvanus because he was a trusted member of the Jerusalem Church, and "the Jerusalem emmissaries may have insisted on having one of their men go on mission with him and keep an eye on him" (102).Knowing Paul as we do, it hardly seems feasable that he would ever submit to such an indignity. Moreover, all the evidence in Paul suggests that Silvanus was a member of the Antioch community. But Goulder prefers to think of him as a Jerusalem prophet sent to Antioch, because this would easily account for the so-called 'Jerusalem theology' traced to the preaching of Silvanus: eg. "the Kingdom which has arrived, the call to cease work, the demand for a higher sexual righteousness, the immortality of the believer, the full requirement of the Law" (105). But since both Paul and Silvanus come from within the Jewish-Hellenist Christian tradition, it is far more plausible that although Silvanus was indeed more conservative and traditional than Paul, the 'Jerusalen theology' could not have gone out unmodified after its dispersion from Judea. In fact, it appears that the Aramaic theology was slower to develop than the more dynamic Jewish-Hellenist thinking.
[Note: Early Jewish-Hellenist Christian Christology had a fourfold emphasis that was (in some respects) unique. For example, Stephen's Christology (as in Acts) included the following elements: 'a prophet like unto Moses (ie. a super-prophet); the Righteous One (ie. the pre-Ascension man among men); the Son of Man (ie. the coming eschatological Judge); and the Lord Jesus (ie. the exalted Christ).]
Nevertheless, Goulder is surely right in maintaining that the "rift in the lute" was due to the "doctrinal divisions" that emerged in the course of the Macedonian mission (104). Oddly enough, Gouldor then goes on to suggest that "Paul browbeat him into joining in the two Thessalonian letters; but after a while Silas had had enough", and presumably up and quit the mission for greener pastures (104). We suggest that Goulder misreads the particulars of the mission because of his heavy reliance on Lukan 'evidence' (as the use of 'Silas' clearly indicates). Since the four Thessalonian letters were composed in both Athens and Corinth over a period of about two years, neither man had to browbeat the other about the value of the letters. This point is even more obvious if we accept that both men fully participated in the development of these earliest NT epistles! Indeed, it is more than possible that the actual writer/scribe who initiated the letter writing campaign, and did most of the actual writing (except for the brief pauline insertions) was Silvanus. [However, this is certainly not to suggest that Paul was not responsible for much of the thinking and theology therein (especially in Letter D).]
Goulder is the one scholar who most resembles our way of thinking about the Thessalonian letters. The two main points of agreement are the admittance of 2Thessalonians as authentic, and the recognition of the importance of Silvanus in the process of their composition. The differences between us are due basically, I think, to his unfortunate use of Acts as prime source material. And although he recognizes that sclaolarty opinion about the ThessaIonian letters is "tending to an agreed solution which I believe to be misguided" (87), he nevertheless fails to follow through on this insight, and thus winds up towing the scholarly line: "We cannot assume it [ie. 2Thessalonians] to be Pauline, since so many scholars dispute that; but ..." (96). But despite these self-imposed limitations, we applaud Goulder's contribution, and hope that the scholars will give more attention to it in the future.
19. JEWISH ROOTS in ALIEN SOIL
The earliest written evidence of the nature of "primitive messianic Judaism" [ie. proto-Christianity; the bulk of which was "the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea" (1Th2:14)] comes from the Thessalonian letters, 'both' of which were co-authored by Paulos and Silvanus in c.49-51CE. These letters deal with the problems that arose from a zealous acceptance of the apocalyptic enthusiasm that was such an important part of the gospel of messianic reform-Judaism for twenty years or more.When Paul and Silvanus sent their first letter (ie. letter A) to their new church at Thessalonika, it was entirely positive in tone, and written in a spirit of relief and gratitude. Oddly enough, it was Letter A that created the very problem that Letter B addresses. They hoped it [B] would be enough to settle things down, and get the newly ex-pagan brothers back on track. But, contrary to their hopes, this didn't happen; instead the confusion and misunderstanding that the Vituperatio of Letter A generated only continued. So a new letter (ie. Letter C) was drafted in order to minimize the heightened expectation of the immanent arrival of the Day of the Lord: we beg you, brethren, not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us [ie. Letter A], to the effect that the Day of the Lord has come. [2T.2:1b-2/RSV]
What follows (ie. v.3-12) is Silvanus' version of the Jewish-Hellenist Christian tradition on the matter; which was clearly not fully in tandem with Paul's developing theology. Hence the two I's in v5. Now Paul has a history of terminating associations over 'theological issues (eg. Barnabas, Mark, and perhaps others in 'Arabia'), and this 'difference of opinion' over "the Wrath" may well have been a contributing factor in their impending separation just a few months ahead (ie. sometime around c.53, before Galatians).
It is rather significant that the first real problem to face the early churches in Greece stemmed from a similar sort of apocalyptic enthusiasm that was so soon to collide so violently with Roman short swords to result in the utter-destruction of the Holy City. My guess is that the Greeks were not nearly as violently passionate as the zealous Judeans, but rather it was their enflamed spirit that drove them to take the letters so seriously (and thank God they did!). The Thessalonians saw in Paul a man after thier own hearts; a man more fervent and enthusiastic, even, than themselves.
20. Sources of Thessalonian Traditions
'Tradition' is the one over-arching theme that fuses together and unifies the collection of four odd letters that became 1&2 Thessalonians. This only reflects the importance of the various 'traditions-in-the-making' to the early Jewish-Hellenist Christian kerygma. Even the contrasting eschatological teachings (one Pauline, one Silvanine) are brought together under the power of the kergyma. Moreover, the preaching and teaching of the Jewish-Hellenist Christian missionaries was very much geared toward action and practical concerns, and not primarily to 'theology' as such. Paul and Silvanus thus developed the letter form as a vehicle for carrying their "word of God"; and this is the meaning behind the common observation that "Paul's epistles are apostolic pastoral letters" (McKenzie 11).
The centrality of Tradition as the dominant theme of the Thessalonian letters is also suggested by the many traditional elements incorporated into the letters. Even the opening thanksgiving-statement of letter A (the first words of the New Testament!) urge the value of tradition. In fact, 1Th.2:13 heads Fitzmyer's list of quotes that "recommends fidelity to tradition ..." (Fitz 33); and 2Th.2:15 and 3:6 end it! Letter D is particularly abundant with traditonal materials:
1. Jesus' Sayings at 1T.4:2,15 & 5:2,13,15
2. Parenetic and catechetical materials at 1Th.4:1-12
3. Jewish-Hellenist Christian credal statements at 1Th.1:9-10 & 4:14 & 5:9-10. [The Kerygma at 1Th.1:9-10 was a "pre-Pauline credal statement which was used by the hellenistic Jewish-Christian missionaries in their preaching to Gentiles" (Moser 57).]
Also instructive in this regard is a comparison of the Lukan and Thessalonian tradition-lines. Luke's Tradition Line: God > Jesus Christ > '12' > Jerusalem Church > Paul > Gentile Churches. Paul & Silvanus' Persecution-Tradition Line (1Th.2:15f): Lord > Prophets (ie. Jewish-Hellenist Christian martyrs) > "us" (ie. Jewish-Hellenist Christian missionaries/ apostles) > the Gentile churches (ie. as 'imitators' of the mother churches). ... That Paul is here refering mainly to the dispersed Hellenist Church is suggested by this angry criticism of the Aramaic Church thrown off in the heat of battle: "It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ" (Gal 6:12). These verses also suggest that Paul was well aware that the two mainline churches were distinct in regards to the impact of persecution on the formation of their respective Traditions.
In any event, Paul wrote the Thessalonian letters to a "small Christian minority in a pagan world. The life of the Christian community in such a situation is itself the proclamation of the gospel to the pagan world" (McKenzie). Once we agree that 20C Christians are in the same situation, we can admit that the greater value of the epistles lies not in their bizarre apocalyptic and eschatological features, but rather in the 'word of God' that surrounds, permeates, and overwhelms the so-called 'main themes' of the letters. Certainly the matter of violent persecution is not a significant danger for those believers living in North America. But even here the reality of persecution exists, and must be faced; for persecution as such will always be a 'live' issue, wherever human beings are ... Until the Lord comes: Maranatha!
The four letters to the Thessalonians are significant then, not only because they are the oldest documents in the New Testament, but also because they offer such an abundant harvest of ideas, symbols, and priceless information from the first twenty years of Church history. Indeed, they are nothing less than a window onto the early 'traditions' of hellenistic reform-Judaism, which only later (ie. after the 'parting of the ways' following 80CE) became Gentile/Gk catholic Christianity.
21. Commentary on Havener
While Wanamaker is clearly the best commentator on the Thessalonian letters from the scholarly point of view; Havener is among the best commentator from the literary, evangelical and 'popular' point of view. Havener makes a number of observations about 1Thessalonians (which we submit applies equally to 2Thessalonians) that are only hinted at by most commentators. Of these, two stand out as exceptional:
1. It is "clear that 1Thessalonians should not be read in the light of Acts but just the opposite" (CBC8 9). It is astonishing how often the scholars break this rule. Even a well-known scholar as meticulous as F.F. Bruce often imports Lukan material into his pauline studies without even acknowledging the fact, let alone warning the reader.
2. "When Paul wrote 1Thessalonians, his letter-writing style was not yet fixed. He was in the process of breaking with some literary conventions of his time and forging a new means of communication, the Christian letter" (CBC8 9). Here again the implications of this fact are not consistently respected by many scholars. One common consequence of this oversight is the refusal to consider 1&2Thessalonians as coming from the same time and place and authors. This writer cannot stress enough the importance of the fact that the pauline epistle-form was NOT yet fixed!* * * In his introduction to 1Thessalonians, Havener notes that the letter is unique in that it has a large section of exhortations and instructions. Now letter D is certainty unique among the four in this regard, and clearly there is a very good reason for this, but Havener offers no explanation for it; no scholarly hypothesis or proposal, no best guess, no shot in the dark, no nothing, except an apparent total lack of interest in the matter. Evidently Havener thinks that all the differences between 1Thessaionians and the later letters are mere incidental oddities of the initial stages of Paul's experiments in the creation of the Christian epistle (cf CBC8 10). Now I ask you: Where is the logic in this?
Also interesting is Havener's declaration that 1Thessalonians was authored by Paul because of two instances of 'I' in the text, which 'prove' that "Paul himself is responsible for its writing (3:5a; 5:27), though he often speaks in the plural ..." (Hav 12). Indeed he does; and with good reason (ie. collaboration). But the two 'I's only prove that Paul inserted himself more directly at these points; in order to distinguish himself from an otherwise joint venture by two equal partners (who don't always see eye to eye; as the four Thessalonian letters clearly demonstrate).
Another assumption that 'supports' this first (erroneous) assumption is that Silvanus and Timothy are not like Paul status-wise; "although all three preached Jesus Christ among the Corinthians". Here they are both defined as 'workers' and 'helpers'. Therefore, Paul is entirely responsible for the contents of 1Thessalonians. [Except, of course, for the so-called 'non-pauline addition'; which is to say, our wonderful Vituperatio.] This is so even though Havener admits that Paul was "more closely associated to other Jewish-Christian missionaries to the Gentiles ..." (Hav 10).This even though the text states plainly that "we" are "apostles of Christ" (1Th.2:7). Even though v1:1 itself argues against his interpretation: "Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy". All of which strongly suggests that Paul and Silvanus are equal partners, and that Timothy is the 'junior apostle' in training. Under no circumstances can we justly call Silvanus, or even Timothy for that matter, mere workers and helpers. To do this is not only to insult them (and the Scriptures), but it does this in order to 'build up Paul' on false premises. Ask yourself what the apostle who boasts of his weakness would say about such misguided 'honors'.
PART FOUR: EXEGESIS ON VITUPERATIO [14a] For you brothers became imitators of the churches of
God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea.
[14b] You suffered the same treatment from your own
countrymen as they did from the Jews
[15a] who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets,
[15b] and also drove us out.
[15c] They displease God and
[16a] are hostile to all people by hindering us from
speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved.
[16b] They always fill up the measure of their sins,
[16c] but the Wrath of God has come upon them at last!
22. Introduction to Vituperatio Verses 1T.2:14-16 (the opening of letter A) are a classic example of an ancient rhetorical style of writing called 'vituperatio', which Paul and Silvanus use to strengthen the "distinction between unbelieving Jews and believing Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles" (Wan 118). [Most of the other commentators neglect to mention this fundamental feature of our Paul-bit!] In other words, this very politically incorrect passage was perfectly legitimate, even necessary, at a time when Hellenistic reform-Judaism (as realized in the tradition culminating in Paul and Silvanus) was still struggling to break away from Jerusalem's over-bearing dominance. After the second century, anti-Jewish polemics and attacks quickly descend to the level of spite and malice, because all such "vituperation lost its rationale once Christianity became an equal competitor with Judaism and later became the more dominant of the two religions" (Wan 119).The now universal focus on the political incorrectness of the phrase "the Jews" (in John's Gospel, as here) also obscures the fact that Paul was not writing for prosperity; a vital, and always overlooked, detail. Yet all the commentators inevitably focus their attention on the question: Who are 'the Jews' that these verses refer to? F.F.Bruce answers this question with admirable conciseness: "The primary reference is to the Jews of Judea, but in addition the trouble stirred up by the leaders of the Jewish communities of Thessalonika and Beroea was fresh in Paul's mind" (Guth 1157). [But even here Bruce is importing Lukan materials, and so is 'muddying the waters'; ie. Paul makes no mention of a Jewish community in Thessalonika, and v.14b strongly suggests that the opposition there was Gentile in nature.]
In any case, the Vituperatio is not so much about the Jews and their crimes, as about the genesis of "the churches of God in Christ Jesus": from their start in the Lord, to their growth with the prophets, and the dispersion from Jerusalem (v.15b) following their martyrdom, which led to the establishment, outside Palestine (ie. in 'unholy' lands), of the first pagan (or Gentile) churches, despite all opposition and persecution! If instead of calling v.14-16 the 'anti-Jewish polemic', or the 'non-pauline addition', the commentators agreed to call it the 'house that the persecution-tradition built', they might then be more inclined to give Paul and Silvanus a little more credit for being exceptional thinkers, writers, and apostles! In this case, nothing could stop the scholars from gaining a renewed appreciation and respect for the richness and power of 'the word of God', so beautifully exposed in the four letters written by the brave missionaries to the reformed pagans of Thessalonika.
As to the proposal that 1T.2:14-16 was somehow imported into the text later on (via copyist error?), textman has come across this lame idea repeatedly (to the point of absurdity) during his investigation of some of the recent exegetical secondary literature (ie. popular commentaries on 1&2Thessalonians). However, it should be obvious that this idea serves no useful purpose; and indeed only demonstrates some measure of ignorance about Paul. Certainly it suggests a serious lack of sympathy for his historical situation at the time the Thessalonian letters were written. After all, who better to 'spit venom' at 'the Jews' (ie. Jewish leadership in general) than a man who was himself a zealous Pharisee? Especially one who had recently left Asia Minor to deliberately put more distance between himself and Palestine; only to be welcomed into Macedonia with a beating-unto-death-almost, and then getting chased halfway across the country!
If that doesn't put the fear of Satan into any man, nothing could. Harrington's suggestion that v.14-16 "interrupts the flow of Paul's argument and gives the impression of being an interruption" and therefore a later addition, is a fine example of the general scholarly lack of understanding and sympathy for Paul's tense and tenuous situation at mid-century. Moreover, since Harrington is clearly unaware that 1T is composed of two letters, he can hardly be qualified to speak of "smooth and coherent transitions"!
On the other hand, Keck points out that "there is no other evidence that he [ie. Paul] ever regarded Judean Christianity as something to be imitated" (Keck 402). Now this is a highly significant fact. Unfortunately, Keck does not follow up this pertinent observation to show that the reason for this is that the Aramaic Church (that increasingly opposed Paul under the leadership of James and the "pillars") are not the ones to be imitated, but rather the early Jewish-Hellenist 'Christian' church that was only briefly in Jerusalem; for they were the ones who had suffered the persecution and expulsion of the late 30's.
In a similar vein, Reese observes that our Vituperatio is the "only passage in the early New Testament writings stating that the Jews in Judea persecuted the Christians" (24). Here again, the full significance of this fact is completely missed, yet he nevertheless correctly discerns that v.l5a refers to the past, while v.15b-16 refers to the ongoing persecutions experienced by Paul's group. Now Williams also recognizes the fact that Paul has his own past in mind (perhaps even his part in the persecution), and concludes from this that the phrase "and also drove us out" is "more likely a specific allusion to what happened in Macedonia" (47).
Of course, this easy to make, and apparently logical, deduction overlooks the distinction between v.15 and v.16 that Reese just noted. It is in the latter verse that the Macedonian reference occurs, not the former. Therefore, the reference to "us" in v.16a is to the Jewish-hellenistic missionaries of Christ; namely, Paul and Silvanus, the apostles appointed by Christ to bring the word of God to the pagans. At no time did Paul ever think that he was the only apostle to the gentiles; although he may have come to think that he was the only one who had the right idea of the full implications of the Good News: "Paul's 'doctrine' may be said to be his theological exposition of what it meant that the Christ was for a while the human Jesus", and herein he "discloses the brilliant, intuitive character of his mind and heart" (Sand xix).
23. Lost Diamond in the Ruff: v15
The one overarching theme that binds all of the Thessalonian letters together is not eschatological or theological, but rather it is the emphasis on traditions. Given the centrality of this concern (seen particularly in the frequent mention of 'imitation'), we posit that a reference to Stephen and the Seven lies behind 1T.2:15ab (aka our 'lost diamond in the ruff'). But the persecution-tradition line sketched out in this verse only makes sense if there is a very close identity (of being and function) between 'apostle' and 'prophet' . This identity is acknowledged by Luke and many modern scholars, but is most forcefully suggested by Paul himself. "Indeed Paul understood his calling as a
divine commissioning as an apostle (literally, 'one who is sent') to the Gentiles" (Soa 25).In the same way, the prophet can also be defined as 'one who is sent'. Paul's prophetic call is well described at Gal 1:15-16: "But when He who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood ..." Commentaries on these verses sometimes draw explicit parallels with the prophetic tradition: "But when it pleased God, etc. The language that follows implies that, like Moses, John the Baptist (#Lu 1:15-17), Isaiah (#Isa 49:1), and Jeremiah (#Jer 1:5), Paul was destined to his work from birth" (People's NT Notes). But the commentators, when they bother themselves enough to notice 1T.15a at all, always reverse the order in their own minds (ie. 'who killed both the prophets and the Lord Jesus'), as if Paul did inadvertently err in this 'small matter', and then go on to assume that owing to the new meaning thus produced Paul is, of course, referring to the Old Testament prophets (just as the NT follows the Old)!
.
Now there is really no excuse for such a disrespectful procedure, given that the scholars ought to know well enough that it is the Jewish-hellenist Christian prophets that are referred to here; if only because Paul and Silvanus make a clear and direct reference to the Spirit based ministry of prophecy in 1T.5:19-20: "Do not quench the Spirit, do not despise prophesying". The importance of this ministry can he gauged when we list the specifics involved: liturgy, teaching, instruction, catechesis, exhortation, etc; and also "interpreting the word of God in and for the community and applying it concretely, existentially and with precise directives" (Moser 61). Indeed it seems apparent that the prophets are none other than "those who have charge over you in the Lord (1T.5-12). Given all the clues contained and offered in the four Thessalonian letters, it ought to be easy to make the connection to verse 15a; but this rarely happens ...
.
Interestingly enough, Morris actually quotes Stephen from Acts 7:52 ("Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute?") to show that this was the meaning behind the prophets reference in v15a. In the following note he says that "some expositors have taken the prophets to mean the New Testament prophets, but no sufficient reason has been produced for this" (84). Now this observation is so mundane, and so far off base that it can only be called 'most unfortunate indeed!' In fact, the truth is quite the opposite: that there is no sufficient reason (within the context of the Thessalonian letters) to support the idea that the reference is to the Old Testament prophets! Indeed, Fitzmyer himself mentions the fact that there is no explicit citation of the Old Testament anywhere in 1Thessalonians. Alas, the significance of such observations is clearly beyond the grasp of the Thessalonian scholars.
.
Schurmann's exegesis of our passage simply regurgitates the bulk of the above indicated scholarship, albeit in a more engaging manner. He does, however, exhibit one novel feature that bears inspection: he has such confidence in the prevailing scholarly view regarding 'the prophets' of v.15a, that he actually introduces the methodological error directly into the text! His version is as follows: "... who killed both the Lord Jesus and (before him) the prophets ..." (McK 33). What the commentators fail to recognize - including those scandalized by Paul's venom - is that their erroneous interpretation of this word actually contributes much to the anti-Semitism they so bemoan by actually forcing a false generalization (through time!) of 'those Jews who'; whereas Paul and Silvanus are only
concerned with the present (and last!) generation of gospel-rejecting Judeans. All this is a fine example of how the scholars can twist the text until it says exactly whatever they want it to say.
.
So this unfortunate, and rather silly, methodological error regarding the treatment of v.15a's "and the prophets" is due to any number of factors. Firstly, it is a very easy, even traditional, error of oversight. Secondly, there is the modern proclivity to restrict the term 'prophets' to God's messengers in the Tanakh; although exception is also made for John the Baptist by summarily grouping him with those prior to Jesus. But verses 1T.2:14-16 are referring directly to the experience of the early Jewish-Hellenist Church in Jerusalem, so there is simply no compelling reason why we should drag in the OT prophets. In the context of our Vituperatio it is apparent that Paul's and Silvanus' "thoughts are directed to the Jews who have hindered the spread of the gospel, not to all Jews" (NJBC 776). Ironically, however, it was this very persecution and expulsion of the Greek-speaking believers that caused the first spread of the gospel by physically driving them out of Jerusalem and Judea into the wider Gentile world of the Roman Empire.It is equally apparent that the reference to prophets is entirely nonsensical in this context, when understood as indicating the Old Testament messengers. Since Paul and Silvanus did not think like 20C scripture scholars, it behooves the latter to think like Paul and Silvanus if they wish to make the most of Paul's no-nonsense diction. They must, in other words, think apocalyptically, enthusiastically, eschatologically, and charismatically! The failure to do any of this will, of course, result in endless confusion and misunderstanding; not only as regards basic hermeneutics and methodology, but also about what Paul and Silvanus have to say about the Christian Life in general.
.
Outside the Thessalonian letters the argument can be made a dozen different ways; but that is another matter entirely. Morris is apparently unaware that "the continuing opposition of the Jews to God's messengers through the centuries" is, most emphatically, NOT what Paul is referring to here; as the context in and of letter A clearly indicates (85). None of the commentators has come so close to seeing the importance of the link between Stephen and Paul as Morris does in this almost random reference. Yet he still misses the mark, simply because he is unable to discern the significance of the fact that the reference to the prophets comes *after* the reference to the Lord! Accusing Paul and Silvanus of sloppy thinking is surely a hazardous enterprise. If Paul and Silvanus had intended what all the commentators believe, surely they would have placed the references in their proper order, particularly when sketching out a tradition line!
.
The phrase in v.15b "drove us out" is also cause for much scholarly confusion. Whether it "refers to Paul himself, to the apostles, or to Christians in general is uncertain. Also unclear is what they were driven out of ..." (Keck 403). But surely the verse was not so obscure that the original readers did not know exactly what Paul what talking about! Now, F.F.Bruce notes (correctly) that the "persecution of the Judean churches intended here might be the persecution following Stephen's death" (46). But he goes on to say that the reference might also be to the persecution of the (Aramaic) Jerusalem apostles (eg. Peter) by Herod Agrippa in 41-44CE (cf..Acts 12:1). [Note: These two alternatives are not necessarily mutually exclusive.] Unfortunately, he prefers neither of these options, but rather the "more recent persecution associated with the increase of Zealot activity" in 48CE which he links directly to his misreading of "and drove us out" as referring to the expulsion of Paul, Silas, and Titus from Thessalonica and Beroea (cf. Acts 17). Of course, this interpretation is also inadequate due to the fact that v.15 points us toward Judea, not to Macedonia.
.
The curious thing about Bruce's commentary is that while discussing v.15a, he actually mentions a scholar by name (K.Luke) who, "with less probability [!?!], thinks that Christian prophets (such as Stephen and James the Zebedean) are in view here" (47). Ultimately, Bruce dismisses the entire passage as a later Gentile addition. Thus in a few deft strokes of the pen, Bruce illustrates how an initial recognition of the truth, once lost, inevitably leads to confusion and false conclusions.
24. Commentary on Wanamaker Now Wanamaker is easily the most astute commentator among all those examined. He makes any number of observations that merit careful scrutiny. Moreover, he is not shy to give our Vituperatio considerable space (a whopping seven full pages!). But Wanamaker calls our Paul-bit a "Digression Within the Narratio" thereby implicitly (not explicitly!) recognizing the start of our letter A. He also sees that 2Thessalonians comes before 1Thessalonians, but not that Letter A comes before both.
.
Re: v.14 > 1. Jewish persecution of 'Christians' was a not unusual phenomenon in Palestine during the first century. After c.48CE the Zealots "put considerable pressure on Jewish Christians in Palestine because of the Gentile mission outside Palestine ..."; and this was the "fundamental cause of the Judaizer problem in Galatia" (Wan 113). 2. "Paul probably refers to the various local Christian communities not merely in the geographic area of Judea, but in what we would call Palestine, a term embracing Judea, Samaria, and Galilee" (Wan 112). 3. Paul "had persecuted the Christian communities in the area of Palestine and probably Syria, though Gal 1:22 makes it unlikely that he had done so in Judea itself (Wan 113). Wanamaker here fails to distinguish between the two 'parishes' in Jerusalem. Paul was associated with the Greek-speaking or Jewish-Hellenist band of Jesus' followers; who (being more radical in their thinking and preaching than the Aramaic believers) were the greater threat to second Temple Judaism! Thus it is entirely possible that he did not know any of the Aramaics at the time of his conversion. [ Of course, he did meet with Peter and James, but that was some years later.]
.
Re: v.15-16 > 4. These "phrases appear to constitute a vitriolic piece of anti-Judaism (a term more accurate in this context than the more common 'anti-Semitism', which would imply racial hatred on Paul's part)". He then points out that the "attack on the Jewish people is also indirectly an attack on those who oppressed the recipients of the letter" (Wan 114). This valid and significant point was also missed by all the other commentators.
.
Re: v.15 > 5. Here Wanamaker displays a list of biblical and extra-biblical references (including Rom 11:3) to show that the charge of Jesus and/or prophet killing is "certainly not novel" to the Bible. He also notices the implication of "continuity in the pattern", but because he participates in the modern bias (all the evidence needed to overcome this is contained in the Thessalonian letters) against a proper understanding of Paul's use (here!) of 'prophets', he views things from the wrong side of the intertestamental period. Therefore his 'pattern' is centuries-large, whereas the context suggests that the pattern is no more than two decades large. This is a significant blunder on the part of an otherwise highly perceptive scholar.
.
In any case, the pattern also includes "us"; but whether this "refers to Christians in general or to Paul and his fellow missionaries in particular is uncertain" (Wan 115). He logically and rightly favors the general reference, but because of his over-large pattern, he completely overlooks the dispersion of the Jewish-Hellenists as the most likely reference point. Certainly this was an event which could be well described as "drove us out". Remember always that both Paul and Silvanus probably knew Stephen and the Seven personally, and they undoubtedly knew much about the dispersion, both from first-hand experience, and from whatever material circulated in the oral traditions of the early Jewish-Hellenistic believers.
.
Re: v.16a > For Paul, the Jewish hostility toward non-Jews reaches ultimate proportions by "their hindering of his mission to the Gentiles whom he sought to lead to salvation. ... [This includes] the numerous beatings [cf. 2Cor 11:24f] he had received at the hands of the Jews" (Wan 115-6). But it may also be the case that some of this 'hindering' came from the Jewish pillars of the Aramaic church in Jerusalem ... ?
.
Re: v.16b > This "suggests an ongoing process that cannot be restricted temporally to the time of the Gentile mission but includes the history of the Jewish people stretching back to the prophetic period of the Old Testament" (Wan 116). Indeed, Paul's pattern, at this point, may well expand beyond Wanamaker's unnecessary boundaries, perhaps even all the way back to the time of Moses.
.
Re: v.16c > Wanamaker recognizes that the "final clause of v.16 has been the greatest source of difficulty ..." (Wan 116); but its full significance eludes him, as it does the other experts. Instead, he mentions the past referents of 'wrath' from c.48CE, but still prefers the future orientation, such that the wrath will rest upon them until the Parousia. Yet the full significance of this final verse can only be seen in the light of my reconstruction of the four Thessalonian letters. Here we can see that it is just these words that were the source of the troublesome idea that the Day of the Lord had come, which caused some Thessalonian believers to stop working altogether. It was news of this development that prompted Paul and Silvanus to send off letter B in a hurry! [Hence its so-called "primitive" form.]
.
In general, then, Wanamaker makes a serious and determined attempt to unravel the mysteries of the Vituperatio, and in doing so makes some relevant observations. But because he too misunderstands the significance of the term 'prophet' (and its placement in the verse), he misses the central fact that the Vituperatio is a brief sketch of the violent history of the Jewish-Hellenistic believers. It is this persecution-tradition that Paul inherited and was a part of; in contrast to the Aramaic believers who made their peace with the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. This understanding of the early split within the Jerusalem community (and its two divergent lines of traditions) is a necessary prelude to the troubles Paul would have with the Judaizers. The friction did not start with Paul, as many commentators suppose, but actually had roots deep in the earliest years of the Jesus Movement.
[BY WAY OF EPILOGUE]
25. Concluding Reflections on 1&2TAs fascinating and astonishing as modern pauline studies are, the scholars do not generally approach the text, alas, in the manner well advocated by Schneiders. Along these lines the sole strength of this essay is its adherence to method "[2] TRY TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THE HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL DISTANCE WHICH SEPARATES..." the Reader from the Text, etc. But putting ourselves in the sandals of Paul and Silvanus is a demanding and dangerous enterprise; one fraught with unseen pits and slippery slopes. On another angle then, method "[8] ... WE MUST READ SCRIPTURE PRAYERFULLY" suggests that we focus our attention elsewhere, and try to discern the meaning of the scriptures for us, and for our lives as believers here and now. In this essay, I have largely left this latter project for the Reader to tackle as best you can.
.
Since the four Thessalonian letters were written over the space of about two years, and our controversial verses come at the very beginning of letter A (ie. the first words of the NT to be written), it may be best to end this rambling investigation with some verses from the end of letter D. Now the verses I have selected to this end are appropriate in many ways; not least of which is that they contain (in a nutshell as it were) the solution to the problems generated by God's wrath, the Vituperatio, enthusiastic and charismatic spiritual experiences, Christian leadership, and the apocalyptic/eschatological worldview! These verses are indeed the 'pearl of great price' in the early kerygma that sometimes gets overlooked thanks to the vivid imagery of Christian apocalyptic language, and the dazzling venom of Paul's righteous anger. Our 'lost diamond in the ruff' is as nothing next to the Good News herein: "Be happy at all times. Pray continually. And give thanks in all circumstances. For this is the will of God for you in Jesus Christ" (1T.5:16-18).
Works Cited
Brown, R.E., et al. Eds. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary.
New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990.Bruce, F.F. 1&2 Thessalonians. Word Biblical Commentary: Vol.45
Waco: Word Books, 1982.Collins, R. "Glimpses into Some Local Churches of New Testament
Times." Lavel theologique et Philosophique. 42(1986): 291-316Dunn, J.D.G. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and
Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as
Reflected in the New Testament. London: SCM Press Ltd. 1975.______. The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism
and their Significance for the Character of Christianity.
Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991.Fitzmyer, J. Paul and His Theology: A Brief Sketch. 2nd Ed.
New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.Goulder, M.D. "Silas in Thessalonica." Journal for the Study of the
New Testament. 48(1992): 87-106Guthrie, D., et al., Eds. The New Bible Commentary: Revised.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970.Harrington, Daniel. Paul on the Mystery of Israel.
Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992.Havener, Ivan. First Thessalonians, Philippians, Philemon, Second
Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians. Collegeville Bible
Commentary #8. Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1983.Hengel, M. The Pre-Christian Paul.
Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991.Hoth, Iva. Ed. The Picture Bible. Elgin: D.C.Cook Pub.Co., 1978.
Jervell, J. The Unknown Paul: Essays on Luke-Acts and Early
Christian History. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing, 1984.Keck, L.E. "The First Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians."
Interpreter's Concise Commentary: Vol.VII. Acts and Paul's
Letters. Eds. W.Baird, et al. Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1983. [394-420]Luedemann, C. Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity. Trans.
M.Boring. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.Morris, Leon. The First & Second Epistles to the Thessalonians.
Rev.ed. The New International Commentary on the New Testament.
Gen.Ed. F.F.Bruce. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Pub.Co., 1991.Moser, M. "On First Thessalonians." BST 423 Handouts: [57-61]
Reese, J. 1&2 Thessalonians. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1979.
Saldarini, A. Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian
Society: A Sociological Approach. Wilmington: M.Glazier, 1988.Sandmel, S. The Genius of Paul: A Study in History.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.Schillebeeckx, E. Paul the Apostle. New York: Crossroad, 1983.
Schneiders, Sandra M. (IHM). "God s Word for God's People."
The Bible Today. 22(1984). [100-106]Wanamaker, C.A. The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary
on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament
Commentary. Ed. Marshall. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans PubCo, 1990.McKenzie, J., Ed. The Two Epistles to the Thessalonians. New
Testament for Spiritual Reading: #18 by Schurmann & Egenolf.
New York: Herder & Herder, 1969.Williams, D.J. 1&2 Thessalonians. New International Biblical
Commentary #12. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992.
