Part II, Week 12 - Chapter 24 - The Revelation of John & Farewell

The time has come, the Walrus said,

To talk of many things:

Of shoes -- and ships -- and sealing-wax --

Of cabbages -- and kings --

        - Lewis Carroll

        "The Walrus and the Carpenter"

 

I thought of those nonsense verses of Carroll's because they seemed to fit with the idea of summing up in a final blog posting. But it seems to me that there is a further connection between Lewis Carroll's writing and "The Revelation of John": they both use vivid and concrete images to create an almost hallucinatory effect.

 

There is so much almost hysterical "end-times" talk in the popular media, it's great to read de Silva's calm, rational analysis of Revelation. I have always found it the most difficult book of the NT, and de Silva's deconstruction makes it a lot more comprehensible as a "wake-up call" to the seven churches in Asia to whom his letter is addressed. Thus it serves the same purposes as most of the other letters of the NT, also using the epistolary form but a vastly different symbolism and imagery. John's aim was the fostering of Christian unity and solidarity in the face of scorn and persecution by the dominant social-political factions, the Romans and their supporters in the local communities and the non-Christian Jews. De Silva makes it especially clear in this chapter how devastating it was that the Christians were unable to make even pro forma bows to the pagan gods, because of course anything that smacked of idolatry was contrary to their belief in the One God which was a heritage from Judaism. The Jews had historically enjoyed immunity from these obligations - but once the Christians were barred from the synagogues, they lost the protection they had enjoyed as a Jewish sect. It would seem that the pressures on the Christians were growing exponentially even as their movement spread throughout the Roman Empire. It is in this atmosphere of growing hostility on all sides in the latter part of the First Century A.D. that Revelation was written.

 

De Silva indicates that the name of the author doesn't seem to be a pseudonym, as "John" doesn't make any of the claims one would expect if a later writer was claiming to be writing as the apostle John. On the other hand, de Silva concludes that the author is not the same as the author of the Gospel of John and thus is probably not the apostle who was the brother of James and the son of Zebedee. De Silva adopts Aune's analysis that Revelation was written in several stages, starting at about the time of the First Jewish War and then being completed toward the end of the First Century A.D. by a man who originally lived in Palestine and then relocated, perhaps to the region of the Seven Churches in Asia and later to the island of Patmos.

 

De Silva rejects the interpreters who hold that Revelation`s prophecies apply to our own day, or even further in the future. De Silva notes that, as an example of the ``apocalyptic`` genre, the prophecies would have been intended to apply to the author`s time or just slightly in the future of him and his audience. Thus, ``Babylon`` is a reference to the Rome of John`s day, the ``Beast`` is a reference to the Emperor Nero, whose name and title ``Nero Caesar`` add up to 666 in Greek, or 616, which appears in some texts where the Latin version of the name is used.

Besides the history of composition and the socio-political background, de Silva also analyses the rhetorical strategies of John and illustrates the ways in which John shows the honour due to God and the Lamb and the doom which will be visited on unjust and the faithless on the "day of the wrath" of God. I found it particularly insightful that de Silva noted that, whereas Paul, for example, wrote on his own authority, by using the form of an "apocalypse," John's work gained in authoritativeness as a divine revelation. This authoritativeness was enhanced by John's techniques of dramatic repetition of certain words and phrases, and evocative use of phrases from the Hebrew Scriptures.

 

I found my thinking about Revelation - which I have had a rather negative impression of for most of my lifetime (I don't go for "fire and brimstone" preaching) - has become much more sympathetic by viewing it as a passionate message to churches of John's day, who, like the Galatians and the Corinthians of Paul's day, were faced with daunting challenges to their faith. I wonder how John would have reacted had he known that within 200 years the leader of the Roman Empire, Constantine would adopt Christianity as the official religion of the Empire.

 

With this chapter on Revelation we have come to the end of de Silva's wonderful text and the end of our course on the New Testament. I have been exposed to many textbooks over my lifetime in diverse subject areas, and de Silva's is one of the very best. Readable and detailed, his title says it all: An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods, and Ministry Formation. He discusses all the major schools of thought with many sources cited for further reading. Even though I had classes on the history and art of Greece and Rome in college, I feel I have learned more about the Hellenistic world of the era in this course, so essential for learning about the life and the teachings of Jesus and his early followers. I expect to keep this book handy and refer to it often.

Part II , Week 11 - Chapter 23 - Jude and 2 Peter -

These are fairly obscure texts which, as de Silva notes, have found a home near the end of the NT, where they can be honoured more in the breach than in the observance. Jude is of particular interest to me, however, since it purports to have been written by one of the younger brothers of Jesus. Regardless of its relative obscurity, de Silva indicates that Jude addresses the issue of determination of legitimate authority within the church, a matter still highly relevant today.

As expected, questions of authenticity arise, as in James and 1 Peter, firstly because of the author's mastery of the Greek language, which some deem unlikely for a 1st. century A.D. son of an artisanal family. De Silva suggests that a tradesman in Palestine of the era would likely have had some knowledge of Greek, and over a period of decades as a church leader Jude's facility in Greek might well have increased. De Silva also notes that Jude is steeped in Jewish traditions, particularly apocalypticism, and the author seems to have relied on the Masoretic text (in Hebrew) of the Old Testament, rather than the Septuagint, an indication of Palestinian provenance. Some critics have suggested that the letter cannot be authentic, because it reflects "early Catholic" (i.e. second century) developments which would make it too late to have been authored by the Lord's brother. De Silva cites the apocalypticism I have referred to and the lack of reference to an elaborate church hierarchy in support of an early date prior to 80 A.D. In addition, he notes that Jude's use of the word "faith," in the sense of a belief system, rather than "faithfulness," which was in most cases Paul's usage, was actually used by Paul in the sense of meaning a belief system in at least two instances. It appears on balance that, as in most of the earlier letters which are included in the NT canon, de Silva, without being dogmatic, comes down on the side of the letter likely being the authentic work of Jude, the brother of Jesus and James.

Although this is classed as a "general epistle," de Silva notes that Jude is writing for a specific community facing a definite problem. Following a pattern which we have seen on many occasions, Jude is writing his letter to counter a threat from "false teachers." Since it appears that he is writing from a Jewish Christian perspective and challenging the false teachers' willingness to profit materially from their preaching while indulging grossly in sexual license and gluttony and encouraging such practices among their audience, it almost appears that these could have been some of the same false teachers that Paul was confronted with, in particular those who challenged him in Corinth. Although as de Silva notes, some of these charges were also levelled against Paul, I don't see evidence of Paul being personally corrupt, certainly not where sexual profligacy is concerned, and I suspect that if his preaching was misconstrued, he took pains to rectify such matters as soon as they were brought to his attention. For example, instances of sexual license, drunkenness, and so on may have been an unintended consequence of preaching that the Gentile converts were not bound by the Jewish Law. However, in some of his letters, Paul preached the "Law of Christ," and I believe he used other similar terms, to indicate the new system of beliefs binding the believers. So, though no longer bound by Torah, that did not mean that the believers were in fact freed of all restraint.

The Second Epistle of Peter is the exception to the previous rule of de Silva's generally favouring authenticity. He notes that, while appearing to be a straightforward letter written by Peter near the end of his life in 64 A.D., there is a greater likelihood that this is a pseudonymous work than any of the other letters of the NT canon. De Silva points out that "testaments" were an accepted genre of the period, usually being ostensibly authored by patriarchs, kings and prophets from the distant past. He obviously recognizes that 2 Peter may be an example of such a pseudonymous work but notes that, unlike the later "secret teachings" of the apostles which contained heretical teachings from the 2nd. or 3rd. centuries, he notes that this is a more "respectful" type, more consistent with the OT traditions. He seems to acknowledge the likelihood of 2 Peter being pseudonymous when he notes that "Peter's" prophecies are written in the future tense, while the coming to fruition of those prophecies is couched in the present tense - thus seeming to be a pretty clear indication of the work of a post-Petrine author.

According to de Silva, the author of 2 Peter counters a more rationalistic sect of teachers, perhaps seeking to purge the early church of some of its Jewish traditions, perhaps disillusioned by the failure of the promise of the parousia as the apostolic generation passed from the scene. De Silva indicates that the author of 2 Peter makes a strong defence of apocalypticism and the traditions and authority inherited from OT traditions and the apostles.

I am currently reading a bestselling book by Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, N.Y.: Random House, 1979. Without going into a lot of detail here, I would just like to point out that according to Ms. Pagels, the beliefs (which were quite diverse) that were classed under the rubric of heretical Gnostic beliefs by the 2nd. Century were those which did not support the institutionalized orthodox church. The beliefs that became "orthodox," even though they may have been rather extraordinary, such as the resurrection of the body, were those that implicitly supported the growth of the institutional church. I am not endorsing this - but at the least, these hypotheses are thought-provoking and merit further investigation.

Part II - week 10 - Chapter 22 - The First Epistle of Peter -

 

Facing unpopularity and pressures from outside the community, the author of 1 Peter, as in other epistles in the NT that we have reviewed, aims to remind believers of the honour they enjoy in Christ, their privileged position in light of God's judgment, as well to provide guidelines of proper behaviour both within the community of believers and with non-believers and the surrounding society in general, with the aim of minimizing hostility from the surrounding community.

1 Peter is addressed to the five Roman provinces in modern Turkey - Bithynia-Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Asia. De Silva notes that [southern?] Galatia and Asia were frequent spheres of Pauline activity, and John the Evangelist was associated with Asia (including the seven churches of Revelation), but we know little about the evangelizing of Bithynia-Pontus and Cappadocia. The fact that the letter may have been authored by Peter suggests that he may have conducted missions to those regions.

Regarding the addressees, apparently there was at one time a wide consensus that 1 Peter was written to a largely Jewish Christian audience, partly because of the agreement referred to in Galatians that Peter would take the gospel to the "circumcised" ("Jews), and Paul would take it to the "uncircumcised" (Gentiles). And there are many terms borrowed from Old Testament traditions, like use of the terms "diaspora," "royal priesthood," and so on - but de Silva seems certain that these terms were being adopted and directed at a primarily Gentile audience, as he says is convincingly proved by the author's use of phrases like "futile way of life" of their ancestors and "ignorance that failed to check the passions of the flesh" - which he says would never have been used to describe Jewish brothers.

De Silva notes that Peter's authorship of 1 Peter was widely accepted very early on by church fathers such as Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen. There have been objections since then, some people noting that the author's Greek is too good. We've seen that argument before, as with the Epistle of James. De Silva indicates that the author claims to be Peter and (at 5:12) that he wrote the letter with Silas's assistance, which could explain the author's facility in the Greek language. Some have suggested that a period of persecution under Domitian is referred to in the letter, which would be too late for Peter; however, de Silva indicates that the letter could date from the early 60's, the early years of the persecution under Nero.

De Silva suggests that Silas, Peter's assistant, probably delivered the letter, likely travelling in the order in which the addressees appear in the salutation.

The author indicates that he is writing from "Babylon," which may have been a symbolic reference to Rome, as in the Book of Revelation. However, there are a number of possibilities, including Mesopotamian Babylon or Egyptian Babylon. De Silva indicates that a reference to Rome as Babylon would tend to indicate Pseudo-Petrine authorship and a date toward the end of the First Century.

The question of authorship is certainly a familiar one for the books of the New Testament. I think de Silva makes a valid point that the spiritual value, the inspired nature, of these books may be real whether or not they were actually penned by the apostle in question. I seem to recall him writing in another chapter that "apostolicity doesn't necessarily depend on actual authorship by one of the apostles" (or words to that effect). He doesn't say explicitly why that is so, but I guess that he means that the worth of the message conveyed plus the endorsement of the early church is enough to give it value as inspired scripture.

When I read a letter like 1 Peter, without worrying overmuch about the academic, historical questions, I feel that it is inspirational. I can imagine the great influence that such a letter must have had on the early believers who received it. I also see a very strong "family resemblance" among a number of the letters we have been studying, like Ephesians and Colossians (my NIV Study Bible says that 1 Peter has to have been written after them, because the author shows familiarity with those letters), as well as 1 Timothy, Hebrews, and even James.

I feel that the problems which were noted first in Paul's letters (and perhaps James) were experienced over and over again in many locations. I have said before that I prefer the more "radical" message of Jesus and the early letters of Paul - but I recognize that there were changed circumstances as the First Century wore on which necessitated an evolution in the message of the apostles. For example - we know that pagan outsiders were slandering the early believers, treating them "as though they were deviant and vice-ridden, unworthy elements of society." (de Silva pg. 843) Perhaps some of the new converts were like kids away from their parents for the first time - they were leaving behind the old rules which bound them into pagan society, like sacrificing to idols and participating in the imperial cult. The "Judaizing" influence would have tended to keep the Gentile converts "reined in" - but as we know, Paul preached that it was wrong to bind a Gentile to follow the Law, when the Jewish Christians were unable to follow it to the letter themselves. Given the emphasis on "Christian freedom," I think it is possible that some of the believers were not equipped to handle that freedom responsibly. The result would have been behavioural abuses. And the reaction to that by the Church fathers would have been the codification of a code of behaviour, governing the believers' relations with each other and with the unbelievers at large - and emphasizing their good citizenship, while still retaining some more revolutionary teachings such as the virtue of suffering in the image of Jesus Christ's suffering on the cross. This message was delivered eloquently in the First Epistle of Peter.

 

 

Part II, Week 9 - Chapter 21 - The Epistle of James -

The Epistle of James states that the sender was “Iacobos” (translated as James). Both de Silva and the NIV Study Bible note that there is a good possibility that the author was James, the brother of Jesus, who was a leader, a “pillar” of the Jerusalem church, until his martyrdom in about 62 A.D. De Silva comments that James the brother of Jesus would have had the stature and the longevity to produce the letter. Regarding the dating of the letter, the NIV Study Bible indicates that although some date it to about 60 A.D., because of its strongly Jewish character and the lack of any reference to the rancorous dispute over circumcision, it may have been written before 50 A.D. In that case, it may be the earliest surviving writing – whether Gospel or Letter - in the NT, except for perhaps Galatians.

De Silva first notes, rather unpromisingly, that Martin Luther considered it the least of the books of the New Testament, an “epistle of straw.” Then he notes that there doesn’t appear to be an overarching theme to the letter. Rather, he writes that it “comes across as a disjointed collection of good advice.” (pg. 819) The letter is not directed to a particular group facing a particular challenge, and hence the letter lacks those references to particular individuals, companions and adversaries that help to give Paul’s letters such human interest.

However, de Silva recognizes that the letter has an organizational structure that does give it coherence. Funnily enough, both de Silva and the NIV Study Bible laud the author’s command of Greek (which is one of the reasons which “Jamesian” authorship is often contested); I detected some similarities to Mark’s Gospel, with his use of “inclusios” and thematic repetition for the purposes of driving home his points. Perhaps it is just because the letter is so “bare bones” that the organizational structure seems fairly obvious.

The Epistle of James has an epistolary greeting but no other evidence of having been actually dispatched as a letter. As in the case of Hebrews, that suggested to me the possibility that the epistolary portion may have been a later scribal addition – perhaps intended, in this case, to provide the desirable evidence of authorship and readership which might have been handed down by tradition in the communities in which it was preserved.

De Silva acknowledges that the greeting causes it to be classed as a letter, but adds that it most resembles collections of wisdom sayings, which were common in the Intertestamental Period in both Greco-Roman and Judaic cultures. He says it most resembles a “paraenetic letter,” a collection of “ethical advice that is generally assumed to be true and irrefutable, holding up core values of the culture in which it is written.” (pg. 821) He also notes a similarity to exhortations of the Greco-Roman philosophers who used the “diatribe,” like Epictetus, or the advice collections of Pseudo-Isocrates. The difference in this case is that the letter has a strongly Jewish character emphasizing morality rather than household codes and such that were common in the pagan wisdom tradition. De Silva suggests that the sayings may have been collated and given order by a later editor. Or they may have been organized by James himself. Either way, he notes that they bear a close resemblance – and share some of the sayings – which appear in Jewish wisdom literature of the Inter-testamental Period, including many of the sayings of Jesus which were preserved and which appear in the NT Gospels. In fact, de Silva suggests that James can be reasonably viewed as an example of the development of Jewish wisdom tradition in the setting of early Christianity.

The message of James is fairly straightforward. The Law for James is a living force (similar to what we read in the Gospel of Matthew) and not something that has been superseded by the New Covenant. De Silva notes that James emphasizes the importance of doing right and not just paying lip service to one’s faith. And he also notes that James’s focus is the trials that are within us, rather than persecution and ill-treatment from without. We are tested in these trials to give up something that we earnestly desire, “to give up something of himself or herself and to endure some kind of loss. . . . each situation becomes an opportunity for moving closer to wholeness, to that integrity that James so greatly yearns for Christians to possess, and to that transformation of life that leads to a positive verdict when we come to be judged by the “law of freedom” (Jas 2:12). (pg. 826)

De Silva feels that the usual presupposition is that Paul and James were bitter enemies, but that when the respective positions are examined, they are actually in agreement. He argues that the historic James would never have misunderstood Paul’s ideas as drastically as has been proposed, and therefore that would be an argument for late authorship and pseudonymity of the letter. (pg. 826) I think there is another possibility. I think that initially Paul was struck by the force of his revelatory vision – in effect overturning his previous mindset of Pharisaic zealousness for the Law. He felt guilty, I think, for having unjustly persecuted Jesus’s followers. He didn’t feel worthy of having been blessed with the revelation of God and Christ. He felt, naturally enough, that he had been blessed by God’s grace, in spite of his own efforts in support of the Law, rather than because of them. Consequently his message preached the idea of grace and justification by faith rather than works of the law. I don’t think Paul opposed good works as such; but his core message was that one was not saved by good works but by faith and grace. De Silva cites Galatians 2:15-16 (the classic Pauline doctrine of justification by faith) and James 2:14-26 (which begins in v. 14 with the declamation, “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?”) in support of his argument that the two are actually in agreement. But if one reads those verses, taking them at face value they seem to be in direct contradiction with one another. I would suggest that such a view as James expresses, which in effect propounds both faith and works, would be a message that an early follower of Jesus in the Jewish tradition might well espouse. I would also suggest that Paul’s views may have evolved to incorporate moral codes and good works – becoming more conventional, in a sense, as we see in the later Pauline writings - as problems arose with some of his congregations with sexual license and so on, as we saw in the Corinthian letters.

I appreciated the message of James. Since the perhaps-oversimplified Pauline doctrine of faith versus works has been so influential in the Protestantism of my lifetime, it is cool to read a counter-argument which was contemporaneous with Paul and which has been historically so submerged.

Part II, week 8 - The "Epistle to the Hebrews" -

My copy of the KJV from the 1950’s titled this “Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews,” based on church tradition dating from the second century A.D. It appears to be almost universally agreed now that Hebrews was not written by Paul, for several reasons cited by de Silva. First, the author writes that he was brought to faith by the word of apostolic witnesses, whereas Paul asserted that he received a direct revelation of Jesus Christ from God. Second, Hebrews is written in a very polished style unlike that of Paul’s letters. Third, there are themes which are similar to some of those in Paul’s letters, but the author of Hebrews develops them quite differently. Fourth and last, there are many concepts borrowed from Platonism, an interest in Jewish cult practices and a characterization of Jesus Christ as a priest which is quite distinctive to the author of Hebrews.

So who did write Hebrews? Hebrews is anonymous; there is no claim of identity within the document itself, as there is in all the letters in the NT written by or ascribed to Paul. De Silva indicates that it was probably written by a member of the Pauline circle, because of the use of themes which were used by Paul and because of the reference to Timothy in the epistolary closing. Various members of the Pauline circle are candidates for authorship, including Barnabas, who called Paul to his first missionary journey, and Apollos, who is mentioned in 1 Corinthians and whom Paul lauded for his rhetorical skill, as well as others. It appears it was a man, due to the use of a Greek verb form “to tell” in 11:32, together with the fact that the author was known to the community he is writing to.

And who was Hebrews written to? It was early conjectured that it was written to a group of Jewish believers (thus the traditional name), however, that too was conjecture by the early Church fathers. De Silva suggests that the intended recipients were in fact a mixed group of Jewish and Gentile followers. He cites the familiarity with Old Testament themes that we see in Galatians and 1 Peter in support of this thesis. However, considering that, as noted above, the themes are developed in quite a distinctive fashion, I tend to disagree with de Silva on that point. I got the impression upon reading it of an overwhelming immersion in Jewish traditions and beliefs, with the author eloquently expressing that the customs and practices of the Old Covenant had been superseded by the New Covenant between God and the believers with Christ Jesus as mediator. In this sense, I believe that Hebrews bears some similarity to the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel which is usually believed to have originated in a community strongly influenced by formative Judaism – and even though that community might have been classed as “deviant” by the surrounding traditional Jewish society. I think that, regardless of the identity of the sender and the audience, or even if Hebrews was composed outside of Palestine (there is no indication of either location in the document), Jewish traditions would have been the predominant influence for both sender and recipient.

When was Hebrews written? There is no express date given, but it does appear to be an early work. The references to the Jewish priesthood and practices of sacrifice were made as if those institutions were in existence at the time of writing, indicating that it was prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. It seems certain that the author would have used the destruction of the Temple in further support of his argument had that occurred prior to the composition.

Is Hebrews really an epistle? The traditional name and even De Silva’s chapter heading refer to it as an epistle, but de Silva comments that it really appears to be more of a speech (or rather, here, a sermon). Hebrews does not contain many of the conventional elements of an ancient letter, as Paul’s do. It doesn’t really look much like a letter at all, except for what de Silva refers to as the “epistolary postscript” in 13:22-25. There is the brief reference to Timothy in 13:23, with some indication that the author was an associate of his. There are also the greetings sent by “those from Italy” in 13:24 – which really gives no indication of composition other than (to my mind) that the sender and recipients were probably *not* in Italy. The perfunctory nature of the epistolary portion makes me wonder if chapter 13 might have been to a speech or sermon in order to give some evidence of possible Pauline authorship.

The theology of Hebrews may be an intermediate point in the development of Christology, given the expression of Jesus’s superiority to the angels and the further characterization of him as a more perfect priest and sacrifice able, unlike the OT priests, to wipe away sins. The author wrote of the cleansing by the sprinkling of blood from sacrificial animals – which I take it was a ritual followed by the Jewish priests in order to purify objects and people. But the author’s conclusion was that Jesus’s shedding of his own blood for the believers was a more beneficent sacrifice than what was performed by the priests. The initial chapters 1 and 2 of the book are devoted to an exposition of Jesus’s superiority to the angels. We have seen this before in at least one of the Pauline or pseudo-Pauline letters (Col. 2:18), which makes me wonder if there was a strain – which in later years would have been called “heresy” – within heterodox early Christian belief, perhaps originating in some sects of Judaism or paganism which were exerting what was perceived to be a deleterious influence on the followers. Thus the author perceived that it was necessary to expound on Jesus’s superiority to the angels, despite the fact that in his human form, he seemed to be lower than they.

De Silva indicates that Hebrews appears to have been written to counter some threat to or influence on the community of believers, in which they were tempted to drift away or lapse back into their former beliefs. He notes that it takes a remarkable effort to persuade people to continue to follow an unpopular way of life, but that the author of Hebrews “rose to this challenge by means of a cohesive, multipronged attack on the forces that were eroding the commitment of the Christians.” (pg. 790) He concludes, “In the course of motivating Christans to remain connected with the Son and the people called in Jesus’ name, the author of Hebrews offers some of the richest reflections on the person and work of Jesus in the entire New Testament.” (pg. 806)

Erratum - The Island Was Not Named for the Tree :-)

Hi, All -

Yes, on re-reading my post I realized I had mis-spelled the name of the Island of Cyprus. That's what comes from typing while listening to the TV. Here's a link to the Wikipedia page with lots of info about the island -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus

Apologies to any Cypriots who may be reading this blog!

Part II, Week 7 - Chapter 19 - The Letters to Timothy & Titus -

I seem to have overdosed on Paul in the last three months. The problem, in my view, is that having dealt with the Gospels (pretty thoroughly) in the first term, it is Paul’s 13 letters which form the bulk of the superstructure of the “post-Gospel” New Testament. Since most of these are allocated one chapter in de Silva’s text, we have been reading Paul, and reading more of Paul, and reading still more of Paul since then. Of course, the fact that I’m doing my paper on a Pauline topic means that I’m reading even more which is focused on Paul outside of our class lectures and text. It’s fascinating – Paul is a riveting, larger-than-life character who jumps out of the New Testament as a very three-dimensional figure, and I had previously read, like, zippo about his theology and work in establishing the new church. Still, the discussion is starting to seem a bit repetitious.

These are three letters, which for several hundred years have been called “The Pastoral Epistles,” which claim to be from Paul to his companions and co-workers Timothy (1 and 2 Timothy) and Titus, at a time when Timothy had been left in charge of the church in Ephesus and Titus in charge of the churches on the island of Cypress. It is noteworthy that the Pastoral Letters did not appear in some of the earliest collections of Paul’s letters, such as that of Marcion, the 2nd. Century “Roman heretic.” Marcion, I believe, was especially antagonistic toward the Jews and was a proponent of Gnosticism in the Christian church, a battle which was ultimately lost, of course. (Marcion gave pride of place to Galatians, the letter which may be said to contain Paul’s most vehement attacks on Judaizers.) Perhaps that provides some explanation for why he may not have included the gentle Pastoral epistles in his collection of Paul’s letters.

Despite the omission from Marcion’s collection, the Pastoral Letters appeared by reference fairly early. Paraphrases of sayings in the letters to Timothy appear in the letter that Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna, wrote to the Philippians before 112-113 A.D. De Silva notes that they were accepted as Pauline by Irenaeus and Tertullian, as well as Eusebius in the early fourth century. De Silva concludes that if they were actually post-Pauline, they must have been composed closer to the time of Paul’s death than at the turn of the First Century.

The other books I have been reading include The First Paul by John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg, “The Pastoral Epistles,” by Arland J. Hultgren in The Cambridge Companion to St Paul, edited by James D.G. Dunn, and The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context, by Calvin J. Roetzel. Most of the other sources I have read – including the foregoing but also others since commencing our course last Fall – seem to treat the Pastoral Epistles as almost certainly “post-Pauline,” in the sense of not having actually been penned by Paul during his lifetime. Putting de Silva’s consideration of the Pastorals in that context, it appears that he has taken the most “expansive” interpretation (or narrow, depending on one’s point of view). While considering the arguments on both sides of the issue, he seems to fall in the end on the side of legitimacy, both in the sense of having written by Paul himself and in the sense of being authoritative scripture. I think his view can be fairly summarized as follows: given that they were included in the canon from a fairly early date, and given the fact that the arguments against legitimacy are not conclusive, one should accept them as the church fathers have for centuries, as inspired works of scripture. De Silva even goes so far as to say that if some new, genuine letters of Paul were by some chance discovered, they would not therefore automatically become authoritative scripture.

Here are my thoughts in a nutshell – Voltaire once said, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.” I think, for the infant church, “If Paul did not exist, it would have been necessary to invent him.” Furthermore, I think that also applies to the Pastoral Epistles, given their importance in the establishment of the earliest offices of the church, their earnest exhortations and gentle remonstrances which provided wise counsel to the early overseers, elders and bishops who followed Timothy and Titus and their proclamation of respectable moral codes, which have even been referred to as “bourgeois.” They do not preach the revolutionary message of Jesus – “The Kingdom of God is at hand!” They do not even preach the radical message of Paul, as in Galatians, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.” (Gal. 3:28) But they do preach a message of upright living, with purity and restraint, a moral code which was designed at least in part to deflect as much as possible the hostility of non-Christian society and power structure. They are important for pastors even now, facing somewhat different challenges, and this argues powerfully for their continued inclusion in the canon.

Part II, week 6 - Letters to the Colossians and Ephesians

In the “Excursus” de Silva provides a detailed introduction to “pseudepigraphs” – writings attributed to another person. Pseudepigraphs were commonly attributed to prophets, patriarchs and monarchs of the Old Testament period (like Enoch and Solomon) and also for the New Testament period – The Apocalypse of Paul and The Infancy Gospel of Thomas and many others. So the question inevitably arises as to whether some of the New Testament epistles are actually pseudepigraphic. (This doesn’t apply to the Gospels and Acts, since they are anonymous writings.)

De Silva agrees with many other scholars of the New Testament that there are a “cardinal four” of Paul’s epistles, whose authenticity is almost unquestioned. These are: Romans, Galatians, and 1 and 2 Corinthians. There are others whose authenticity is disputed to a greater or lesser degree, including Colossians and Ephesians, and then there are the almost-universally challenged “Pastoral Epistles” of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.

De Silva notes that there are close connections between Colossians and Ephesians. They seem to have been written from the same time and place of imprisonment. They share certain emphases on an exalted Christology which differs somewhat from that in Paul’s other letters. I would point out that there are also close connections between Colossians and Philemon, although the latter of course lacks much of the elaborate theological expression of Colossians and Ephesians as well as the other Pauline letters, which is logical given Philemon’s more personal nature and short length. Again the place and date of writing appear to have been the same, and many of the personages that appear in Philemon also appear in Colossians, including Onesimus, who is said to be traveling with Tychicus to Colossae.

De Silva’s analysis of the authorship of Colossians considers 1) some differences in style and vocabulary from the undisputed letters (which appear to be minor), 2) the fact that the author is writing to a church which he didn’t found, unlike Paul’s usual practice (which overlooks his connection to Epaphras), 3) a perhaps more exalted view of Paul’s own position than he would have expressed of himself (which overlooks his recognition of the importance of his place in apostleship, plus his acknowledgement of the efforts of his companions), and, more importantly, 4) some evolution of Paul’s theology beyond that expressed in his other letters, including exalted Christology, affirmation that the salving effects of Christ’s resurrection have already occurred, with “future eschatology” moving more into the background, and Jesus Christ said to be the head of the church.

Both letters may be authentic Pauline letters, or one or both may have been written by a colleague perhaps shortly after Paul’s death. Lastly, either or both may have been written by a disciple of Paul’s after Paul’s death with no participation by Paul. De Silva indicates that the question of legitimacy of a pseudepigraph might well be if it was intended to deceive. He notes that by that standard, 2 Timothy and Titus are the most nefarious, because “they include so many personal details and fabricate a plausible historical setting.” (pg. 687) If Colossians is a pseudepigraph, by that standard it would be more egregious than Ephesians, because Colossians contains more personal details, including a statement that Paul’s signature appears at the end to attest to its authenticity. “The general nature of Ephesians, however, would give it a better claim to be the benign work of a modest disciple, if it is indeed judged to be pseudonymous.” (Ibid.)

I would like to suggest a possible fairly legitimate rationale if either or both letters are pseudepigraphic. I am imagining a scenario with someone like Onesimus for example – obviously a devoted follower of Paul’s. You will recall that Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus when Ignatius of Antioch traveled that way on his way to martyrdom in Rome in about 117 A.D. I think it is possible that, if a devoted disciple of Paul’s were faced with an incipient heresy, he would be motivated to put down on paper what he could be fairly sure Paul would have said had he been able to do so. And I would think it even possible that Paul might have expressed many of the thoughts to his disciples but perhaps didn’t have a chance to set them down on paper. Perhaps there was no need to do so during his lifetime. But at a time when the challenge arose to the young churches – well, there would have been a powerful motivation to write what the followers could have been fairly sure Paul would have written had he been able to do so.

De Silva does note that more scholars doubt Ephesians’ authenticity than Colossians,’ largely because the tone of the former is relatively impersonal, especially considering that Paul spent between two and three years evangelizing in Ephesus. There is no particular adversary doctrine dealt with in Ephesians; rather it appears to be a vehicle for the fuller expression of the exalted Christology which was expressed in Colossians. The letters are so similar that de Silva notes that some of the material from Colossians (about one-third) is reproduced in Ephesians – or vice versa. The theories of borrowing resemble the theories explaining the “Synoptic Problem” of Matthew, Mark and Luke. In the case of Colossians and Ephesians – the author of one may have relied on the other for his text – or then again, de Silva notes that the similarities might just be a result of the same author writing both at roughly the same time. In that case, these two letters are evidence of the flexibility of Paul’s reasoning and ability to deal with new and varied challenges as they arose.

Part II, Week 5 - Chapter 17 - Philemon!

I appreciate that, in this week sandwiched between Simpson Week and Study Week our reading and blog topic is Paul’s Letter to Philemon, “the shortest and most personal of all Paul’s letters.” (pg. 668) As such, de Silva writes, it “might easily be overlooked.” (Ibid.) However, he notes that Philemon merits attention because it offers insight into the affairs of a house church, into Paul’s pastoral finesse, and into the transformation of human relationships that occurs in the community of believers.

This is the last of Paul’s letters that is almost universally acknowledged to be from Paul himself, rather than perhaps being “deutero-Pauline” or a pseudepigraph. It is in the form of a friendly letter and a commendatory letter, written by Paul and Timothy and addressed to Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus and the entire church that met in their home (which suggests to me that the named recipients were family members). It is another of Paul’s “prison letters;” but there is no indication of the place or date the letter was written. The usual suspects are trotted out, and de Silva concludes that it may well have been written during a short imprisonment in Ephesus. De Silva feels that a Caesarean or Roman provenance is unlikely because of the distance it would have required Onesimus to travel to meet with Paul.

Paul had apparently converted Philemon, although he had not proselytized in his city, which was almost certainly Colosse. De Silva suggests that Philemon may have become acquainted with Paul in Ephesus, while Colosse was one of three nearby towns where the churches were most likely founded by Epaphras.

Wherever Paul and Timothy are located, Onesimus, one of Philemon’s slaves, is with them. De Silva notes that he may have fled to Paul as a friend of Philemon’s. In such a case, the slave would not have been considered a runaway once he was received by the friend. In such a case, the slave could ask the friend to plead his case with his owner. That, indeed, is what seems to be occurring in the brief letter to Philemon.

After the formalities, the salutation and prayer of thanksgiving, Paul gets to his point. He refers to himself as an old man in chains. He states that he could order Philemon to do as he wishes Philemon to do, but rather than that, he appeals to Philemon on the basis of love. (v. 8-9) He calls Onesimus his son (v. 10) and says that formerly Onesimus was useless to Philemon but now has become useful to both of them. (v. 11) He states that he would liked to have kept Onesimus with him, but he didn’t want to do anything without Philemon’s consent, so he is sending him back. He refers to him as “my very heart.” (v. 12) He says that perhaps the reason that Onesimus and Philemon were separated for a little while was so that Philemon could have him back as more than a slave, as a “dear brother.” (v. 16)

He tells Philemon that, if he regards Paul as a partner, he should welcome Onesimus as he would welcome Paul. If Philemon feels that Onesimus has wronged him or owes him anything, he should charge that to Paul’s account. Paul states, I’ll pay you back – but on the other hand, “you owe me your very self.” (v.19)

We have seen that Paul frequently utilized the concepts of patronage, clientage, and brokerage, and honour and shame language, both as illustrations of the mediation by Christ Jesus on behalf of believers before his Heavenly Father, and also in Paul’s earthly relations with believers and the churches. In the case of the letter to Philemon, Paul says that if Philemon feels that if Onesimus has wronged him or owes him anything (de Silva suggests he might have taken a small amount of money to make the trip to Paul), Paul will make good for it – although Paul reminds him that Philemon is already in his deep debt. Onesimus has come to him in prison – perhaps to offer assistance that Paul would have liked to get from Philemon himself. Paul was able to convert Onesimus, and now he is more than a slave, he is a “dear brother” and will prove useful from now on to both Paul and Philemon. Therefore, Paul relies on Philemon’s good will and generosity to “do the right thing.” The fact that what would have been a private letter is addressed to the whole church shows that there was some subtle – or not so subtle – pressure being applied.

De Silva states that this letter may usefully explain the attitude in some letters (e.g. Ephesians and Colossians) in which Paul seems to be upholding the “household codes,” encouraging the submissiveness of women and subservience of slaves. A scrutiny of Philemon suggests that Paul may have intended to encourage individuals to do the right thing on their own initiative rather than by way of command.

Lastly, de Silva notes that when Ignatius of Antioch was traveling to Rome to face execution, he met with several church leaders along the way. One of these, spoken of glowingly by him in his letter to the Ephesians, was the bishop of Ephesus, one Onesimus. De Silva notes that Onesimus was a common slave name, but that it would have been unusual to have another slave of that name rise to such prominence in the early church. If Onesimus was in his early teens at the time of Paul’s letter, he would have been in his 70’s at the time of Ignatius’ visit. The preservation of so personal and private a letter may be explained if indeed it was he whose cause had been so eloquently pleaded by Paul.

Part II, Week 4, Chapter 16 - Paul's Letter to the Philippians -

Paul’s (and Timothy’s) epistle to the “saints in Christ Jesus of Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons” (Phi 1:1) takes the form of a letter of friendship. De Silva lists a number of characteristics which indicate that this is the genre of the letter, including 1) the fact of absence, 2) the authors’ assurance of their interest in the recipients, 3) expressions of confidence in the interest of the recipients in the affairs of the authors, and 4) requests for assistance on the basis of mutual friendship. (pg. 653) This is the last major piece of correspondence (of the ones we have read about in de Silva’s text) whose Pauline authorship is almost universally accepted.

It is clear from Paul’s words that he is writing from prison, the question is “which prison,” as there is no clear evidence of either the place or the date of composition within the letter itself. But it appears that most scholars feel that it was probably written in Rome, near the end of Paul’s missionary career (ca 61-62 A.D.). I wasn’t so sure, thinking of his working in that part of the world in the early phases of his missionary career (one of the possibilities is that he wrote it when he was imprisoned in Ephesus about 48 A.D.). But Paul refers in the letter (at 4:15-16) to “the early days of your acquaintance with the gospel,” and says that it was only the Philippians who sent him aid when he set out from Macedonia and when he traveled to Thessalonica. That seems like Paul is writing some years later and reminding the believers of their history of giving him much needed assistance, even when other churches did not.

The overarching themes of the letter are proper conduct (“Only let us conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ” – 1:27) and the unity of the church, even more than we have seen in Paul’s other letters. In fact, de Silva notes at page 640 that this letter might be called “Paul’s charter for Christian unity.” Paul’s language can occasionally approach real poetry, at least judging from the English translations. Here, the language of the thanksgiving and prayer in 1:3-11, as well as the more renowned “Christ Hymn” in 2:6-11, positively soar, and I am sure Paul’s fondest expressed wishes in 1:10-11 that the believers will be “pure and blameless” and “filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ – to the glory and praise of God,” must have been truly inspiring to them.

Besides, expressing his deep concern and constant prayers for the believers in Philippi, Paul recommends Timothy as one who takes genuine interest in their welfare (2:20) and Epaphroditus who “. . . almost died for the work of Christ, risking his life to make up for the help you could not give me.” (2:30), exhorts them to remain unified and live for service and suffering as Christ Jesus and Paul himself have done, and expresses his thanks for the assistance which the believers have given him, both in the past and more recently, when he received the gifts they sent with Epaphroditus to him in prison. He indicates that he does not need any more – and mentions that he has “learned to be content whatever the circumstances.” (4: 11) Yet, reading between the lines, I think Paul is inviting if not actually encouraging them to make further efforts, without actually coming out and asking, by making it clear that he is offering them his prayers, counseling, and the assistance of Timothy, which expresses the mutuality of the deep friendship that de Silva made reference to.

There are certain themes (e.g. Judaizers, false teachers) that recur in Paul’s letters, but there are certain features that make each one distinct. Here an interesting feature is that most of the believers in Philippi appear to have been female, and Paul attempts a tactful mediation of a dispute (the details of which he does not outline) between Euodia and Syntyche, two women who were apparently leaders of the church. The note to this verse in the NIV Study Bible indicates that it is significant that the dispute was serious enough for Paul to mention it in a letter which was intended to be read publicly. I am inclined to think (a rebuttable presumption) that Paul was a bit of a misogynist but also that his refusal to lay out the details of the dispute may have been a very canny way of avoiding the appearance of taking sides with one or the other. He simply pleads that they “agree with each other in the Lord,” and that one or more of the other followers (my NIV Study Bible says “yokefellow,” which sounds like he was addressing it to one person, but it’s not clear who) “help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers whose names are in the book of life.”

In addition to holding fast in unity of faith and trust in the face of hostility from the community, Paul holds out Christ Jesus’ example – and his own – of suffering and obedience as the evidence that they will eventually be resurrected in an immortal body as Jesus was resurrected. Again, in poetic hyperbole, Paul writes, “But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you. So you too should be glad and rejoice with me.” (2:17-18)

Part II, Week 3 - Chapter 15 - Paul's Letter to the Romans

Some people more knowledgeable than I have said that Paul invented Christianity. If there is some truth to that statement, then Paul’s Letter to the Romans has to be his blueprint, because in it he lays out his theological concepts in the greatest detail.

De Silva provides a masterful analysis of the theological complexity of Romans. He encapsulates the significance of the letter in his introductory paragraph:
“. . . Christians have repeatedly broken off fellowship with other Christians over the interpretation of minute aspects of this letter, for example, the question of predestination versus free will, the degree of human depravity, the nature of “saving” faith and so forth. A tragic irony emerges when we consider that in Romans, Paul provides his fullest treatment of the way God has brought together people of diverse heritage and practice into the one body of the church, and he also gives several chapters of practical advice for preserving unity in the midst of this diversity.” (pg. 598)

The letter is presumed to have been written between 55 and 58 A.D. from Corinth or its port Cenchreae, toward the end of Paul’s third missionary journey in Asia Minor, Macedonia and Greece. The letter was written because, as Paul states, he would have wished to travel to Rome at that point but was unable to do so, because he had to deliver the collection (presumably the same one that we have read about in earlier letters) to Jerusalem.

I note a difference in style between Romans and the other Pauline letters we have covered in our readings. Coincidentally or not, I believe this is the first letter in which the salutation does not include the name of one or more co-authors, and I cannot help wondering if this letter reflects more of the pure “Pauline” style as well as his theological concerns. The text in my view provides a bit of heavy slogging and some tendentiousness, especially in 1:24, 26, and 28, where Paul repeats the refrain that God “gave them over” (in effect, as he expresses it, God has allowed men to degrade themselves with sexual profligacy, the worship of created idols, lust and other acts of depravity, disobedience of parents, slander, gossip etc. etc.). While technically Paul may be right, it would sound less harsh if it were expressed in the form of God allowing us, his sinful creatures, free will – to act for good or ill. Jesus memorably said, “Judge not lest you be judged.” And although in 2:1 Paul expresses the same thought as Jesus, his words, “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things” sound, well, more judgmental.

I love reading de Silva’s analyses, and in the case of Romans, I have enjoyed reading the chapter in the text considerably more than the letter itself. For one thing, I think de Silva has spent more time trying to understand Paul’s words than I have, and for another, his explanations have a more charitable aspect than a first glance at the letter itself indicates – although I think reading and maybe re-reading de Silva may help me to understand better what Paul was doing. As an example, on a positive light, de Silva notes that Paul has worked out in more detail than ever before the concept – and the theological underpinnings – for both Jews and Christians being joined through Jesus Christ in the worship of the one God – with neither able to justifiably lord it over the other. As de Silva notes, he repeats several themes from his earlier epistles, including the issue of eating meats (which may have been slaughtered improperly or sacrificed to idols), the distinctions of the “strong” in faith versus the “weak,” which he interprets differently than I would think – as he seems to class those who are more observant of the law, dietary rules and holy days as “weak.” He reiterates that some of the traditional beliefs are not binding – however he proposes that the “strong,” who don’t feel bound to follow them, continue to refrain from eating meat and doing other things which their “weaker” brethren might find problematical, as an aid to the continuing belief of the “weak,” whose consciences will be stricken if they follow the behaviour of their “strong” brothers. I find these very interesting concepts. De Silva also notes that Paul tackles the difficult issue of why the Jews, who have the advantage of the long-standing covenant with the Lord, have in the majority rejected the message of Jesus’ salvation. His reasoning is that by their holding back, they have enabled the Gentiles to be converted, and that at some point when all the Gentiles are converted “all Israel” will be united in the acceptance of Jesus.

Paul, near the beginning of the letter, notes that he is writing in part to counter “slanderous” misrepresentations of his gospel – namely that he was lax in his views of sin. I believe that his intention in Romans is partly to present the theological underpinning for a new code of ethical behaviour for Christians – to replace the law which he holds as no longer binding. Part of the problem in the letter is that words are of necessity an imperfect vehicle for conveying the ineffable. De Silva again memorably notes: “But the mystery of God is always more difficult to domesticate than our traditions tend to admit.” (pg. 598)

Part II, Week 2 - Chapter 14 - The Corinthian Letters

The long-established Greek city of Corinth was destroyed by the Romans in 146 B.C. (the same year that Thessalonica became the capital of Macedonia). The city was ordered reestablished by Julius Caesar in 44 B.C., with a new population hailing from the various parts of the Empire. The result seems to have been an ancient city with a heterogeneous and upwardly mobile populace seeking to sink roots in a new land of opportunity, profiting from a strategic location on the Isthmus of Corinth, a place where the well off were “nouveaux riches” who sought to outdo one another in giving public evidence of their beneficence to the community, and a place where the concepts of honour and shame exerted a powerful influence.

1 Corinthians is a lengthy and complex epistle, dealing with many issues which were brought to Paul’s attention by reports from at least two different sources. The issue of itinerant preachers recurs (although probably not the Judaizers of Galatians). Some of these men were apparently flashier and put on a better “show” than Paul, and his ministry suffered by comparison. De Silva indicates that, in accordance with the traditional concepts of honour and patronage, various factions in the Church had picked out their favourites and “boasted” of the support they gave to them. The preachers were thus receiving support from the Christian community, which Paul pointed out that he had eschewed. Paul had to persuade the community that his refusal to join in this competition for favour from patrons, his sincerity and lack of flashiness were all evidence that he was truly an emissary from the Lord. Paul then addressed the question of women’s participation in church services, the ongoing issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols, the continuing social distinctions marring the Lord’s Supper, unequal distribution of certain “divine gifts,” Christians suing other Christians in secular courts, and ongoing problems of sexual immorality (which had originally been the subject of an earlier letter which has not survived).

Paul again raises the issue of the collection for the poor in Judea. The collection appears to have been a strenuous effort in which Paul was engaged over a number of years. I can’t help but wonder if Paul had gained the endorsement of the Jerusalem pillars for his efforts among the Gentiles at least in part by proposing this fundraising effort. In one place (I think in de Silva) I read that this collection was considered by Paul a fulfillment of the OT prophecy that the wealth of all the nations would flow into Jerusalem. Then when Paul established the new churches in Asia Minor and Greece, in addition to conveying the saving message of the Gospel, he exhorted the brothers to generously share some of their surplus wealth with the poor in Judea. Now, turning to the issue of the itinerant preachers, I suspect that they may have benefited not only at Paul’s expense but at the expense of some of what had been intended to be included in that collection. Regardless, when Paul raises the issue of the collection in both Corinthian letters, he makes a persuasive theological/moralistic argument in favour of sharing blessings among the churches – material benefits flowing to the churches who needed them, with spiritual blessings being returned and thus a mutuality of benefits being shared so that all benefited and none were taken advantage of.

It was after his second visit to Corinth, during which Paul was confronted by an “offender,” and dispatching another epistle (the “tearful letter”) which has not survived, that 2 Corinthians was written. There is serious disagreement as to whether 2 Corinthians is one unified epistle, or whether a later editor “sliced and diced” at least two – or perhaps up to five – different letters, combining them into one. The main support for that is considered to be some rather abrupt changes of tone and subject matter. The arguments against this are the fact from antiquity the letter has been known only in its current form, the fact that there are problems of rough transitions and incongruity of vocabulary in the hypothetical reconstructions, the fact that other ancient letters have been found which also contain abrupt changes in tone, and that the overall themes really do form a logical whole. De Silva again does a good job of presenting the arguments for and against the different views, but it seems that on balance in the absence of some compelling evidence, the letter probably appears today as it was written by Paul.

In the Corinthian letters, in addition to his exhorting and chastising the sometimes wayward Christians, Paul provides them with some of his most inspirational and comforting spiritual assurances. Thus these letters find continuing relevance both because of the problems of factionalism and (im)morality which are still widespread today and because of the depth and sincerity of the spiritual nourishment Paul provides to the community.

Part II, Week 1, Chapter 13 - The Thessalonian Correspondence

1 Thessalonians is an epistle which has long been generally accepted as being of Pauline authorship, probably his earliest surviving letter (barring an early date for Galatians – the NIV Study Bible, pg. 1821), dating from about 51 A.D., where Paul was imprisoned by the proconsul Gallio in Corinth.

The letter was written to the early church in Thessalonica, a major port city in Macedonia with Greek roots and governance and the Roman capital of that province. De Silva also notes that it was “a city full of idols,” including the cult of the patron of the city, Kabiros, a “dying and returning god.” De Silva indicates that familiarity of the pagan gentiles with such cults would have made it easier for them to accept and believe in Jesus, his passion and resurrection. It occurs to me that most of the pagan cults which achieved a widespread following in the Mediterranean area during these decades were of this type, including Dionysus and Osiris, which were mentioned by de Silva. This suggests that there was a hunger among the populace at this time for cults which had more lasting significance than the cults of the traditional Greco-Roman divinities, part of the reason so many gentiles became god-fearers and also early followers of Jesus.

De Silva indicates that Paul and Silas visited Thessalonica on one of their early missionary journeys in the late 40’s. After several months of proselytizing, the hostility of portions of the citizenry (a mob stirred up by the Jews, according to Acts 17) induced Jason, his host, and the other brothers to send Paul away precipitously. Making his way to Athens and then Corinth, Paul sent Timothy back to check on the community in Thessalonica and Timothy returned with a positive report on the faithfulness and progress of the flock there. Not long afterward, Paul, Silas and Timothy (according to the salutation) jointly wrote 1 Thessalonians.

The main concern is to help the community retain a sense of cohesion in the face of pressure from inside and outside the community rather than pressure from Judaizers that so often confronted Paul on other occasions. Using the form of a “friendly letter,” the brothers are reminded of Paul’s mission, shared sacrifice and constant caring and prayer for them. After noting that Timothy has made a positive report about their progress since Paul’s departure, the letter moves on to a brief exhortation as to the lifestyle they should be living in order to please God. De Silva notes in particular Paul’s use of honour and shame language. The believers may be shamed by their non-believing fellows, but ultimately they will be “sanctified” (1 Th. 4:3) and honoured by God. They will have the last laugh, in other words. Paul ascribes various adverse circumstances, such as his inability to be with them and the pressure from their neighbours to the influence of the “tempter” (Satan), the stark contrast with his sincerity and caring for them being designed to foster the sense of group solidarity in the face of hostility.
.
The authors then consider the Day of the Lord, as some believers had “fallen asleep” (i.e. died), causing some consternation, as Paul had preached that the Day of the Lord was imminent. Paul, Silas, and Timothy write to reassure the believers that when the Lord arrives, the ones who are “asleep” will be raised first of all. The letter then closes with some final exhortations to honour those who work hard among them, caution the idle, help the timid, and so on.

Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians has been challenged more frequently than 1 Thessalonians. The similarities of construction between the two letters suggest to some scholars that a follower of Paul’s used 1 Thessalonians as a template for the second letter, although it has a more formal tone. Also, the eschatology of the two letters is said to be incompatible; in 1 Thessalonians, the Day of the Lord is said to be imminent, while in 2 Thessalonians there is an emphasis on events that will occur before the end times.

There are possible explanations for these discrepancies which are not incompatible with Pauline authorship. The differences in style, vocabulary and tone may have been a result of differing contributions by the team, since composition of the letters appears to have been a collegial enterprise. The more formal tone used in the second letter may have been a result of new converts and churches with which Paul was not personally acquainted. The difference in eschatology may have been an effort to provide a counter-balance, since de Silva suggests that the followers may have been falling into the error of believing that the Day was actually occurring in the present time.

As mentioned above, the actual content of 2 Thessalonians follows very closely on the pattern of the earlier letter – the thanksgiving and prayer, the assurance that their suffering will make them worthy of God’s favour, the discussion of the coming of the Lord (although with more emphasis on the precursors, such as the coming of the “man of lawlessness,” which will precede the coming), the exhortation of the followers to stand firm in their beliefs, a request that the followers pray for the authors, a stronger warning against idleness than was contained in the earlier letter, and a final blessing.

These two letters give excellent insight into the concerns of the early followers and the methods and arguments marshaled by Paul and his confreres to help them retain their group cohesion in the face of powerful internal and external pressures from friends and neighbours that the new followers have left behind, in a spiritual sense.