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.