Introduction to 1 Thessalonians
(avg. read time: 7–13 mins.)
Today’s post is based on something I did for one of my MDiv. classes. If there is enough interest, I might consider eventually doing this kind of introduction for the other books of the NT. But for now, I will simply do what I already have prepared for 1 Thessalonians.
Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians is typically taken as either his first or second NT letter (depending on when one dates Galatians). He had established a Christian community among them as part of his evangelization in Macedonia during his second missionary journey in the events recorded in Acts 17:1–9 (Paul also mentions his time here in Phil 4:16). Paul was there for at least three Sabbaths, but it is likely that he was there for longer than three weeks and that this reference only tells us how many times he preached in a synagogue there. Some Jews, devout gentiles, and “not a few of the leading women” joined this community, but the ongoing conflict with Paul’s Jewish opponents had extended here and with the help of “some ruffians,” the city was thrown into an uproar over the Christians. This is one of those cases where Paul and his fellows were not actually assaulted, but his host, Jason, and some others were subject to mob persecution and attempted mob prosecution. Jason and the others were eventually let go after bail was posted and Paul and Silas were sent on to Beroea (more popularly known as Berea) at night. Yet the conflict in Thessalonica followed them there (Acts 17:11, 13).
Paul is never explicitly said to return to Thessalonica, but it is possible that he did so in his travels through Macedonia (20:1–4). Otherwise, Luke tells us of one Secundus from Thessalonica who accompanied him (20:4), and Aristarchus from Thessalonica who accompanied him both at that time and during his sailing towards Rome (27:2). In the latter case, Aristarchus met with Paul hundreds and hundreds of miles from home when they were setting sail from Caesarea in Galilee. And this was around a decade after 1 Thessalonians was written, which shows the long-lasting personal impact Paul made on the church in this city.
Scholars generally date 1 Thessalonians to 50–51 CE, occasionally plus or minus a year. This date range is rather broadly agreed to because the provenance of this writing is generally taken to be in Corinth, where Paul spent eighteen months or so (Acts 18:11), maybe during his early days there. The alignment between Paul referring to sending Timothy from Athens (1 Thess 3:1) and to Timothy “now having come to us from you” (1 Thess 3:6) with Luke reporting that Timothy and Silas came back to Paul while he was in Corinth (Acts 18:1, 5) strongly suggests that this provenance is correct. That allows us to be relatively precise about the year because Paul’s time in Corinth overlapped with Gallio’s proconsulship of Achaia (Acts 18:12). Thanks to the “Gallio Inscription” and information derived from other sources, we can say rather confidently that Gallio was proconsul in 51/52 CE and only for that time because this was a year-long appointment. Paul’s time in Corinth also could not have been before 49 CE, as Luke mentions that Aquila and Priscilla had come from Italy after Claudius’s edict expelling Jews from Rome (Acts 18:2; cf. Suetonius, Claud. 25.4), which happened in the ninth year of Claudius’s reign or 49 CE. We cannot be more precise than this because we do not know how much of Paul’s time in Corinth overlapped with Gallio’s time as proconsul, we do not know how long Aquila and Priscilla had been in Corinth, nor do we know at what point during Paul’s time in Corinth he might have written this letter.
(A further layer to this question of date concerns when 2 Thessalonians was written. A few, most notably Charles Wanamaker, have argued that 2 Thessalonians was actually written first. If there is interest, I may go over the arguments for this idea another time, but like most, I think 1 Thessalonians was first. I also think that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians, which is a bit more controversial, though a smaller majority favors Pauline authorship compared to their favoring of the traditional order.)
Of course, despite the lack of doubt about authorship for 1 Thessalonians compared to the disputed letters (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, and the Pastoral Epistles), one needs to remember that the question of authorship is more complicated than we often give it credit for being. The amanuensis (sometimes called a secretary in more popular work) was an important individual in the ancient world for anyone who wanted to write, even for those who knew how to write for themselves. And they were given different degrees of freedom to write whatever compositions they agreed to do. Sometimes they took more or less strict dictation, other times they would write in their own words based on notes they took and would simply have the author who was the source of the thought approve the final draft. And there were still other variations of freedom depending on the amanuensis and the author in question. The author may have been the one who put pen to paper (so to speak), or they may have not picked up a writing implement at all in the process of composition. But as long as someone could in some way be considered the source for this particular text, that person could be identified as an author, whether or not they inscribed the letters and formed the words on the scroll, page, skin, or what have you. (This is something else I can explore another time if there is interest.)
This consideration is not only relevant for discussions about the disputed Pauline letters; it is also relevant for the undisputed ones. Romans is often treated as if it is the Paulest of Pauline letters, yet even though Paul himself is identified as the author, he was not the writer of it. The writer was Tertius, as stated in Rom 16:22. Sosthenes is identified as a co-sender of the letter of 1 Corinthians (1:1). Timothy has the same role in 2 Corinthians (1:1), Philippians (1:1), and Philemon (1). Only Galatians never mentions anyone else as involved with the letter. In our letter of 1 Thessalonians, both Timtohy and Silas/Silvanus are identified along with Paul as the senders of the letter. Even compared to the other letters (not to mention the disputed ones), there is a remarkable tendency in this letter to use the first-person plural (over 96% of the first-person pronouns are plural). Of course, Paul is recognized as the primary speaker, and thus it is still spoken of as “his” letter and not “their” letter. The contributions of Silas and Timothy are unclear, but it is important to remember, for how simplistically questions of authorship are often engaged with, that even an undisputed Pauline letter bears the names of multiple people, and we are not in a position to say they contributed nothing to what is otherwise regarded as a clearly Pauline letter.
Audience
While Acts 17 tells us that the Thessalonian community consisted of both Jews and gentiles, we are not privy to information about relative proportion. The impression from 1 Thessalonians is that, whether it was from the beginning or it became so in the last however many months, the audience is mostly gentile. This makes sense of Paul’s description of them as turning to God from idols (1:9). Moreover, since we know that Paul worked his trade as a tentmaker while he evangelized (Acts 18:3), we can reasonably conclude that many, if not most, of the Thessalonian Christians at this point were artisans. This is indicated in 2:9 from the fact that Paul can rely on their remembrance of him and his fellows working so as to provide for themselves, and they would know of their labor if they encountered them in that setting of work and not only in the synagogue. The direction Paul and his fellows had given previously about minding their own business and working with their hands also makes sense for artisans (4:11). Likewise, the instruction to admonish the idle fits in a context of working with one’s hands (5:14).
Setting
The church in Thessalonica, like several others that Paul founded, was strategically located. It was on the major road of the Via Egnatia, and it was close to the site of Mount Olympus, the significance of which for Greek polytheists is apparent. It is estimated that at the time Paul came, there were ~65,000–80,000 people within the city walls. If one added those who lived in the immediate vicinity, the area may have included as many as 100,000 people.
The city was founded in 316/315 BCE by Cassander, who named the city after his wife Thessalonike, half-sister to Alexander the Great. Although Greek in location and origin, most of its history was entwined with Rome. It was nonviolently conquered by Rome in 168/167 BCE and thereafter became a favored city and capital of the Roman province of Macedonia (approximately 148 BCE). By 42 BCE it was made a free city for the people’s support of Antony and Octavian in the Liberators’ Civil War against Brutus and Cassius. This meant they were granted self-governance under politarchs, they could mint their own coins, and they were tax-exempt.
As such, the city developed an identity as Caesar pleasers. After all, they were one of the early cities to form a ruler/imperial cult in the late first century BCE. As Thessalonica was originally under the dominion of Antony, there were honorific inscriptions to him and declarations about the “age of Antony.” But once he lost to Octavian in the War of Actium, and the latter thus consolidated his power, the Thessalonians quickly erased Antony’s name and replaced references to the age of Antony with references to the age of Augustus. They understood that the cost of their freedom as a free city was unswerving loyalty to whoever was in power.
Of course, it is not as if Caesar had the only or even the primary cult in town. The standard Olympian gods were worshiped there (unsurprisingly, especially since Olympus was readily visible from the city). Especially important and prominent was the cult (including the mystery cult) of the Cabiri. There were also cults to Serapis and Isis, as were common in the Mediterranean world (especially for the latter). For all these powers in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, worshiping the patron deities of the city and of the various divisions (such as guilds) within the city was considered a matter of civic duty. Sacrifices, prayers, and images of the gods were common elements in meetings of the official assembly or the governing council, and priests often had roles and powers akin to civil magistrates. Because Judaism was legally recognized as an ancient tradition, they were tolerated for going their own way on these matters, but as in many other places where the Jews lived, there was passive pressure to assimilate to the dominant culture.
All of this illuminates the story in Acts 17:1–9. The Jewish opponents of Paul distanced themselves from him and his movement and turned the fears of the Thessalonians against the Christian community. The affliction referenced throughout 1 Thessalonians, which I noted in my series on perseverance of the suffering faithful, is a result of conflicts like this. It is not so much a matter of top-down pressure applied by the powers that be, even though that did happen at times. It is rather that the affliction was intergroup and interpersonal, as members of the family and the larger community might take it upon themselves to shame and pressure the Christians back into assimilation. Failing that, the pressure could turn violent, as in Acts 17. Paul’s response to this reality is to remind the Thessalonian Christians of his apocalyptic and eschatological gospel and other teachings, reinforce what they are doing, and reiterate their new communal identity.
Genre/Purpose
There is an extensive scholarly debate over whether epistolary criticism or rhetorical criticism provides the best method for understanding 1 Thessalonians. The work is definitely framed as a letter, but many scholars would insist that it is a work of rhetoric within an epistolary frame. It was composed in an oral culture and is thus best understood as inscribed speech with rhetorical purposes. Personally, I am not as enamored with rhetorical criticism as some I know, but I think it is fair to speak of the biblical texts as having parallel communicative function with ancient rhetoric and that studies of ancient rhetoric illuminate these letters and how they are presented, but we need not discount correlations with ancient letters either (although most NT letters are among the longest of the letters written to their time).
Paul’s reasons for sending this letter have also been debated. The letter best fits what is called epideictic rhetoric. Whereas juristic rhetoric is focused on the past and deliberative rhetoric is focused on the future, epideictic rhetoric is focused on persuading about the present. Thus, it is described as the rhetoric of praise and blame. It can be especially effective for persuading people to stay a course they are already on and for the purposes of edification and encouragement. This type of rhetoric also fits with how Paul is imparting little to no new information in this letter. Note all the references Paul makes to the effect of “you already know” in 1:4–5; 2:1–2, 5, 9–11; 3:3–4; 4:2, 6, 9, 11; and 5:1–2.
Themes to Watch for
As this is an introduction and not a mini-commentary on the letter itself, I will only briefly reference the themes of the letter. First, Paul’s pastoral care and thankfulness for this congregation are apparent from the beginning to the end of this letter. It encompasses the whole. It is especially noteworthy that the thanksgiving section of this letter, which is generally part of the first chapter in most of his letters, technically spans three chapters of this letter. Second, also from the beginning to the end of the letter Paul attests to the power of the gospel. That is one reason why he is so thankful for this congregation: they show the evidence of the power of the gospel in themselves. Third, as noted in my aforementioned series, Paul calls for perseverance in the face of conflict. There are many pressures surrounding the congregation to abandon allegiance to Christ for the sake of assimilation to the world, but faithfulness in such a situation requires perseverance. Fourth, in many ways throughout, as I will discuss in my next post on 1 Thessalonians, Paul stresses the communal identity and solidarity in and with Christ. Fifth, particularly in 4:13–5:11 (on this text and what it says about the time of the Second Coming, see here), but also briefly elsewhere, Paul stresses the importance of eschatological hope and the prospect of judgment. They inhere in the gospel he has proclaimed, and they are a source of comfort and ethical motivation. These things also inform what it looks like to live in the overlap of the ages as children of the light and the day.