Post on 06-Apr-2018
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 1/27
CANDLER SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY
EMORY UNIVERSITY
EARLY PAUL:
AN EXEGESIS OF 1 THESSALONIANS 2:13–16
SUBMITTED TO DR. STEVEN KRAFTCHICK
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFGREEK EXEGESIS OF THESSALONIANS
BYJARED BEVERLY
MAY 3, 2011
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 2/27
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 3/27
INTRODUCTION
1 Thessalonians 2:13–16 comprises probably the most controversial passage in all of
Paul’s accepted letters. Its hostility toward Jews stands out as uncharacteristic of the apostle who
wrote that the greatest virtue is love (1 Cor. 13) and who foretells the salvation of all Jews (Rom.
9–11). For Bammel, this passage is the “ Arena für den Kampf um die Echtheit des Briefs,” 1and
Markus Barth calls it a “dreadful text.” 2 The interpretation of this passage in particular can have
great societal implications, for “[t]hese words, and others like them, have fueled the Holocaust
and countless hate crimes through history.” 3Rydelnik goes as far as to claim, “In the past this
passage has led many people to hate Jews.” 4 Surely this indictment of the text goes too far, but
this overstatement does show that in the wrong interpretive hands, these are dangerous verses.
Readers must tread carefully and cautiously here.
Immediately following a thanksgiving, Paul launches into a diatribe against his ethnic
compatriots that accuses them of multiple crimes and proclaims divine punishment upon them. It
shows a very different picture than the Paul of Rom. 9–11, who so desires that the Jews turn to
Christ. This is an enraged Paul whom the Jews have offended. Paul will eventually grow into a
more mature position regarding the Jews as his epistolary career develops, but here in his earliest
letter, he shows himself to be entirely antagonistic toward Jews who do not accept Jesus.
1
1 Ernst Bammel, Judaica et Paulina (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr, 1997), 237, sic.
2 Markus Barth, “Was Paul an Anti-Semite?” JES 5 (1968): 98: “These verses are not only prone to misuse
by people who are anti-Semites by disposition or education, but they are in themselves passionate, generalizing,
hateful.”
3 Linda McKinnish Bridges, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, GA:
Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2008), 55.
4 Michael A. Rydelnik, “Was Paul Anti-Semitic? Revisiting 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16,” BSac 165 (2008):
67.
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 4/27
AUTHENTICITY
The question of authorship is always complicated, but the issue with 1 Thessalonians
2:13–16 is especially cloudy. The letter is widely regarded as Paul’s earliest, and some have
posited that 2:13–4:2 constitute the earliest part of the letter, with the rest added to it at later
date.5 However, 2:13–16 or some portion of these verses has frequently been read as an non-
Pauline interpolation. Thus, the stakes for authorship are high: the passage in question is either
Paul’s earliest extant writing, or it is not Paul’s at all. A full discussion of all the questions
regarding the (non-)authenticity of this passage deserves its own paper and cannot but be
summarized here, but any discussion on 2:13–16 must take a stance on the verses’ authorship
before any interpretation is possible. Thus, a short treatment of the views on both sides of the
issue is necessary; this paper will proceed with the assumption of Pauline authorship, for the
weight of the evidence is stronger there.
With the advent of modern biblical criticism came a fresh look at 1 Thessalonians, and in
the 19th century, Ferdinand C. Baur, in a study of Paul’s theology, concluded that the paragraph
was inauthentic.6 This view fell out of fashion in the early 20th century and was interrupted by a
short period in the middle of the century in which many scholars took the entire letter of 1
Thessalonians to be inauthentic. After a decade or so, scholars largely accepted both the letter
and the passage in question as Pauline. However, Birger A. Pearson’s 1971 article7 again raised
the debate by making a strong case for interpolation, and a few have joined him. Current biblical
2
5 Earl J. Richard, First and Second Thessalonians (SP; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1995), 12–14.
6 Ferdinand C. Baur, Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Work, His Epistles and His Doctrine
(rev. by Edward Zeller; A. Menzies, trans.; 2 vols.; London, England: Williams and Norgate, 1876), 84–97.
7 Birger A. Pearson, “1 Thessalonians 2:13–16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation,” HTR 64 (1971). See
especially page 81.
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 5/27
scholarship has mostly maintained this structure: most see it as Pauline,8 but a minority
disagrees.9 What follows is a brief look at both arguments.
Firstly, the passage does not seem to fit the context: “scholars routinely speak of a
parenthesis, tangent, or violent outburst.” 10A reader would not even notice it if the passaged
were skipped over entirely.11 The passage appears different in some of its language, such as
mention of imitating other churches,12 which is atypical of Paul (though the Thessalonians are an
example in 1:7) and the separation of κύριον and Ἰησοῦν is unique to the NT. Conversely, the
3
8 E.g., Barth, “Anti-Semite?”, 98; G. K. Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians (IVPNTCS; Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2003), 81; Ernest Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (Black’s NTCommentary; London: Hendrickson, 1972), 122; Markus Bockmuehl, “1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 and the Church in
Jerusalem,” TynBul 52 (2001): 3; Bridges, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 54; Karl P. Donfried, “Paul and Judaism. 1
Thessalonians 2:13–16 as a Test Case,” Int 38 (1984): 245; Jacob W. Elias, 1&2 Thessalonians (Believers Church
Bible Commentary; Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1995), 85; Robert Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence:
Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 46; Jan Lambrecht, “Thanksgivings in 1
Thessalonians 1–3” (pp. 135–62 in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological
Synthesis?, Karl P. Donfried and Johannes Beutler, eds.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), 146;
Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (AB; New Haven: Doubleday, 2000), 179; Leon Morris, 1
and 2 Thessalonians, rev. ed. (TNTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984), 64; Rydelnik,
“Anti-Semitic?”, 63; Schlueter, Carol J. Filling Up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in 1 Thessalonians 2.14–16
(JSNTSup 98; Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 25–53; J. M. Scott, “Paul’s Use of
Deuteronomic Tradition,” JBL 112 (1993): 651; Todd D. Still, Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and its
Neighbors (JSNTSup 183; Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 25; Charles A. Wanamaker, The
Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 33;
and Jon A. Weatherly, “The Authenticity of 1 Thessalonians 2.13–16: Additional Evidence,” JSNT 42 (1991): 80.
9 E.g., H. Boers, “The Form Critical Study of Paul’s Letters. I Thessalonians as a Case Study.” NTS 22
(1976): 152; F. F. Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians (WBC; vol. 45; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982), 51 (vv. 15-16); H.
Koester, “I Thessalonians—Experiment in Christian Writing” (pp. 33–44 in Continuity and Discontinuity in Church
History by Festschrift G. H. Williams; Studies in the History of Christian Thought 19; Leiden: Brill, 1979); Richard,
Thessalonians, 122 (vv. 14–16), and D. Schmidt, “1 Thess 2:13–16: Linguistic Evidence for an Interpolation,” JBL
102 (1983): 269.
10 Richard, Thessalonians, 123. So Boers, “Form Critical,” 152: “the elimination of this passage as an
interpolation brings about a virtual metamorphosis of I Thessalonians, resolving most of the problems in connection
with the form and function of the letter.”
11 Beverly Roberts Gaventa, First and Second Thessalonians (IBC; Louisville: John Knox, 1998), 35.
Perhaps the transition from 2:12 to 2:17 is smoother without the supposed interpolation, but the ἡμεῖς of 2:17
mirrors nicely the ὑμεῖς 2:14.
12 Pearson, “1 Thessalonians 2:13–16,” 87.
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 6/27
thanksgiving in v. 13 seems oddly familiar to the one in 1:2—an interpolator may have simply
copied the first thanksgiving with some minor editing.13 Thus, ironically, the passage appears
either too different or too similar to the rest of the letter for Paul to have written it.
The main point of contention is that the passage demonstrates a type of anti-Semitism or
anti-Judaism that “is uncharacteristic of Paul and more likely the product of a later Gentile-
Christian hand.” 14The attitude toward the Jewish people here looks different from the attitude
Paul shows in Rom. 11 and 1 Cor. 2:8. According to Pearson, Paul believes “Jesus was brought
to death by the demonic ‘rulers of this age’ who did not know that by doing so they would defeat
themselves in the process” 15—Paul does not blame the Jews. In addition, not only is it odd to see
Paul in opposition to the Jews, but he himself is a Jew and is proud of his accomplishments in
Judaism (Gal. 1:14; Phil. 3:5ff). Nevertheless, though Paul may not elsewhere specifically indict
the Jews for Jesus’ death, he is well familiar with the tradition of attributing to them the deaths of
the prophets (Rom. 11:3; cf. 1 Kings 19:10,14). Additionally, Paul’s harsh tone here is not
unique, even in Jewish texts; Hebrew Bible prophets often vociferously pointed out the sins of
others in their nation. In any case, the dissimilarity between 1 Thessalonians and Romans could
be explained by the number of years in between the two letters—perhaps during that time, Paul’s
views shifted. Ultimately, none of the objections to this passage hold, and there is no text-critical
reason to doubt its original inclusion anyway. Thus, 1 Thess. 2:13–16 is thoroughly Pauline. That
said, it does not erase the difficulty of Paul’s harsh tone and the need for attentive interpretation.
4
13 Ibid., 89–90: Pearson sees this second thanksgiving as evidence of interpolation. Against this view,
Lambrecht (“Thanksgivings,” 146) states, “One remains somewhat baffled at the ease with which certain scholars
use the three thanksgivings [the third being in 3:9] of as an argument for their hypothetical conflation of two letters
or a so-called interpolation of 2:13–16.”
14 Richard, Thessalonians, 122.
15 Pearson, “1 Thessalonians 2:13–16,” 80. He argues that blaming the Jews seems to be a later
development, as in Acts 2:36.
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 7/27
The following section will delve into the context of the passage before looking at it verse by
verse to determine what Paul is meaning to say.
CONTEXT
Paul has begun his letter with a short greeting (1:1) and moves directly to a thanksgiving
section starting in 1:2 in which he expresses his gratitude for the Thessalonians’ acceptance of
the gospel. Paul then confirms that his message is true because it was delivered to them through
the suffering of Paul and his companions (2:2) and because their behavior was commendable
when they were among the Thessalonians (2:3–12). He ends this session with a brief note of
encouragement to live godly lives (2:12b).16 Another expression of thanksgiving appears as the
reader comes to the passage in question (the nature of which will be discussed in the following
section), and Paul moves on to the suffering of the Thessalonians, which is like that of Judean
Christians. From there, Paul expresses his desire to see them again (2:17–20) and expounds upon
Timothy’s presence in Thessalonica (3:1–13). He concludes the letter with two chapters of
paraenesis (4:1–5:22) and a closing benediction (5:23–28). This is the structure of the letter as
we have it today.
Explaining how 2:13–16 fits in with the rest of the letter is a matter of debate. One
possibility comes from comparing it to Latin epistolary conventions, so that this section may be a
digression in the narratio whose goal is to build a foundation for the next argument, to supply a
transition, to gain the audience’s favor, or to serve a paraenetic purpose: if this is so, then the
rhetorical structure of the passage seeks to “confirm the Thessalonians in their existing pattern of
5
16 Bruce (1&2 Thessalonians, 42) calls 2:12b “something in the nature of a doxology.”
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 8/27
faithfulness regardless of the outside opposition they might experience.” 17 Earl J. Richard’s
explanation of the text’s structure, however, goes in a different direction, asserting that 1
Thessalonians is really a combination of two Pauline letters. He posits 2:13–4:2 (minus 2:14–16,
which he takes as an interpolation) to be the earlier missive, around which the second missive
was arranged at a later date, yielding the text as we have it now. The thanksgiving in 2:13 would
then be the thanksgiving that customarily occurs near the beginning of Paul’s letters. 18 There is
no evidence for the cutting and pasting that Richard suggests, and it has already been shown that
the proof of the inauthenticity of 2:13–16 (or parts thereof) is scant, so the best approach is to
determine how the passage fits into the letter. Wanamaker’s view is one reasonable explanation;
Richard’s is less plausible.
Though the passage demonstrates some unavoidable oddness as it is, it does serve a
purpose. One obvious connection is that the reference to the Thessalonians’ suffering (2:14)
follows the reference to Paul’s own suffering (2:2), uniting the two parties in a common
experience. What’s more, 2:1–12 shows Paul’s exemplary behavior to produce fruit among the
Thessalonians, and “in 2:13–14 he shows what the effect actually was among the readers,” i.e.,
6
17 Wanamaker, Epistles, 109.
18 Richard (Thessalonians, 115–16) argues that the first missive (2:13 and 2:17–4:2) has its thanksgiving
section, but the opening salutation has been cut off. 1 Thess. 1:1 is the opening to the second (and later) missive, but
the first missive’s opening would have been similar. Timothy would have omitted because he is assumed to be the
envoy of the first missive, and the “Christological title might have been ‘Lord Jesus,’ as always in the first missive
[. . .] rather than ‘Lord Jesus Christ.’” The complete opening to the missive in Richard’s view would be as follows: Paul and Silvanus,
to the community of Thessalonians
assembled by God the Father and the Lord Jesus,
grace to you and peace.
Of the many who disagree with this hypothesis, Koester (“I Thessalonians,” 38) stands out: “Any attempt to
assign part of I Thess 1:2–3:13 to two different letters [. . .] disregards the careful composition.” Ironically, though,
he too rejects the passage as an interpolation because it does not seem to belong due to its second instance of
thanksgiving.
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 9/27
their acceptance of Paul’s gospel.19 These two points of comparison do not solve all the
difficulties of the passage, but they show that it is not as out of place as it may seem. These
verses do belong in the letter, and they serve to show the results of Paul’s labor before he moves
later into his further encouragement (namely, the paraenesis of 4:1–5:22). Having established
both its Pauline authorship and the appropriateness of its inclusion and position in the letter, a
close reading of each verse now follows.
VERSE 13: THE THANKSGIVING
Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ θεῷ ἀδιαλείπτως, ὅτι παραλαβόντες λόγον ἀκοῆς παρ’ ἡμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐδέξασθε οὐ λόγον ἀνθρώπων ἀλλὰ καθώς ἐστιν ἀληθῶς λόγον θεοῦ, ὃς καὶ ἐνεργεῖται ἐν ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν.20
The first verse of this controversial passage contains Paul’s thanks for his audience’s
reception of his gospel. Richard takes διὰ τοῦτο to look forward because of his view that this is
the first extant verse of the hypothetical first missive around which 1 Thessalonians was built—if
there was nothing before it, then it cannot possibly look backward.21 Most others agree with his
conclusion even though they do not accept his proposed multiple-missive hypothesis. The διὰ
τοῦτο cannot look backward because it is emphasizing the object of Paul’s thanks, i.e., their
reception of the gospel.22 The subsequent ἡμεῖς here is especially emphatic, not only because it
is unnecessary due to the ending of εὐχαριστοῦμεν but also because of its preceding καὶ. This
καὶ cannot mean “and” because it is the second in this sequence, so it is more likely a form of
7
19 Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians, 77.
20 All Greek quotations come from NA27 unless otherwise indicated.
21 Richard, Thessalonians, 111–12. He takes the phrase Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ as a non-Pauline phrase added
to join 2:12 with 2:13 and translates it as “So for the following reason also.”
22 See Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 44; Elias, 1&2 Thessalonians, 82; and Wanamaker, Epistles, 110.
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 10/27
weakened emphasis on ἡμεῖς. καὶ ἡμεῖς can thus be rendered “we for our part” 23or “even we
ourselves.” The reason for this double emphasis is not clear, but Bruce suggests that Timothy
may have come back with a message from the Thessalonians that said something to the effect of
“We thank God that you brought us the gospel”; then καὶ ἡμεῖς would be an emphatic response
to their thanksgiving.24 This is plausible but obviously unprovable; Malherbe is right in judging
it unnecessary.25 Nevertheless, these first five words look forward to Paul’s second expression of
thanks in the letter.
Paul’s gratitude here is odd—“the extended length of the thanksgiving [in the letter]
causes considerable confusion.”26
It is debated whether this is indeed an extended thanksgiving
section or an entirely new one. Scholars frequently desire to show that 1 Thessalonians fits a
known structure of a particular Classical epistolary genre, but this is one instance in which the
structure is ambiguous. Some classify it as a continuation,27 others as a whole new section28—
there is likely no sure way to decide. If it is not a continuation of the thanksgiving section proper,
this is in the very least a continuation of the motif of thanksgiving. 29 Bruce asserts that not only
does it extend the thanksgiving of ch. 1, but “it amplifies it.” 30 In any case, this thanksgiving
uses much the same progression as that of 1:2, following the word εὐχαρίστω with the recipient
8
23 As suggested by Best (Thessalonians, 109) and Bruce (1&2 Thessalonians, 44).
24 Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 44.
25 Malherbe, Let ters, 165.
26 Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 69.
27 See, e.g., Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 43; Donfried, “Paul and Judaism,” 245–6; Elias, 1&2
Thessalonians, 82; Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 69; and Malherbe, Letters, 164.
28 See, e.g., Wanamaker, Epistles, 110; and Lambrecht, “Thanksgivings,” 143.
29 See Best, Thessalonians, 110.
30 Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 44.
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 11/27
of Paul’s thanks, God, and stressing the continual nature of this gratitude.31
The ὅτι then shows the reader that for which Paul is thankful: the reception of the gospel
among the Thessalonians. The verbs in this clause (a participial form of παραλαμβάνω and a
finite verbal conjugation of δέχομαι) have the same meaning but different senses. The former
implies passive reception32 and is in the NT “especially used of receiving a message or body of
instruction handed down by tradition.” 33 The latter word implies not merely reception but
acceptance.34 The message that the Thessalonians both received and accepted is (contained in)
the “word of God,” an unusual phrase for Paul.35 The separation of the head noun λόγον from
the phrase τοῦ θεοῦ “lays stress on the modifier” 36and contrasts it with the intermediate phrase
ἀκοῆς παρ’ ἡμῶν,37 emphasizing that the message was not of human origin but divine. This
contrast appears again in the phrase headed by ἐδέξασθε. It is not a human (ἀνθρώπων) word
—they accepted it as it truly (ἀληθῶς) is, which is the word of God. The second θεοῦ is
anarthrous to match the anarthrous ἀνθρώπων; this is another tool to stress the modifiers and
draw the contrast.38 Richard sees a chiastic structure in this portion of v. 13:
9
31 Best, Thessalonians, 110. See also Richard, T hessalonians, 112: “The term ‘continually’ stresses that
Paul intends not a time or place of prayer but a state of mind.”
32 Richard, Thessalonians, 112–13. π αραλαμβάνω does not imply any action on the listener.
33 Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 44.
34 Richard, Thessalonians, 112–13. So Elias, 1&2 Thessalonians, 83; and Wanamaker, Epistles, 110–11.
35 Among Paul’s uncontested letters, it is used only in Rom. 9:6; 10:17; 1 Cor. 14:36; 2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2; and
here twice.
36 Richard, Thessalonians, 112.
37 Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 44. See also Gaventa, Thessalonians, 36.
38 Richard, Thessalonians, 113.
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 12/27
παραλαβόντες λόγον [. . .] τοῦ θεοῦ a
ἀκοῆς παρ’ ἡμῶν b
ἐδέξασθε οὐ λόγον ἀνθρώπων b'
ἀλλὰ καθώς ἐστιν ἀληθῶς λόγον θεοῦ a' 39
In this setup, a and a' have the word of God, and b and b' have the contrast of such with the word
of humans. However, this does not follow well the order of the text—it requires rearrangement as
Richard’s ellipsis indicates. A better outline of this section’s structure would be
παραλαβόντες a
λόγον ἀκοῆς παρ’ ἡμῶν b
τοῦ θεοῦ c
ἐδέξασθε a'
οὐ λόγον ἀνθρώπων b'
ἀλλὰ καθώς ἐστιν ἀληθῶς λόγον θεοῦ c'
In this way, a and a' have the verbs, b and b' have the human word, and c and c' have the divine
word.
The final clause of this verse begins with a relative pronoun that describing either God or
the word of God’s work. Paul does not customarily speak of the word of God as an active agent,
so some take ὃς to refer to God.40 This would make the verb ἐνεργεῖται middle, giving it the
sense of “is at work.” Most view ὃς as the word of God that Paul has already mentioned twice,41
in which case ἐνεργεῖται can be either middle (“is at work”) or passive (“is put to work,” “is
made operative”). Because Paul has previously described (1:5) the power that accompanied their
reception of the gospel, it is easiest to see this as the word of God at work: this word “is not
primarily propositional truth to be accepted in faith but a dynamic power which transforms and
10
39 Richard, Thessalonians, 118, italics and ellipsis in original.
40 Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians, 80; Richard, Thessalonians, 114. The only major English version of the Bible
that takes it as “God” is the MSG.
41 So Best, Thessalonians, 112; Bridges, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 54; Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 45; Elias,
1&2 Thessalonians, 83; Malherbe, Letters, 167; and Morris, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 63. Most English translations
reflect the same: ASV, CEB, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NCV, NIV (1984 and 2011), NKJV, NLT, NRSV, TNIV.
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 13/27
energizes the believers and leads to their emergence as a faith community.” 42 By calling his
audience πιστεύουσιν, Paul legitimizes his presence in Thessalonica and confirmed his
statement that it was not in vain (2:1).43 Paul is thankful for the fruitful work that the active word
of God has performed among them.
VERSE 14: THE SUFFERING
ὑμεῖς γὰρ μιμηταὶ ἐγενήθητε, ἀδελφοί, τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν οὐσῶν ἐν τῇ
Ἰουδαίᾳ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ὅτι τὰ αὐτὰ ἐπάθετε καὶ ὑμεῖς ὑπὸ τῶν ἰδίων
συμφυλετῶν καθὼς καὶ αὐτοὶ ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων,
This verse introduces the evidence of the Thessalonians’ acceptance of the gospel, which
is their suffering. Paul understands that his audience has endured some persecution, and this
warrants a comparison between them and Judean churches, to the effect that the Thessalonians
have become the imitators of the Judean Christians. It is highly unlikely that the Thessalonian
church consciously sought to imitate the Judeans, but as a result of their faith, they found
themselves in similar situations—persecuted by their compatriots.44 In 1:6, Paul says that they
have imitated him and his companions, so this makes the second instance in which Paul names
the Thessalonians imitators. The earlier comparison with Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy seems
natural because as the author, Paul is relevant to the discussion; Morris, however, questions the
relevancy of Judean churches in the comparison in 2:14: “It seems curious that he draws
attention here to the sufferings of the churches in Judea, when there were churches in the
11
42 Elias, 1&2 Thessalonians, 83–4.
43 Wanamaker, Epistles, 112: “The success of Paul’s mission was demonstrated by the conversion of the
readers to the gospel of God as he had proclaimed it.”
44 Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 45; Elias, 1&2 Thessalonians, 85; Morris, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 63; and
Wanamaker, Epistles, 112.
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 14/27
immediate neighborhood that had suffered.” 45When Paul could have made other comparisons,
his decision to speak of Christians persecuted by Jews shows that Paul could be specifically
intending to include Jews in this discussion for the purpose of indicting them.
One of the many controversial questions this passage raises is the historicity of the
suffering Paul mentions. No evidence exists that points to any kind of widespread persecution of
any Christian population at this point in time, and if major persecutions were occurring, “Paul for
some reason mentioned it only once.” 46Elias suggests Acts 17:5–6 as evidence of pre-70 C.E.
persecution of Christians,47 and Jewett offers Gal. 6:12 as further evidence,48 but neither of these
provide the foundation for any conclusions in this matter. Bruce surmises that the Judean
persecution was only against apostles and leaders, not the average Christian,49 but as with all
other scriptural and historical evidence regarding this verse, it is merely a educated guess. The
only definite part of this matter is that if persecution was occurring, it was from Christians’ own
συμφυλετῶν, their fellow citizens or tribespeople (a hapax legomenon). Wanamaker attributes it
to “the exclusivism of early Christianity,” which separated Thessalonian Christians from their
ethnic relations.50 Clearly, the verse indicates strife is happening; perhaps “persecution” is too
strong a word for which to find a historical basis, but certainly the acceptance of Christianity by
both the Thessalonians and Judean Christians has caused difficulties with their respective
neighbors.
12
45 Morris, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 64–5.
46 Schlueter, Filling Up, 51.
47 Elias, 1&2 Thessalonians, 85. So Donfried, “Paul and Judaism,” 247.
48 Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 39. See pp. 202–206 for a fuller discussion.
49 Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 46. He takes Acts 12:1 as an example.
50 Wanamaker, Epistles, 113.
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 15/27
The identity of the perpetrators of the Judean suffering is also disputed. Unfortunately,
Ἰουδαίων can mean either “Judeans” 51or “Jews” 52—both meanings are covered by the same
word in Greek. For some scholars, whether Paul is an anti-Semite or not is decided by the
translation of this word. Gaventa argues seriously for translating it as “Judeans,” “since [Paul]
himself is a Jew and knows other believers who are Jews.” 53 Elias considers Ἰουδαίων to be a
subset of the Jews—perhaps not Judeans specifically, but rather “Zealots against messianic Jews
who were suspected of being in communion with Gentiles.” 54 Malherbe also tries to limit the
scope of the word, making it Jews “who acted against their fellow Jews.” 55Attempts to narrow
the definition ultimately fail because of the descriptors that follow: “in this context cannot refer
only to Judaean Jews (vv. 14–15a) but also to Jews of the Greco-Roman world who oppose the
Christian mission (16a).” 56With today’s sensitivity toward the appearance of anti-Semitism,
especially after the atrocious events of the Holocaust, it is reasonable to seek an alternative
explanation for Paul’s ref erence here. Nevertheless, the most reasonable translation of this word
13
51 Of the major English translations, only the NKJV translates it so.
52 So ASV, CEB, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NCV, NIV (1984 and 2011), NLT, NRSV, and TNIV.
53 Gaventa, Thessalonians, 36. He also argues that if Ἰουδαίων refers to all Jews, it would include Paul.
Paul would not count himself among these oppressors, though, so he would have to consider himself no longer a
Jew. “In no sense does this passage imply that Paul has himself ceased to be a Jew” (37), so it must mean “Judeans.”
54 Elias, 1&2 Thessalonians, 86. So Wanamaker, Epistles, 113.
55 Malherbe 169. So Frank Gillard, “The Problem of the Antisemitic Comma Between 1 Thessalonians 2.14
and 15,” NTS 35 (1989): 482. Wanamaker ( Epistles, 114) asserts that Paul exhibits “anti-Judaism” more than “anti-
Semitism,” “which would imply a racial hatred on Paul’s part.” Still (Conflict, 42) goes even further, saying Paul is
not anti-Semitic or anti-Judaism as much as he is “anti-oppressor.”
56 Richard, Thessalonians, 120.
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 16/27
is “Jews,” and most scholars agree.57
One final issue this verse raises is whether punctuation should follow Ἰουδαίων. Though
the original autograph of the letter had no punctuation to begin with, Gillard makes a strong
point that in modern English translations, adding a comma or other punctuation after Ἰουδαίων
is “antisemitic.” 58The presence of a comma makes it a non-restrictive clause, which means the
accusations in the following verses apply to all Jews. The lack of a comma makes it a restrictive
clause, which means Ἰουδαίων refers only to those Jews who have committed the acts Paul
subsequently mentions. This comma, he argues, originated in Tyndale’s 1525 English translation,
and most other English translations have maintained it.59 Greek texts from that period also
included a comma, but “its presence in medieval manuscripts may be explained simply by a
wish, medieval or ancient, to signal a breathing pause in a very long sentence.” 60Among the
modern critical Greek texts, both NA27 and UBS4 include it, but the more recent SBLGNT has no
comma. Ultimately, Gillard himself admits that the comma does not have the same “odious
effect” in Greek that it does in English,61 so the Greek punctuation is irrelevant. The most
important matter is how to translate the word Ἰουδαίων, and because any attempts to limit this
term have failed, a comma is the most appropriate punctuation for English. Verse 14 is referring
14
57 E.g., Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians, 82; Best, Thessalonians, 114 (“Jews both by race and religion”); Bridges,
1 & 2 Thessalonians, 55; Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 46 (perhaps Judeans in v. 14, but definitely Jews in vv. 15 and
16); Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 39; Morris, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 64; Okeke, “I Thessalonians 2. 13–
16,” 130; Richard, Thessalonians, 120; and Schlueter, Filling Up, 73.
58 Gillard, “Problem.”
59 Ibid, 482. English translations with a comma (or similar punctuation) include the ASV (semicolon), CEB
(period and “They”), ESV, HCSB (period and “They”), KJV (colon), NASB, NIV1984, NKJV, NRSV, RSV, and
TNIV. Translations without any punctuation include the MSG, NCV, and NIV2011. The NLT paraphrases the verse
somewhat, but the meaning is as if there were no comma.
60 Ibid., 487.
61 Ibid.
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 17/27
to Jews, whether today’s readers are comfortable with it or not.
VERSE 15: THE ACCUSATIONS
τῶν καὶ τὸν κύριον ἀποκτεινάντων Ἰησοῦν καὶ τοὺς προφήτας καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐκδιωξάντων καὶ θεῷ μὴ ἀρεσκόντων καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐναντίων,
In vv. 15–16a, Paul accuses the Jewish people of a whole litany of crimes, beginning
with killing Jesus. ἀποκτεινάντων appears surprisingly between κύριον and Ἰησοῦν, which
has the effect on emphasizing both the title and the name.62 However, if the canonical gospels
have any amount of historicity and if our knowledge of Roman crucifixion practices can be
trusted, then the reader can surely know that the Jews did not in fact kill Jesus. The blame for
Jesus’ death might fall on the Jews in some extended metaphorical sense, but Jesus was not
lynched by a Jewish mob—he was killed by Gentile soldiers at the command of a Gentile leader.
Paul himself attributes the crucifixion of Jesus to τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (1 Cor.
2:8), never elsewhere to the Jews. Thus Paul’s motivation and meaning behind this accusation
need clarification. One suggestion is that Paul is deliberately minimizing the part of the Romans
in Jesus’ death so as not to alienate his Gentile readership or discourage the nascent Thessalonian
community.63 Another suggestion holds that here Paul uses hyperbole as a rhetorical strategy
(discussed in more detail shortly).64 Perhaps the best explanation takes into account the early
15
62 Morris, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 64; Schlueter, Filling Up, 66.
63 Best, Thessalonians, 115.
64 Schlueter, Filling Up, 67.
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 18/27
date of the letter65: because Paul has yet to develop a theology of “the cross and its significance,”
he merely places blame regarding Jesus’ death rather than shows the power it has for believers.66
Falling under the same head participle is his next charge of murdering of the prophets, a tradition
which most scholars believe derives from 1 Kings 19:10, referenced elsewhere in Rom. 11:3. 67
Perhaps Paul has Christian martyrs like Stephen in mind, but it is most likely he is speaking of
Hebrew Bible prophets.68 Jesus listed together with the prophets shows his special position in
Paul’s thought and stresses the Jews’ wickedness in killing God’s religious leaders.
The first principle part of the next participle, ἐκδιώκω, can be translated “drive out or
banish” or “persecute.” At some point the word shifted meaning from the former (especially in
the LXX) to the latter, and scholars disagree about where this letter falls during that shift.
Richard believes the verb is here maintaining its LXX meaning,69 but Best believes it has already
shifted to “persecute.” 70 Schlueter takes a middle approach: the verb means “drive out,” but its
collocation with ἀποκτεινάντων makes it “persecute” “because of the intensification by
association.” 71Additionally, the object of this participle, ἡμᾶς, has multiple interpretations,
16
65 This admittedly sounds like circular reasoning on the surface, for this undeveloped christology is one
possible criterion that seems to indicate an early date for the letter. However, there are many other reasons to locate
the letter early in Paul’s career besides this one. For a fuller discussion, see Malherbe, Letters, 71–74.
66 Gaventa, Thessal onians, 36: the lack of mention of the cross “makes it difficult to assess the state of
Paul’s reflection on Jesus’ death.”
67 Pearson, “1 Thessalonians 2:13–16,” 85.
68 An alternative reading has ἰδίους προφήτας to specify that it is Hebrew Bible prophets, not early
Christian prophets.
69 Richard, Thessalonians, 121. Cf. Acts 17:5–10.
70 Best, Thessalonians, 116.
71 Schlueter, Filling Up, 69. In her view, this is more rhetorical exaggeration.
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 19/27
including Paul and his companions,72 the apostles,73 or even Christians in general.74 What can be
known is that Paul believes that he and a portion of his fellow believers have been attacked to
some degree by the Jews.
The next clause deals with Jews’ relations with God and other people—one of displeasure
and opposition, respectively. For Wanamaker, these words “reflect the general anti-Judaism of
the Greco-Roman world,” 75 In discussing this clause, scholars often quote other ancient
authorities who express similarly hostile views of the Jewish people in general,76 but Paul is not
commenting on the quality of the Jews as a people but rather on their refusal to accept the gospel
—their opposition to the Christian message constitutes both an opposition to God and to
humanity.77 This section of the verse is especially key for Schlueter, who sees this as the climax
of Paul’s invective against Jews. The author has moved from a strong verb (ἀποκτείνω) to a
weak one (ἀρέσκω), but the object of this weak verb is the most important: God. From here,
Paul’s accusations will go down in force in her view. The Jews’ displeasure of God is the
centerpiece of a highly hyperbolic passage that “exaggerate[s] a kernel of historicity” in order to
produce multiple effects, including elevating the Thessalonians to the level of the Jerusalem
church “where the Christian message began,” establishing an “us” vs. “them” identity, and
17
72 Best, Thessalonians, 116.
73 W. Neil, The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians (London, England: Hodder & Stoughton, 1950), 51.
74 Schlueter, Filling Up, 70–71.
75 Wanamaker, Epistles, 115: “Jews were seen as opposed to their fellow human beings on account of
Jewish ethnic and religious exclusivism.”
76 E.g., Tacitus ( Histories, 5.5) says that “they feel only hostility and hatred toward others,” and Philostratus
( Life of Apollonius, 5.33) notes, “The Jews have long been in revolt, not only against the Romans, but against
humanity” (quoted in Best, Thessalonians, 117).
77 Best, Thessalonians, 117; Richard, Thessalonians, 121.
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 20/27
arousing the audience’s emotions.78 The notion that the end of this verse is the climax seems
unlikely with the Jews’ final fate coming up soon in v. 16b, and to my knowledge Schlueter is
alone in reading this text as exhibiting this specific rhetorical technique, though there is no doubt
that it might yield her proposed effects. Indeed, because of the Jews’ rejection of the gospel, he
denounces them and portrays them as an oppositional “them” that is working against the
Thessalonians.
VERSE 16: THE PUNISHMENT
κωλυόντων ἡμᾶς τοῖς ἔθνεσιν λαλῆσαι ἵνα σωθῶσιν, εἰς τὸ ἀναπληρῶσαι αὐτῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας πάντοτε. ἔφθασεν δὲ ἐπ ’αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος.
This last verse of the passage in question reveals why Paul has accused the Jews of
displeasing God and opposing all people—not only have they not received the gospel
themselves, but they are actively making efforts to prevent others from receiving it. The Jews do
not wish the Gentiles to be saved. Salvation is a multifaceted term in the NT, and here it likely
refers to both obtaining blessing and deliverance from wrath.79 This would imply the Jews wish
the Gentiles not to have the blessings that come with salvation but to instead face wrath. This is
ironic considering the harsh judgment of the Jews in this very verse: those who wish wrath on
others will incur wrath themselves. Paul employs the metaphor of a measuring cup—the murder,
the displeasure, the opposition, and the hindering have resulted in the mounting up of sins80 for
which they must be punished.
18
78 Schlueter, Filling Up, 73–74 and120–23.
79 Morris, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 64. Cf. 1:10.
80 ἁμαρτίας in the plural is a rare usage for Paul, who tends to view sin as a force rather than as individual
actions.
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 21/27
Paul’s description of their punishment is, like many other parts of this passage,
controversial. God’s ὀργὴ is mentioned elsewhere in Paul only in Romans, so readers do not
have a large body of evidence they can use to determine his meaning, and its meaning can only
be determined when its time is known; thus the reader must inquire about ἔφθασεν first. The
verb is in the aorist tense, which likely indicates a past occurrence, but some have disagreed with
this. The options are thus: “a past historical event,” “an event presently unfolding,” or “an event
still future but considered to be on the verge of taking place.” 81Beale takes it as a “‘prophetic’
aorist,” 82meaning it is aorist but looks toward the future, and others call it “proleptic.” 83 Munck,
however, argues that it could not be proleptic because such a usage would be unique to the NT,84
and he and many other point to εἰς τέλος, which “makes it absolute,” indicating it has already
happened.85 Most English translations and scholars take it as “has come,” 86 “has caught up,” 87or
“has overtaken” 88—all past events with present effects. εἰς τέλος itself is rendered in a
19
81
Elias, 1&2 Thessalonians, 90.
82 Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians, 86.
83 Richard, Thessalonians, 122. Various future-related interpretive explanations include “arrival at but with
participation,” beginning to come upon,” “proleptic participation,” “in the process of or already occurring,” and
“about to occur.”
84 J. Munck, Christ and Israel: An Interpretation of Romans 9–11(Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1967),
63.
85 Donfried, “Paul and Judaism,” 252; Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 37; G. E. Okeke, “I
Thessalonians 2. 13–16: The Fate of the Unbelieving Jews,” NTS 27 (1981): 130.
86 So ASV (“is come”), ESV, KJV (“is come”), NASB, NCV, NIV (1984 and 2011), NKJV, and TNIV;
Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians, 86; Donfried, “Paul and Judaism,” 252 (or “has arrived”); Elias, 1&2 Thessalonians, 89;
Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 189; Malherbe, Letters, 171; Morris, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 65; Munck,
Christ and Israel , 63; Okeke, “I Thessalonians 2. 13–16,” 130; and Still, Conflict , 35.
87 So NLT; Best 119; and Richard, Thessalonians, 122.
88 So HCSB; NRSV; and Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 48.
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 22/27
multiplicity of ways: “at last,” 89“until the end,” 90 and “to the utmost (or uttermost),” 91 just to
name a few.92 Thus, εἰς τέλος refers either to the time of God’s wrath or to the degree to which it
is accomplished. Granting that this making any definite statement on all of these slippery terms is
notoriously difficult, perhaps the easiest way to read the sentence is to place the aorist in the past
and to let τέλος mean “end.”
This would put God’s wrath in the past, which leads readers to look for an actual event
that might be Paul’s referent. Possibilities include the hardening of the Jews by God in Rom.
9:17–22,93 Jesus’ crucifixion, the Roman attack on Jerusalem in 70 C.E. (unlikely because of 1
Thessalonians’ proposed date of composition), famine, an insurrection led by Theudas, and the
expulsion of Jews from Rome.94 These are not the only disasters that Paul could have had in
mind. Another novel suggestion is that God’s punishment of the Jews’ unrighteous behavior is
that God allows them to continue in such behavior, which something akin to Paul’s logic in Rom.
1:18–32.95 Wanamaker, however, notes the “apocalyptic character of this statement” and “warns
20
89 So ESV, NCV, NIV (1984 and 2011), NLT, NRSV, RSV, and TNIV; Jewett, Thessalonian
Correspondence, 189; Okeke, “I Thessalonians 2. 13–16,” 130; and Richard, Thessalonians, 122.
90 So Donfried, “Paul and Judaism,” 252; Elias, 1&2 Thessalonians, 89; Gaventa, Thessalonians, 37;
Malherbe, Letters, 171; Munck, Christ and Israel , 63; and Wanamaker, Epistles, 118.
91 So ASV, KJV, NASB, NKJV, and Morris, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 65.
92 Other translations include “completely” (HCSB; Peter R. Ackroyd, “חצנ—εἰς τέλος,” ExpTim 80
(1969): 126 [or “utterly,” comparing it to the Hebrew in Ps. 74:3, among other places]), “fully and finally” (Beale,
1–2 Thessalonians, 83; I. Howard Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians [NCBC; London: Marshall Morgan and Scott,
1983], 81), “finally” (Best, Thessalonians, 121), “for good and all” (Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 46), and “in the
end” (CEB).
93 Munck, Christ and Israel , 63.
94 See Gaventa, Thessalonians, 37 and Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 37–38.
95 Gaventa, Thessalonians, 37.
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 23/27
against insisting that an actual event lies behind the verb” 96—it is, after all, highly hyperbolic
and likely poetic language. One cannot be sure of anything except that for Paul, the Jews are in
the wrong, and punishment has come.
CONCLUSION
1 Thessalonians 2:13–16 often makes today’s post-Holocaust readers uncomfortable with
its hostile language regarding Jews. Attempts to lessen Paul’s harsh tone do not fully explain the
text, and alternative translations such as “Judeans” instead of “Jews” are unwarranted—Paul
cannot be perceived here as anything but attacking the Jews because of the frustration or even
persecution they have caused him and his fellow Christians.97 Truly, “the language is harsh, but it
is a harshness familiar to readers of the Old Testament. [. . .] Paul’s polemic borrows heavily on
conventional language with which Jews express their outrage at the faithlessness of other
Jews.” 98 Jesus himself also spoke harshly to the Jews (e.g., Matt. 23:31–38). However, this
passage stands out because Jesus and the prophets spoke directly to those they were condemning;
Paul is here speaking to Gentiles while putting down Jews. 99 Best explicitly states, “It must be
allowed that I Th. 2.16c shows Paul holding an unacceptable anti-Semitic position.” 100
Wanamaker calls the objectionable language of this passage “a stock feature of ancient
rhetoric called vituperatio,” a verbal method of contending against someone with competing
21
96 Wanamaker, Epistles, 117.
97 Gaventa, Thessalonians, 37: “What he writes in 2:14–16, then, may be born out of indignation and
frustration, perhaps even a measure of bewilderment that fellow Jews do not share his own convictions.”
98 Ibid.
99 Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 51.
100 Best, Thessalonians, 122.
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 24/27
interests: “[t]he statements in 2:14-16 reflect the beginnings of the struggle of first-century
Christianity for a separate identity from its parent, Judaism.” 101This struggle is happening
concurrent with what Paul saw as the imminent arrival of the parousia, so it appears that any
Jewish oppression he and other Christians may face will be or has been avenged because of the
nearness of Christ’s return. Paul’s view of Jews in 1 Thessalonians is therefore difficult to
compare to his view in Romans, “which Paul wrote when the idea of the Parousia allowed the
opportunity for repentance.” 102Interpreters have to allow room for growth in Paul’s theology;
one cannot assume that it is monolithic and unchangeable. 103 Though some see such a change as
implausible,104 it is in my view clearly demonstrable. Paul is free to shift his perception: “In I
Thessalonians, in view of the judgement Israel’s ‘no’ meets with God’s ‘no’; in Romans 9–11, in
view of the expansion of the mission field while the Parousia is still in the future, Israel’s ‘no’
meets with God’s ‘yes’ by means of jealousy.” 105It is true, as Best says, that Paul holds an
“unacceptable [. . .] position” in regards to the Jews, but it is also true that he was a human and
was therefore a dynamic persona. 1 Thessalonians 2:13–16 depicts an angry Paul currently in the
midst of suf fering. But he will mature.
22
101 Wanamaker, Epistles, 118. However, “[s]uch vituperation lost its rationale once Christianity became an
equal competitor with Judaism and later because the more dominant of the two religions. [. . .] That many Christians
persisted in anti-Judaism on theological grounds and still persist in it today can only be a cause for shame and
repentance on the part of contemporary Christians” (119).
102 Okeke, “I Thessalonians 2. 13–16,” 131.
103 Ibid.: “When it assumed that Paul has a theology that is unalterably fixed, so that even changed external
and internal circumstances could not affect it, then any idea or thought which does not tally with our preconceived
Pauline thought becomes foreign to Paul.”
104 See, e.g., Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 48–49: “Unless he changed his mind radically on this subject in
the interval of seven years between the writing of 1 Thessalonians and of Romans, it is difficult to make him
responsible for the viewpoint expressed here.”
105 Okeke, “I Thessalonians 2. 13–16,” 136.
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 25/27
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ackroyd, Peter R. “חצנ—εἰς τέλος.” The Expository Times 80 (1969): 126.
Bammel, Ernst. Judaica et Paulina. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr, 1997.
Barth, Markus. “Was Paul an Anti-Semite?”. Journal of Ecumenical Studies 5 (1968): 78–104.
Baur, Ferdinand C. Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Work, His Epistles and His
Doctrine. Revised by Edward Zeller. Translated from the 2nd German ed. by A. Menzies.
2 vols. London, England: Williams and Norgate, 1876.
Beale, G. K. 1–2 Thessalonians. The InterVarsity Press New Testament Commentary Series.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
Best, Ernest. The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. Black’s New Testament
Commentary. London: Hendrickson, 1972.
Bockmuehl, Markus. “1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 and the Church in Jerusalem.” Tyndale Bulletin
52 (2001): 1–31.
Boers, H. “The Form Critical Study of Paul’s Letters. I Thessalonians as a Case Study.” New
Testament Studies 22 (1976): 140–158.
Bridges, Linda McKinnish. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon,
GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2008.
Bruce, F. F. 1&2 Thessalonians. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 45. Waco, TX: Word Books,
1982.
Donfried, Karl P. “Paul and Judaism. 1 Thessalonians 2:13–16 as a Test Case.” Interpretation 38
(1984): 242–53.
Elias, Jacob W. 1&2 Thessalonians. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale, PA: Herald
Press, 1995.
Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. First and Second Thessalonians. Interpretation. Louisville: John
Knox, 1998.
Gillard, Frank. “The Problem of the Antisemitic Comma Between 1 Thessalonians 2.14 and 15.”
New Testament Studies 35 (1989), 481.
23
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 26/27
Jewett, Robert. The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.
Koester, H. “I Thessalonians—Experiment in Christian Writing.” Pages 33–44 in Continuity and
Discontinuity in Church History. Festschrift G. H. Williams. Studies in the History of
Christian Thought 19. Leiden: Brill, 1979.
Lambrecht, Jan. “Thanksgivings in 1 Thessalonians 1–3.” Pages 135–62 in The Thessalonians
Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? Edited by Karl P.
Donfried and Johannes Beutler. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000.
Malherbe, Abraham J. The Letters to the Thessalonians. The Anchor Bible. New Haven:
Doubleday, 2000.
Marshall, I. Howard. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. New Century Bible Commentary. London: Marshall
Morgan and Scott, 1983.
Morris, Leon. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Revised edition. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984
Munck, J. Christ and Israel: An Interpretation of Romans 9–11. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press,
1967.
Neil, W. The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians. London, England: Hodder & Stoughton,
1950.
Okeke, G. E. “I Thessalonians 2. 13–16: The Fate of the Unbelieving Jews.” New Testament
Studies 27 (1981): 127–36.
Pearson, Birger A. “1 Thessalonians 2:13–16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation.” Harvard
Theological Review 64 (1971): 79–94.
Richard, Earl J. First and Second Thessalonians. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical,
1995.
Rydelnik, Michael A. “Was Paul Anti-Semitic? Revisiting 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16.” Bibliotheca
Sacra 165 (2008): 58–67.
Schlueter, Carol J. Filling Up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in 1 Thessalonians 2.14–16.Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 98. Sheffield, England:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
Schmidt, D. “1 Thess 2:13–16: Linguistic Evidence for an Interpolation.” Journal of Biblical
Literature 102 (1983): 269–79.
Scott, J. M. “Paul’s Use of Deuteronomic Tradition.” Journal of Biblical Literature 112 (1993).
24
8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 27/27
Still, Todd D. Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and its Neighbors. Journal for the
Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 183. Sheffield, England: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1999.
Wanamaker, Charles A. The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text.New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990.
Weatherly, Jon A. “The Authenticity of 1 Thessalonians 2.13–16: Additional Evidence.” Journal
for the Study of the New Testament 42 (1991): 79–98.
25