I write a quarterly column for Preach magazine, in which I explore a significant word or phrase in the Bible, or a theme or section of Scripture, and the ideas that it expresses. At the end of this piece I list the previous articles I have written for them. Here I explore what we can learn through the shorter letters of the NT, taking 1 and 2 Thessalonians as a case study.
How much attention should we pay to the shorter letters of the New Testament? How important are they, and what can we learn from them? After all, Paul’s big ideas can be found in his longer letters—more systematically in Romans, and more chaotically in the Corinthian correspondence. And if we want to know the teaching of Jesus, we surely need to turn to the gospels. So what do the shorter letters of Paul offer us? Let’s look at 1 and 2 Thessalonians as a test case.
The Thessalonian Context
Thessaloniki is the second city of modern Greece, with a population of around a million in the province of Macedonia. In Paul’s day, it was an important and strategic city, founded to commemorate a Macedonian victory (hence ‘-niki’ from the Greek nike meaning ‘victory’) on the Thermaic gulf, a large inlet of the Aegean Sea, and on the Via Egnatia, a major Roman road connecting the Adriatic Sea to Byzantium. As well as being a strategic commercial centre, it was the capital of the Roman province of Macedonia, and retained a good deal of autonomy in its governance. The local rulers were uniquely called politarchs, indicating continuing Greek patterns of civil life; Luke uses this precise and correct term in Acts 17.6 and 8 (usually translated ‘city officials’), and you can see the title today on inscriptions in the museum in Thessaloniki (you can see my photo of one of them here).
For Paul, his visit there in Acts 17 was the result of the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit. In Acts 16.7, the Spirit had prevented him and his team from continuing West through Turkey to the Aegean coast (we don’t know how) and in a vision (or dream?) a man from Macedonia begs them to come and help them—by sharing the good news of Jesus. (Paul has to leave the founding of a Jesus community in Ephesus to Priscilla and Aquila in Acts 18.) From Thessaloniki, Paul proceeds to Athens and Corinth; the city was strategically important for the gospel and not just for commerce!
Paul wrote his letters from Corinth, not long after his visit, in either 50 or 51AD.
Starting with a summary
The first chapter of 1 Thessalonians offers a tightly compressed summary not only of Paul’s concerns in writing, but also of the impact of the good news when it is embraced wholeheartedly. The triplet of pairs (faith and work, labour and love, endurance in hope) in verse 3 is particularly striking. Faith in Jesus leads to tangible good works (compare Eph 2.10 ‘created in Christ Jesus to do good works’ and James 2.17 ‘faith without works is dead’). Love leads to an energetic concern to bring change (this is where our phrase ‘labour of love’ comes from). And it is the hope we have in Jesus which gives us the stamina to endure (in Rev 1.9 we share in tribulations, but also in the hope of the kingdom, which forms patient endurance in us).
Given how Paul arrived in the city, it is not surprising that he emphasises ‘power, the Holy Spirit, and deep conviction’ (verse 5). Paul experienced determined opposite from his fellow-Jews who did not receive his message (Acts 17.5, their response anticipated in John 1.11 ‘his own did not receive him’), and the Thessalonians who did respond experienced the same hostility. This reflects Paul’s own teaching earlier on in this ‘missionary journey’: ‘Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God’ (Acts 14.22); as well as the teaching of Jesus: ‘In this world you will have tribulation—but take heart…!’ (John 16.33). Paul follows the example of Jesus in teaching by both word and example.
Paul imitates Jesus; the Thessalonians imitate Paul; and now others are seeing and following their own example, in a chain of living testimony. The radical tension between this community of faith and the world around them arises because of the radical change in their lives, ‘turning to the living God from idols’ (which suggests this is a mainly gentile church now). And their faith is sustained by looking forward to the return of Jesus to complete the work that he began, the future breaking into the present, when he was raised from death (compare Phil 1.6).
Paul’s Personal Passion
In chapters two and three, Paul gets personal with his readers—but wraps this up in powerful theology. He shows the evidence of their sincerity in proclaiming the gospel in Thessaloniki (note that this letter is from Paul and Silas and Timothy, 1.1), and uses the most powerful examples of relationship to explain their care. They were as innocent as ‘young children’, as caring as a ‘nursing mother’ (2.7) and as encouraging as faithful ‘father’ (2.11)—all the while being brothers and sisters (2.9, 14)! We could not see a clearer working out of Jesus’ teaching about the new kinship in the gospel (Matt 12.50)—and all the more striking as Paul and his companions are Jews, whilst his readers are gentiles. The two have become one in Christ (Eph 2.15).
Paul’s exposition of how to live this new live in Christ to please God includes sexual holiness, for Paul a natural outworking of living the resurrection life out of step with the world around. Then as now, in a post-Christendom context, a distinctive sexual ethic is an integral part of our discipleship. It sits happily alongside our commitment to brotherly (and sisterly) love, concerns for others, and the disciplines of practical service.
Living the Future in the Present
For the Thessalonians, to live with hope and confidence requires sorting out their eschatology—their understanding of the return of Jesus when he comes to complete the work he has begun. This is a concern of chapters 4 and 5 of his first letter, as well as the central section of his second. Jewish hope centred around the coming of God’s anointed one (‘messiah’ or Christ) who would bring the kingdom of God, his perfect reign, defeat Israel’s enemies, purify the nation, bring just judgement, and draw all peoples to God. This remains our hope! It is a work that Jesus began in his life, death, and resurrection, but one that will only be complete on his return.
Those who die before he comes sleep in death, and will be raised with those who are alive when Jesus returns. This is not in some kind of ‘secret rapture’ as often claimed; Paul is drawing here on the Thessalonians’ experience of the visit of the emperor when he comes in his kingly presence (his parousia). The politarchs of the city go out to greet him, then turn and join him in triumph as he enters, the true ruler, to govern in person. So it will be when Jesus returns: we will meet him ‘in the air’ (the realm of spiritual power, Eph 2.2), and remain to reign with him ‘on earth forever’ (Rev 5.10). Why is there delay, and why do we face so much opposition as we await this? Because there are forces of evil at work, including the mysterious ‘man of lawlessness’ (who has no relation either to the ‘antichrist’ of 1 John or ‘the beast’ of Revelation 13). Paul’s point is not to encourage speculation, but to grow confidence: Christ has won the victory, and one day his victory will be complete, despite the delay.
[For more on eschatology, see my Grove booklet Kingdom, Hope, and the End of the World.]
The Gospel in a Nutshell
Within Paul’s writing to these particular people, we can see the gospel that Jesus preaching in nuce. In Jesus, the kingdom of God has broken into this world, and calls us to leave our old way of life and turn to him. He calls us both to trust in him and live a new life, which will set us apart from the world around us. We join a new family in Jesus, bound to one another in love. We will face suffering and opposition, but do so in hope, knowing that Jesus has defeated death and will one day return.
We see all these elements of Jesus’ proclamation of the good news of the kingdom worked out in practice, in a particular context at a particular time, quite early on in Paul’s missionary ministry. The challenge then is, having read this in Paul’s particular context, in his relationship with the followers of Jesus in first-century Thessaloniki, to make it real in ours.
That is why these letters matter!
My previous articles have been on the themes of:
- the phrase ‘Word of God’
- the theme of ‘Mission’
- the meaning of ‘Apocalypse‘
- the ministry of ‘Healing’,
- the question of ‘Welcome’,
- the biblical understanding of ‘Justice’,
- the biblical view of creation
- what the Bible means by the term ‘church’.
- what the Bible says about grief and grieving.
- what is so good about the Old Testament?
- Why should we welcome the stranger?
- How can we rejoice in an imperfect world?
- What does scripture say about disability?
- What are the scriptural roots of our understanding of preaching?
- How do we make sense of the psalms of conflict?
- What does Scripture say about poverty and our response to it?
- What is the meaning of Sabbath?
- What is it like to encounter the person of Jesus?
- What does Joel tell us about the promises of God?
- What is the connection between prayer and fasting?
- What does the rise of artificial intelligence tell us about being human?
- The God of small things
The key lesson that I draw from these letters is the form of ministry in which Paul was “Missional”
They “ became imitators” of Paul which drew high commendations from Paul.
What do we mean by “Missional”? How do we define it?
Obviously if we do it well the Church thrives and is healthy, so what was Paul’s secret?
Paul, Silvanus and Timothy had preached to them the good news of a free and full salvation by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and the gospel message came to them in power.
He made the word effective in their souls and quickened them so that the great change took place by which they passed from death unto life; thus believing, the Holy Spirit was received by them, giving them full assurance.
Here we have the divine order of salvation; the message of the gospel heard and believed; the Spirit of God manifesting His power in the conversion and the sealing of those who believed, and the consequence: the full assurance of the truth in all its blessed power and reality.
But the gospel was not only preached by these messengers among the Thessalonians; the chosen instruments also witnessed to that gospel by their life and walk–”As ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sakes.” They were living and blessed witnesses of the power of the gospel which they proclaimed.
Their holy walk, their self-denial, their peace and quietness had its blessed effect on the Thessalonian believers, for they became imitators of the apostles. Inasmuch as the messengers followed closely the Lord Jesus Christ, the Thessalonians, being imitators of them, became thus imitators of the Lord, having received the Word in much affliction with joy of the Holy Spirit. And then in turn they became patterns to all that believed in Macedonia and Achaia.
In these simple statements, we have a blessed manifestation of the real power of the gospel. (Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible)
They had turned away from Idolatry [miss representations of God] to the Living God.
What part of Missional are we not getting right? the above or fractiousness, duplicity, opaqueness?
Who are we an example to in the rest of the world Church?
Superficiality is the world spirit at the moment, who are we influencing?
Today, Julian Mann @ https://www.christiantoday.com/article/in.these.dire.times.for.the.church.pauls.attitude.and.example.in.2.timothy.are.inspirational/142382.htm
Expresses similar missional thoughts to the Thessalonian Letters.
Interesting. Thanks.
Forgive me Ian!, I am a dog with a bone here!
The whole world including the Church are crying out for Leadership
And leadership is a central theme of the Bible.
Daily we read of countless examples of poor, incompetent leadership.
Commentators spout numerous characteristics and failings concerning them.
An existential crisis paralyzes on every side.
What kind of leader do we require?
Who are the good examples, what the qualities of such?
One of the best booklets that I ever read on Leadership is one by a man who inspired countless Global Christian ministerial Leaders of the last century They were truly Apostolic people.
It is because of them that the Global South churches are what they are today, healthy and thriving,
The book, Tom Austin – Sparks. “Leadership”
http://www.austin-sparks.net/english/books/000910.html
Even if you only read the Introduction, you will be positively inspired!
The Web is a good model for church to emulate– it has no leader. “go to the ant” said Solomon, they don’t have a leader.
The O.T. had leaders because they were modelling a spiritual reality; they were not a model for N.T. governance.
“call no man father”
Alas Steve nowhere does the Scriptures say “call no man Father”
Admittedly the Good News Bible renders the verse “you must not call anyone here on earth ‘Father’”, as does The Living Bible and the New International Version. More accurate versions such as the King James, the RSV, and the New American Standard do not render it this way, since the Greek reads, πατέρα μὴ καλέσητε ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς/ patera me kalesete umon epi tes ges. Note the boldface ὑμῶν, so that the verse is rendered more accurately as “call no man your father on the earth” (thus e.g. King James).
What is the difference between “call no man ‘father’” and “call no man your father”?—the difference is the difference between a title or form of address and a relationship. It is the latter which Christ is describing and proscribing, not the former. The Bible never says, “call no man ‘father’”. Indeed, such a command would be bizarre in a Middle Eastern environment, where the term “father” was the usual honourific for a male person of age. That is why the term is on the lips even of the rich man in Christ’s parable: he calls the venerable patriarch “Father Abraham” when he calls out to him for help (Luke 16:24, 30).
One of the practices which Christ warned His disciples to avoid was the insistence upon public honour and loyalty. The Pharisees loved respectful greetings in public and being hailed with the term “Rabbi” (literally, “my master/ my great one”). (The term at that time was as an honourific, and did not denote a clerical office, as it does today.) The Rabbis would accumulate disciples, men whose task it was to memorize the views and words of their Rabbi and make them their own. Indeed, those teachers claimed a greater respect from their disciples than was given to one’s parents, since they reasoned that one’s parents gave only earthly life, while the Rabbinic teacher gave spiritual and eternal life. They functioned therefore as gurus for those followed them as their personal disciples.
For a fuller discussion on this see http://www.oca.org/reflections/fr.-lawrence-farley/call-no-man-father
Postscript Steve
Iwerne and John Smyth are examples of the cultus of the Rabbins and the “your Father” rendering,
See http://www.anglicanfutures.org/post/the-long-shadow-of-iwerne.
Thank you Alan
I read your link to Iwerne with interest. I’m grateful that growing up in the mid 70s I had no brush with my betters. I am reminded of Paul’s comment 1 Peter 2:20.
The combination of social elitism, a lack of theological curiosity and critical thinking (very strange in a place like Cambridge) and a very self confident style of leadership (at least on the surface) was very odd. Sometimes it was a theology that seemed to be more at ease with Romans and Galatians than it was with the gospels, with factual propositions than with story telling and ambiguity.
Romans and Galatians and Ephesians represent Gospel indicatives, truths, followed through with imperatives, or Gospel Righteousness of Jesus, lived out in righteous, holiness.
The enlightement as devolved in combination with post- modernist maximises deconstructionist deliberate subjective ambiguation of Gospel truth.
The disambiguation of Gopelnof Jesus in the Triunity of God, by design, is trenchently trashed especially by those who have no story, testimony, of the own, of their own conversion by and to Jesus the Christ, savlation by and for Him.
Tell us your story.
Geoff, I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. I didn’t attack or criticise Romans etc (much less trash anything) only that some types/styles of theology appear to be more at ease with propositions that make statements than with stories, narratives and open-ended parables that we have to puzzle over and tease out. It’s part of the wonder of Scripture that it contains so many different ways of conveying the reality of God and leaves us with so much imaginative work to do.
Tim,
“Story telling and ambiguity”? This (especially the latter) is hardly an adequate description of the gospels! Unless ,of course, you follow the required ambiguities of much contemporary theological understanding in relation to the teaching, ministry, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Colin, I agree it’s not an adequate (if you mean total) description. But if everything in the gospels was pellucid and unambiguous many of the published commentaries would not exist. And if Jesus own disciples found him a puzzling figure up close we should not be surprised if interpreters throughout the past 1900 years have sometimes done as well. E.g parables are frequently difficult to interpret and we may not always be sure we’ve got it right; hence the need for us sometimes to change our minds. Sometimes as the hymn goes, ‘We feebly struggle, …’
Alan, many thanks for the link to this very helpful article. It highlights many important points about the Iwerne -Titus Trust world and it’s need for self reflection and change.
Tim,
Just a thought, doctrine is like imperial shoe sizes..we need dynamic propositions that don’t quite fit, sort of metric sizes. Keep people thinking. I think that’s what Jesus did with parables.
Thanks, Steve. Not quite sure how the imperial vs metric sizes analogy works but I agree that Jesus’ use of parables kept his listeners working at how to understand what was said. I also think there’s a risk that we assume that the superior or best form of teaching was direct instruction and the parables were like sermon illustrations. Maybe it’s more the other way around – the parables are the norm and we participate in the teaching/ learning actively.
I like the short letters. They are like the desert trolley after a heavy first course…just before the entertainment (Revelation.
Um,
‘If the shoe fits, wear it’ is the way we treat doctrine. Sometimes the best fit is not the one we thought was our usual.
Can you imagine a set of doctrines made for a particular denomination based on parables instead of Pauline sound bites?
…we believe in a vineyard owner who has called us in these latter days to finish what was started… etc. I think Ian should work on it!
Ok Ill ask this question again, as you refer to the man of lawlessness.
You previously mentioned the technical term ‘parousia’ being used in 1 Thessalonians by Paul to refer to Jesus’ coming/return to earth, and that that is the term we should look out for to know whether or not ‘coming’ is actually referring to Jesus’ return. However Paul also uses it in 2 Thessalonians 2, where he appears to connect it directly with Jesus destroying the ‘man of lawlessness’ who was setting himself up to be God. To be consistent, a natural reading of the text is that this man would be revealed and sets himself up as God (whatever that actually means) but Jesus’ return would destroy him.
But I dont think you believe this passage refers to the end of the world and Jesus’ return – correct me if Im wrong? Some believe the man of lawlessness was in fact referring to Nero, who at the time of writing in AD51/52 was being ‘restrained’ by Emperor Claudius and then a couple of years later became Emperor following Claudius’ death. To me that makes sense, but it doesnt then fit with Paul’s assertion that he would be destroyed by Jesus’ return, as that clearly didnt happen.
Some think this must refer to a future time, as the parousia hasnt happened yet, and therefore the man of lawlessness is an anti-Christ figure who will be destroyed by Jesus at his return (not completely different from the Omen films!). Others think Paul was right to predict him appearing but got it wrong in asserting Jesus’ parousia would destroy him (this would fit with Paul’s mindset as some would argue of believing Jesus’ return was expected within Paul’s own life time, as evidenced in his early letters such as Thessalonians).
I would appreciate it if you could provide your understanding of this passage in 2 Thessalonians, and how it fits with your understanding of the use of the word ‘parousia’.
Thanks
Peter
Thanks, Steve. Doctrine based on parables instead of Pauline sound bites would be fascinating. It would give a very different understanding of what is meant by the word ‘doctrine’ from how it’s often understood. Do you want to make a start on this?
Tim, I don’t know where to start. Probably with the Trinity as it’s the most popular. In doing so it would be important not to draw a new allegory from a parable. They work fine on their own.