The Rhetorical Approach to 1 Thessalonians

In Light of Ancient Funeral Oration

Ezra JaeKyung Cho

• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN:
  9781725258884
  9781725258891
• eBook ISBN:
  9781725258907
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

This book is the rhetorical approach to 1 Thessalonians, particularly on funeral orations. Though many scholars have interpreted 1 Thessalonians in light of a thematic perspective, mirror reading, and epistolary approach, the author asserts that Paul employs elements of epideictic funerary oratory to persuade his audience. Encountering the growing persecution, sufferings, and even death of members, the believers of Thessalonica needed encouragement. As a rhetorical strategist, Paul needed effective methods to answer these problems, which he did so with Greco-Roman funeral orations. Moreover, this book delves into the funerary language with the paradoxical concepts Paul uses to illustrate topoi and the purpose of funeral oration in 1 Thessalonians. Consequently, this book proves these ideas by showing how funeral orations shed light on the whole of 1 Thessalonians in the exordium (1 Thess 1:2-3), the narratio (1:4--3:10), the consolation and exhortation (4:1--5:15), and peroratio with prayer (5:16-28).

chapter 1

The History of Interpretation and Methodology

Overview of the History of Interpretation

In 1 Thessalonians, Paul deals with the problems of persecution and the deaths of church members (1:6b; 2:2b, 14–15; 3:1–5; 4:13–18), problems of his own ethos (2:1–12), problems of holiness in an eschatological time (1:5, 6; 2:10; 3:13; 4:1–8; 5:5, 12–22, 23), problems of parousia (1:3b, 10a; 2:19; 3:13; 4:13–18; 5:1–11, 23), and problems of the ἀτάκτοι (the disorderly, 4:11–12; 5:14). The research that has been done on the structure and theme of the letter of 1 Thess has fallen into two general categories: analyses of the logical, or thematic development, and analyses of the epistolary pattern.1

Some scholars attempted to establish models of what the Thessalonian church was like to shed light on the language and argument of 1 Thess. In the nineteenth century, F. C. Baur and the Tübingen school argued that the Thessalonian church was under the control of Judaizers, Jewish Christians who required Gentile Christians to obey the religious demands of Judaism before they could be fully Christian.2 This view is clearly wrong based on the fact that Paul nowhere addresses in this letter any of the central issues of Judaism, such as the law, circumcision, Sabbath, dietary regulations, or cultic days.

While the Baur and Tübingen schools consistently interpreted Paul as combating Judaizing, Walter Schmithals continually saw the apostle fighting off Gnostic intruders in his newly founded congregations. Schmithals claims Paul, in 1 and 2 Thess, is addressing the problem of Gnosticism. For instance, Paul’s concern for holiness is linked to the problem of Gnostic libertinism, and the concern about Christ’s return is connected to the Gnostic rejection of future eschatology, to the conviction that the “day of the Lord has already come,” and the idea that believers have already experienced a spiritual resurrection.3 Schmithals concludes, “in Corinth, so also in Thessalonica the charges come from Jewish or Jewish Christian Gnostics.”4 Schmithals drew this conclusion from his analysis of 1:5—2:12. Despite Schmithals’ assertions, several distinctive elements of Gnosticism are not found in the Thessalonian letters: e.g., dualism of flesh and spirit, the speculative use of Gen 1–3,5 and the docetic view of Christ. Furthermore, if the church was indeed being threatened by Gnostic teachers, Paul would likely be much clearer in his denunciation of their false teachings. On the contrary, Paul seems to be generally pleased with the condition of the Thessalonian church (1:2–10; 2:13–14).

Some scholars, notably Jewett and Lütgert, have claimed an enthusiastic model of the Thessalonian church. Jewett, developing further the view of Lütgert,6 has argued that certain members of the Thessalonian church radicalized some of Paul’s teaching, which resulted in problems of libertinism and idleness. This argument is based on the idea that the parousia had already arrived and was the basis of the spirit’s manifestations.7 Thus, this group viewed both the coming of Christ and the resurrection as past events, and the benefits of the resurrection had become a reality in the present.8 Jewett and Lütgert hold that the identity of this group was idlers who resisted the structures of everyday life, including work ethics, sexual ethics, and the authority of congregational leadership. Wanamaker, however, correctly critiques Jewett and Lütgert in saying there is no sign of the connection between the problems associated with eschatology and the possession of the Spirit in this letter. Further, when compared to 1 Cor, 1 Thess has no evidence of spiritual enthusiasm.9

After recognizing some of the weaknesses of the “enthusiastic model,” Jewett employed a social-scientific, or sociological approach, to understanding the situation of the Thessalonian church and suggested a “millenarian model.”10 The term “millenarian” is used by sociologis...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Tables
• Preface
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: The History of Interpretation and Methodology
• Chapter 2: The Philosophy and Theology of Death and Dying in Funeral Orations and 1 Thessalonians
• Chapter 3: Funeral Oratory in Speeches
• Chapter 4: The Roman Oratory and the Jewish Oratory
• Chapter 5: Funeral Orations in Rhetorical Handbooks
• Chapter 6: Comparing 1 Thessalonians 1–3 and Funeral Oratory
• Chapter 7: Comparing between 1 Thessalonians 4–5 and Funeral Oratory
• Chapter 8: Conclusion
• Bibliography