The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians

Gordon D. Fee

• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Year: 2009
• ISBN:
  9781467441490
• Topic: Teología y religión
• Subtopic: Estudios bíblicos

In this commentary Gordon Fee aims first and foremost to offer a fresh exposition of the text of 1 and 2 Thessalonians. He shows the reader what is in the biblical text, what the text meant in the first century, and what it means now. Fee reveals the logic of each argument or narrative before moving on to the details of each verse, and he concludes each section with a theological-practical reflection on the meaning of the text today. Among other things, Fee explores the occasion for writing for each epistle, restoring 2 Thessalonians to the place it deserves as a full companion to the first letter, rather than merely a tagalong to 1 Thessalonians.

The First Letter to the
THESSALONIANS

Introduction to 1 Thessalonians

Writing a commentary on Paul’s two letters to the believers in Thessalonica would in some ways seem to require three introductions: one regarding the city and its Christian community, matters that will be of concern to both letters; and a second and third one on the two letters themselves, since even though they have some obvious relationships with each other, each in fact is unique to itself; and especially because the authorship of the second letter is disputed by many, it requires a much larger section on this matter in that case. But I will here stay with the tradition and offer only two introductions. Where I will tend to part from the tradition is by offering separate introductions at the beginning of each commentary, rather than to offer them both at the beginning of the book as a whole. This is simply my own attempt to give 2 Thessalonians its proper due, rather than to have it “tag along” with a commentary on the first letter.1 In the present case I begin with the more “settled” matters (authorship and date) and then move on to the more substantive questions regarding the city of Thessalonica and the nature of the nascent Christian community in this bustling metropolis, and thus the occasion of the present letter.

I. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE

Although Pauline authorship of this letter has been denied from time to time, dating back to the extreme historical scepticism of F. D. Baur in the mid-nineteenth century, such denial faces enormous historical difficulties—so much so that one wonders, “Why bother?” Baur’s reasons were ultimately based not on historical grounds as such, but on his own buying into Hegelian philosophy. Thus since the turn of the twentieth century, the Pauline authorship of this letter has been rather universally accepted as historical fact.

But the more significant question in this regard is that of single or plural authorship, since the two letters to this church are the only two in the corpus with two unique features. First, the “author(s)” in this case are identified without further qualification (“apostles,” “servants,” etc.), which becomes the standard feature in all subsequent letters beginning with our 1 Corinthians.2 Second the first person plural is basically maintained throughout the letter, so that by all normal historical standards the letter should be identified as Paul’s, Silas’s, and Timothy’s letter to church of the Thessalonians. Indeed, given that all three are named in the address, one must take seriously that Paul intended the letters to have come from all three of them.

Nonetheless, the letter was basically dictated by only one of them, the apostle himself, as the occasional “lapses” into the first person singular (2:18; 3:5; 5:27) make certain. But even so, given the uniqueness of the plural “we” in these two letters, plus the fact that the letter begins by naming the three of them, we should probably take the plurality of authorship more seriously than most of us are wont to do. This becomes the more certain, it would seem, because of the fact that in this first letter (as well as the next) Paul makes absolutely no point of his authority to speak into their situation. This phenomenon begins—for good reason, it turns out—with his first preserved letter to the believers in Corinth. This further adds to the evidence that, however else this letter might be described by ancient standards, it is first of all a letter of friendship. Paul is designated neither as “an apostle of Christ Jesus” nor as “a servant of Christ.” The three of them are simply named as co-authors, jointly speaking into the situation in Thessalonica, even though the letter itself is dictated by Paul.

The date of the letter is based primarily on the combined data from Acts 17:1–9 and the singular mention by Paul of his (and presumably Silas’s) being left alone in Athens by his (their) having sent Timothy to the Thessalonians from there (3:1–2). The very way this is stated implies that Paul was no longer in Athens, but had gone on to Corinth.3 From the Acts reference, where one is told that Paul and his companions came to Thessalonica by way of Philippi, from whence they had been asked to leave by the town authorities, we may legitimately assume a date circa 49 or 50 CE for the writing of this letter.

What is unknown specifically is Paul’s actual location at the time of writing, since the mention in 3:6 of Timothy’s return has no geographical referent regarding the place of return. Therefore, on the basis of the Acts account the majority of scholars have assumed the return of Timothy and the sending of this letter to have taken place in the early months of Paul’s visit to Corinth narrated in Acts 18:1–18a. This can be neither proved nor disproved; it is simply based on—and fits well with—the few historical data at our disposal.

II. THE CITY AND ITS CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY

Thessalonica (sometimes Saloniki) is one of the several Mediterranean cities that has had a continuous history from the Greco-Roman period to the present, mostly because of its strategic location at the northernmost point of the Thermaic Gulf (Gulf of Salonica), while sitting astraddle the Egnatian Way, the main thoroughfare between Byzantium (now Istanbul) in the east and the Adriatic ports in the west. According to the Greek historian Strabo (d. 23 CE), the present city was founded by Cassander in the fourth century BCE and was named after his wife Thessalonice (= “victory of Thessaly”), who was a daughter of Philip and half-sister of Alexander the Great. In 167 BCE, when Macedonia was annexed by Rome and divided into four parts, Thessalonica became capital of the second district. When the province was reorganized in 148 BCE, it became the capital of the province of Macedonia. In the give-and-take of history, the city was fortunate enough to side with Octavian (later Augustus) in the Roman civil war (42 BCE) and thus in victory was awarded the status of a “free city.” At the same time, of course, as with Philippi, this assured loyalty to the emperor—and the imperial benefits that went with such loyalty.

According to Luke’s account in Acts 17:6, the local government was administered by “politarchs,” a word found on inscriptions, but only in Luke in known literature. Apparently there were five “politarchs” at the time of Paul. Because of its strategic geographical location, it almost certainly had a population mix similar to that of Corinth, making it an especially cosmopolitan city, in comparison, for example, with an interior town like Philippi. The majority would have been Greeks, but cities like Thessalonica and Corinth experienced a considerable influx of immigrants from everywhere, including especially Diaspora Jews. It was also a city where, unlike more truly Roman cities, women held places of honor and authority. These various realities also meant that it had a considerable mix of trade guilds and religions.

The founding of the church itself, recorded in Acts 17:1–9 and referred to in 1 Thessalonians 1:4–10, probably took place ca. 49–50 CE. As was Paul’s habit, the missionary trio (Paul, Silas, and Timothy) began their proclamation not in the Agora, but in the Jewish synagogue, which according to the account in Acts lasted only three sabbaths. What happened next in terms of time and length of stay is shrouded in mystery, since the next event recorded by Luke, hard on the heels of the preceding narrative, is their being hustled out of Thessalonica in the dead of night by “the believers” there. But the evidence of the two Thessalonian letters, both Paul’s own references to his teaching them4 and the degree of Christian maturity the letters reveal, suggests that the believing community had been more sufficiently grounded than one would normally expect to have happened in two weeks. And since Luke’s time reference had to do with the length of Paul’s ministry in the Jewish synagogue, not with his stay in Thessalonica as such, one should probably posit a stay of several weeks or months.

Indeed, everything else in 1 Thessalonians, plus a passing note in Philippians 4:16, indicates a stay of longer than three weeks. In 1:8 Paul reminds them that news about their own “faith” had preceded him to his next stops (Berea/Athens/Corinth), something that would seem to require time to have developed. In 2:9–12, 17 and 19–20 Paul reminds them of the high degree of mutual affection that existed between him (and Silas and Timothy) and these believers, which again would take more time than two weeks would have normally allowed. Likewise in 2 Thessalonians 3:7–10, Paul further reminds them that he had worked “with his own hands” so as not to be a burden to them and thus also to offer them an example to follow. These kinds of behavioral models would be difficult to establish in two weeks. But the ultimate proof of a longer stay comes from a passing reference in Philippians 4:16, where Paul reminds that congregation that “once and again” they had ministered to his needs while he was in Thessalonica. The “once and again” by itself pushes the time frame far beyond two weeks. But having said all that, we still remain in the dark as to the actual length of stay—probably some six or more months, but who is to know?

According to the Acts account (17:4), the overall result of Paul’s stay in Thessalonica was the conversion of “some of the Jews, … a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women.” This picture fits our two letters quite well. Although the evidence from these letters for Jewish presence is nearly nonexistent, that is most likely the result of the heavy predominance of Gentile converts. Moreover, even though the believing community began, as usual, among “God-fearers,” the picture that emerges in 1 Thessalonians 1:9–10 is one of more purely pagans turning to Christ (1:9); and the issue with the unruly-idle in 1 Thessalonians 4:9–11, which is taken up in greater detail in 2 Thessalonians 3:6–15, is most likely related to Gentile sociology, probably reflecting a degree of tension between tradespeople and more wealthy householders. The implication in all of these cases is that Paul and his companions had been with the nascent believing community for a stay of several months, not just two weeks.

Finally, we should note that as elsewhere the nascent Christian faith tended to cut across all of these various sociological and commercial boundaries, which was very likely one of the reasons it was suspect and thus destined for its share of persecution, as the (very brief) narrative in Acts 17 indicates. But this is also one of the reasons for some of the tensions that emerge in both of the Thessalonian letters, especially the issue of the “unruly-idle,” whose apparent misunderstanding of one’s place in Christ led to their attempt to live off the largesse of others.

III. THE OCCASION AND PLACE OF WRITING

In comparison with all the later Pauline letters, 1 Thessalonians has two remarkable features not found in any of the others. First, whereas most of the other letters begin with an opening thanksgiving and prayer report, in this letter that material extends through chapter 3, and thus covers nearly 60 percent of the entire letter—although the majority of this material does not technically belong to these two matters. Put another way, the thanksgiving, which begins in the “normal way” at 1:3, shows no clear evidence of coming to a full stop along the way, as thanksgiving for past relationships (apparently) spins off into a long narrative regarding the history of that relationship, before it concludes with a prayer report in 3:11–13. In later letters, when a prayer report occurs, it does so immediately after the thanksgiving report.

Second, the greater part of this letter—all but 4:13–18—reflects a return to issues that Paul had previously spoken to when he was present among them. Thus the letter is full of information that is either reminding them of what they had already been taught or reinforcing what they already know. Indeed, there are no fewer than eleven “you already know” kinds of reminders in this letter (1:5; 2:1 [2x], 5, 9, 10, 11; 3:3–4; 4:2, 9; 5:1), and in two of these instances (4:9 and 5:1) he insists that he has “no need to write.” Yet he writes anyway! So the “why” question simply must be ...