Forensic Language and the Day of the Lord Motif in Second Thessalonians 1 and the Effects on the Meaning of the Text

Aernie

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2011
• eBook ISBN: 9781498269889
• Topic: Teología y religión
• Subtopic: Religión

In this book, Matthew Aernie argues that Paul intentionally used forensic language, allusions, and idioms throughout 2 Thessalonians 1 in order to encourage the persecuted church to remain steadfast as they waited for their vindication at the final assize. To support this thesis, Aernie suggests that such judicial language and allusions are intertextual parallels originating primarily from the Day of the Lord motif found throughout the Old Testament, and maintains that the Day of the Lord concept was understood by the author of the Thessalonian correspondence as a reference to the day when the Lord would render righteous verdicts upon those who had both obeyed and disobeyed him. Furthermore, Aernie argues that the author of 2 Thessalonians likely understood the Day of the Lord to be consummated at the Parousia of Christ, when the final court would convene. Therefore, borrowing from the judicial concept apparent in the Day of the Lord motif, Aernie concludes that the author utilized forensic language throughout 2 Thessalonians 1 to exhort the church to remain faithful amidst great opposition as they awaited their ultimate justification at God's eschatological tribunal.

1

Preliminary Issues Surrounding Second Thessalonians

The scholarly debate regarding Second Thessalonians mostly centers upon the issue of the “man of lawlessness” in chapter 2. Much has been written on the identity of this individual as well as the extent of his authority on the earth. Many authors often seem too enamored with this issue, to the extent that they may have misunderstood the purpose for the letter. The importance of this study, therefore, is to explore exegetically how the author used legal language and imagery in order to encourage the persecuted church at Thessalonica to continue in their perseverance, by reminding them that the Lord would return as the righteous Judge at the final assize. Consequently, the Thessalonian Christians would be found innocent and vindicated at God’s court while their persecutors would be sentenced to eternal punishment.

Before delving into the text and the pending subject matter, a discussion of two preliminary issues is warranted. The aim of this present chapter seeks briefly to discuss the historical setting of Thessalonica and the question of the epistle’s authenticity. It will be suggested that a proper understanding of these introductory issues ultimately advances the argument that the author deliberately incorporated legal language and allusions to encourage the Thessalonian church in the midst of persecution. The result from the ensuing discussion seeks to promote a more exact analysis of the contextual setting surrounding the Thessalonian epistles as well as the theological background of the author.

1.1 Historical Background of Thessalonica

A brief explanation of the historical significance of Thessalonica to Rome may enable a better understanding as to why the Thessalonian Christians experienced persecution from their fellow residents and why Paul’s ministry in that city was interrupted.

Thessalonica was founded in 315–16 BC by Cassander, a general in the military regime of Alexander the Great.1 He chose Thessalonica because of her prime location at the head of the Gulf of Therme in the Aegean Sea. This enabled him to have access to the major ports of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. In addition, Thessalonica was situated along the Egnatian Way, which served as the main east–west and north–south trade route. Such a favorable location not only allowed for easy and faster travel but also provided the city with an ample amount of commerce. As a result of the city’s premier locality near the sea and along the Egnatian Way, Thessalonica enjoyed financial prosperity and was considered the most prominent port in Macedonia.

After the death of Cassander, Macedonia experienced arduous times. His successor, Philip V, found himself in conflict with Rome because of his allegiance to Hannibal of Carthage, a known enemy of the emerging empire. Consequently, Rome considered Macedonia an enemy, which resulted in four Macedonian wars.2 Rome’s ultimate victory in the wars put an end to the Macedonian kingdom and made it a Roman province.3

The victory of Rome destroyed the economic structure of Macedonia. The Romans captured about one hundred and fifty thousand Macedonian slaves and exiled important Macedonian officials. The kingdom, now economically and politically ineffective, posed no threat to Rome. Nevertheless, Rome wanted her citizens to know that she was not interested in enslaving free people, but rather freeing enslaved people. Thus, the Roman Senate decided to give Macedonia her independence, a limited freedom full of conditions instituted by Rome. Although this new “freedom” allowed the Macedonians to create their own laws and elect their own government officials, they were still required to pay a tribute to Rome. Furthermore, Macedonia was divided into four districts in order to prevent the province from becoming a unified kingdom with the ability to attack Rome.4 Livy writes, “Their country seemed mangled as an animal disjointed into parts.”5 Such measures were taken in order to ensure complete Roman dominance over Macedonia.

By 149 BC, many of the Macedonian citizens became tired of Roman rule. In an attempt to overthrow Rome, many rebellions spawned but were quickly extinguished. Such insurrections caused Rome to tighten control over Macedonia, and as a result, in 148 BC, Rome decided to make Macedonia a province. Rebellions continued to follow, but they were quickly stifled as Rome held absolute control over Macedonia.

Thessalonica, however, supported Rome. It is believed that during the rebellion of Andriscus, Thessalonica paid tribute to Metellus, the Roman praetor, honoring him for his defeat of Andriscus and his rebels. For that reason, Rome favored Thessalonica because of her unwavering allegiance.6

When civil war broke out in 49 BC between Julius Caesar and Pompey, Thessalonica proved a vital city. During the war, Thessalonica became the capital of the Roman administration and was considered a “second Rome.” With the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BC, Rome’s leadership was disputed. Brutus and Cassius, who were responsible for murdering Caesar, began their quest for the supreme authority over Rome. As a result, Thessalonica found itself under the reign of Brutus until the battle of Philippi, where he and Cassius were defeated by Antony and Octavian in 42 BC.7

Consequently, Thessalonica found herself under the regime of Antony. The city fervently supported Antony and Octavian, bestowing upon them many great honors, which resulted in Thessalonica gaining the status of a free city in 42 BC.8 In fact, Simpson has noted that Thessalonica “remained the most important and populous city of Macedonia into the third and fourth century A.D.”9 By 32 BC, tension between Octavian and Antony had increased as to who would be the sole ruler of Rome. The two forces clashed at the battle of Actium, where Octavian was victorious and subsequently assumed sole authority of the Roman Empire.10 Again, Thessalonica pledged complete allegiance to Octavian, bestowing the same honor upon him as the city had upon Antony.

In 27 BC, Octavian, ruler over the empire, took the name Augustus, which as Ferguson notes “was an ancient word suggesting that he was numinous and something more than human . . . this was not a normal Roman name and was indicative of the unique position he held.”11 It was during this time that Augustus placed Thessalonica under the authority of the Roman Senate. The Senate “was below the Emperor and served as his Council of State and increasingly as the organ whereby he caused law to be made.”12 Thessalonica remained an ally of Rome and enjoyed political autonomy as a prominent city in Macedonia. There was, however, another change on the horizon.

The death of Augustus usher...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• List of Abbreviations
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: Preliminary Issues Surrounding Second Thessalonians
• Chapter 2: Paul’s Heritage and Theological Background
• Chapter 3: Acts 17:1–9 and the Conflict at Thessalonica
• Chapter 4: The Judicial Language of 2 Thess 1
• Chapter 5: The Theological Significance of Judicial Language in 2 Thess 1:1–12
• Chapter 6: The Theological Significance of the Judicial Language in 2 Thess 1 in Relation to the Entire Epistle
• Chapter 7: Conclusion
• Bibliography