by
George Lyons

The question is, how do pagans learn to live holy lives? This is not simply an academic question in a rapidly repaganizing Western civilization. True, most so-called "converts" in Christian churches in America today are actually recycled Christians from the church down the block— disgruntled sheep grown tired of the grass or the shepherds in their familiar pastures. They are people who decide to sample life on the other side of some churchly fence. But on those occasions when there are true conversions, we can no longer take for granted that the converts will be familiar with Judeo-Christian morality.

Secular people in the last decade of the second millennium cannot be presumed to know either the Scriptures or the traditions of the Christian faith, much less the ethic of the Holiness Movement. Unfortunately, many who attend our churches are not much better informed. "One reason the church today is so ineffectual in certain parts of the world," observes Lutheran New Testament scholar Karl Donfried, is

As Wesleyan pastors and teachers, we find ourselves increasingly in the position of the first-century apostles. Our task is not only to convert pagans and indoctrinate converts. It also is to Christianize the church. For those of us who take seriously our Wesleyan-Holiness heritage, orthodoxy is not enough. We cannot justify our theological existence unless we actively promote "holiness of heart and life."

But how are we to engender truly Christian living where there is no preparation and few or inadequate contemporary precedents? Where do we begin? What can we learn from the pattern of the apostles? How did Paul nurture converts into mature Christians? First Thessalonians, his earliest surviving letter and probably the oldest Christian literature in existence, would seem to be an appropriate place to begin our investigation.

If vocabulary demonstrates anything, 1 Thessalonians must be a crucial document in any account of the Apostle’s understanding of holiness. The frequent utilization of explicit holiness terminology in this brief letter is particularly noteworthy.³ Paul’s benedictory prayer in 5:23-4 witnesses to the centrality of holiness in 1 Thess. Significantly, this verse contains the New Testament’s only explicit reference to entire sanctification: "May the God of peace himself sanctify you entirely, and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be kept blameless until the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ."⁵

Despite the Old Testament’s characteristic use of holiness terminology in a largely cultic sense, Paul’s concern in 1 Thess., as elsewhere, is almost exclusively "ethical." Admittedly, neither of the Greek words underlying the English term "ethics" appears in 1 Thess.⁶ Paul’s letters are not concerned with "ethics" in the technical theological or philosophical sense of systematic reflection on the nature of the good or the right. They do, however, presuppose certain ideas about what is right and wrong, good and bad. Paul’s "ethical" exhortations and instructions have as their fundamental concern not the principles, but the practice of ethics, what is more accurately called "ethos." Paul’s concern is with the actual lifestyle of Christians, with behavior as opposed to theory. Thus, he begins, not with abstractions, but with examples to be emulated and divine commands to be obeyed.⁷

Paul’s letter known to us as 1 Thess. exists because the Apostle was forced to leave prematurely his church of newly converted pagans. Fears that they might succumb to the persecutions their newfound faith brought them led Paul to send Timothy to Thessalonica to encourage them to remain faithful (3:1-5; cf. Acts 17:10-15; 18:5). The specific occasion of the letter is the "good news" of Timothy’s report of their Christian progress (3:6-10). First Thessalonians appears to offer pastoral care by the correspondence-school method (see Acts 17:1-9; I Thess. 2:17—3:13). In fact, the letter is a written reminder of what Paul had earlier taught in person by word and example during his all-too-brief stay with the Thessalonians. It was intended to serve as a substitute for his personal presence among them. For, as the letter makes clear, there is no substitute for incarnational Christianity. Perhaps the only Christians they knew, Paul and his missionary party, served as models for the Thessalonian believers. Paul did not send his converts an overhead projector and a packet of praise-choruses on transparencies. He did not even send them devotional guides or Bible-studies. Instead, he reminded them of how his life and ministry modeled the Christian faith and the holiness ethos.

The first three chapters of 1 Thessalonians are autobiographical discussions of Paul’s "past, present and future relations with the Thessalonians."⁸ This autobiographical section consists of two major divisions. The concern of the first, 1:2-2:16, is the past, beginning with the relationship of friendship established between Paul and the Thessalonians during his founding visit.⁹ The second, 2:17-3:13, concerns their present relationship, beginning with Paul’s departure from Thessalonica and their separation. Paul and the Thessalonians are true friends. Though they are separated in person, they are not separated in heart (2:17; 3: 10)."10 Chapters four and five represent the advice Paul would have given these friends if he had been able to visit them in person. As in the first part of the letter, he reminds the Thessalonians of his earlier teaching (4:1, 2, 6, 11) and of his exemplary life among them. He encourages (4:18; 5:11) them to remain faithful (4:1, 10; 5:11) to God as they await the consummation (5:23-24). The letter itself serves as a stopgap measure to overcome the severest test of friendship—physical and temporal separation (see 2:17—3:13). Even death does not separate believers from one another or from their Lord (4:13-18; 5:10-11).

There is said to be a striking parallel between Paul’s description of God’s power in the proclaimer and proclamation (in 1:9; 2:1, 13) and Paul and his converts. Paul is an incarnation of the gospel and his converts’ ethos is an imitation of his own (1:5-10). Paul embodies the gospel he preaches. The word of God, which he preaches and the Thessalonians accepted, is "at work in [those] who believe" (2:13). They are representatives of the gospel. Both Paul’s ethos and theirs demonstrate the truth of the divine "word."¹¹ Both 1:5-10 and 2:13-16 contain the same "sequence of thoughts: the word coming from Paul, the divine working, the imitation."¹² God is responsible for the exemplary behavior of both the Thessalonians and Paul.

Paul proceeds from the theological assumption that the character of Christians is fundamentally different from that of pagans because of the character of their God. Pagans behave as they do because they do "not know God" (4:5; cf. 2 Thess. 1:8; Gal. 4:9). Paul characterizes his moral teaching to the Thessalonians as an exhortation "to live a life worthy of the God who calls you into his kingdom and glory" (2:11-12). This "God has not called us to uncleanness,¹³ but to holiness"¹⁴ What God wants is "your sanctification¹⁵—that you abstain from sexual immorality" (4:3). The God who calls you to entire sanctification "is faithful, and he will do it," namely, sanctify you (5:23-24; cf. I Pet. 1:14-16). In 2 Thess 1:11 Paul insists that it was God who made Christians worthy of his call and who enables them to fulfill every good resolve.

The Holy Spirit is the divine agent in effecting sanctification (1 Thess. 4:8; 2 Thess. 2:13). But the Spirit does not operate without human cooperation, as Paul’s exhortations to holy living implicitly argue.¹⁶ He explicitly mentions that God’s call to holiness can be rejected (4:8). The Spirit cleanses, inspires, motivates, and enables holy living, but human participation is always presupposed. Paul’s references to God’s call of the Thessalonian believers are not veiled threats to live up to divine expectations or else. They rather are hopeful assurances of the effectiveness of God’s intentions on their behalf and reminders of the ethical conduct appropriate to their calling.¹⁷

But how are young Christians, recent converts from paganism, to know what constitutes moral conduct appropriate to God’s call to holiness? Paul’s answer, at least in part, is found in 4:1—"You received from me the example of how it is necessary to live morally and to please God."¹⁸ Paul’s gospel and person are inseparable. This is first emphasized in 1:5: "My gospel did not come¹⁹ to you with words only, but also with power, and with the Holy Spirit, and with full conviction, as you know what kind of person I was²⁰ among you for your sake." The Thessalonians know Paul’s character and he knows the genuineness of their divine election (1:4), because they "became²¹ imitators" of Paul and his colleagues and of the Lord (1:6). To a remarkable extent Paul’s explicit ethical appeals in I Thess. 4 and 5 are paralleled by references to his personal example in chapters 1—3. He asks nothing of his converts that he does not himself model. He embodies the holiness ethos he recommends.

The character of Christians is fundamentally different from that of pagans, not only because of the character of their God, but also because of the character of Christian preachers and the message they preach. The influence of the character of the founder of a community on the ethos of that community can scarcely be overestimated.²² While Paul is willing to be a role-model, he refuses to be an idol. The two "biographical" sections, 1:5-10 and 2:13-16, which focus more directly on Paul’s Thessalonian "imitators" than on him, are nearly identical in length to the autobiographical description of the "model," of Paul in 2:1-12. Throughout I Thess. Paul balances his exemplary status with a remarkable emphasis upon the equality, mutuality, and reciprocity of his relationship with his converts. Paul acknowledges that, unlike himself, they were converts from idolatry (see 1:9; 2:1-2), but he emphasizes even in this what they have in common.

In 2:1-12 Paul elaborates on the first proof confirming the Thessalonians’ divine election (1:4). It is his ethos as a preacher of the gospel (1:5). The second proof, their perseverance in persecution (1:6-10), is reiterated in 2: 13-16.23 These two sections share numerous common terminological features, including their mutual knowledge and memory²⁴ of each other’s behavior and Christian labors²⁵ as a result of Paul’s missionary visit.²⁶ Paul begins the autobiographical section in 2:1-12 by referring to his example of suffering (v. 2). Both he and they suffer for their Christian faith. The underlying relationship between Paul’s description of the Thessalonians’ ethos and his own is the correlation of imitators to model.

Paul was not unique among thinkers in Greco-Roman antiquity in the view that models²⁷ are more helpful and easier to follow than precepts.²⁸ Seneca held that the best models are those "who teach us by their lives. . . who tell us what we ought to do. . . and then prove it by their practice."²⁹ The Christian distinctive in Paul’s use of personal example in moral instruction is found both in the specific moral values he models and in the motivation for his behavior. Importantly, Paul insists that his model is not apostolic, but merely that of a Christian. As "one approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel," Paul’s preaching and practice were motivated by a magnificent obsession to please God, not people (2:4). His highest values were succinctly expressed in the familiar triad consisting of faith, hope, and love (1:3; 5:8; cf. 1 Cor. 13:13; Eph. 1:3-23; Col. 1:4-5; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 3:10; Heb. 10:22-24; Epistle of Barnabas 1:6). For Paul these are not mere abstractions, but characterize the Christian’s walk—a moral life marked by faithfulness to God, hopeful expectation of final salvation, and fraternal love in the meantime.

In 2:1-12 Paul identifies four practical expressions of faith, hope, and love. They are: 1) Boldness inspired by God (2:1-2)—perseverance in the face of persecution; 2) Responsibility to God alone (2:3-4)-—living lives that are morally pleasing to God; 3) Gentleness inspired by love (2:5-8)—authentic and selfless living in relation to others; and 4) Living worthy of God (2:9-12)—not burdening others, but rather encouraging them to holy living.

1. Boldness Inspired by God (2:1-2). In 2:1-2 Paul denies that his founding visit to Thessalonica had proven to be "empty." But this negative claim is ambiguous apart from its corresponding positive affirmation. The Greek adjective translated "empty"³⁰ might have the force "empty of truth," and so, "false." This would then anticipate the point of 2:3-8,31 where Paul denies that his "appeal" was false (2:3). In 2:1, however, Paul refers to his "visit" (2:1), for which "false" hardly seems an appropriate translation.³² Perhaps Paul implied that his visit was not "empty of results," and so "wasted" or "fruitless." This would emphasize again the genuine conversion and subsequent perseverance of the Thessalonians.³³ But the response of his converts to his preaching does not seem to be the concern of 2:1-12, as it is in 1:6-10 and 2:13-16. Here, his attention is directed to the influence of his character on the character of his converts.³⁴

The force of "empty" that best matches the positive affirmation is "empty of power," "powerless." Thus, it repeats the point of 1:5 and anticipates the point of 2:13.35 Paul implies, "Our visit to you was not unaccompanied by the manifestation of the power of God." He contrasts the powerful activity of the one true God in his mission with the powerlessness of the idols to which his converts had once been committed (1:8-10). Dumb idols were unable to inspire the boldness that enabled him to proclaim the gospel in the face of opposition (2:1 -2).36

It was Paul’s perseverance despite suffering and insult (2:2) that provided the pattern for the Thessalonians’ Spirit-inspired joy under similar circumstances (1:6). Paul contrasts, a powerless versus a God-inspired and God-empowered mission. This best accounts for the continuation of his autobiographical remarks in 2:3-12. He recognizes God as the source of his gospel and his bold preaching of it. This recognition and the antithetical formulation of this claim make it clear that these autobiographical remarks are not self-praise.³⁷

2. Responsibility to God Alone (2:3-4). The initial description of Paul’s ethos in 2:1-2 is explained more fully in 2:3-12.38 Had his message been merely a human word and his visit devoid of divine power, Paul would never have come to Thessalonica or, once there, would have succumbed in the struggle. His perseverance in preaching the gospel is evidence enough that he has been entrusted with his message by God. Thus, it is to God alone that he is responsible. The goal of Paul’s "evangelistic preaching"³⁹ was to win converts from the delusion of idolatry to the one true God.⁴⁰ Even noble ends do not give license to use underhanded means, "trickery or deception,"⁴1 to achieve them.

Paul intentionally correlates the autobiographic and parenetic sections of the letter, presenting his ethos as the implicit model for the continued imitation of his converts.⁴² Paul the preacher is not guilty of "uncleanness"⁴³ (2:3). The term may refer to "immorality" of any kind. But here, as elsewhere in Paul’s letters, it seems to refer primarily to sexual sins.⁴⁴ The parenesis in 1 Thess. 4:1-8 explicitly repeats Paul’s earlier advice concerning sexual morality. Christians—including Paul— must abstain from "immorality" (v. 3).⁴⁵ This is what pleases God (v. 1). This is what God wants (v. 3). This is the motive of God’s call to sanctification (v. 7; cf. v. 3 and 5:23-24). Violators are doubly warned: "The Lord is an avenger in all these things" (v. 6b; RSV); "Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you" (v. 8; RSV).

Paul’s work was "not self-appointed but a sacred trust" for which he was responsible to God.⁴⁶ What he preached were not his own words, but God’s. He did not preach for his own advantage nor of his own volition (cf. 1 Cor. 9:15-18). He insists that his appeal is not like that of paganism; rather it originates with God (2:3-4a). Paul did not preach to please humans—as pagans do—but to please God (2:4b).⁴⁷

3. Gentleness Inspired by Love (2:5-8). Paul’s self-description in 2:5-8 specifically identifies his behavior during his founding visit to Thessalonica.⁴⁸ In 2:5-8 Paul subtly shifts from a discussion of the character of his "appeal" (2:2-4) to the appeal of his character.⁴⁹ In 1:5 Paul closely connects his person and message. A similar claim is made in 2:8b, "We were pleased to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our very selves." As a good "philosopher," Paul’s word and deed fully correspond, a fact that validates the truth of his philosophy. Itinerant street philosophers and preachers in the Hellenistic world of Paul’s day were viewed with suspicion. By his denials Paul distinguishes himself from the typical, selfishly-motivated charlatan.⁵⁰

The point of 2:5-8 is to demonstrate that Paul was not selfish, but rather selfless. In rejecting the practices of other preachers, including not only pagans but also so-called Christians (cf. 2 Cor. 2:17; Phil. 3:17-21), he reaffirms his deep affection and self-effacing love for his converts (2:8). Paul’s concern in 2:5-8 is to maintain in proper balance his emphasis on pleasing God, not people (see 2:4), and his concern to present himself as a true friend to the Thessalonians. He does not allow pleasing people to compromise the higher priority of pleasing God. But neither does he permit selfish concerns to deter him from properly serving his converts.⁵¹ Although he preached the gospel with boldness (2:2), he was at the same time "gentle" (2:7).⁵²

Many itinerant preachers of Paul’s day made their living by means of "flattery."⁵³ Others, especially Cynics, overreacting to the ploys of flatterers, were noted not so much for their "frankness" as for their excess of it. They confused the necessary bold confrontation of their audiences’ shortcomings with reviling, berating, and insolence. In response to such abuses, serious preachers emphasized their understanding, gentleness, and authentic friendship.⁵⁴

Paul refused to resort to "flattering speech" (2:5a). Flattery is the insincere, manipulative, exploitive, self-serving words of an orator bent on favorably impressing and persuading the audience at any cost.⁵⁵ Paul calls upon God to witness to his true motivation (2:5b). He never disregarded the rights of others in his efforts to win converts.⁵⁶ Paul does not appeal to God because his motives had been challenged. It is because, although the Thessalonians could vouch for Paul’s behavior, only God could know his motives.

Paul also refused to make pleasing people his first priority, much less pleasing himself. He "never sought glory from people" (2:6a).⁵⁷ His personal reputation did not matter (cf. Phil. 1:15-18). He refused to usurp the rights of others in the exercise of his own, relinquishing instead his apostolic prerogatives of respect, authority, and financial support (2:6b). Paul provides a visible model of the love that he prays God will cause to increase among the Thessalonians (3:12). But God is also the teacher: "You have been taught by God to love one another" (4:9; cf. 1 John 4:7-12, 19).

Paul emphasizes the mutuality and equality of his relationship with the Thessalonians.⁵⁸ His claim is simply, "We were gentle among you" (2:7b). The adjective "gentle"⁵⁹ is filled with content by the simile that compares Paul’s self-giving ministry among the Thessalonians (2:8) to the loving care of a nursing mother for her own children.⁶⁰ Here Paul emphasizes his longing to be with and his affection for his converts.

Because of his authentic friendship with the Thessalonians, Paul considers it a pleasure to share with them not only the gospel of God, but himself as well. His behavior was inspired by his love for his converts.⁶¹ He again reminds them of his model of self-giving love in the prayer closing the autobiographical section of the letter, "And may the Lord make you increase and abound in love to one another and to all men, as we do to you" (3:12 RSV). In the parenetic section Paul expresses his satisfaction with the Thessalonians’ mutual love, and yet encourages continued progress— "do so more and more" (4:9-10).

4. Living Worthy of God (2:9-12). First Thessalonians 2:9-12 validates and illustrates Paul’s claim of unselfish love for the Thessalonians in 2:5-8.62 The focus is still on the sort of person Paul was among them (cf. 2:10, 5, 7), but the emphasis is less on his character than on his moral purpose and motives.

The first validation of Paul’s claim in 2:5-8 was his "labor of love" among the Thessalonians.⁶³ In 2:6 Paul claims not to have "burdened" the Thessalonians financially, as he might have as an apostle. In v. 9 he explains the motives underlying this behavior: "For you remember, brothers and sisters, our labor and toil. We preached to you the gospel of God while we worked night and day so as not to be a burden on any one of you."

It appears that in both Corinth and Thessalonica, Paul waived his apostolic right to financial support and preached the gospel free of charge, instead plying a trade to earn his livelihood.⁶⁴ If the "burden" he refused to place on them was financial in nature, his "labor" among them does not refer primarily to his preaching activity.⁶⁵ Rather, Paul’s manual labor serves as the model for his explicit parenesis on work in 4:11. Furthermore, in both 2:6-9 and 4:11-12 not burdening others is noted as a tangible expression of brotherly love (cf. 2:8 and 4:9; 2:9 and 4:12),66 for which Paul also provides the model (see 2:5-8, 17-18; 3:6, 10, and 12).

The second validation of Paul’s claim in 2:5-8 to gentle concern for his converts is his irreproachable moral conduct and the motives in 2:10-12. "You are witnesses, and God is also, that our behavior toward you believers was holy and righteous and blameless" (2:10; cf. 1 Thess. 4:9-12).⁶⁷

In 2:11-12 Paul turns from a discussion of his exemplary behavior to the model of his fatherly advice,⁶⁸ ". . . We exhorted. . .and encouraged .. . and charged you to lead a life⁶⁹ worthy of God." Both Paul’s deed and word were motivated by one purpose—a concern that the Thessalonians should conduct themselves in a morally holy manner. Only a life of holiness (4:1-8) was consistent with their status as people called to participate in God’s own kingdom and glory (v. 12). God’s call to live the life of holiness (4:7) was not the condition for becoming the "children of light and children of the day" (5:5) or people "destined. . . for salvation" (5:9). The gift of the Holy Spirit (4:8) both demanded and enabled the Thessalonians to live in a manner consistent with the divine call. God’s election-call had this purpose: that they should live like Christians, that they should live genuinely holy lives.⁷⁰

Paul’s intercessory prayers at the close of the autobiographic and parenetic sections again express the concern that the Thessalonians’ moral behavior might, like his own, be blameless and pleasing to God (3:11-13 and 5:23-24). Between these prayers, Paul exhorts them to the moral conduct he consistently modeled and taught while he was with them.⁷¹ His call to remember his model and his fatherly instruction in 2:9-12 is an implicit call for them to continue to imitate⁷² his example of fraternal love, hard work, morally pure behavior, and mutual encouragement and upbuilding.⁷³ "As Paul has encouraged, exhorted and cared for the Thessalonian Christians, so they must care for one another. . . . To ‘build up’ the church is for the believers to encourage one another to grow in sanctification, i.e., to produce spiritual maturity and stability."⁷⁴ Mature Christians should reflect the holiness ethos.

In a letter in which hope is a major concern and the imminent parousia a reminder of the need for ethical seriousness (see 1:10; 2:12, 19-20; 3:12-13; 4:13-18; 5:5-11, 23-24), Paul’s exemplary behavior also gives his readers hope that the moral end to which God has called them could be achieved. The Thessalonians’ hardships need not deter them; Paul’s had not deterred him.⁷⁵

What have we learned from the Apostle about teaching converted pagans to live holy lives? Paul’s approach was, first, to praise his converts for the changes God had already effected in their lives. He emphasized the genuineness of their conversions and expressed his essential satisfaction with their progress as Christians. But he did not hesitate to challenge them to further progress or to offer explicit paradigms for the life of holiness.⁷⁶

Second, Paul used personal illustrations—biographical and autobiographical reminders—in order at once to praise his hearers and to prod them on. Examples that may be emulated are still more persuasive than abstractions that are merely postulated. What Paul praised was specifically the Thessalonians’ perseverance in the Christian faith and lifestyle. They were already doing well; he encouraged them only to do so more and more. Yet for such recent converts from pagan idolatry and its immoral ethos, ethical reminders, encouragement, and examples are hardly perfunctory.

Third, by means of encouragement and example, Paul educated his converts. In 1 Thessalonians the intellectual⁷⁷ aspect of edification is emphasized rather than the volitional. That is, Paul explained to his converts what was right and wrong and why. He did not explicitly exhort them to do the right and shun the wrong. Education and deepened adherence to communally shared values are the normal goals of epideictic rhetoric.⁷⁸ Preachers who lack the courage or conviction to identify virtues and vices by name can only expect a harvest of moral drift among their converts.

Fourth, Paul emphasized his equality with his converts. What was good for the people was good for the preacher. The autobiographical remarks in 1 Thess. function parenetically to remind Paul’s converts of the Christian ethical values they share, as embodied in the ethos of their "model."⁷⁹ They were his imitators and themselves examples (1:6-7). They were his "crown of boasting," his "glory," his "joy" (2:19-20). Their relationship was one of mutuality and reciprocity. By praising his own exemplary ethos, as over against the immorality of paganism, Paul was at the same time praising and educating the Thessalonians. But his praise was ultimately directed toward God, who enabled both Paul and the Thessalonians to live lives that were pleasing to God (2:4; 4:1) and worthy of him (2:12). Paul did not consider the life of holiness a new scheme of self-salvation. Both he and .they were equally recipients of divine grace.

Fifth, Paul prayed that these exemplary converts might experience the grace of entire sanctification (3:13; 5:23). The holiness to which Paul pointed the Thessalonians (4:3, ‘7) was not merely a religious experience, but an ethos consistent with the character of God. If Christians are called upon to live lives worthy of a holy God, "theology" is not a luxury but a necessity. An adequate understanding of God is essential to the intelligent proclamation of holiness. The first lessons pagans are likely to learn about the character of God are to be found in the lives of God’s people, not on the pages of Scripture or a catechism, much less in a volume on systematic theology or in an exegetical commentary.

Paul was not reluctant to put himself and his colleagues forward as witnesses to the powerful effectiveness of divine grace in human lives. As he wrote in 1 Cor. 15:10, "By the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace was not ineffective⁸⁰ in me." Modern Christians, whose modesty makes them reluctant to accept their roles as models of the holiness ethos, inadvertently suggest that God’s call to holiness is an empty dream. Paul, however, was guilty of neither immodesty nor of failing to witness to the reality of God’s sanctifying grace.

Paul closes his letter to the Thessalonians with a prayer that the God who called them to holiness (see 4:7) would make their sanctification complete (5:23). That is, he prayed that they might be kept sound and blameless for the parousia. He followed this prayer with an expression of confidence, "He who called you is faithful, and he will do it" (5:24 RSV), and with this request, "Brothers and sisters, pray for me" (5:25). In calling upon the Thessalonians to pray that he, too, would persevere faithfully to the end, Paul once again emphasized the equality and reciprocity characterizing his friendship with his converts.

Unlike many prominent movie and sports figures today, Paul was not unwilling to accept his responsibility as a role model. But he did so, not by placing himself upon a pedestal as a super-hero, but by placing himself squarely among his converts as one without authority, as a fellow-recipient of grace, and as one in need of the prayers of others. There is still no substitute for incarnational Christianity. Like Paul, we must embody our message. To be credible witnesses, we too must practice what we preach.

Critical and Contextual Issues. Despite striking differences from Paul’s later letters,⁸¹ no serious contemporary New Testament scholar disputes the traditional Pauline authorship of 1 Thessalonians.⁸² Although the letter apparently lacks a "body" that is formally distinct from the thanksgiving period, it otherwise resembles Paul’s letters that conclude with a distinct parenetic section (cf. Rom 12:1—15:13; Eph 4: 1—6:20). The transition from 3:13 to 4:1 is almost uniformly recognized as the major break in the logical structure of the letter. Both halves of the letter conclude with intercessory prayers that are similar in both form and content (3:10-13 and 5:23-24).83 A consensus of scholars agree that the first section is essentially autobiographical and the second parenetic.⁸⁴

A number of commentators consider 1 Thess 1:2—2:16 a "defense of his life and work"⁸⁵ and 2:17—3:13 a "defense of his absence."⁸⁶ They presume that the first three chapters autobiographical chapters are Paul’s apologetic response to charges and insinuations against his character or apostolic office.⁸⁷ Despite the widely accepted view that Paul apologetically responds to concrete accusations by opponents,⁸⁸ there is no clear consensus as to the identity of his presumed opponents or the specific nature of their supposed charges.⁸⁹ The existence of opponents and charges is simply postulated and has never been demonstrated. The supposed opponents’ charges in I Thessalonians are characteristically reconstructed by appeal to a "mirror reading" of selected antithetical formulations.⁹⁰ "Mirror reading" presumes that "we may infer from some of Paul’s strongest affirmations, and most emphatic denials when in controversy with opponents, that the opposite of what Paul is saying had been argued by these opponents."⁹¹ An interpreter’s selection of the antithetical constructions he mirror-reads seems to arise arbitrarily from his historical reconstruction of the situation rather than from literary and/or rhetorical necessity. The text itself takes a back seat to an externally imposed theory. Antithetical constructions were far too common in the normal synagogue preaching of Hellenistic Judaism and in the moral discourses of itinerant Cynic and Stoic philosophers (even in clearly non-polemical settings) to assume, as many New Testament scholars do, that Paul’s antithetical constructions must respond to opposing charges.⁹²

First Thessalonians 2:1-12 highlights Paul’s characteristic way of living, not because his character had been maligned, but because he wanted to demonstrate that he embodied his message—he practiced what he preached. His concern in this section of the letter was not to defend his authority but to demonstrate his ethos—his characteristic way of living. His rhetorical goal was not apology but parenesis—ethical advice. His exemplary behavior was to serve as a model for his hearers to emulate. The truth of his "philosophy"—the gospel—was validated by the consistency between his theory and practice.

There are numerous explicit inner-connections between the autobiographical and parenetic sections of 1 Thessalonians. Paul’s advice probably tells us more about his ethical concerns than about his audience’s ethical deficiencies. Mirror reading is as inappropriate applied to parenesis as to autobiography. It is perverse to assume that Paul’s readers were doing nothing he recommended and everything he prohibited. Parenesis thrives in an atmosphere of shared values and convictions. Paul was able to recommend the behavior he did because he was confident that the Thessalonians were already living essentially as he had taught them earlier. Epideictic parenesis intends to reinforce rather than reverse its recipient’s existing lifestyle. Thus, it was not flattery but sincerity that led Paul to say, "Continue living as you already are, only more so" (see 4:1, 9-10).

First Thessalonians 2:1-12 is formally a part of the letter’s unusually lengthy thanksgiving, which begins in 1:2.93 Whether "thanksgiving"

adequately describes 1 Thessalonians as a whole or only its autobiographical section, it is clear that, as in all Paul’s letters, the important epistolary function of the extended thanksgiving is "explicitly or implicitly paraenetic."⁹⁴

A close inspection of the three references to thanksgiving in 1:2; 2:13; and 3:9-1Ï reveals both striking similarities and significant differences.⁹⁵ Paul’s thanksgiving in 1:2-4 recalls the Thessalonians’ tangible expressions of the familiar triad of Christian virtues: faith, hope, and love (1:3; see also 5:8). These demonstrate their divine election (1:5). In 1:5-1Ï, he offers two further proofs of their election: first, the character of his proclamation of the gospel (1:5), and second, the character of their response to the gospel (1:6-1Ï). In 2:1-1ü, he expands on these proofs in the same order this time giving more lengthy attention to his character (2:1-12) and referring more briefly to theirs (2:13-16).

¹This essay was presented as the Wesleyan Theological Society seminar paper at the annual convention of the Christian Holiness Association convened in Nashville, Term., April, 1994. Dr. Lyons was then WTS president.

²Karl Donfried, "The Theology of I Thessalonians," The Theology of the Shorter Pauline Letters, New Testament Theology, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Cambridge: University Press, 1993), 76. The British spellings follow the original.

³I Thess. has a higher density of explicit holiness terms than any other Pauline letter. With 1,482 words in the Greek text (Nestle-Aland 26), 1 Thess. makes up only 4.6% of the total words in the Pauline corpus (32,440). Yet its percentage of explicit holiness words is more than twice the corpus average (.675 compared to .327). By "explicit holiness terminology" I refer to the cognate group derived from the Greek roots 'αγι- and 'αγν-, which include 'αγιάζω ("I sanctify"—5:23), 'αγιασμός ("sanctification"—4:3, 4, 7), 'άγιος ("holy"—1:5, 6; 3:13; 4:8; 5:26), 'αγιότηζ ("holiness"), 'αγιωσμόζ ("holiness"—3:13), 'αγνεία ("purity"), 'αγνίζω ("I purify"), 'αγνισμόζ ("purification"), 'αγνόζ ("pure"), 'αγνότηζ ("purity"), and 'αγνώς ("purely"). In addition to these, I Thess. 2:10 contains the N.T.'s only example of the adverb 'οσιως ("holily"). These statistics are based on Gramcord.

⁴This presumes that the letter’s conclusion (peroratio in classical rhetoric) in 5:23-28, as usual, summarizes its major themes. See the rhetorical analyses of Robert Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety, Foundations and Facets (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 76; and Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 205.

⁵All translations in this paper are my own unless otherwise indicated. The Greek word 'ολοτελε^ις is translated "entirely" in the NASB, TLB, and NRSV; "wholly" in the KJV. ASV, and RSV; "completely" in the NKJV; and "perfectly" in the NAB. These translations refer to a thorough, comprehensive, and accomplished sanctification. In the tradition of the Luther Bible (durch und durch), the NIV translates it "through and through," a sanctification that affects every part of believer’s person. The TEV renders it "in every way," a sanctification that affects every dimension of life.

⁶They are 'έθος and ^'ηθος The first never appears in Paul’s letters; the second, only in I Cor. 15:33 in the proverbial quotation from Menander: "Bad company ruins good morals ['ήοη]" (RSV).

⁷On the question of Paul’s "ethics" see Victor Paul Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968), esp. 208-241; and Stephen C. Mott, "Ethics," Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 269-275.

⁸Best, 27.

⁹For a discussion of the critical issues involved in this approach to the letter, see the Appendix to this essay.

¹⁰Only Philippians approaches 1 Thess. in its emphasis upon Paul’s friendship with his hearers. True friendship is possible only on the basis of equality, unanimity, likeness, reciprocity, frankness, and constancy—all qualities explicitly mentioned as characterizing the relationship between Paul and his Thessalonian converts. See Hans Dieter Betz (Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979], 220-37) for a discussion of the characteristics of true friendship suggested by writers of antiquity, most notably Cicero and Plutarch. Betz notes that "true friendship does not change even when the friends are separated" (p. 232, paraphrasing Plutarch’s ‘How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend" in Moralia, 97B).

¹¹Greek: λόγος, "message." For the exegetical arguments justifying the approach developed here, see George Lyons, Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding (Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, 73. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), ch. 3.

¹²Willis Peter de Boer, The Imitation of Paul: An Exegetical Study (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1962), 113. Nearly all commentators agree that the virtue remains the same although the model changes. See e.g., Frame, 82-83; Beda Rigaux, Saint Paul: Les Epitres aux Thessaloniciens, Etudes bibliques (Paris: Librajrie Lecoffre: J. Duculot, 1956), 380-81, 441; Gottlieb Lünemann, "Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Thessalonians," trans. Paton J. Gloag, Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Handbook, vol. 8 (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1889), 453; George Milligan, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians (London: Macmillan, 1908), 10; Best, 77; Furnish, 221; D. M. Stanley, " ‘Become Imitators of Me’: The Pauline Conception of Apostolic Tradition," Biblica 40 (1959): 865 and 868.

It is of interest that the two "biographies" and the "autobiography" each occupies thirty lines of the Greek text. Paul balances his autobiographical remarks with comparable praise of his audience and others whose aims and actions were similar to his own.

¹³Greek: έπί άκαθαρσία. Italics added.

¹⁴Greek: έν 'αγιασμώ. Italics added.

¹⁵Greek: 'αγιασμ ός .

¹⁶Note also his plea not to quench the Spirit in I Thess. 5:19.

¹⁷See Best, 107-108.

¹⁸I have self-consciously changed the first person plural pronoun "us" to "me" (which, strictly speaking, appears only in 3:5 and 5:27), since the primary reference is primarily to Paul. The full defense for this interpretation may be found in my dissertation.

¹⁹Greek: έγενήθη.

²⁰Greek: έγενήθημεν . Italics added.

²¹Greek: έγενήθητε. Italics added. Note the repetition of the same verb roots underlying the different English verbs in nn. 30, 31, and 32.

²²This is the thesis of Ernst von Dobschütz, Christian Life in the Primitive Church, trans. George Bemner, ed. W. D. Morrison (New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1904). He considers this far more determinative than the pre-Christian situation of the converts.

²³This analysis is shared by numerous commentators. See e.g., J. B. Light-foot, Notes on Epistles of St. Paul, ed. J. R. Harmer (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980, reprint of 1895 ed.), 18; and Best, 88. The connection between 1:2-10 and 2:1-12 is provided by the conjunction γάρ, "for" (Best, 89).

²⁴Cf. "we know" in 1:4 and "you know" in 1:5; 2:1, 2, 5, and II. Cf. "we remember" in 1:3 and "you remember" in 2:9.

²⁵Note the mention of the "work" of the Thessalonians in 1:5 and of Paul in 2:9.

²⁶Compare the reference to Paul’s founding "visit" from the perspective of the Macedonians and Achaians in 1:9 and of Paul and the Thessalonians in 2:1; see 1:5.

²⁷Latin: exempla.

²⁸Latin: praecepta. So Seneca, Epistles 6:5f.; 75: 1ff.; 40:1.

²⁹Bpistie 52:8. Loeb Classical Library.

³¹So, e.g., D. B. H. Whiteley, The Theology of St. Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 40; see Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed., trans. and ed. William F. Amdt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1979), s.v. κενός 2a.

³²Best, 89.

³³So, e.g., Bauer, s.v. κενός 2 A b; Best, 89-90; Wanamaker, 92.

³⁴So, e.g., Lightfoot, 18.

³⁵So, e.g., Frame, 91.

³⁶In Jewish thought an idol was "a vain thing" (see Jer. 18:15). Compare the claim in Jer. 10:14-15, that these "non-entities" are "false" and lack "spirit" and "strength" with Paul’s opposite claims for his message of the one true God in 1:5.

³⁷Once again there is proof that Paul’s antithetical formulation had an ethical rather than an apologetic origin or end. It is unthinkable that anyone should have accused the monotheistic apostle of deriving his boldness from idols. If the formulation is polemical, it is a preemptive attack on idolatry and idolaters, not a response to Jewish or Christian opponents.

³⁸As the conjunction γάρ , "for," demonstrates.

³⁹Greek: παράκλησις , "appeal." Cf. Paul’s use of the cognate verb παρακαλέω 2 Cor. 5:20-6:1. In 1 Thess. 2:12; 3:2; 4:1, 10; and 5:14 the verb παρακαλέω appears to have the more restricted sense of ethical exhortation. See Carl J. Bjekelund, Parakalü: Form, Funktion und Sinn der parakaló-Satze in den paulinischen Briefen, Bibliotheca Theologica Norvegica, no. 1 (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1967), 125-40; Frame, 94; Best, 93.

⁴⁰Cf. 1:9; 2 Thess. 2:11-12; Rom. 1:27. See Herbert Braun, "πλανάω" TDNT 6:230-51; contra Schmithals, 143-44; and Bauer, s.v. πλάνη, "delusion." Chaps. 11—15 of the Wisdom of Solomon contain one of the Greek OT’s most severe indictments of idolatry as a "delusion" (see 11:15; 12:24; 14:22). Wis. 14:22 is also formulated antithetically. Perhaps Paul alludes to it later in 1 Thess.

5:3: "Afterward it is not enough for them to err about the knowledge of God, but they. . . call such great evils peace" (Wis. 14:22, RSV).

⁴¹Bauer, s.v. δόλος. In Jewish-Christian opinion this was the normal practice of pagan idolatry (cf. Rom. 1:29). Idolatry and deception are treated as synonymous in Wis. 14:20. In Wis. 14:22-26 as in 1 Thess. 2:3 these words appear together in the same vice lists. The word δόλος, "trickery" (NRSV), appears only three times in the Pauline corpus (Rom. 1:29; 1 Thess. 2:3; and 2 Cor. 12:16). In the latter passage it probably refers to financial fraud. The cognate verb in 2 Cor. 4:1-2 appears in an antithetical formulation which is conceptually similar to 1 Thess. 2:1-2. On the use of δόλος. as a technical term for fraud, see J. Paul Sampley, Pauline Partnership in Christ (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 93-94 and the accompanying notes.

⁴²Cf., e.g., the references to (1) the Spirit’s activity in Paul’s gospel (1:5) and the Thessalonians’ joyful endurance of affliction (1:6) with 4:8; (2) the "human—God" contrast (cf. 2:1-2, 4, 13; and 4:8 and 5:19; cf. also 2 Thess. 2:13-15); (3) Paul’s example of avoiding "uncleanness" (cf. 2:3 and 4:1, 7); (4) Paul’s "appeal"; (5) the Thessalonian’s call (cf. 1:4; 2:12; and 4:7).

Interpreters who argue that this sense of "uncleanness" does not fit the context of Paul’s autobiographical statements in 2:1-12 do so on the basis of "mirror reading." They assume that his denials reply to actual accusations. And, as Walter Schmithals correctly observes, "That anyone ever should have seriously charged Paul with sexual license is . . . incredible" (145); cf. Gnosticism in Corinth, trans. John E. Steely (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971), 164-66. Thus, Schmithals and others who follow this line of reasoning (see Schmithals, Gnostics, 145 n. 67 for further references) fail to see that Paul is not denying charges. He is, rather, clarifying his ethos and the character of the gospel of the true and living God in contrast to the character of paganism from which the Thessalonians had only recently been converted. See Lightfoot, 20-21; and Frame, 95-96. This contrast may also help account for Paul’s use in 1 Thessalonians of uncharacteristic soteriological language.

⁴³Greek: άκαθαρσία .

⁴⁴See Bauer, s.v. άκαθαρσία and Friedrich Hauck, "άκαθαρσία " TDNT 3:427-29. Had Paul intended to limit his reference only to sexual immorality, he could have chosen the term πορνεία. See Best, 94. Still, it is questionable whether the NRSV translation of the term as "impure motives" adequately recognizes the term’s usual sexual connotations.

In its only other appearance in 1 Thessalonians, άκαθαρσία is associated with the behavior of "pagans who do not know God" (4:5 and 7; cf. Gal. 4:8-9; Rom. 1:21), and again contrasted with the example and instruction of Paul (4:1). Paul apparently shared the view of Hellenistic Judaism that describes "uncleanness" as the inevitable consequence of idolatry (cf. Rom. 1:24 ff.). See Ernst Kasemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 36-52. Several traditional vice lists in the Pauline corpus (Gal. 5:19-21; Col. 3:5; Eph. 5:3-6) associate idolatry and uncleanness with πορνεία, "illicit sexual activities." This association appears in Wis. 14: 12—"For the making of idols was the beginning of fornication." Pagans "no longer keep their lives or their marriages pure, but they . . . grieve one another by adultery. . . . For the worship of idols. . . is the beginning and cause and end of every evil" (Wis. 14:24 and 27; RSV).

⁴⁵Greek: πορνεία.

⁴⁶Moffatt, 26.

⁴⁷The terminology and the antithetical parallelism by which Hellenistic Judaism expressed its abhorrence of Gentile idolatry in Wisdom of Solomon 11—15 was more likely a direct influence on Paul’s formulation of 2:1-4 than Cynic preaching. This is in opposition to Malherbe, "Gentle as a Nurse," pp. 206, 214-16. The negative description of Paul’s character in 1 Thess. 2:5-8 seems to be more at home in the Hellenistic world of political rhetoric and demagoguery. See Albert-Marie Denis, "L’Apôtre Paul, prophete ‘messianique’ des Gentils, Etude Thematique de 1 Thess. 11:1-6," Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 33 (1957): 287ff.

Paul employs antitheses in order to speak emphatically and with clarity. In this way his self-description also serves the parenetic purpose of identifying both virtues to pursue and vices to avoid. It is suspect, or at least superfluous, to assume that Paul’s antithetical formulations were intended only to defend himself against the charges of his opponents. If anything, he levels charges at debased pagans. He is certainly not responding to charges of disgruntled Jewish-Christian opponents.

⁴⁸Several features suggest this: 1) The temporal particle ποτε ("then") in v. 5; 2) the shift from the customary present tense of vv. 3-4 to the past tenses of vv. 5-8; 3) Paul’s appeal to the Thessalonians’ knowledge in v. 5; and 4) mention of his presence with them in v. 7.

⁴⁹Note the twice repeated verb έγενθμεν, "we were," (vv. 5 and 7; cf. 1:5; 2:10).

⁵⁰He does so not to defend himself against specific charges, but to edify and educate his readers and, perhaps, to attack the sophistry of false preachers (see Dibelius, "Thessalonicher," 7-10.

⁵¹See the discussion of the dialectic of pleasing God vs. pleasing people vs. pleasing self in my dissertation (139-141). In 1 Thessalonians 'αρεσκε^ιν, "to please," appears exclusively in contexts referring to Paul’s exemplary behavior (see 2:4, 15; and 4:1). In 2:15-16 Paul’s Jewish opponents do not please God because they prevent Paul from doing what pleases God and what he has been called to do-preach the gospel to the Gentiles that they may be saved.

⁵²Or "childlike." The words "gentle" and "childlike" translate two different, but similar Greek words, both of which appear in the textual tradition of 1 Thess. 2:7—'ήπιοι and νήπιοι respectively. Against the preferences of most recent translations and commentators, Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland (The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, 2nd ed., revised and enlarged, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989], 283-285) defend νήπιοι ("childlike") as the more probable reading. Bruce M. Metzger, however, contends that the weight of external evidence favoring the former is balanced by the internal evidence favoring the latter reading (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [London: United Bible Societies, 1971], 629-30).

⁵³Plutarch’s moral essay, "How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend," describes "boldness" or "freedom of speech" as the opposite of flattery and the language of true friendship. Plutarch Moralia 48E-74E.

⁵⁴Paul’s emphasis here does not imply that his intent was to combat opponents who claimed he was either a flatterer or unfeelingly harsh. What he does is distinguish himself from unworthy counterparts. See Malherbe, "Gentle as a Nurse," 208-11; and Stanley B. Marrow, "Parrhesia and the New Testament," CBQ 44 (1982): 435-36.

⁵⁵See Johannes Schneider, "κολακεία," TDNT 3:817-18, and the literature cited in Betz, Galatians, 55 nn. 105-14, which is more relevant here than Betz’s application of it to Gal. 1:10.

⁵⁶The denied behavior, πλεονεξία, has a broader connotation than avarice, covetousness, or greediness. J. B. Lightfoot suggests in his comment on Col. 3:5 that the word refers to the "entire disregard for the rights of others" (Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959 [reprint of the 1879 ed.], 212).

⁵⁷Perhaps implicit in the denial of seeking δόξα, "glory," from humans is Paul’s hope of sharing instead the glory of God (see 2:12 and 20). That the reference to "people" is emphatic is borne out by its elaboration in 2:6b— "neither from you nor from other people."

⁵⁸See "among you/in your midst" in 2:7a. Lightfoot, Notes, p. 25. This is true whether the original reading in 2:7 is νήπιοι, "babies," or ‘ήπιοι, "gentle."

⁵⁹Or the predicate nominative "infants," if the other textual tradition is correct.

⁶⁰The simile, "gentle. . . as a nurse," was used also in the self-descriptions of Cynic philosophers. Malherbe, "Gentle as a Nurse," 211.

⁶¹"Because you became beloved to us" (2:8).

⁶²Verse 9 is introduced by the conjunction γάρ, "for," the connective word also in 2:1, 3, and 5.

⁶³Frame, 102. This concern is repeated in three different Greek words referring to work in v. 9—κόπον, μόχθον, and έργαζόμενοι.

⁶⁴See 1 Cor. 9:1-18; 2 Thess. 3:6-12; Phil. 4:16; 2 Cor. 11:8-10; 12:13-14. See David L. Dungan, The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul: The Use of the Synoptic Tradition in the Regulation of Early Church Life (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971); and Sampley, 8 1-87, on "Paul’s Personal and Public Finances."

⁶⁵Best, 103. See John G. Strelen’s survey of the βάρος ("burden") word-group in Pauline usage in "Burden-bearing and the Law of Christ: A Reexamination of Galatians 6:2," JBL 94 (1975): 266-76. Rigaux (Thessaloniciens, 417) understands the connotation of βάρος in both 2:7 and 9 to be that of the moral weight of apostolic authority.

⁶⁶Ronald Hock, The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 48 and 91-92 nn. 199-203.

⁶⁷"There is no implicit contrast here between those who believe and those who do not, as if Paul’s conduct varied towards different groups; he is merely directing attention to his behavior as they knew it as members of the Christian community" (Best, 105). Cf. Gal. 6:10.

⁶⁸The metaphor in 2:11-12 of a father instructing his children is a familiar one in parenetic literature. In 1 Cor. 4:14-16 it provides the rationale for Paul’s appeal, "Be imitators of me" (4:6). The advice given by a father to his son may have been the original Sitz im Leben (German: "setting in life," i.e., social setting) of parenesis (Maiherbe, "1 Thessalonians," 4). In the OT book of Proverbs (see, e.g., Prov. 6:20; 13:1) as in numerous examples of Hellenistic moral literature (see Malherbe, 4-5 and 21 n. 20; and Social Aspects, 28), the saga exhorts disciples as a father addressing his children.

⁶⁹Περιπατε^ιν means literally "to walk." But in Paul’s letters it characteristically has the same force as the Hebrew term halakah, "walk," referring not to foot transportation but to deportment, i.e., moral behavior. See 4:1.

⁷⁰The adverb ‚άξίως, "worthy" does not suggest that Paul considered good morals a means of "deserving" God’s call. It is rather a recognition that God’s call to future salvation makes certain behaviors "appropriate" in the present. A holy God demands a holy people (cf. 1 Pet. 1:13-16). Notice the close connection between Paul’s concern for holiness, and not only sexual morality (4:1-8), but also with love for one another and hard work (4:9-12; cf. 1 Pet. 2:22). This too was a feature of his example (2:9-11).

⁷¹See 4:1: ". . . As you learned from us how you ought to lead your lives and to please God, so live, in order that you may do even more." Note also Paul’s exhortation in 4:11-12 that they should conduct themselves respectably toward outsiders, live quietly, and mind their own business (see Kasemann’s discussion on a similar parenesis in Rom. 13:11-14 [p. 363]).

⁷²Malherbe, "1 Thessalonians," p. 4. Seneca suggests that the best models are men "who teach us by their lives, men who tell us what we ought to do.. . and then prove it by their practice" (Ad Lucilium epistulae Morales 52:8 (Malherbe, "1 Thessalonians," p. 6). Earlier Xenophon wrote of Socrates, "The very recollection of him in absence brought no small good to his constant companions and followers" (Memorabilia 4. 1. 1; trans. E. C. Marchant [LCL]). Pliny emphasizes the reciprocal value of referring to one’s own example: "I mention this, not only to enforce my advice by example , . . , but also that this letter may be a sort of pledge binding me to persevere in the same abstinence in the future" (Ad Lucilium epistulae morales 7. 1. 7; cf. 2. 6. 6; cited in Maiherbe, 1 Thessalonians," p. 6). Reminders of the example of one’s parents in parenetic settings serve as implicit calls "to conduct oneself as a mimiteis of the model" (Malherbe, pp. 4 and 14, who cites several apropos ancient examples).

⁷³We have already noted the parenetic employment of the first three models. The fourth may be seen in the verbal connections between such passages as 2:11; 3:2,7; 4:1 and 10 of Paul; and 4:18; 5:11 and 14 of the Thessalonians. Note esp. 5:11: "Exhort one another and edify one another, as indeed you are doing."

⁷⁴Donfried, 61.

⁷⁵Furthermore, the decidedly parenetic function of his autobiographical remarks challenges the assumption that they arise apologetically in response to accusations.

⁷⁶Thanksgiving, which dominates the first three chapters of the letter, is an epideictic form, that is, a rhetorical tactic that uses the pedagogy of praise.

⁷⁷Note the numerous references to "knowing" and "remembering" throughout the letter. See 1:2, 3,4, 5; 2:1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 17; 3:3,4, 6; 4:2,4,5; 5:2, 12.

⁷⁸Wilhelm Wueliner, "Paul’s Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans: An Alternative to the Donfried-Karris Debate over Romans." CBQ 38 (1976): 343.

⁷⁹Greek: τύπος.

⁸⁰Greek: κευή. Italics added. Note that this is the same word that Paul used in 1 Thess. 2:1.

⁸¹See Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), p. 256.

⁸²See Werner Georg Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, rev. ed., trans. Howard Clark Kee (Nashville: Abingdon, 1975), pp. 260-62; and in greater detail "Das literarische und geschichtliche Problem des ersten Thessalonicherbriefes," Neotestamentica et Patristica, NovTSup, no. 6, ed. W. C. van Unnik (Leiden: Brill, 1962), pp 213-27. (All abbreviations of scholarly journals and monograph series are those of the Journal of Biblical Literature.)

⁸³See George P. Wiles, Intercessory Prayers: The Significance of the Intercessory Prayer Passages in the Letters of St. Paul, SNTSMS, no. 24 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1974), pp. 63-7 1.

⁸⁴Abraham J. Malherbe, "First Thessalonians as a Paraenetic Letter," paper presented at the SBL annual meeting, 1972, pp. 1-15. That chs. 1—3 are autobiographical need not imply that they are not also parenetic. Malherbe demonstrates that the distinctive features of the autobiographical section in 1 Thessalonians are just as characteristic of a parenetic letter as are the generally recognized parenetic section. "The descriptions of the readers as [imitators], the theme of remembrance of what is already known, . . . the description of Paul in antithetic manner, the theme of philophronesis [i.e., friendship], all contribute to this conclusion." Malherbe, "First Thessalonians," pp. 16-17. Virtually all scholars during the past century agree that chapters 1—3 constitute the first major section of the letter. For the basis for the conclusion that 1 Thessalonians 4—5 is parenesis, see Otto Merk, Handeln aus Glauben. Die Motivierungen der paulinischen Ethik (Marburg: Elwert, 1968), pp. 45-58.

⁸⁵Latin: apologia pro vita et labore suo.

⁸⁶Latin: apologia pro absentia sua.

⁸⁷So e.g. James Moffatt, "The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians," The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 5 vols., ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1897-19 10), 4:26 and 29; James Everett Frame, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912), pp. 14, 17, 140, passim; Theodor von Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, 3 vols., trans. Melancthon Williams Jacobus, et al. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1909), 1:215-16; Morris, pp. 18 and 42; Bailey, p. 251.

⁸⁸Schmithals claims that "on this point the exegetes from the time of the Fathers down to the last century have never been in doubt (Paul and the Gnostics, trans. John E. Steely [Nashville: Abingdon, 1972], p. 151; cf. 137 n. 36). I have doubts, as the subsequent discussion will demonstrate.

⁸⁹See the survey in Ernest Best, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, HNTC (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), pp. 17-22.

⁹⁰"Not this, but that" type formulations. For examples, see esp., Charles Augustus Auberlen and C. J. Riggenbach, "The First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians," trans. John Lillie, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, 12 vols., ed. John Peter Lange and Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960; reprint of 1860ff. ed.), p. 18; John W. Bailey, "The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians," The Interpreter’s Bible, 12 vols., ed. George Arthur Buttrick. et al. (New York: Abingdon, 1951-57), p. 256; Schmithals, p. 137; Robert Jewett, "Enthusiastic Radicalism and the Thessalonian Correspondence" (paper presented at the SBL Paul Seminar, 1972), pp. 20, 23. See also n. 15.

⁹¹C. L. Mearns, "Early Eschatological Development in Paul: The Evidence of I and II Thessalonians," New Testament Studies 27 (1981): 145. Ch. 2 of my doctoral dissertation is a sustained attack on this methodology. See George Lyons, Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding, SBLDS, 73 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 96-112.

⁹²It has long been recognized that the formulation of Paul’s "apology" in 1 Thessalonians is similar to those of certain Cynic philosophers, which arose not in response to contrary charges but from the need to distinguish themselves from charlatans; see Frame. p. 10; Martin Dibelius, An die Thessalonicher I II. An die Philipper, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, no. 11, 3rd ed. (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1937), pp. 7-11. Malherbe’s comparison of the Cynic parallels and 1 Thess 2:1-12 demonstrates the impossibility of reconstructing charges on the basis of antithetical formulations (" ‘Gentle as a Nurse,’ The Cynic Background to 1 Thess ii," NovT 12 (1970): 203-17: cf. idem, "1 Thessalonians"). The parallels in non-Cynic autobiographers illustrate that the Cynics did not have a corner on the form.

⁹³The possibility of describing 1 Thessalonians as a letter of thanksgiving was first suggested by von Dubschutz and accepted by Paul Schubert in his important study, Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgiving. Schubert, pp. 7 and 26: Dobschutz, p. 62.

Jewett (Thessalonian Correspondence, 68-78) identifies 1:1-5 as the letter’s exordium, which announces thanksgiving as its theme, and 1:6-3:10 as the narratio, in which Paul narrates the reasons for his thanksgiving. Wanamaker (pp. 72-139) identifies 1:2-10 as the rhetorical exordium/epistolary "thanksgiving" and 2:1—3:10 as the narratio. Both agree that the narratio is concluded and summarized and the probatio ("proof’ section in 4:1—5:22) introduced by means of the intercessory prayer in 3:11-13 (rhetorically the transitus—Jewett, pp. 77-78; Wanamaker, pp. 140-145).

Where the thanksgiving period ends has been a matter of considerable scholarly debate. See the discussion in Boers, "Form Critical," pp. 149-52. The repeated references to thanks in 2:13 and 3:9 suggest that thanksgiving is a major theme through 3:13. It is true that such repeated or prolonged emphasis on thanksgiving is formally unparalleled in Paul’s letters. Schubert, whose 1939 study provided the early impetus for recent form critical studies of Paul’s letters, identifies the thanksgiving period as "an indivisible entity" comprising 1:2—3:13 (pp. 17-27, 21, 62, quotation from p. 20). Three apparently separate thanksgiving sections, 1:2-5; 2:13-14; and 3:9-13 are interrupted by "digressions," which "from the point of view of form, function and content are. . . fully legitimate and indeed constitutive elements of the general Pauline thanksgiving pattern" (p. 17). Schubert, nonetheless, found 2:13-16 "very peculiar as to both form and content" (p. 23). He notes, however, that the strikingly frequent use of εύχαριοτέω ("I give thanks") in 1:2—2:12, even when another verb might be expected, continues in 2:13-16 (pp. 19-20).

Jack P. Sanders ("The Transition from Opening Epistolary Thanksgiving to Body in the Letters of the Pauline Corpus," JBL 81(1962): 348-62) identifies two thanksgiving periods, 1:2-10 and 2:13—3:13, interrupted by the body of the letter, 2:1-12 (p. 356; see pp. 348-56).

Other form critical studies have identified 1 Thess 1:2-10 alone as the thanksgiving; see Robert Funk, Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), p. 269; "The Apostolic Parousia: Form and Significance," Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox, ed. by W. R. Farmer, C. F. C. Moule, and R. R. Niebuhr (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1967), p. 254; John Lee White, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter: A Study of the Letter-Body in the Non-Literary Papyri and in Paul the Apostle, SBLDS, 2 (Missoula, MT: SBL, 1972), pp. 114-18; Boers, "Form Critical," p. 153.

Theodore C. Burgess describes the letter of thanksgiving as among the more common types of epideictic letters in antiquity ("Epideictic Literature," University of Chicago Studies in Classical Philology 3 (1900): 186-87. Epideictic identifies one of the three major rhetorical genres, the positive object of which is praise. Jewett (Thessalonian Correspondence, pp 7 1-72) and Wanamaker (p. 47) concur with my earlier conclusion that I Thessalonians is an epideictic letter (Lyons, pp. 219-22 1). George Kennedy (New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism [Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1984], p. 142) categorizes it as an example of deliberative rhetoric. Thus, he considers Paul’s goal to have been to persuade the Thessalonians to change their lifestyle.

Abraham J. Malherbe ("Exhortation in First Thessalonians," NovT 25 [19831: 238-256), Stanley K. Stowers (Letter-Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Library of Early Christianity, 5 [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986], pp. 94-106), and David E. Aune (The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, Library of Early Christianity, 8 [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987], p. 206) identify 1 Thessalonians as a parenetic letter. This view essentially agrees with my analysis, except it does not clarify whether the letter intended to correct or confirm its readers’ ethos. Mine, of course, is the latter view.

⁹⁴Schubert, ibid., pp. 89 and 26. See also more recently Peter Thomas O’Brien, Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul, NovTSup, no. 49 (Leiden: Brill, 1977), pp. 141-44, 165, 262-63.

⁹⁵In each (1) the personal object of the thanksgiving is the same, "you"— the Thessalonians; (2) "God" is one Paul thanks; and (3) his thanks is unending ("unceasingly" in 1:2 and 2:13; "night and day" in 3:10). Nevertheless, what Paul thanks God for in each instance is different. The differences suggest a logical progression. In the first, Paul’s expression of thanks to God is based on his knowledge of their divine election—"God has chosen you" (1:4). In the second, the basis for thanks is identified as their response to the word of God—"You accepted it not as the word of men. but as it truly is, the word of God" (2:13). The third gives voice to Paul’s relief and gratitude at the good news brought by Timothy of their perseverance in the faith despite their afflictions—"You stand firm in the Lord" (3:8). The progression (cf. 1:3) confirms that the extended thanksgiving is, as Paul’s adverbs πάντοτε, άδιαλείπτως, and νυκτός καί ήμέρας—"unceasingly" and "night and day"—suggest, continual, not simply repeated.

Edited by Michael Mattei for the
Wesley Center for Applied Theology
at Northwest Nazarene University
© Copyright 2000 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology

Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes, provided the notice below the horizontal line is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.