I'm currently reading parts of Udo Schnelle's recently released Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. I highly recommend the book: it does an excellent job of combining biographical, historical, and theological details in a fresh way.
While reading his section on 1 Thessalonians, I was struck (not for the first time) with the fervency of Paul's eschatological expectation. One way to drive this home is to reflect on the fact that the expectation of an imminent end was so strong that Paul apparently forgot to tell the Thessalonians about the resurrection of the body! This is the only explanation for the Thessalonians' great distress at the death of some of their loved ones and the consolation that Paul offers (4.13ff.).
Schnelle writes: "[I]n his initial preaching in Thessalonica Paul made no reference to the resurrection of believers who had died, since he expected the parousia in the near future....In favor of this assumption is the observation that also in 4:13-18 the resurrection of dead Christians has only an auxiliary function and Paul still holds fast to his original conception of all believers being caught up to meet the returning Lord at the parousia" (183).
It's well-known that the Greeks had no concept of the resurrection of the body. Thus, the Thessalonians had trouble reconciling Paul's preaching of an imminent return of Christ in which he would rescue believers from the coming wrath (1.10) with the death of their loved ones: would they miss out on the hope of their faith--the kingdom of God? So, Paul has to tell them about the resurrection of the body...Oops! A small oversight! When one expects the imminent manifestation of God's rule on earth, it's easy to give the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead short shrift.
By the way, Paul's eschatology is also pertinent to the discussion I've been carrying on here concerning Jesus' message: If Jesus did not expect the imminent manifestation of the kingdom of God, then Paul must have either gotten him terribly wrong or made no effort "to get" him at all.
(N.B.: I encourage you to follow the discussion in the comments. Michael Pahl has offered some valuable criticism of the main point of this post, which you should consider.)
5 comments:
Hi, Nick. I'm looking at this passage in 1 Thess for my doctoral work, and I'm not convinced that Paul did neglect to tell the Thessalonians about the future resurrection in his initial missionary teaching, for a few reasons:
1) The most obvious reason is that it's really difficult to imagine the Paul we see in his letters not speaking about a resurrection of believers when speaking about the eschaton, since pretty much every time he speaks of the eschaton the resurrection is there with it in some form.
2) Of course, the argument goes that this earliest letter of Paul was the turning point, and from this time on he made sure he taught the future resurrection. Usually this is based on the idea that Paul simply didn't have to deal with the death of believers prior to this. However, even if we take Ludemann's early dating (early 40s), are we really to imagine that there were no deaths of believers (martyred or non-martyred) in the 10 or 12 years between Jesus and 1 Thess?
3) Related to both these, it's also pretty difficult to imagine Paul the Pharisee not reflecting on or teaching the future resurrection of the righteous even at an early stage in his career and even if he held to an extreme imminentism (which I'm not convinced he ever did, cf. 1 Thess 5:10). If there is no future resurrection of the righteous, what was to happen to Abraham and David (Rom 4), or even someone like Stephen or James (Acts 7 and 12)?
4) Let's get more specific: Paul says their mutual confession (the authors and the Thessalonians) is that "Jesus died and rose" (4:14). Every bit of evidence we've got of Paul's thinking on Jesus' death and resurrection emphasizes the ongoing and future implications of these Christ events for believers--including a future resurrection. Do we really need to postulate that Paul somehow forgot to teach something that, based on all available evidence, he otherwise considered an important part of his gospel message?
5) Or even more specific: Paul states that, in response to the initial missionary proclamation, the Thessalonians "turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath" (1:9-10; cf. 5:8-10). Would Paul have described this "rescue" at the future arrival of Jesus, a rescue connected to Jesus' resurrection from the dead, without mentioning the resurrection of the righteous? Also, in the midst of possibly dangerous opposition which Paul believed to be long-term, the missionaries had initially encouraged the Thessalonians "to walk worthy of God who calls you into his kingdom and glory" (2:12). Would Paul have described a future entrance into God's "kingdom and glory" without mentioning the resurrection of believers, particularly in the midst of possibly dangerous opposition?
In light of these considerations it seems more likely to me that Paul had indeed taught on the future resurrection of believers, but that, due to their predominantly Gentile background and lack of prior familiarity with a doctrine of bodily resurrection, the Thessalonians either misunderstood, underappreciated, or even possibly denied the future resurrection when actually confronted with the death of their loved ones.
Nick, I should have added also that the opening statement in 1 Thess 4:13 ("We don't want you to be ignorant") is not really any help in this matter of prior Thessalonian knowledge. Paul uses this and similar statements (e.g. "I want you to know" or "I make known to you") for rhetorical effect to emphasize the point he's making and the importance of knowing it, but he can use that sort of phrase both for that which seems to be new knowledge for the recipients and for that which is old knowledge re-emphasized for the whole community (cf. e.g. 1 Cor 15:1).
Thanks for the response Michael. The first thing I should say is that I admit to overstating the case in claiming that the only explanation for the text is that Paul forgot to tell the Thessalonians about the resurrection of the body. It is also possible, as you argue, that the Thessalonians, because of their background, struggled to grasp the meaning of the doctrine or they denied it and that this is what precipitated their distress. Even this, however, might indicate that Paul failed to stress the doctrine, and I do think that this is fully plausible in light of his imminent eschatology and circumstances surrounding his visit.
Paul no doubt had reflected on and believed in the resurrection of the body, but the important message for the Thessalonians was that they repent in order to be delivered from the wrath of God. I’m not sure how imminent Paul’s eschatology was at this period but the confession of 1.10 does stress their waiting to be delivered from the wrath of God by the coming Son. This would suggest that Paul thought the wrath was coming sooner than later, and quite probably within his lifetime. I’m not sure what 5.10 can contribute to this discussion since the emphasis there on waking or sleeping follows so closely on the 4.13ff. It seems specifically designed to sum up Paul’s response to their distress and as such doesn’t necessarily tell us much about his initial apostolic preaching.
Another reason I think it plausible that the resurrection of the body was given little attention is because the letter gives evidence that Paul was separated from the Thessalonians prematurely (2.17) and he speaks, in light of this, of having to “perfect whatever is lacking in your faith” (3.10).
The argument from Paul’s other statements about the eschaton suffers from the weakness you mention, but also the fact I’m not sure how consistently the topics appear together: is there resurrection in Romans 11 (does v. 15 count?), in Galatians, or (bracketing the question of authorship) in 2 Thessalonians?
Also, the point about the Thessalonians’ background should be teased out: once introduced to the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, how conceptually hard would it have been for the Thessalonians to understand it? I think it would have been more distasteful than difficult. This lead to the next point.
A final thought/question: Does 1 Thess 4.13ff have the character of being a correction of an error (such as the denial of the resurrection), a reminder and clarification (this is what resurrection means…), or the impartation of new knowledge/the explanation of something which was barely emphasized (there is a resurrection for the dead—let me explain!)?
You make a strong case, Michael, and, at the least, I admit that my statement lacked nuance, which might look something like this: it is possible, perhaps probable, that Paul failed or was unable to give the doctrine of believers’ resurrection much (if any) attention and that part of the reason for this may have been the combined factors that Paul did not rate it as having first-order importance for the Thessalonians (though it was nothing like unimportant) and that Paul’s time with them was cut short.
Nick, thanks for the careful and thought-provoking response. Some clarifications and responses...
1) My reference to 1 Thess 5:10 was to indicate that I'm not convinced of Paul's extreme imminentism (i.e. "Jesus is coming back any time, definitely within my lifetime"). 1 Thess 4:17 is often used as the key text for this, that Paul's first-person use ("we who are alive and remain") indicates he believed he would be alive when Jesus returned. However, Paul also uses the first-person in 5:10 in a way which indicates more uncertainty ("whether we are awake or asleep"). These texts together make the best sense if Paul's view is that Jesus could return in Paul's lifetime, but not that he necessarily would.
2) Paul's unplanned and sudden separation undoubtedly left some teaching untaught. However, we shouldn't overstate the case: Paul certainly was in Thessalonica long enough to establish a pattern of manual labor and self-giving love (1 Thess 2:6-9), and even long enough to receive financial support from Philippi "again and again" (Phil 4:16). We shouldn't be distracted by Acts 17's "three sabbaths": however we understand that, Paul seems to have been in Thessalonica longer than two or three weeks--certainly long enough for the Paul we know from his letters teach on the future resurrection of believers. Do you think this teaching was so peripheral to Paul that he would fail to bring it up within a few weeks?
3) On the connection of eschatology and future resurrection in Paul, the texts you mention in a sense prove my point, because they are (apart from 2 Thess) not dealing extensively with the eschaton. Galatians has very little on the eschaton period, so it's no surprise not to find the future resurrection there. Ditto for Romans 11 (and of course he's just spent a good chunk of Romans 8 dealing with resurrection at the eschaton). 2 Thessalonians 2 is of course focused on the events prior to Christ's parousia, not those immediately after, but even there I would see an allusion to the resurrection in the "gathering" of 2:1: especially following on the heels of 1 Thess, this is a convenient summary word for the resurrection-catching up he has described in 1 Thess 4, a word with its own eschatological connotations of "regathering" the dispersed people of God (cf. Matt 24:30-31).
4) On the idea that the Thessalonians perhaps "denied" the resurrection, I was not thinking of an outright denial or conscious refusal to believe it (such as seems more to be the case with 1 Cor 15, see 15:35). Rather, I was thinking more of a situation where the Thessalonians perhaps confessed resurrection (both Christ's and believers') but failed to actually follow through on that confession when push came to shove and their believing friends and family died. Thus, they effectively denied the resurrection even while confessing it.
5) To me, Paul's statement does in fact sound more like a reminder of previous teaching. Throughout 1 Thess Paul is constantly looking back to his initial ministry and teaching among the Thessalonians, reminding them about different things while attempting not to sound like he's reminding them (1:5; 2:1, 5, 9, 11; 3:3-4; 4:1-2; 5:2). And this reminder motif appears in 4:13-18 as well: note the mutual confession of 4:14, which forms the basis of Paul's response. I think Paul's teaching in 4:13-18 fits in with the pattern in the letter of "You know this already, but let me remind you."
Thanks again for your extended response.
Thanks Michael. Your response is a perfect illustration of why blogging and receiving comments and can be a valuable excercise.
Your resonse is helpful: the only thing I would say concerns point 5. I'm not sure the details of Paul's response has only or primarily the character of reminding them particularly because Paul's seems to draw inferences from what the Thessalonians already know/believe in order to tell them about the resurrection. "If we believe this...then this..." (v. 14). 4.1-2 is a fairly clear reminder (no sense of hesitation on Paul's part), while 4.13 combined with 4.15 ("this we say unto you by the word of the Lord") might easily carry the sense of informing and not merely reminding. The deduction in v. 14 would seem to support this.
Nevertheless, the argument you make is strong, and I will not pronounce so clearly on the issue in the future!! Rather, I'll have to give more thought to this.
Thanks!
Post a Comment