Earlier I had argued that Paul failed to mention believers' resurrection to the Thessalonians and that this was the cause of their distress. This thesis met with a welcome challenge, and I would now like to take a second shot at trying to describe what is happening here. I have not entirely abandoned my earlier thesis, but I have modified it and hope to state the matter more carefully this time.
The question I want to first ask is whether Paul’s use of the verb αγνοεω ("to be ignorant") in 1 Thess 4.13 can tell us anything about the Thessalonians’ prior knowledge of “believer’s resurrection” or the nature of the problem afflicting the Thessalonians.
Paul’s use of the verb αγνοεω can easily be grouped into three categories; the first two are not directly relevant to our discussion.
1. In a simple descriptive (or prescriptive) sense (“to be ignorant or unknown"): Rom 10:3; 1 Cor 14:38; 2 Cor 2:11; 6:9; Gal 1:22
2. In rhetorical questions (“don’t you know?”): Rom 2:4; 6:3; 7:1
3. As complement to θελω
All the references in the third category share the same form: the infinitive of αγνοεω complements the negated θελω (“to want”), thus yielding “I/We do not want you to be ignorant concerning…”. The translation (NRSV) sometimes converts the form of the sentence from the negative to the positive (see the first reference) even though the Greek behind each verse employs the negative.
Romans 1:13 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as I have among the rest of the Gentiles.
Romans 11:25 So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters,1 I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
1 Corinthians 10:1 I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters,1 that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,
1 Corinthians 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts,1 brothers and sisters,2 I do not want you to be uninformed.
2 Corinthians 1:8 We do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters,1 of the affliction we experienced in Asia; for we were so utterly, unbearably crushed that we despaired of life itself.
1 Thessalonians 4:13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope.
A few observations: I think it’s fair to say that each use of the formula addresses a deficiency in understanding; while the emphasis perhaps sways between a quantitative and qualitative deficiency, the formula most often introduces something previously unknown. It is not a reminder formula; nor is it employed simply for emphasis. This is further substantiated by the contrast with 1 Thess 4.1-2 (“as you learned from us how you ought to live and to please God [as, in fact, you are doing], you should do so more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus”) and 5.1-2 (“Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers and sisters, you do not need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves know very well that…”). Paul uses the phrase here because he wants/needs to teach them something.
This suggests to me (1) that either the Thessalonians had no concept of believers’ resurrection or (2) that they very seriously misunderstood its relationship to the coming of Christ and his kingdom, for some reason thinking that death would exclude them from the kingdom, even though perhaps anticipating a resurrection for the dead at some later point. This later option has difficulty explaining the nature of their grieving (“as those who have no hope”; 4.13). The former option, however, has difficulty with the emphasis on the order of the resurrections (vv.15-17).
Here’s a suggestion. Possibly, if the Thessalonians had only a concept of the immortality of the soul, they would have struggled to understand how disembodied spirits would participate in the coming kingdom on earth, thinking that they would be left out entirely from divine blessing or-- less likely--that they would have to wait until some indefinite time in the future when creation would be transformed (cf. 1 Cor 15.20-25). Paul’s answer is to point out that Jesus died and was raised—as they already knew—and that, analogously, the dead would be raised and accompany Jesus on his return. The dead would not have to wait indefinitely to participate in God’s rule, nor would they be left out at all; rather they would even precede the living in being gathered together unto Christ.
So, how did the problem come about? Perhaps Paul did not mention believers’ resurrection. At the least, he appears to have given it insufficient attention. Perhaps he lacked an opportunity to emphasize it because of the Thessalonians’ (and his) preoccupation with the imminence of the kingdom and his time with them was cut short. However the problem came about, the Thessalonians and Paul were focused on the near-immediate manifestation of God’s kingdom and this seems to have taken precedence over the question of the exact fate of the dead.
2 comments:
Nick, thanks for this helpful and careful clarification of your thesis here. I very much appreciate it. However, I still have to disagree at least in part. (I'm not willing to abandon my thesis yet, either!)
Perhaps I should put together an equally careful clarification of my thoughts and post it on my blog, but let me try a quick response in a comment first.
I don't think it's enough simply to look at the use of agnoeō combined with a negated thelō. One must also look at similar constructions, such as a non-negated thelō combined with oida, or the use of gnōrizō, for example. Is there any real semantic difference between "I do not want you to be unknowing" or "I want you to know" or "I make known to you"? All of these are expressions centred around "knowledge" language, which introduce a particular idea or series of ideas, and at a basic lexical semantic level they all give the prima facie impression that the author is moving the readers from ignorance to knowledge in what he is about to say. However, language does not function simply at the prima facie level of lexical semantics; it functions in specific contexts to achieve certain desired goals, and sometimes that pragmatic function of language can even produce a meaning contrary to the prima facie lexical meaning (that's what happens in the use of sarcasm, for example). And when one looks at this pool of expressions, one sees a whole spectrum in terms of the prior knowledge assumed in the contexts.
Some of the instances of these expressions are almost certainly assuming a lack of knowledge. For example, 2 Cor 1:8, "We do not want you to be unknowing, brothers and sisters, of the affliction we experienced in Asia." Paul seems to be disclosing something which the readers probably don't already know.
However, some of the instances of these expressions do not assume a lack of knowledge, but are merely used for rhetorical emphasis. For example, 1 Cor 15:1, "Now I make known to you, brothers and sister, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received." In this instance, Paul cannot mean by "I make known to you" that they were ignorant of what he had preached to them. Rather, this introductory statement emphasizes what he is about to say, and the most one can say about their actual ignorance is that the Corinthians were not following through on all the implications of what they already knew.
Most of the instances of these expressions would seem to fall somewhere between these extremes, and many are difficult to determine as to exactly where they fall. However, one cannot tell the kind or degree of prior ignorance simply from the expression itself. One comes to a judgment about the kind or degree of prior ignorance from a broader exegetical reconstruction that takes into account the larger context: the "cotext" of the passage and the context of the historical situation.
So I return to my assertion that the introductory phrase of 1 Thess 4:13 does not in itself indicate the kind or degree of Thessalonian ignorance about the topic. It could refer to complete ignorance that needs to be countered with new knowledge, it could refer to knowing but not following through on the implications of that knowledge, it could refer to partial knowledge that needs completion. One only comes to a judgment on this prior knowledge/ignorance through a complete exegetical reconstruction that takes into account larger contextual issues. And for me, since the "future resurrection in continuity with Jesus' resurrection" is such a significant idea for the Pharisaic Paul in his exposition of the gospel, and because of the other reasons I've mentioned before, I take the opening statement of 1 Thess 4:13 as referring to knowing but not following through on the implications of that knowledge.
Thanks again Michael. I agree with what you say concerning language. Clealry our different interpretations arise from our different weighing of all the evidence. No single point I make (inlcuding concerning the use of agnoeo) can prove my point. Rather I've tried to build a cumulative case on both lexical and contextual factors, though I didn't repeat all the evidence I've already mentioned.
I would look forward, by the way, to reading a summary of your work on this text. I'm particularly interested in what you make of "the word of the Lord". (Perhaps you've already posted on that?)
Post a Comment