A Modified Thesis on 1 Thess. 4.13-18

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.

The Imminent End and the Resurrection of the Body

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.)

Where Has the Kingdom Gone? Eschatology and Ecclesiology in Luke-Acts

The fulfillment of the ancestral promises to Israel is the theological context of Luke’s two-volume narrative.

This is the unmistakable emphasis of the infancy narrative (1.16-17, 31-33, 46-55, 68-79; 2.4, 10-11, 25-35, 38). Unmistakable also is Jesus’ role as the locus of the fulfillment of these promises. So Gabriel announces to Mary: “the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there will be no end” (1.32-33). The great irony, of course, as every reader of the gospel has known, is that the promises never were fulfilled, at least not in any obvious sense. Jesus was crucified and most likely Jerusalem was destroyed only decades (at most) before Luke wrote. When the prophetess Anna thus speaks of the “redemption of Jerusalem” (2.38) the author writes boldly and blatantly counter-factually. Luke tells a riddle and implies that the answer is forthcoming.

So, where has the kingdom gone?

The fulfillment of promise is the theme of Jesus’ ministry (4.18-19). The dawning of the eschatological age occurs in his Spirit empowered activity (4.18-19, 43; 10.8-9; 11.20). It is of the greatest significance then that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are held together by the announcement of the promise of the Father (24.48-9) and the fulfillment of that promise in the descent and empowerment of the Spirit upon the church at Pentecost (Acts 1.4, 8). Here we are presented with the church as being empowered with God’s Spirit, the same Spirit which inaugurates the fulfillment of the promises of the kingdom of God.

The church is thus closely related to the kingdom, but it does not exhaust the fulfillment of promise. Luke does not collapse eschatology into ecclesiology. To the contrary, Luke anticipates the physical manifestation of God’s kingdom, the fulfillment of the kingdom promises to Israel (Acts 1.3, 6-7; 3.19-21). The caveat concerns both the manner and the timing of this kingdom’s arrival.

The parable of the ten pounds (Luke 19.11-27) addresses both these questions and I hope to return to it anon.

Tracing Luke's Story: Initial Questions

"Luke’s Gospel stands apart from the others for its incompleteness—that is, only Luke has a sequel. This fact leads to several observations. In comparing the two works, the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, we notice that each book begins with a story of beginnings. The Gospel of Luke records the birth of Jesus: the Book of Acts records the baptism of the Spirit. Both books begin with the fulfillment of promise. Luke asserts the fulfillment of the hopes of Israel: Acts asserts the fulfillment of the promise of the Father. Both books record the birth of a movement. Luke chronicles the early Jesus movement: Acts records its metamorphosis into the Church.

"When the two books are read as one, we see that Luke begins his story in Jerusalem and ends in Rome. He begins with the prophecy of the kingdom and ends with the preaching of the kingdom. He begins with a celebration for Israel and ends with the castigation of Israel.

"These observations prompt the following questions: How does the story of Israel become the story of the Church? How does the prediction of the kingdom become the preaching of the kingdom? Why do the promises to Israel give way to the promise of the Father? One central, critical question stands behind all of these questions: have Israel’s ancient promises been fulfilled, and, if so, how?"

This is more or less how I opened up the first part of an extensive essay on the Gospel of Luke (alas, part two, on the Acts of the Aposltes, has not yet been written).

I intend return to some of these questions here on the blog, in particular the relationship between kingdom and ekklesia (church) in Luke-Acts.

The Now and the Not Yet in the Kingdom Message of Jesus: A Rant

It is often said that Jesus spoke of the kingdom in both the present and future tense. I will not dispute this. I would like to lodge some significant qualifications, however. I doubt we can say that they were perfectly well balanced. Rather one is informing the other, and that, in my view, is the future tense of the kingdom.

And, yet, to call it “future” is somewhat misleading, for Jesus spoke rather of imminence: “It’s at hand!” His emphasis was not on its futurity as such but its nearness. And that is where the present aspect comes into play: it’s so close, Jesus said, that you better start living as if it’s here; otherwise, you will not be recognized as a citizen when it arrives. It’s so close, in fact, that its powers are already beginning to be felt through the Spirit at work in me.

There is, of course, another sense in which the kingdom is present and I’m sure Jesus subscribed to it (cf. Matt 6.25-34), but in this he was no different than the writer of Psalm 145: God’s kingdom, as in his rule, is eternal.

When Jesus spoke of kingdom, however, we must think primarily of his appropriation and (re)interpretation of the promises made to Abraham and David and of the visions of the prophets (cf. Luke 1-2!). This future, eschatological kingdom was present proleptically in that its effects were beginning to be felt before its arrival; this "presentness," however, should not be conflated with God's eternally present rule and reign. To do that is to loose the distinctiveness of Jesus' message.

Jesus was an eschatological, millenarian prophet. He was not primarily a preacher of social justice. The message of the kingdom was not primarily about the eternal life that is present here and now. He spoke to these things in his own way, of course, but within the context I have sketched above.

It may be that the church in the twenty-first century should contextualize the message differently than did Jesus (though in a way that coheres with his preaching), but that is a theological question. Let’s ask the theological questions after we've answered the historical questions rather than importing our theology into history, and thereby distorting the biblical texts.

Jerusalem or Damascus? Part 3 of 3

(For part one and two see below.)

I've tried to present a cogent and evenly argued case for Damascus and then Jerusalem as the site of Paul's persecutions of the early Christians: Now I'll show my colours (or are they already clear?).

But first a few general observations on the state of the question.

Paul does not say in so many words where he persecuted Christians; he only leaves a hint that his "conversion" was associated with Damascus.

I think that from Galatians one can draw either conclusion--Damascus or Jerusalem--without doing serious harm to the text. The reason for this is simply that Paul did not intend to answer the question and, thus, the the matter is unclear.

Nevertheless, it is fairly certain that Paul on a previous occasion had already told the readers all about the activities of his former life (Gal 1.13; at the very least, someone told them). This means that the recipients of the letters were not expected to be able to infer from Paul's words the location of his persecution.

These last two points are particularly important because they indicate the problem, in this case, of trying to base one's answer solely on the present text (even if it is the primary source material).

However, I do think that one position is a little more likely than the other based on Paul's own words in Galatians. I'll tell you why and then offer some further thoughts on Knox's use (or exclusion) of the material in Acts.

The argument made from Gal 1.13-14 carries some weight, though it is possible to separate the place of Paul's training and the location of the persecution, even though the association is implied in the text. Furthermore, the language employed in Galatians 1.13-14 to describe Paul's progress in Judaism is not exclusively Pharisaic language. Torrey Seland (Biblica 83 [2002]: 449-471) has recently written an article demonstrating that very similar language is used by Philo, a Jew in a Diaspora setting. The language used in Gal 1.13-14 reflects a tradition of zeal/zealotry for Torah that was apparently not exclusive to Pharisees. Nevertheless, Paul, in another context, names himself a Pharisee and thus the association is quite possible in this case. So this argument lends weight to the Jerusalem view but is not airtight.

As for the statement concerning Damascus in 1.17, as stated, it does not answer the question where the persecution occurred, nor even directly where the revelation occurred. Though the latter is clearly implied, there's no reason the two had to occur in the same place. And we can be certain that Paul did not expect his readers to infer from the statement where the persecutions occurred.

I think that the report circulating in the Judaean churches about Paul (1.23) lends credence to the Jerusalem theory. I confess that for the longest time it never occurred to me that it could be read in a manner that challenges the traditional view. Such is the power of uncritical harmonization Knox might say! Perhaps. I still think it the slightly more plausible reading which identifies the persecuted ones, the "us", with (some) members of the Judaean churches themselves or persons from Jerusalem, with whom the churches would closely identify and who perhaps fled to such churches as a result of the persecution. It seems to be the simplest reading.

Finally, the statement in 1.22. How do I handle the phrase "unknown by sight"? I'm not sure which is the correct answer but there are three plausible options: (1) It implies that the Judaean churches did not even know what Paul looked like and, therefore, that he could not have persecuted them. No problem here. A reasonable argument can be made from the context to exclude Jerusalem from the Judaean churches (cf. 1.17-18). Furthermore, we do not know the extent of Paul's activities either within or outside Jerusalem. (2) The phrase means no more than that during the period under discussion (the time following Paul's conversion but preceding the events recorded in chapter 2) Paul had no personal contact with the Judaean churches; they had only an oral report concerning his change in life. (3) Hengel's solution, that the Judaean churches are Aramaic assemblies and the persecuted ones are Greek speaking Jewish Christians, is possible but not likely in my view; even if Paul only or primarily persecuted the Hellenists, his language in Galatians fails to reflect any such distinction in the church.

Because I think that the simplest understanding of the report does not divide between the persecuted ones and the Judaean churches (1.23; see above), I prefer the second option above but cannot be certain because the precise nuance of the Greek is unclear to me. (Any help?)

Well, this is the third really long post, and I haven't even touched on the use of Acts yet! (I promise to come up with some shorter posts in the future.) I think this three part series will require an appendix, which may be a first in blogdom! Stay tuned for some reflections on Knox's principle for the use of Acts in constructing a life of Paul.

I'm really interested in what you, the readers, are thinking.

Jerusalem or Damascus? Part 2 of 3

Having previously made the case for the view that Paul persecuted Christians in Damascus, not Jerusalem, here I summarize scholarly arguments in favour of the traditional view. Of course, if we could accept uncritically the evidence of Acts, there would be no discussion. It will be necessary therefore to turn to Paul's letters. Galatians 1 is front and centre once again.

Galatians 1.13-14 reads:

"You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors."

Martin Hengel makes two points about this text. First is the connection between Paul's advancement in Judaism and his persecution of the church; the latter is parallel to the former. Second is the Pharisaic colour of Paul's progress in the "ancestral traditions" (cf. also Phil 3.5). Josephus regularly associates similar terminology with the Pharisees (cf. Ant. 13.297, 408; 17.41; 20.43; Life 191; also Mark 7.5 and Acts 22.3). Since Pharisaism as a movement was limited to Judaea, and most prominent in Jerusalem, the most likely context for these activities is pre-eminently Jerusalem. Cf. Hengel and Schwemer, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch, 35-38; Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 29-34, 41-42.

Evidence is also drawn from the very text on which the Damascus interpretation is based: Gal 1.22-23:

"I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; they only heard it said, 'The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.'"

Hengel's explanation for this text assumes Paul's persecution of Christians in Hellenist Synagogues in Jerusalem. Thus to the majority Aramaic speaking Christians of Jerusalem and Judaea Paul was unknown by sight. Only to the Hellenists whom he persecuted (the "us" in the above verse) was Paul known by sight. Obviously, this explanation rests on extra-textual data concerning Paul's persecution.

Arland Hultgren (JBL 95 [1976]: 97-111) offers a different explanation. His argument rests, in part, I think, on the premise that the "us" (the persecuted ones) in the report circulating in the Judaean churches is most naturally identified with the Judaean churches themselves; the text offers no other possibility.

Concerning the phrase "unknown by sight," he argues that the point is no more than that from the time of God's revelation to him (1.15-16), Paul stayed out of the sight of the Judaean churches; that is, he was unkown to them as an apostle. Three arguments support this.

The context. In Galatians 1, Paul is concerned to demonstrate his independence from Jerusalem and by extension the Judaean churches; that is the very specific point he wants to underscore. The terminology. The word for "sight," literally, "face" (Gr. prosopon), is elsewhere (2 Cor 8.24; 1 Thess 2.17) used to speak of personal presence. That Paul was unknown by sight means simply that he stayed away. The structure. Paul delineates a sequence of events (then...then...then, Gr. epeita, 1.18, 21, and 2.2), each of which is followed by a statement demonstrating his independence (1.19, 22, and 2.2; introduced by the conjunction de in Greek). These statements apply specifically to the intervals. Paul only claims, therefore, that, after the meeting with Peter in Jerusalem (1.18), he passed into Syria and Cilicia without being seen by the Judaean churches.

One might also point out that if Jerusalem was the centre of Paul's activity then there is no necessary contradiction with Paul's claim that the Judaean churches did not know him. Since he had already spoken of Jerusalem in v. 18, that city is not necessarily included in the "Judaean churches" in v. 22.

Such is the case for Jerusalem. Do you find it convincing?

(I still haven't figured out how to post Greek fonts.)

Jerusalem or Damascus? Part 1 of 3

Where was Paul's pre-call/conversion persecution of the early Christians centred, Jerusalem or Damascus? Acts, of course, provides the basis for the traditional answer: Paul's activities were centred in Jerusalem, but not exclusively so (cf. Acts 26.11, and, of course, the whole Damascus road episode). However, this conviction has been challenged by John Knox, among others. He formulated this well-known principle to support his case:

"[A] fact only suggested in the letters has a status which even the most unequivocal statement of Acts, if not otherwise supported, cannot confer. We may, with proper caution, use Acts to supplement the autobiographical data of the letters, but never to correct them." Chapters in a Life of Paul, rev. ed., p. 19.

Knox regarded the traditional view of the locale of Paul's persecution as one of the most egregious examples of harmonizing Paul with Luke (Chapters, 21-25). He suggests that Damascus was the centre for Paul's activity and that he persecuted Christians in his own synagogue there. He draws primarily on the statements in Gal. 1.17, 22-23, where after recounting the revelation of God's Son to/in him, Paul says, "nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus. ... I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; they only heard it said, 'The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.'"*

That Paul "returned to Damascus" and was unknown "by face" to the Judaean churches suggests that Damascus was home to him and that it was the location of the hostile activities spoken of in 1.13-14. If the Judaean churches did not know Paul "by face" (his appearance?), then he could not have persecuted them. Moreover, in the first two chapters of Galatians, Jerusalem is merely a place that Paul "visits." Add to this the well-known problems with Luke's account and it becomes clear that Luke is in error.

This essentially is the case for Damascus.

Many scholars find it convincing. Do you?

I will post later on the Pauline case for Jerusalem and, then, offer some thoughts toward an evaluation.

*I've not yet figured out how to post Greek fonts; when I do, the Greek text will be included.