An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly

8/3/2019 An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-exegesis-of-1-thess-213-313-jared-beverly 1/27

CANDLER SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

EMORY UNIVERSITY

EARLY PAUL:

AN EXEGESIS OF 1 THESSALONIANS 2:13–16

SUBMITTED TO DR. STEVEN KRAFTCHICK

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFGREEK EXEGESIS OF THESSALONIANS

BYJARED BEVERLY

MAY 3, 2011





INTRODUCTION

1 Thessalonians 2:13–16 comprises probably the most controversial passage in all of

Paul’s accepted letters. Its hostility toward Jews stands out as uncharacteristic of the apostle who

wrote that the greatest virtue is love (1 Cor. 13) and who foretells the salvation of all Jews (Rom.

9–11). For Bammel, this passage is the “ Arena für den Kampf um die Echtheit des Briefs,” 1and

Markus Barth calls it a “dreadful text.” 2 The interpretation of this passage in particular can have

great societal implications, for “[t]hese words, and others like them, have fueled the Holocaust

and countless hate crimes through history.” 3Rydelnik goes as far as to claim, “In the past this

passage has led many people to hate Jews.” 4 Surely this indictment of the text goes too far, but

this overstatement does show that in the wrong interpretive hands, these are dangerous verses.

Readers must tread carefully and cautiously here.

Immediately following a thanksgiving, Paul launches into a diatribe against his ethnic

compatriots that accuses them of multiple crimes and proclaims divine punishment upon them. It

shows a very different picture than the Paul of Rom. 9–11, who so desires that the Jews turn to

Christ. This is an enraged Paul whom the Jews have offended. Paul will eventually grow into a

more mature position regarding the Jews as his epistolary career develops, but here in his earliest

letter, he shows himself to be entirely antagonistic toward Jews who do not accept Jesus.

1

1 Ernst Bammel, Judaica et Paulina (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr, 1997), 237, sic.

2 Markus Barth, “Was Paul an Anti-Semite?” JES 5 (1968): 98: “These verses are not only prone to misuse

by people who are anti-Semites by disposition or education, but they are in themselves passionate, generalizing,

hateful.”

3 Linda McKinnish Bridges, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, GA:

Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2008), 55.

4 Michael A. Rydelnik, “Was Paul Anti-Semitic? Revisiting 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16,” BSac 165 (2008):

67.



AUTHENTICITY

The question of authorship is always complicated, but the issue with 1 Thessalonians

2:13–16 is especially cloudy. The letter is widely regarded as Paul’s earliest, and some have

posited that 2:13–4:2 constitute the earliest part of the letter, with the rest added to it at later

date.5 However, 2:13–16 or some portion of these verses has frequently been read as an non-

Pauline interpolation. Thus, the stakes for authorship are high: the passage in question is either

Paul’s earliest extant writing, or it is not Paul’s at all. A full discussion of all the questions

regarding the (non-)authenticity of this passage deserves its own paper and cannot but be

summarized here, but any discussion on 2:13–16 must take a stance on the verses’ authorship

before any interpretation is possible. Thus, a short treatment of the views on both sides of the

issue is necessary; this paper will proceed with the assumption of Pauline authorship, for the

weight of the evidence is stronger there.

With the advent of modern biblical criticism came a fresh look at 1 Thessalonians, and in

the 19th century, Ferdinand C. Baur, in a study of Paul’s theology, concluded that the paragraph

was inauthentic.6 This view fell out of fashion in the early 20th century and was interrupted by a

short period in the middle of the century in which many scholars took the entire letter of 1

Thessalonians to be inauthentic. After a decade or so, scholars largely accepted both the letter

and the passage in question as Pauline. However, Birger A. Pearson’s 1971 article7 again raised

the debate by making a strong case for interpolation, and a few have joined him. Current biblical

2

5 Earl J. Richard, First and Second Thessalonians (SP; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1995), 12–14.

6 Ferdinand C. Baur, Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Work, His Epistles and His Doctrine

(rev. by Edward Zeller; A. Menzies, trans.; 2 vols.; London, England: Williams and Norgate, 1876), 84–97.

7 Birger A. Pearson, “1 Thessalonians 2:13–16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation,” HTR 64 (1971). See

especially page 81.



scholarship has mostly maintained this structure: most see it as Pauline,8 but a minority

disagrees.9 What follows is a brief look at both arguments.

Firstly, the passage does not seem to fit the context: “scholars routinely speak of a

parenthesis, tangent, or violent outburst.” 10A reader would not even notice it if the passaged

were skipped over entirely.11 The passage appears different in some of its language, such as

mention of imitating other churches,12 which is atypical of Paul (though the Thessalonians are an

example in 1:7) and the separation of κύριον and Ἰησοῦν is unique to the NT. Conversely, the

3

8 E.g., Barth, “Anti-Semite?”, 98; G. K. Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians (IVPNTCS; Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press, 2003), 81; Ernest Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (Black’s NTCommentary; London: Hendrickson, 1972), 122; Markus Bockmuehl, “1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 and the Church in

Jerusalem,” TynBul 52 (2001): 3; Bridges, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 54; Karl P. Donfried, “Paul and Judaism. 1

Thessalonians 2:13–16 as a Test Case,” Int 38 (1984): 245; Jacob W. Elias, 1&2 Thessalonians (Believers Church

Bible Commentary; Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1995), 85; Robert Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence:

Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 46; Jan Lambrecht, “Thanksgivings in 1

Thessalonians 1–3” (pp. 135–62 in The Thessalonians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological

Synthesis?, Karl P. Donfried and Johannes Beutler, eds.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), 146;

Abraham J. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (AB; New Haven: Doubleday, 2000), 179; Leon Morris, 1

and 2 Thessalonians, rev. ed. (TNTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984), 64; Rydelnik,

“Anti-Semitic?”, 63; Schlueter, Carol J. Filling Up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in 1 Thessalonians 2.14–16

(JSNTSup 98; Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 25–53; J. M. Scott, “Paul’s Use of

Deuteronomic Tradition,” JBL 112 (1993): 651; Todd D. Still, Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and its

Neighbors (JSNTSup 183; Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 25; Charles A. Wanamaker, The

Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 33;

and Jon A. Weatherly, “The Authenticity of 1 Thessalonians 2.13–16: Additional Evidence,” JSNT 42 (1991): 80.

9 E.g., H. Boers, “The Form Critical Study of Paul’s Letters. I Thessalonians as a Case Study.” NTS 22

(1976): 152; F. F. Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians (WBC; vol. 45; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982), 51 (vv. 15-16); H.

Koester, “I Thessalonians—Experiment in Christian Writing” (pp. 33–44 in Continuity and Discontinuity in Church

History by Festschrift G. H. Williams; Studies in the History of Christian Thought 19; Leiden: Brill, 1979); Richard,

Thessalonians, 122 (vv. 14–16), and D. Schmidt, “1 Thess 2:13–16: Linguistic Evidence for an Interpolation,” JBL

102 (1983): 269.

10 Richard, Thessalonians, 123. So Boers, “Form Critical,” 152: “the elimination of this passage as an

interpolation brings about a virtual metamorphosis of I Thessalonians, resolving most of the problems in connection

with the form and function of the letter.”

11 Beverly Roberts Gaventa, First and Second Thessalonians (IBC; Louisville: John Knox, 1998), 35.

Perhaps the transition from 2:12 to 2:17 is smoother without the supposed interpolation, but the ἡμεῖς of 2:17

mirrors nicely the ὑμεῖς 2:14.

12 Pearson, “1 Thessalonians 2:13–16,” 87.



thanksgiving in v. 13 seems oddly familiar to the one in 1:2—an interpolator may have simply

copied the first thanksgiving with some minor editing.13 Thus, ironically, the passage appears

either too different or too similar to the rest of the letter for Paul to have written it.

The main point of contention is that the passage demonstrates a type of anti-Semitism or

anti-Judaism that “is uncharacteristic of Paul and more likely the product of a later Gentile-

Christian hand.” 14The attitude toward the Jewish people here looks different from the attitude

Paul shows in Rom. 11 and 1 Cor. 2:8. According to Pearson, Paul believes “Jesus was brought

to death by the demonic ‘rulers of this age’ who did not know that by doing so they would defeat

themselves in the process” 15—Paul does not blame the Jews. In addition, not only is it odd to see

Paul in opposition to the Jews, but he himself is a Jew and is proud of his accomplishments in

Judaism (Gal. 1:14; Phil. 3:5ff). Nevertheless, though Paul may not elsewhere specifically indict

the Jews for Jesus’ death, he is well familiar with the tradition of attributing to them the deaths of

the prophets (Rom. 11:3; cf. 1 Kings 19:10,14). Additionally, Paul’s harsh tone here is not

unique, even in Jewish texts; Hebrew Bible prophets often vociferously pointed out the sins of

others in their nation. In any case, the dissimilarity between 1 Thessalonians and Romans could

be explained by the number of years in between the two letters—perhaps during that time, Paul’s

views shifted. Ultimately, none of the objections to this passage hold, and there is no text-critical

reason to doubt its original inclusion anyway. Thus, 1 Thess. 2:13–16 is thoroughly Pauline. That

said, it does not erase the difficulty of Paul’s harsh tone and the need for attentive interpretation.

4

13 Ibid., 89–90: Pearson sees this second thanksgiving as evidence of interpolation. Against this view,

Lambrecht (“Thanksgivings,” 146) states, “One remains somewhat baffled at the ease with which certain scholars

use the three thanksgivings [the third being in 3:9] of as an argument for their hypothetical conflation of two letters

or a so-called interpolation of 2:13–16.”

14 Richard, Thessalonians, 122.

15 Pearson, “1 Thessalonians 2:13–16,” 80. He argues that blaming the Jews seems to be a later

development, as in Acts 2:36.



The following section will delve into the context of the passage before looking at it verse by

verse to determine what Paul is meaning to say.

CONTEXT

Paul has begun his letter with a short greeting (1:1) and moves directly to a thanksgiving

section starting in 1:2 in which he expresses his gratitude for the Thessalonians’ acceptance of

the gospel. Paul then confirms that his message is true because it was delivered to them through

the suffering of Paul and his companions (2:2) and because their behavior was commendable

when they were among the Thessalonians (2:3–12). He ends this session with a brief note of

encouragement to live godly lives (2:12b).16 Another expression of thanksgiving appears as the

reader comes to the passage in question (the nature of which will be discussed in the following

section), and Paul moves on to the suffering of the Thessalonians, which is like that of Judean

Christians. From there, Paul expresses his desire to see them again (2:17–20) and expounds upon

Timothy’s presence in Thessalonica (3:1–13). He concludes the letter with two chapters of

paraenesis (4:1–5:22) and a closing benediction (5:23–28). This is the structure of the letter as

we have it today.

Explaining how 2:13–16 fits in with the rest of the letter is a matter of debate. One

possibility comes from comparing it to Latin epistolary conventions, so that this section may be a

digression in the narratio whose goal is to build a foundation for the next argument, to supply a

transition, to gain the audience’s favor, or to serve a paraenetic purpose: if this is so, then the

rhetorical structure of the passage seeks to “confirm the Thessalonians in their existing pattern of

5

16 Bruce (1&2 Thessalonians, 42) calls 2:12b “something in the nature of a doxology.”



faithfulness regardless of the outside opposition they might experience.” 17 Earl J. Richard’s

explanation of the text’s structure, however, goes in a different direction, asserting that 1

Thessalonians is really a combination of two Pauline letters. He posits 2:13–4:2 (minus 2:14–16,

which he takes as an interpolation) to be the earlier missive, around which the second missive

was arranged at a later date, yielding the text as we have it now. The thanksgiving in 2:13 would

then be the thanksgiving that customarily occurs near the beginning of Paul’s letters. 18 There is

no evidence for the cutting and pasting that Richard suggests, and it has already been shown that

the proof of the inauthenticity of 2:13–16 (or parts thereof) is scant, so the best approach is to

determine how the passage fits into the letter. Wanamaker’s view is one reasonable explanation;

Richard’s is less plausible.

Though the passage demonstrates some unavoidable oddness as it is, it does serve a

purpose. One obvious connection is that the reference to the Thessalonians’ suffering (2:14)

follows the reference to Paul’s own suffering (2:2), uniting the two parties in a common

experience. What’s more, 2:1–12 shows Paul’s exemplary behavior to produce fruit among the

Thessalonians, and “in 2:13–14 he shows what the effect actually was among the readers,” i.e.,

6

17 Wanamaker, Epistles, 109.

18 Richard (Thessalonians, 115–16) argues that the first missive (2:13 and 2:17–4:2) has its thanksgiving

section, but the opening salutation has been cut off. 1 Thess. 1:1 is the opening to the second (and later) missive, but

the first missive’s opening would have been similar. Timothy would have omitted because he is assumed to be the

envoy of the first missive, and the “Christological title might have been ‘Lord Jesus,’ as always in the first missive

[. . .] rather than ‘Lord Jesus Christ.’” The complete opening to the missive in Richard’s view would be as follows: Paul and Silvanus,

to the community of Thessalonians

assembled by God the Father and the Lord Jesus,

grace to you and peace.

Of the many who disagree with this hypothesis, Koester (“I Thessalonians,” 38) stands out: “Any attempt to

assign part of I Thess 1:2–3:13 to two different letters [. . .] disregards the careful composition.” Ironically, though,

he too rejects the passage as an interpolation because it does not seem to belong due to its second instance of

thanksgiving.



their acceptance of Paul’s gospel.19 These two points of comparison do not solve all the

difficulties of the passage, but they show that it is not as out of place as it may seem. These

verses do belong in the letter, and they serve to show the results of Paul’s labor before he moves

later into his further encouragement (namely, the paraenesis of 4:1–5:22). Having established

both its Pauline authorship and the appropriateness of its inclusion and position in the letter, a

close reading of each verse now follows.

VERSE 13: THE THANKSGIVING

Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ θεῷ ἀδιαλείπτως, ὅτι παραλαβόντες λόγον ἀκοῆς παρ’ ἡμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐδέξασθε οὐ λόγον ἀνθρώπων ἀλλὰ καθώς ἐστιν ἀληθῶς λόγον θεοῦ, ὃς καὶ ἐνεργεῖται ἐν ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν.20

The first verse of this controversial passage contains Paul’s thanks for his audience’s

reception of his gospel. Richard takes διὰ τοῦτο to look forward because of his view that this is

the first extant verse of the hypothetical first missive around which 1 Thessalonians was built—if

there was nothing before it, then it cannot possibly look backward.21 Most others agree with his

conclusion even though they do not accept his proposed multiple-missive hypothesis. The διὰ

τοῦτο cannot look backward because it is emphasizing the object of Paul’s thanks, i.e., their

reception of the gospel.22 The subsequent ἡμεῖς here is especially emphatic, not only because it

is unnecessary due to the ending of εὐχαριστοῦμεν but also because of its preceding καὶ. This

καὶ cannot mean “and” because it is the second in this sequence, so it is more likely a form of

7

19 Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians, 77.

20 All Greek quotations come from NA27 unless otherwise indicated.

21 Richard, Thessalonians, 111–12. He takes the phrase Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ as a non-Pauline phrase added

to join 2:12 with 2:13 and translates it as “So for the following reason also.”

22 See Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 44; Elias, 1&2 Thessalonians, 82; and Wanamaker, Epistles, 110.



weakened emphasis on ἡμεῖς. καὶ ἡμεῖς can thus be rendered “we for our part” 23or “even we

ourselves.” The reason for this double emphasis is not clear, but Bruce suggests that Timothy

may have come back with a message from the Thessalonians that said something to the effect of

“We thank God that you brought us the gospel”; then καὶ ἡμεῖς would be an emphatic response

to their thanksgiving.24 This is plausible but obviously unprovable; Malherbe is right in judging

it unnecessary.25 Nevertheless, these first five words look forward to Paul’s second expression of

thanks in the letter.

Paul’s gratitude here is odd—“the extended length of the thanksgiving [in the letter]

causes considerable confusion.”26

It is debated whether this is indeed an extended thanksgiving

section or an entirely new one. Scholars frequently desire to show that 1 Thessalonians fits a

known structure of a particular Classical epistolary genre, but this is one instance in which the

structure is ambiguous. Some classify it as a continuation,27 others as a whole new section28—

there is likely no sure way to decide. If it is not a continuation of the thanksgiving section proper,

this is in the very least a continuation of the motif of thanksgiving. 29 Bruce asserts that not only

does it extend the thanksgiving of ch. 1, but “it amplifies it.” 30 In any case, this thanksgiving

uses much the same progression as that of 1:2, following the word εὐχαρίστω with the recipient

8

23 As suggested by Best (Thessalonians, 109) and Bruce (1&2 Thessalonians, 44).

24 Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 44.

25 Malherbe, Let ters, 165.

26 Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 69.

27 See, e.g., Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 43; Donfried, “Paul and Judaism,” 245–6; Elias, 1&2

Thessalonians, 82; Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 69; and Malherbe, Letters, 164.

28 See, e.g., Wanamaker, Epistles, 110; and Lambrecht, “Thanksgivings,” 143.

29 See Best, Thessalonians, 110.




of Paul’s thanks, God, and stressing the continual nature of this gratitude.31

The ὅτι then shows the reader that for which Paul is thankful: the reception of the gospel

among the Thessalonians. The verbs in this clause (a participial form of παραλαμβάνω and a

finite verbal conjugation of δέχομαι) have the same meaning but different senses. The former

implies passive reception32 and is in the NT “especially used of receiving a message or body of

instruction handed down by tradition.” 33 The latter word implies not merely reception but

acceptance.34 The message that the Thessalonians both received and accepted is (contained in)

the “word of God,” an unusual phrase for Paul.35 The separation of the head noun λόγον from

the phrase τοῦ θεοῦ “lays stress on the modifier” 36and contrasts it with the intermediate phrase

ἀκοῆς παρ’ ἡμῶν,37 emphasizing that the message was not of human origin but divine. This

contrast appears again in the phrase headed by ἐδέξασθε. It is not a human (ἀνθρώπων) word

—they accepted it as it truly (ἀληθῶς) is, which is the word of God. The second θεοῦ is

anarthrous to match the anarthrous ἀνθρώπων; this is another tool to stress the modifiers and

draw the contrast.38 Richard sees a chiastic structure in this portion of v. 13:

9

31 Best, Thessalonians, 110. See also Richard, T hessalonians, 112: “The term ‘continually’ stresses that

Paul intends not a time or place of prayer but a state of mind.”

32 Richard, Thessalonians, 112–13. π αραλαμβάνω does not imply any action on the listener.


34 Richard, Thessalonians, 112–13. So Elias, 1&2 Thessalonians, 83; and Wanamaker, Epistles, 110–11.

35 Among Paul’s uncontested letters, it is used only in Rom. 9:6; 10:17; 1 Cor. 14:36; 2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2; and

here twice.


37 Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 44. See also Gaventa, Thessalonians, 36.




παραλαβόντες λόγον [. . .] τοῦ θεοῦ a

ἀκοῆς παρ’ ἡμῶν b

ἐδέξασθε οὐ λόγον ἀνθρώπων b'

ἀλλὰ καθώς ἐστιν ἀληθῶς λόγον θεοῦ a' 39

In this setup, a and a' have the word of God, and b and b' have the contrast of such with the word

of humans. However, this does not follow well the order of the text—it requires rearrangement as

Richard’s ellipsis indicates. A better outline of this section’s structure would be

παραλαβόντες a

λόγον ἀκοῆς παρ’ ἡμῶν b

τοῦ θεοῦ c

ἐδέξασθε a'

οὐ λόγον ἀνθρώπων b'

ἀλλὰ καθώς ἐστιν ἀληθῶς λόγον θεοῦ c'

In this way, a and a' have the verbs, b and b' have the human word, and c and c' have the divine

word.

The final clause of this verse begins with a relative pronoun that describing either God or

the word of God’s work. Paul does not customarily speak of the word of God as an active agent,

so some take ὃς to refer to God.40 This would make the verb ἐνεργεῖται middle, giving it the

sense of “is at work.” Most view ὃς as the word of God that Paul has already mentioned twice,41

in which case ἐνεργεῖται can be either middle (“is at work”) or passive (“is put to work,” “is

made operative”). Because Paul has previously described (1:5) the power that accompanied their

reception of the gospel, it is easiest to see this as the word of God at work: this word “is not

primarily propositional truth to be accepted in faith but a dynamic power which transforms and

10

39 Richard, Thessalonians, 118, italics and ellipsis in original.

40 Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians, 80; Richard, Thessalonians, 114. The only major English version of the Bible

that takes it as “God” is the MSG.

41 So Best, Thessalonians, 112; Bridges, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 54; Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 45; Elias,

1&2 Thessalonians, 83; Malherbe, Letters, 167; and Morris, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 63. Most English translations

reflect the same: ASV, CEB, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NCV, NIV (1984 and 2011), NKJV, NLT, NRSV, TNIV.



energizes the believers and leads to their emergence as a faith community.” 42 By calling his

audience πιστεύουσιν, Paul legitimizes his presence in Thessalonica and confirmed his

statement that it was not in vain (2:1).43 Paul is thankful for the fruitful work that the active word

of God has performed among them.

VERSE 14: THE SUFFERING

ὑμεῖς γὰρ μιμηταὶ ἐγενήθητε, ἀδελφοί, τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν οὐσῶν ἐν τῇ

Ἰουδαίᾳ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ὅτι τὰ αὐτὰ ἐπάθετε καὶ ὑμεῖς ὑπὸ τῶν ἰδίων

συμφυλετῶν καθὼς καὶ αὐτοὶ ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων,

This verse introduces the evidence of the Thessalonians’ acceptance of the gospel, which

is their suffering. Paul understands that his audience has endured some persecution, and this

warrants a comparison between them and Judean churches, to the effect that the Thessalonians

have become the imitators of the Judean Christians. It is highly unlikely that the Thessalonian

church consciously sought to imitate the Judeans, but as a result of their faith, they found

themselves in similar situations—persecuted by their compatriots.44 In 1:6, Paul says that they

have imitated him and his companions, so this makes the second instance in which Paul names

the Thessalonians imitators. The earlier comparison with Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy seems

natural because as the author, Paul is relevant to the discussion; Morris, however, questions the

relevancy of Judean churches in the comparison in 2:14: “It seems curious that he draws

attention here to the sufferings of the churches in Judea, when there were churches in the

11

42 Elias, 1&2 Thessalonians, 83–4.

43 Wanamaker, Epistles, 112: “The success of Paul’s mission was demonstrated by the conversion of the

readers to the gospel of God as he had proclaimed it.”

44 Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 45; Elias, 1&2 Thessalonians, 85; Morris, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 63; and

Wanamaker, Epistles, 112.



immediate neighborhood that had suffered.” 45When Paul could have made other comparisons,

his decision to speak of Christians persecuted by Jews shows that Paul could be specifically

intending to include Jews in this discussion for the purpose of indicting them.

One of the many controversial questions this passage raises is the historicity of the

suffering Paul mentions. No evidence exists that points to any kind of widespread persecution of

any Christian population at this point in time, and if major persecutions were occurring, “Paul for

some reason mentioned it only once.” 46Elias suggests Acts 17:5–6 as evidence of pre-70 C.E.

persecution of Christians,47 and Jewett offers Gal. 6:12 as further evidence,48 but neither of these

provide the foundation for any conclusions in this matter. Bruce surmises that the Judean

persecution was only against apostles and leaders, not the average Christian,49 but as with all

other scriptural and historical evidence regarding this verse, it is merely a educated guess. The

only definite part of this matter is that if persecution was occurring, it was from Christians’ own

συμφυλετῶν, their fellow citizens or tribespeople (a hapax legomenon). Wanamaker attributes it

to “the exclusivism of early Christianity,” which separated Thessalonian Christians from their

ethnic relations.50 Clearly, the verse indicates strife is happening; perhaps “persecution” is too

strong a word for which to find a historical basis, but certainly the acceptance of Christianity by

both the Thessalonians and Judean Christians has caused difficulties with their respective

neighbors.

12

45 Morris, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 64–5.

46 Schlueter, Filling Up, 51.

47 Elias, 1&2 Thessalonians, 85. So Donfried, “Paul and Judaism,” 247.

48 Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 39. See pp. 202–206 for a fuller discussion.

49 Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 46. He takes Acts 12:1 as an example.




The identity of the perpetrators of the Judean suffering is also disputed. Unfortunately,

Ἰουδαίων can mean either “Judeans” 51or “Jews” 52—both meanings are covered by the same

word in Greek. For some scholars, whether Paul is an anti-Semite or not is decided by the

translation of this word. Gaventa argues seriously for translating it as “Judeans,” “since [Paul]

himself is a Jew and knows other believers who are Jews.” 53 Elias considers Ἰουδαίων to be a

subset of the Jews—perhaps not Judeans specifically, but rather “Zealots against messianic Jews

who were suspected of being in communion with Gentiles.” 54 Malherbe also tries to limit the

scope of the word, making it Jews “who acted against their fellow Jews.” 55Attempts to narrow

the definition ultimately fail because of the descriptors that follow: “in this context cannot refer

only to Judaean Jews (vv. 14–15a) but also to Jews of the Greco-Roman world who oppose the

Christian mission (16a).” 56With today’s sensitivity toward the appearance of anti-Semitism,

especially after the atrocious events of the Holocaust, it is reasonable to seek an alternative

explanation for Paul’s ref erence here. Nevertheless, the most reasonable translation of this word

13

51 Of the major English translations, only the NKJV translates it so.

52 So ASV, CEB, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NCV, NIV (1984 and 2011), NLT, NRSV, and TNIV.

53 Gaventa, Thessalonians, 36. He also argues that if Ἰουδαίων refers to all Jews, it would include Paul.

Paul would not count himself among these oppressors, though, so he would have to consider himself no longer a

Jew. “In no sense does this passage imply that Paul has himself ceased to be a Jew” (37), so it must mean “Judeans.”

54 Elias, 1&2 Thessalonians, 86. So Wanamaker, Epistles, 113.

55 Malherbe 169. So Frank Gillard, “The Problem of the Antisemitic Comma Between 1 Thessalonians 2.14

and 15,” NTS 35 (1989): 482. Wanamaker ( Epistles, 114) asserts that Paul exhibits “anti-Judaism” more than “anti-

Semitism,” “which would imply a racial hatred on Paul’s part.” Still (Conflict, 42) goes even further, saying Paul is

not anti-Semitic or anti-Judaism as much as he is “anti-oppressor.”




is “Jews,” and most scholars agree.57

One final issue this verse raises is whether punctuation should follow Ἰουδαίων. Though

the original autograph of the letter had no punctuation to begin with, Gillard makes a strong

point that in modern English translations, adding a comma or other punctuation after Ἰουδαίων

is “antisemitic.” 58The presence of a comma makes it a non-restrictive clause, which means the

accusations in the following verses apply to all Jews. The lack of a comma makes it a restrictive

clause, which means Ἰουδαίων refers only to those Jews who have committed the acts Paul

subsequently mentions. This comma, he argues, originated in Tyndale’s 1525 English translation,

and most other English translations have maintained it.59 Greek texts from that period also

included a comma, but “its presence in medieval manuscripts may be explained simply by a

wish, medieval or ancient, to signal a breathing pause in a very long sentence.” 60Among the

modern critical Greek texts, both NA27 and UBS4 include it, but the more recent SBLGNT has no

comma. Ultimately, Gillard himself admits that the comma does not have the same “odious

effect” in Greek that it does in English,61 so the Greek punctuation is irrelevant. The most

important matter is how to translate the word Ἰουδαίων, and because any attempts to limit this

term have failed, a comma is the most appropriate punctuation for English. Verse 14 is referring

14

57 E.g., Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians, 82; Best, Thessalonians, 114 (“Jews both by race and religion”); Bridges,

1 & 2 Thessalonians, 55; Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 46 (perhaps Judeans in v. 14, but definitely Jews in vv. 15 and

16); Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 39; Morris, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 64; Okeke, “I Thessalonians 2. 13–

16,” 130; Richard, Thessalonians, 120; and Schlueter, Filling Up, 73.

58 Gillard, “Problem.”

59 Ibid, 482. English translations with a comma (or similar punctuation) include the ASV (semicolon), CEB

(period and “They”), ESV, HCSB (period and “They”), KJV (colon), NASB, NIV1984, NKJV, NRSV, RSV, and

TNIV. Translations without any punctuation include the MSG, NCV, and NIV2011. The NLT paraphrases the verse

somewhat, but the meaning is as if there were no comma.

60 Ibid., 487.

61 Ibid.



to Jews, whether today’s readers are comfortable with it or not.

VERSE 15: THE ACCUSATIONS

τῶν καὶ τὸν κύριον ἀποκτεινάντων Ἰησοῦν καὶ τοὺς προφήτας καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐκδιωξάντων καὶ θεῷ μὴ ἀρεσκόντων καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐναντίων,

In vv. 15–16a, Paul accuses the Jewish people of a whole litany of crimes, beginning

with killing Jesus. ἀποκτεινάντων appears surprisingly between κύριον and Ἰησοῦν, which

has the effect on emphasizing both the title and the name.62 However, if the canonical gospels

have any amount of historicity and if our knowledge of Roman crucifixion practices can be

trusted, then the reader can surely know that the Jews did not in fact kill Jesus. The blame for

Jesus’ death might fall on the Jews in some extended metaphorical sense, but Jesus was not

lynched by a Jewish mob—he was killed by Gentile soldiers at the command of a Gentile leader.

Paul himself attributes the crucifixion of Jesus to τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (1 Cor.

2:8), never elsewhere to the Jews. Thus Paul’s motivation and meaning behind this accusation

need clarification. One suggestion is that Paul is deliberately minimizing the part of the Romans

in Jesus’ death so as not to alienate his Gentile readership or discourage the nascent Thessalonian

community.63 Another suggestion holds that here Paul uses hyperbole as a rhetorical strategy

(discussed in more detail shortly).64 Perhaps the best explanation takes into account the early

15

62 Morris, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 64; Schlueter, Filling Up, 66.

63 Best, Thessalonians, 115.

64 Schlueter, Filling Up, 67.



date of the letter65: because Paul has yet to develop a theology of “the cross and its significance,”

he merely places blame regarding Jesus’ death rather than shows the power it has for believers.66

Falling under the same head participle is his next charge of murdering of the prophets, a tradition

which most scholars believe derives from 1 Kings 19:10, referenced elsewhere in Rom. 11:3. 67

Perhaps Paul has Christian martyrs like Stephen in mind, but it is most likely he is speaking of

Hebrew Bible prophets.68 Jesus listed together with the prophets shows his special position in

Paul’s thought and stresses the Jews’ wickedness in killing God’s religious leaders.

The first principle part of the next participle, ἐκδιώκω, can be translated “drive out or

banish” or “persecute.” At some point the word shifted meaning from the former (especially in

the LXX) to the latter, and scholars disagree about where this letter falls during that shift.

Richard believes the verb is here maintaining its LXX meaning,69 but Best believes it has already

shifted to “persecute.” 70 Schlueter takes a middle approach: the verb means “drive out,” but its

collocation with ἀποκτεινάντων makes it “persecute” “because of the intensification by

association.” 71Additionally, the object of this participle, ἡμᾶς, has multiple interpretations,

16

65 This admittedly sounds like circular reasoning on the surface, for this undeveloped christology is one

possible criterion that seems to indicate an early date for the letter. However, there are many other reasons to locate

the letter early in Paul’s career besides this one. For a fuller discussion, see Malherbe, Letters, 71–74.

66 Gaventa, Thessal onians, 36: the lack of mention of the cross “makes it difficult to assess the state of

Paul’s reflection on Jesus’ death.”

67 Pearson, “1 Thessalonians 2:13–16,” 85.

68 An alternative reading has ἰδίους προφήτας to specify that it is Hebrew Bible prophets, not early

Christian prophets.

69 Richard, Thessalonians, 121. Cf. Acts 17:5–10.


71 Schlueter, Filling Up, 69. In her view, this is more rhetorical exaggeration.



including Paul and his companions,72 the apostles,73 or even Christians in general.74 What can be

known is that Paul believes that he and a portion of his fellow believers have been attacked to

some degree by the Jews.

The next clause deals with Jews’ relations with God and other people—one of displeasure

and opposition, respectively. For Wanamaker, these words “reflect the general anti-Judaism of

the Greco-Roman world,” 75 In discussing this clause, scholars often quote other ancient

authorities who express similarly hostile views of the Jewish people in general,76 but Paul is not

commenting on the quality of the Jews as a people but rather on their refusal to accept the gospel

—their opposition to the Christian message constitutes both an opposition to God and to

humanity.77 This section of the verse is especially key for Schlueter, who sees this as the climax

of Paul’s invective against Jews. The author has moved from a strong verb (ἀποκτείνω) to a

weak one (ἀρέσκω), but the object of this weak verb is the most important: God. From here,

Paul’s accusations will go down in force in her view. The Jews’ displeasure of God is the

centerpiece of a highly hyperbolic passage that “exaggerate[s] a kernel of historicity” in order to

produce multiple effects, including elevating the Thessalonians to the level of the Jerusalem

church “where the Christian message began,” establishing an “us” vs. “them” identity, and

17


73 W. Neil, The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians (London, England: Hodder & Stoughton, 1950), 51.

74 Schlueter, Filling Up, 70–71.

75 Wanamaker, Epistles, 115: “Jews were seen as opposed to their fellow human beings on account of

Jewish ethnic and religious exclusivism.”

76 E.g., Tacitus ( Histories, 5.5) says that “they feel only hostility and hatred toward others,” and Philostratus

( Life of Apollonius, 5.33) notes, “The Jews have long been in revolt, not only against the Romans, but against

humanity” (quoted in Best, Thessalonians, 117).

77 Best, Thessalonians, 117; Richard, Thessalonians, 121.



arousing the audience’s emotions.78 The notion that the end of this verse is the climax seems

unlikely with the Jews’ final fate coming up soon in v. 16b, and to my knowledge Schlueter is

alone in reading this text as exhibiting this specific rhetorical technique, though there is no doubt

that it might yield her proposed effects. Indeed, because of the Jews’ rejection of the gospel, he

denounces them and portrays them as an oppositional “them” that is working against the

Thessalonians.

VERSE 16: THE PUNISHMENT

κωλυόντων ἡμᾶς τοῖς ἔθνεσιν λαλῆσαι ἵνα σωθῶσιν, εἰς τὸ ἀναπληρῶσαι αὐτῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας πάντοτε. ἔφθασεν δὲ ἐπ ’αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος.

This last verse of the passage in question reveals why Paul has accused the Jews of

displeasing God and opposing all people—not only have they not received the gospel

themselves, but they are actively making efforts to prevent others from receiving it. The Jews do

not wish the Gentiles to be saved. Salvation is a multifaceted term in the NT, and here it likely

refers to both obtaining blessing and deliverance from wrath.79 This would imply the Jews wish

the Gentiles not to have the blessings that come with salvation but to instead face wrath. This is

ironic considering the harsh judgment of the Jews in this very verse: those who wish wrath on

others will incur wrath themselves. Paul employs the metaphor of a measuring cup—the murder,

the displeasure, the opposition, and the hindering have resulted in the mounting up of sins80 for

which they must be punished.

18

78 Schlueter, Filling Up, 73–74 and120–23.

79 Morris, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 64. Cf. 1:10.

80 ἁμαρτίας in the plural is a rare usage for Paul, who tends to view sin as a force rather than as individual

actions.



Paul’s description of their punishment is, like many other parts of this passage,

controversial. God’s ὀργὴ is mentioned elsewhere in Paul only in Romans, so readers do not

have a large body of evidence they can use to determine his meaning, and its meaning can only

be determined when its time is known; thus the reader must inquire about ἔφθασεν first. The

verb is in the aorist tense, which likely indicates a past occurrence, but some have disagreed with

this. The options are thus: “a past historical event,” “an event presently unfolding,” or “an event

still future but considered to be on the verge of taking place.” 81Beale takes it as a “‘prophetic’

aorist,” 82meaning it is aorist but looks toward the future, and others call it “proleptic.” 83 Munck,

however, argues that it could not be proleptic because such a usage would be unique to the NT,84

and he and many other point to εἰς τέλος, which “makes it absolute,” indicating it has already

happened.85 Most English translations and scholars take it as “has come,” 86 “has caught up,” 87or

“has overtaken” 88—all past events with present effects. εἰς τέλος itself is rendered in a

19

81

Elias, 1&2 Thessalonians, 90.

82 Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians, 86.

83 Richard, Thessalonians, 122. Various future-related interpretive explanations include “arrival at but with

participation,” beginning to come upon,” “proleptic participation,” “in the process of or already occurring,” and

“about to occur.”

84 J. Munck, Christ and Israel: An Interpretation of Romans 9–11(Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1967),

63.

85 Donfried, “Paul and Judaism,” 252; Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 37; G. E. Okeke, “I

Thessalonians 2. 13–16: The Fate of the Unbelieving Jews,” NTS 27 (1981): 130.

86 So ASV (“is come”), ESV, KJV (“is come”), NASB, NCV, NIV (1984 and 2011), NKJV, and TNIV;

Beale, 1–2 Thessalonians, 86; Donfried, “Paul and Judaism,” 252 (or “has arrived”); Elias, 1&2 Thessalonians, 89;

Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 189; Malherbe, Letters, 171; Morris, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 65; Munck,

Christ and Israel , 63; Okeke, “I Thessalonians 2. 13–16,” 130; and Still, Conflict , 35.

87 So NLT; Best 119; and Richard, Thessalonians, 122.

88 So HCSB; NRSV; and Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 48.



multiplicity of ways: “at last,” 89“until the end,” 90 and “to the utmost (or uttermost),” 91 just to

name a few.92 Thus, εἰς τέλος refers either to the time of God’s wrath or to the degree to which it

is accomplished. Granting that this making any definite statement on all of these slippery terms is

notoriously difficult, perhaps the easiest way to read the sentence is to place the aorist in the past

and to let τέλος mean “end.”

This would put God’s wrath in the past, which leads readers to look for an actual event

that might be Paul’s referent. Possibilities include the hardening of the Jews by God in Rom.

9:17–22,93 Jesus’ crucifixion, the Roman attack on Jerusalem in 70 C.E. (unlikely because of 1

Thessalonians’ proposed date of composition), famine, an insurrection led by Theudas, and the

expulsion of Jews from Rome.94 These are not the only disasters that Paul could have had in

mind. Another novel suggestion is that God’s punishment of the Jews’ unrighteous behavior is

that God allows them to continue in such behavior, which something akin to Paul’s logic in Rom.

1:18–32.95 Wanamaker, however, notes the “apocalyptic character of this statement” and “warns

20

89 So ESV, NCV, NIV (1984 and 2011), NLT, NRSV, RSV, and TNIV; Jewett, Thessalonian

Correspondence, 189; Okeke, “I Thessalonians 2. 13–16,” 130; and Richard, Thessalonians, 122.

90 So Donfried, “Paul and Judaism,” 252; Elias, 1&2 Thessalonians, 89; Gaventa, Thessalonians, 37;

Malherbe, Letters, 171; Munck, Christ and Israel , 63; and Wanamaker, Epistles, 118.

91 So ASV, KJV, NASB, NKJV, and Morris, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 65.

92 Other translations include “completely” (HCSB; Peter R. Ackroyd, “חצנ—εἰς τέλος,” ExpTim 80

(1969): 126 [or “utterly,” comparing it to the Hebrew in Ps. 74:3, among other places]), “fully and finally” (Beale,

1–2 Thessalonians, 83; I. Howard Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians [NCBC; London: Marshall Morgan and Scott,

1983], 81), “finally” (Best, Thessalonians, 121), “for good and all” (Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 46), and “in the

end” (CEB).

93 Munck, Christ and Israel , 63.

94 See Gaventa, Thessalonians, 37 and Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 37–38.

95 Gaventa, Thessalonians, 37.



against insisting that an actual event lies behind the verb” 96—it is, after all, highly hyperbolic

and likely poetic language. One cannot be sure of anything except that for Paul, the Jews are in

the wrong, and punishment has come.

CONCLUSION

1 Thessalonians 2:13–16 often makes today’s post-Holocaust readers uncomfortable with

its hostile language regarding Jews. Attempts to lessen Paul’s harsh tone do not fully explain the

text, and alternative translations such as “Judeans” instead of “Jews” are unwarranted—Paul

cannot be perceived here as anything but attacking the Jews because of the frustration or even

persecution they have caused him and his fellow Christians.97 Truly, “the language is harsh, but it

is a harshness familiar to readers of the Old Testament. [. . .] Paul’s polemic borrows heavily on

conventional language with which Jews express their outrage at the faithlessness of other

Jews.” 98 Jesus himself also spoke harshly to the Jews (e.g., Matt. 23:31–38). However, this

passage stands out because Jesus and the prophets spoke directly to those they were condemning;

Paul is here speaking to Gentiles while putting down Jews. 99 Best explicitly states, “It must be

allowed that I Th. 2.16c shows Paul holding an unacceptable anti-Semitic position.” 100

Wanamaker calls the objectionable language of this passage “a stock feature of ancient

rhetoric called vituperatio,” a verbal method of contending against someone with competing

21


97 Gaventa, Thessalonians, 37: “What he writes in 2:14–16, then, may be born out of indignation and

frustration, perhaps even a measure of bewilderment that fellow Jews do not share his own convictions.”

98 Ibid.





interests: “[t]he statements in 2:14-16 reflect the beginnings of the struggle of first-century

Christianity for a separate identity from its parent, Judaism.” 101This struggle is happening

concurrent with what Paul saw as the imminent arrival of the parousia, so it appears that any

Jewish oppression he and other Christians may face will be or has been avenged because of the

nearness of Christ’s return. Paul’s view of Jews in 1 Thessalonians is therefore difficult to

compare to his view in Romans, “which Paul wrote when the idea of the Parousia allowed the

opportunity for repentance.” 102Interpreters have to allow room for growth in Paul’s theology;

one cannot assume that it is monolithic and unchangeable. 103 Though some see such a change as

implausible,104 it is in my view clearly demonstrable. Paul is free to shift his perception: “In I

Thessalonians, in view of the judgement Israel’s ‘no’ meets with God’s ‘no’; in Romans 9–11, in

view of the expansion of the mission field while the Parousia is still in the future, Israel’s ‘no’

meets with God’s ‘yes’ by means of jealousy.” 105It is true, as Best says, that Paul holds an

“unacceptable [. . .] position” in regards to the Jews, but it is also true that he was a human and

was therefore a dynamic persona. 1 Thessalonians 2:13–16 depicts an angry Paul currently in the

midst of suf fering. But he will mature.

22

101 Wanamaker, Epistles, 118. However, “[s]uch vituperation lost its rationale once Christianity became an

equal competitor with Judaism and later because the more dominant of the two religions. [. . .] That many Christians

persisted in anti-Judaism on theological grounds and still persist in it today can only be a cause for shame and

repentance on the part of contemporary Christians” (119).

102 Okeke, “I Thessalonians 2. 13–16,” 131.

103 Ibid.: “When it assumed that Paul has a theology that is unalterably fixed, so that even changed external

and internal circumstances could not affect it, then any idea or thought which does not tally with our preconceived

Pauline thought becomes foreign to Paul.”

104 See, e.g., Bruce, 1&2 Thessalonians, 48–49: “Unless he changed his mind radically on this subject in

the interval of seven years between the writing of 1 Thessalonians and of Romans, it is difficult to make him

responsible for the viewpoint expressed here.”

105 Okeke, “I Thessalonians 2. 13–16,” 136.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackroyd, Peter R. “חצנ—εἰς τέλος.” The Expository Times 80 (1969): 126.

Bammel, Ernst. Judaica et Paulina. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr, 1997.

Barth, Markus. “Was Paul an Anti-Semite?”. Journal of Ecumenical Studies 5 (1968): 78–104.

Baur, Ferdinand C. Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Work, His Epistles and His

Doctrine. Revised by Edward Zeller. Translated from the 2nd German ed. by A. Menzies.

2 vols. London, England: Williams and Norgate, 1876.

Beale, G. K. 1–2 Thessalonians. The InterVarsity Press New Testament Commentary Series.

Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Best, Ernest. The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. Black’s New Testament

Commentary. London: Hendrickson, 1972.

Bockmuehl, Markus. “1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 and the Church in Jerusalem.” Tyndale Bulletin

52 (2001): 1–31.

Boers, H. “The Form Critical Study of Paul’s Letters. I Thessalonians as a Case Study.” New

Testament Studies 22 (1976): 140–158.

Bridges, Linda McKinnish. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon,

GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2008.

Bruce, F. F. 1&2 Thessalonians. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 45. Waco, TX: Word Books,

1982.

Donfried, Karl P. “Paul and Judaism. 1 Thessalonians 2:13–16 as a Test Case.” Interpretation 38

(1984): 242–53.

Elias, Jacob W. 1&2 Thessalonians. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale, PA: Herald

Press, 1995.

Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. First and Second Thessalonians. Interpretation. Louisville: John

Knox, 1998.

Gillard, Frank. “The Problem of the Antisemitic Comma Between 1 Thessalonians 2.14 and 15.”

New Testament Studies 35 (1989), 481.

23



Jewett, Robert. The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety.

Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.

Koester, H. “I Thessalonians—Experiment in Christian Writing.” Pages 33–44 in Continuity and

Discontinuity in Church History. Festschrift G. H. Williams. Studies in the History of

Christian Thought 19. Leiden: Brill, 1979.

Lambrecht, Jan. “Thanksgivings in 1 Thessalonians 1–3.” Pages 135–62 in The Thessalonians

Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological Synthesis? Edited by Karl P.

Donfried and Johannes Beutler. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000.

Malherbe, Abraham J. The Letters to the Thessalonians. The Anchor Bible. New Haven:

Doubleday, 2000.

Marshall, I. Howard. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. New Century Bible Commentary. London: Marshall

Morgan and Scott, 1983.

Morris, Leon. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Revised edition. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries.

Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984

Munck, J. Christ and Israel: An Interpretation of Romans 9–11. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press,

1967.

Neil, W. The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians. London, England: Hodder & Stoughton,

1950.

Okeke, G. E. “I Thessalonians 2. 13–16: The Fate of the Unbelieving Jews.” New Testament

Studies 27 (1981): 127–36.

Pearson, Birger A. “1 Thessalonians 2:13–16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation.” Harvard

Theological Review 64 (1971): 79–94.

Richard, Earl J. First and Second Thessalonians. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical,

1995.

Rydelnik, Michael A. “Was Paul Anti-Semitic? Revisiting 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16.” Bibliotheca

Sacra 165 (2008): 58–67.

Schlueter, Carol J. Filling Up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole in 1 Thessalonians 2.14–16.Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 98. Sheffield, England:

Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.

Schmidt, D. “1 Thess 2:13–16: Linguistic Evidence for an Interpolation.” Journal of Biblical

Literature 102 (1983): 269–79.

Scott, J. M. “Paul’s Use of Deuteronomic Tradition.” Journal of Biblical Literature 112 (1993).

24



Still, Todd D. Conflict at Thessalonica: A Pauline Church and its Neighbors. Journal for the

Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 183. Sheffield, England: Sheffield

Academic Press, 1999.

Wanamaker, Charles A. The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text.New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990.

Weatherly, Jon A. “The Authenticity of 1 Thessalonians 2.13–16: Additional Evidence.” Journal

for the Study of the New Testament 42 (1991): 79–98.

25

Documents

An Exegesis of 1 Thess. 2.13-3.13 - Jared Beverly