Honor Discourse and Social Engineering in 1 Thess - David DeSilva

8/16/2019 Honor Discourse and Social Engineering in 1 Thess - David DeSilva

1/32

[JSNT 64 (1996) 49-79]

'WORTHY OF HIS KINGDOM': HONOR DISCOURSE AND SOCIAL

ENGINEERING IN 1 THESSALONIANS

David A. deSilva

Ashland Theological Seminary, 910 Center Street, Ashland, OH 44805

Discussion of 1 Thessalonians has tended to disregard the importance of

the thanksgiving sections within Paul's strategic response to the situation

of the believers in Thessalonica. For example, the commentaries of

Wanamaker and Morris leave ch. 1 out of their discussion of the occasion and purpose of this letter.1 I propose that the thanksgiving section

functions as much more than a captatio benevolentiae} assuring the

addressees of the authors' good will and putting them in a receptive

frame of mind. Rather, it addresses a real concern of Paul's for the

congregation(s), namely that they should be insulated from the effects of

1. C.A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on theGreek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), pp. 60-63; L. Morris,

The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 6-11; E.J. Richard, First and Second Thessalonians (Sacra

Pagina, 11; Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1995), p. 31. Wanamaker does

recognize, however, that the 'theme of praise' introduced in 1 Thess. 1.2-3, 6-9 has

'a paranetic goal throughout the letter' (Epistles, p. 49), which sought to 'maintain

the boundaries and distinctive features of the Christian world that the Thessalonians

had come to inhabit through their conversion' (Epistles, p. 47, citing S.K. Stowers,

Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity [Library of Early Christianity, 5;Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986], pp. 77-81). Richard (Thessalonians, p. 31)

d t d th ' ti t k' t b i l ' ft th k i i ' Thi i


2/32

50 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 64 (1996)

the negative opinion of outsiders toward the Christian group and should

act only with a view toward their honor and security before God and

the supra-local Christian community.In the opening thanksgiving section, Paul uses considerations of honor

and dishonor to secure the community's commitment to its alternative

way of life in the face of society's own social-engineering program of

shaming the deviants back into conformity with the dominant cultural

values.3 Paul seeks to reinforce boundary-maintaining and group-pre

serving mechanisms such as the new court of reputation which consists

of God and the churches of God throughout the world, to disarm the

sting of society's displays of disapproval of the believers' new loyaltiesand values, and to incite the believers to continue in their present course

through appeals to the promise of their future honor and safety in the

kingdom of God. This work is by no means limited to the thanksgiving

sections, but unites them with the other parts of each letter under this

overarching concern which first prompted Paul to send Timothy to

encourage the converts, whose work Paul seeks to consolidate and

advance in 1 Thessalonians.4

1. Honor Discourse as a Group-Maintaining Device

In the light of the multiplication of discussions about honor and shame in

the Mediterranean world as 'codes' or 'pivotal values' which provide

the correct lens for reading New Testament texts, it seems prudent to

lay here a firmer foundation for understanding how ancient orators and

writers actually used these concepts and to what end.5

For our purposesin reading the Thessalonian letters, this means looking more closely at

3. That the society's opposition weighed heavily on the minds of the new con

verts, causing them to question the correctness and validity of their new commit

ments, has been noted by W. Neil (The Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians

[Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1957], p. 64) and affirmed by R. Jewett (The Thessalonian

Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety [Philadelphia: Fortress

Press, 1986], pp. 93-94).4. This program is sharpened still further in 2 Thessalonians, although this must

await treatment in a separate article The strongest connections will be noted in the


3/32

DESILVA 'Worthy of his Kingdom* 51

how honor and shame language might be employed in the literature of

minority cultures as a means of enhancing adherence to the group and

defusing the positive appeal of other groups or the negative pressure puton the minority group by the larger society.

6

a. Honor and Group Values

Honor and dishonor represent the primary means of social control in the

ancient Mediterranean world. A society upholds its values by rewarding

with greater degrees of honor those who embody those values in pro-

portionately greater degrees. Dishonor represents a group's disapproval

of a member based on his or her lack of conformity with those values

deemed essential for the group's continued existence. The concept of the

honorable and disgraceful are given content and meaning only within a

specific culture in a specific period.7 An individual has selfrespect on the

basis of his or her perception of how fully he or she has embodied the

culture's ideals; that individual has honor on the basis of the society's

recognition ofthat person's conformity with essential values.8

6. This is closely related to the work of P. Berger and T. Luckmann (The Social

Construction of Reality [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967], pp. 16667) in their

description of how minority cultures form their own counterdefinitions of reality

which turn upside down the dominant culture's view of them, and how the ongoing

social processes of life together as a group continue to maintain and refine those

groupsustaining counterdefinitions.

7. This has, of course, been noted by J. PittRivers, 'Honour and Social Status',

in J.G. Peristiany (ed.), Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), pp. 2177, p. 38, and by B.J. Malina

in his revised edition of The New Testament World (Louisville, KY: Westminster/

John Knox Press, 1993), pp. 5354. Acknowledging this, however, should have led

Malina to rely much more heavily upon classical authors from the ancient

Mediterranean rather than twentiethcentury cultural anthropologists of the modern

Mediterranean in his investigation.

8. This seems to me to be a more precise formulation of the relationship of self

worth and publicly acknowledged honor than, say, the equation which one finds in

B. Malina and J. Neyrey, *Honor and Shame in LukeActs: Pivotal Values in theMediterranean World', in J.H. Neyrey, The Social World of LukeActs (Peabody,

MA H d i k 1991) 25 65 25 26 Ή i h i i l f


4/32

52 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 64 ( 1996)

The threat of dishonor supports a society's prohibitions of socially dis

ruptive behavior. For example, adultery—the violation of the sanctity

and peace of a bond which is foundational to society—carries with it thepromise of disgrace (cf. Prov. 6.32-33). Concord and unity, essential

values for the orderly life of the polis, are lauded as honorable, while

dissensions and strife bring the threat of disgrace for the city (cf. Dio,

Or. 48.5-6). Similarly, courage in battle (necessary for a city's survival)

wins honor and lasting remembrance (cf. Pericles' Funeral Oration in

Thucydides, War 2.35-42). In a society which had as its basic building

block the patron-client relationship (Seneca, De benef. 1.4.2), the threat

of irrevocable dishonor, and therefore exclusion from future patronage,supports the value of showing gratitude to one's patron (or a city's

benefactors; Dio, Or. 31).

'Honor' becomes the umbrella which extends over the complex of

behaviors, commitments, and attitudes which preserve a given culture

and society; the desire for honor becomes the means by which one can

motivate the members of that society to seek the good of the larger

group as the path to self-fulfillment. In a collection of advice To

Demonicus, ascribed pseudonymously to Isocrates (a Greek orator from

the fourth and third centuries BCE), one finds many actions connected

either with the positive sanction 'noble' or 'honorable', or labelled with

the negative sanction 'disgraceful'. By such means, the author sets before

his reader a model of existence which acts always in the best interest of

the public trust, which honors the established authorities on which the

state rests (gods, parents, laws), and restrains the expenditure of

resources on that which brings pleasure only to the self and not benefitto others as well. Those who follow such a model will be rewarded with

society's approval and affirmation, that is, honor.

Epideictic rhetoric, associated with praise and censure in the classical

rhetorical handbooks, serves the social function of reinforcing the

society's values, holding up as praiseworthy those who have exemplified

those values, thus rousing emulation in the hearers.9 Thucydides expresses

Personality: Dyadic, not Individual', in Neyrey, Social World, pp. 67-96), which has

been rightly contested and nuanced by such classicists as Bernard Williams


5/32

DESILVA 'Worthy of his Kingdom 9 53

the intriguing notion that 'eulogies of other people are only tolerable in

so far as each hearer thinks that he too has the ability to perform any of

the exploits of which he hears' (War 2.35.2). This, together with the frequent incorporation of some call to imitate the subject of the encomium

(Thucydides, War 2.43.1-4; 4 Mace 18.1; Dio, Or. 29.21), shows that

praise of some virtue or some person on account of virtue was calculated

to rouse emulation, to encourage the hearers to seek to exemplify the

values being praised, and so to attain honor and a praiseworthy remem

brance themselves. Similarly, invective or censure have the opposite effect,

moving those who agree with the censure to eschew such behaviors

which bring on disgrace, blame, and loss of esteem.

b. Defining the Court of Reputation

A person in an honor culture is oriented from birth toward seeking the

approval of the significant others—this is how the culture maintains its

essential identity and values across generational lines. In a simple society

(wherein one culture is shared by all the group members), this process

results in a fairly consistent method of social control and predictableadherence to the society's values. The situation becomes more interesting

in a complex society, in which one finds competing cultures, or, at least,

alternative cultures within a dominant culture. Such, of course, was the

Mediterranean world of the first century CE, where one finds voluntary

subcultures and countercultures, such as philosophical schools and religi

ous sects, striving to maintain their values and group boundaries against

competing minority cultures, as well as fighting assimilation back into

the dominant culture.In such a setting, the definition of who comprise one's group of

significant others becomes essential. If one seeks status in the eyes of the

larger society, one will seek to maintain the values and fulfill the expec

tations of the dominant or majority culture (which may be different).10 If

one has been brought into a minority culture (e.g., a philosophical

school, or a voluntary association like the early Christian community), or

10. I am indebted here to V.K. Robbins, who demonstrated to me that 'dominant


6/32


has been born into an ethnic subculture (such as Judaism), then one's

adherence to the group's values and ideals will only remain strong if one

redefines the constituency of one's circle of significant others. The 'courtof reputation' must be limited to group members, who will support the

group values in their grants of honor and censure. Including some supra-

social entity in this group (e.g., God, Reason, or Nature) offsets the

minority (and therefore 'deviant') status of the group's opinion. The

opinion of one's fellow group members is thus fortified by, anchored in,

and legitimated by a 'higher' court of reputation, whose judgments are

of greater importance and more lasting consequence than the opinion of

the disapproving majority or the dominant culture.1 x

Where the values and commitments of a minority culture differ from

those of a dominant (or other alternative) culture, members of that

minority culture must be moved to disregard the opinion of non-mem

bers about their behavior. All groups will seek to use honor and disgrace

to enforce the values of their particular culture, so each must insulate its

members from the 'pull' of the opinion of non-members. Those who do

not hold to the values and the construals of reality embodied in the groupare excluded from the 'court of reputation' as shameless or errant—

approval or disapproval in their eyes must count for nothing, as it rests

on error, and the representative of the minority culture can look forward

to his or her vindication when the extent of that error is revealed.12

11. Plato thus speaks of living so as to achieve honor in the sight of God's court

(Plato, Gorgias 526D-527D), as does Epictetus: 'When you come into the presence

of some prominent man, remember that Another looks from above on what is taking

place, and that you must please Him rather than this man' (Diss. 1.30.1). This is a

familiar device in the Jewish subcultural literature as well (cf. Sir. 23.18-19). Since

God's opinion is mirrored in the group's evaluation (or, since the group's values

provide access to information about God's opinion), the minority group becomes a

more reliable, more important court of opinion. It matters more to have the approval

of the group than of the wayward society (even if they are the majority, and even if

they have the power to inflict temporary hardship on the group). 4 Maccabees also

makes much use of this device. The martyrs encourage one another by looking to the

honor they shall enjoy before their ancestors in the faith (13.17) and are praised inregard to the esteem they enjoy before God (17.4-5).

12 Pl t f tl t t th i i f th h t id d b


7/32


8/32


the hands of the host society.13

The use of contest or athletic imagery

leads to the minority culture's appropriation of topics of courage or

endurance, which are now made to serve minority cultural values.Courage is defined as 'the reaching for great things and contempt for

what is mean; also the endurance of hardship in expectation of profit'

(Rhet. ad Her. 3.2.3). Hardship is thus no longer a sign of society's

rejection and the group member's deviance and dishonor, but merely

that which must be endured in order to gain a greater end. Similarly,

military imagery achieves the same end, as the language of conquering

in Revelation attests.14

13. Epictetus favors athletic imagery as a means of encouraging the aspiring

Stoic to endure hardships with courage and without dismay, since these are but the

result of Zeus matching one up with a wrestling partner for training, the result of

which will be a great victory (Diss. 1.24.12). Reputation, abuse, and even praise are

among the obstacles which can be thrown in the athlete's way, but which are

despised and passed by on the way towards becoming 'the invincible athlete' (Diss.

1.18.21). The Cynic philosopher was often subject to society's disapproval—all the

more as Cynics confronted society with the meaninglessness of many of its normsand values. The selfappointed hardships which Cynics endure—signs of their

depravity and shamelessness to the larger society—are the means by which they are

exercised by Zeus (Diss. 3.22.56) for an Olympic victory. The Cynic may lose his

reputation in the eyes of the society, but remains a 'noble person' contending in a

noble contest (Dio, Or. 8.1516).

Jewish authors used athletic imagery to transform the disgraceful and status

degrading experiences of Jews suffering persecution for their refusal to conform to

the dominant (Hellenistic) culture into a 'noble contest' (cf. 4 Mace. 16.16) resulting

in acclamation before God and the ancestors. 4 Maccabees is especially rich in these

metaphors. The martyrs' tortures become a contest (άγων) and the tyrant's hall an

'arena' of hardships (γυµνάσια πόνων, 11.20). They are lauded as 'athletes'

(άσκήτας) of religion and 'contestants' (άγωνισταί) competing for virtue. They are

summoned to an honorable contest in which even to compete is noble (16.16). An

extended athletic metaphor is used to summarize the story and its end result—the

crown of victory for the abused youths—in 4 Mace. 17.1116. For a detailed discus-

sion of the use of contest imagery, see V. Pfitzner, Paul and the Agon Motif

Traditional Athletic Imagery in the Pauline Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1967).14. Cf. the frequent promises for 'the one who conquers' (Rev. 2.7, 11, 17, 26;

3 5 12 21; 21 7) as well as the 'victory' achieved over the dragon and the beast and


9/32

DESILVA 'Worthy of his Kingdom' 57

Another strategy in minority cultural rhetoric focuses on society's

abuse as a form of educative discipline, by which God fits the individual

for the prize of virtue, or immortality, or holiness.15

This is especiallyfrequent in the Jewish subcultural tradition (cf. Wis. 3.5; Heb. 12.4-12),

where the disgrace suffered at the dominant culture's hands becomes a

sign of acceptance by God, and endurance of those hardships becomes

the process by which God forms the believer's character, even as an

earthly parent might use strict means to cultivate his or her young.16

The impact of such rhetoric is that society's attempts at reclaiming the

deviants are now read as signs of divine approval—not only do they fail

to have their desired impact, they actually serve to confirm the deviantsin their new loyalties and commitments.

d. Actualizing the Court of Reputation

Once the basic distinctions have been drawn, and the new court of

reputation is firmly established, the one who would maintain a minority

culture must encourage frequent and meaningful interaction within the

group—interaction which promotes adherence to the group's values andideals, which stimulates the desire for honor as the group defines what is

honorable, and which maintains the plausibility of the group's counter-

definitions of reality (including its evaluation of outsiders).

Peter Berger has written that

worlds are socially constructed and socially maintained. Their continuing

reality...depends upon specific social processes, namely those processes

that ongoingly reconstruct and maintain the particular worlds in question.17

In a pluralistic society of competing world-constructions, each world-

construction is always in danger of being disconfirmed by the availability

of other world-constructions. It becomes all the more necessary, there

fore, and particularly within minority cultures, for the members to reflect

15. On educative suffering as the background to 2 Thess. 1.5, see J.M. Bassler,

'The Enigmatic Sign: 2 Thessalonians 1.5', CBQ 46 (1984), pp. 496-510.

16. See the comprehensive discussion of this interpretation of suffering in theJewish and Graeco-Roman literature of the period, and its application in Heb. 12.1-

i C C ' i S ff i f C i


10/32


back to one another the reality of the group's counter-definitions of the

world, and to encourage the sort of activity which promotes the individual

member's sense of 'owning' those counter-definitions. Maintenance ofthe plausibility structure calls for the investment of energy, time, and

resources. The minority world-view is rendered ever firmer and more

real by the degree of one's participation in it, and through the member's

continually being held accountable by one's significant others to the

ethos created by that world-view.

Encouragement within the group, in short, must outweigh the dis

couragement which comes to the individual from outside the group.

Relationships within the group—the sense of connectedness and belongingso essential to the social being—must offset the sense of disconnected

ness and alienation from the society which formerly provided one's

primary reference group.

e. Rhetoric of Honor and Advantage Grounded in the Group's

Counter-Definitions

Within the group, orators and other community-shapers may employ the

forms and genres of classical rhetoric in order to motivate members to

choose the course of action which results in honor or advantage (the

classical aims of deliberative rhetoric).18 This honor or safety, however,

will be construed in terms of the group's counter-definitions, for example,

'safety' in regard to the future judgment of the wicked, or 'honor'

through conformity to the pattern of the Son of God, disgraced by

humans, vindicated by the Deity. Epideictic rhetoric (encomia, use of

exempla for emulation, and the like) may also be employed, now holdingup as praiseworthy those who have given of themselves for the good of

the group or who have resisted society's attempts to deprive them of

their crown of victory.

18. Cf. Rhetorica ad Herennium 3.2.3. Aristotle (Rhet. 1.3.5) appears to suggestthat deliberative rhetoric takes up topics of 'the expedient' and 'the harmful', but he,too, sees a much closer relationship between honorable behavior and the process of

persuasion in deliberative rhetoric: 'Praise and counsels have a common aspect; forwhat you might suggest in counselling becomes encomium by a change in the

phrase Accordingly if you desire to praise look what you would suggest; if you


11/32


2. Identifying Honor Discourse in 1 Thessalonians

What topics or rhetorical tactics are relevant to the investigation of the

social-engineering which Paul effects in 1 Thessalonians? What sorts of

language or concepts should jump out at us as signals of Paul's concern

for the group's endurance in commitment to the Christian community

and its values in the face of society's disapproval of its new loyalties?

The foregoing discussion should lead us to look closely for the following:

1. Language which establishes or reinforces the constituency of the

court of reputation as the members of the group and its leaders by: (a)explicitly naming those persons for whose opinion and approval one

should have regard; (b) stressing the differences in lifestyle, proximity to

truth, ethos, and even ontology or origin between group members and

outsiders; (c) censuring outsiders as unreliable guides to conduct, as

shameless or dishonorable, as influences which ultimately jeopardize the

well-being of individuals; (d) affirming the character of group members,

particularly group leaders, strengthening the group's inner-directed

focus on such people as reliable, honorable guides to right knowledgeand conduct, bolstering the leaders' authority to delineate the group's

norms and to grant honor or ascribe blame within the group.

2. Language which establishes or affirms the honor of the group or its

members before the alternate court of reputation by: (a) detailing the

honor the individual now possesses and the basis for this honor as

defined by the group's world-construction; (b) praising the group for its

adherence to the minority culture's values, and giving expression to

their honor and reputation within the larger body of significant others

(the supra-local minority culture, e.g., 'the Church of God in every

place', the supra-temporal minority culture, e.g., 'the ancestors in the

faith', and the supra-social minority culture, e.g., God and the myriads of

God's angels); (c) reinterpreting the group's experience of dishonor or

disapproval at society's hands, defusing the dominant culture's deviancy-

control techniques or even turning them to advantage vis-à-vis group

honor and commitment; (d) promising future honor and vindication forthe group and dishonor for the group's opponents, advising individuals

f ll h h h i h d i h hi h


12/32


3. Analyzing the Data

a. The Exigencies of the Community's SituationPaul expressly refers to the Thessalonian believers' situation as θλίψις

(1 Thess. 1.6; 3.34; 2 Thess. 1.4, 6), and speaks of the believers as

'suffering' (πάσχειν: 1 Thess. 2.14; 2 Thess. 1.5). While social scientists

have shown that 'suffering' may be real or perceived, objective or

subjective, we should not too hastily disregard these references to the

negative, disconfirming, discouraging experiences of the believers in

Thessalonica.19

Thessalonica was the capital of the Roman province of Macedonia witha long history of devotion to the emperor. This concern to show loyalty

to Rome began in earnest after Antony's defeat at Actium in 31 BCE,

since the city had previously sided with Antony and needed to express

quickly and enthusiastically its loyalty to Augustus. The emperor cult

and a cult 'of Rome and Roman benefactors' were both prominent cults

in the city, such that civic events were even dated by the terms of the

priests of these cults. The cults of the traditional GraecoRoman gods are

also well attested in this city.20

Recent decades of scholarship have helped us appreciate the meaning of

these cults for the participants, and the importance of participation.21

The

specters of enforcement of emperor worship from above, or of the 'sham

religion' of the idolatrous cult, have given way to a new understanding

19. As does A. Malherbe (Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic

Tradition of Pastoral Care [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987], pp. 4448), who is

rightly challenged on this point by Morris (Thessalonians, p. 48) and Wanamaker

(Epistles, v. 81).

20. See the impressive body of evidence gathered in H. Hendrix, Thessalonicans

Honor Romans' (ThD Thesis, Harvard University, 1984); C. Edson, 'Macedonia, II.

State Cults in Thessalonica', Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 51 (1940),

pp. 12736; C. Edson, 'Macedonia, III. Cults of Thessalonica', HTR 41 (1948),

pp. 105204.

21. Cf. especially S.R.F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in

Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); G.W. Bowersock,

The Imperial Cult: Perceptions and Persistence', in B.F. Meyer and E.P. Sanders

(eds ) Jewish and Christian SelfDefinition (Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1982) III


13/32


of the local and grassroots motivation for such cultic activity. Participation

in the cults of Rome, the emperor, and the traditional pantheon showed

one's pietas or εύσεβεία, one's reliability, in effect, to fulfill one'sobligations to family, patron, city, province, and empire. Participation

showed one's support of the social body, one's desire for doing what

was necessary to secure the welfare of the city, and one's commitment

to the stability and ongoing life of the city.

Groups which had never participated, such as the majority of the

Jewish population, were never free from suspicion and slander—their

devotion to the One God reflected their concern for the one people, the

Jews, and their lack of concern for the public welfare (cf. 3 Mace. 3.37;Est. 13.45 LXX). While usually enjoying official grants of toleration,

Jews were nevertheless frequently the objects of the dominant culture's

hostility on account of these threatening differences, which were usually

subsumed under theheading of µισοξενία, 'hatred of outsiders'.22

People who withdrew from participation were subject to even greater

suspicion, for it is always more threatening to find one's own coreli-

gionists withdrawing their support from one's world view and ethos than

to deal with a group which has never supported these.23

It should not be

22. This is the complaint against the Jewish people which reverberates through-

out the Greek and Latin literature. Diodorus of Sicily (34.14; 40.3.4), Tacitus (Hist.

5.5), Juvenal (Sat. 14.100104), and Apion (Josephus, Apion 2.121) all accuse the

Jewish people of supporting their fellowJews but showing no good will to those

who are not of their race. The dietary laws and restrictions on social intercourse prac-

ticed by Jews loyal to Torah, while an effective means of maintaining group

boundaries and cohesion, gave rise to antiJewish slander from outsiders.

23. The author of 1 Peter bears witness to this phenomenon, when he speaks of

the origin of the society's hostility in the unbelievers' surprise that their former

colleagues no longer join them in their accustomed rituals and practices (4.35).

While 1 Peter censures these activities as 'excesses of dissipation', these activities

included the 'lawless idolatry' (4.3) which was the foundation of civic loyalty and

solidarity. Pliny the Younger (Ep. 10.97) provides an intriguing view from the Other

side', as he looks upon the renewed interest in traditional religious activity as a posi-

tive outcome of his investigation of the Christian movement in Bithynia. Those whohad withdrawn from these healthy activities are now returning to fulfill their social

d i i bli ti Th i iti l di ti f th H l ti t d


14/32


surprising, therefore, that there should be a fair amount of local resent

ment, suspicion, and even hostility directed at the potentially anti-Roman,

anti-establishment proclamation of Jesus, the messiah crucified by theRomans, as the coming ruler and judge. This was a proclamation which

threatened Roman order and the security posited in the ideology of

Roma Aeterna. It was, moreover, a proclamation which moved formerly

reliable citizens of Thessalonica to withdraw from cultic displays of grati

tude towards the city's most important benefactors and cultic displays of

loyalty and dedication to the welfare of the city.24

The group gave all the

warning signs of becoming a source of disunity, a cancer in the social

body requiring treatment.While officially sanctioned persecution of the church was extremely

rare in the first century, this did not mean that deviant groups like Jews

or Christians would not be subject to unofficial acts of hostility and

abuse. A believer suffered affliction even if the persecution only took the

form of frequent cold shoulders, of hearing some term of abuse while

passing a former colleague, or conspicuous exclusion from circles of

former friends. We know from Josephus and Philo, however, that such

unorganized persecution could take more violent forms—a phenomenon

not unknown in our own recent history. There is no mention of martyr

dom in the letter (which would have led to a different sort of assurance

about the dead believers' destiny)25

—only the natural deaths of

believers—so we may surmise that the persecution was the sort which

was normally levelled at people whose lifestyles were now considered

24. Cf. discussions of suspicion towards such self-separating groups in

R.A. Markus, Christianity in the Roman World (London: Thames & Hudson,

1974), pp. 24-47.

25. I disagree here with J. Chapa's suggestion ('Is First Thessalonians a Letter of

Consolation?', NTS 40 [1994], pp. 150-60, p. 156) that the deaths which have

troubled the believers in 4.13 may have resulted from the society's persecution of the

group. This has been advanced more forcefully by R. Collins, The Birth of the New

Testament (New York: Crossroad, 1993), p. 112. If this were the case, one would

expect some clearer connection to be made by Paul between the affliction and theremoval of beloved sisters and brothers from the congregation, as well as the use of

such traditions as the eschatological vindication of the martyr who has died for the


15/32


16/32


Acts to have left before he would have wished—1 Thess. 2.17 uses the

image of being 'bereft', a metaphor of mourning over a separation that

is not willed by the parties involved.

29

Concerned on account of thetroubled circumstances of that church, and frustrated with not being able

to return himself to see them (2.17-18), he sent Timothy to encourage

them in the midst of their afflictions (3.2-5), to do whatever he could to

offset the influence of the dominant culture on the new community. Paul

did not want the believers to be 'shaken' (3.3) by their loss of honor,

that is, to doubt their choices because of society's disapproval. Society

itself is depicted as the agent of the 'tempter', and society's attempts at

reintegrating the deviant as the 'temptation' itself (3.5) which could lurethem away from the path which leads to safety 'from the wrath that is

coming' (1.10).

Paul apparently received a positive report from Timothy about the

state of the congregation. Nevertheless, Paul prays 'earnestly night and

day that we may see you face to face and supply what is lacking in your

faith' (3.10). That is, Paul understands that Timothy's work in reaffirming

the group's values and encouraging renewed commitment in the face of

society's negative sanctions was only the first step in the ongoing work

of maintaining the group's integrity. What Paul desires to do 'face to face'

is here as elsewhere accomplished through the letter itself, the epistolary

replacement for the apostle's presence. From Timothy, moreover, he

has learned of any concerns which the believers had—which left chinks,

as it were, in the armor of the world-construction Paul calls his 'gospel'.

1 Thessalonians responds to both needs and serves as a whole to further

cement the community's commitment in the face of society's hostility.

c. 1 Thessalonians and Paul's Social-Engineering Program

Paul is addressing people whose honor, whose basic measure of worth,

has been challenged by society—indeed, has been questioned and negated

by society. This is the effect of the 'affliction' which they have endured.

fitting parallel to 4.4-5, a vituperation against Gentile outsiders which persists in

2 Thess. 1.8-9; 2.10-12; 3.2. God's wrath comes down upon all who hinder or rejectthe gospel of Jesus, who show themselves to be displeasing to God by that very

rejection and hostility irrespective of ethnic origin (1 Thess 1 10; 2 15 16; 4 1 5;


17/32


These are people who realize that attachment to Jesus and this new

community has cost them the respect they formerly enjoyed from their

neighbors, and to that extent has made them question their own self worth. How does Paul build upon the work already done by Timothy to

address this problem? Using the typology of honor discourse developed

above, Paul's strategy in 1 Thessalonians, in all its intricacy and

complexity, becomes transparent.

1. Reinforcing the Court of Reputation. First, we may look at Paul's

negation of the validity of the opinion of outsiders regarding the believers'

commitment to Jesus and the new social entity, the εκκλησία του θεού. We have already noted how society's pressures, effected through the

'affliction' suffered by believers, have been set by Paul within the frame-

work of the activity of the tempter, the primaeval enemy of God and

God's cosmos (3.5). The Thessalonian believers' neighbors are replicating

the same sort of hostility against God as did the Jewish believers' neigh-

bors in Judaea (2.14). The 'persecutors' are therefore also displeasing

God, hindering God's purpose.

The unbelieving Gentiles are censured as given over to shameful lust

and ignorance of God—a familiar pair in Hellenistic Jewish antiGentile

polemic (cf. Rom. 1.1832; Wis. 13.19; 14.2227; Eph. 4.1819). This

contrast of lifestyle between the (Gentile!) believers and the (unbelieving)

Gentiles was a common feature of early Christian rhetoric, serving to

mark the different values served by the two groups, and the incompati-

bility and inferiority of the unbelievers' values with the enlightened ethos

of the Christian group (cf. 1 Pet. 4.14; Eph. 4.1720). Here, too, such acontrast serves to censure the unbelievers as base and therefore also to

denigrate their ability to form a reliable judgment about what is honorable

or not (since they themselves live dishonorably). The focus in this context

on 'sanctification' (αγιασµός, 4.3)—being 'set apart' for God, empha-

sizes further the boundary between the Christian community and the

unbelieving world.30

This is a boundary anchored in the very will of God

(τούτο γαρ έστιν θέληµα του θεού, ό αγιασµός υµών, 4.3), assuring

the believers of the ultimate legitimacy of their new group loyalties andthe illegitimacy of society's resistance to this group formation.


18/32


1 Thess. 5.3-8 constructs an even more elaborate contrast between the

believers and the outsiders:

When they say, There is peace and security', then sudden destruction willcome upon them... But you are not in darkness, brothers and sisters, for

that day to surprise you like a thief. For you are all children of light and

children of the day; we are not of the night or of darkness. So then let us

not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober. For those who

sleep sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. But, since

we belong to the day, let us be sober...

The outsiders are the deluded proclaimers of peace (an ironic reference

to the pax Romanal), but they shall be utterly surprised and overturnedon the 'day of wrath' which is in many ways a cornerstone of the

Christian minority culture's world construction. The believers are as

different from outsiders as day is from night, light from darkness, wake

fulness from sleeping, sobriety from drunkenness. Outsiders, moreover,

fare badly in each contrastive pair—this is not a matter of apples and

oranges, of differences without value-laden evaluations. Paul also creates

a sort of genealogical distinction between the group members and

outsiders. They are two different families or races now—the offspring of

light and the offspring of darkness.

A final blow is dealt to the opinion of outsiders in Paul's contrast

between how the believer is to face death (i.e., the death of significant

others) and how the unbeliever faces death. The unbelievers grieve as

those without hope (4.13)—their perception of reality crumbles in the

face of death and cannot adequately answer this threatening pheno

menon. Indeed, Paul's discussion in 4.13-18 is meant to strengthen thebelievers' world-construction at precisely this point, so that the death of

members of their court of reputation, their significant others, will not be

taken as disconfirmation of the group's distinctive counter-definitions of

reality.31

Paul therefore provides them with the necessary information to

integrate even this most marginalizing of experiences.

31. Cf. P. Berger, Sacred Canopy, pp. 43-44, 80: 'Death radically puts in

question the taken for grantedness "business as usual" attitude in which one exists


19/32


While Paul, through a number of deliberate contrasts with outsiders,

reinforces the group's boundaries and gives believers ample cause to

disregard the opinion of unbelievers as unreliable and erring,32

he alsodevotes considerable attention to reminding the addressees of who does

constitute their court of reputation, and to whom they should look for

their honor and confirmation of their self-worth. The primary significant

other in this letter is, of course, God. The thanksgiving section of the

Pauline letter consistently functions as an admirable reminder of this

basic fact: it is before God that the authors and addressees are con

ducting their lives and ministries, so that giving thanks to God or remem

bering the addressees before God both serve to raise again to consciousness this One in whose sight one lives and before whom one seeks

remembrance, recognition, and reward (1.2-3; cf. 2 Thess 1.3). The

authors drive this point home in the recollection of their personal example

to the Thessalonians—the very example the believers have imitated (1.6)

and are called to imitate further in order also 'to please God' (4.1): 'just

as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so

we speak, not to please human beings, but to please God who tests our

hearts' (2.4). Ultimately, it is God's evaluation which counts far more

than society's, for on the Day of the Lord God's evaluation and its

eternal effects will be made manifest: it is always with a view to that

'court' that one seeks to live in the present, preferring temporary

danger and loss from human courts of opinion to the eternal danger and

loss from God's court (1 Thess. 1.5; 2.19-20; 3.13; 5.9; 2 Thess. 1.6-9).

Believers are called to seek to please God, not people: seeking human

approval leaves one susceptible to the seduction of society's call to thedeviant to return; seeking God's approval, however, leads to the approval

of one's fellow believers who are also seeking to please God. Paul and

his co-authors are concerned that there be strong social reinforcement of

God's approval or disapproval, and so he continually calls each hearer's

attention to the company of the 'brothers and sisters' who now form

their primary reference group. This is a limited group defined by God's

choice (1.4) reflected in their positive response to the gospel (1.5). It is

these 'brothers and sisters' which become the group of significantothers for each individual member as they enact Paul's injunctions to


20/32


'exhort one another' (5.11; cf. 5.14), 'build one another up' (5.10), 'love

one another' more and more (4.910),33 and 'comfort one another' (4.18).

The strong, meaningful bonds between group members forged throughthis level of interaction will strengthen individual believers' commitment

to the group and insulate them from the negative opinion and treatment

of outsiders.34

Feelings of attachment and experiences of encouragement

within the group outweigh feelings of disconnectedness from society and

experiences of discouragement at the hands of outsiders. Care for, and

being cared for by, the brothers and sisters leads to an increased desire

to conform to the values of the group so as to be held in esteem by those

who are important for one's daily life.35 Even though Paul will alsoexhort the believers to 'abound in love for one another and for all' and

to 'do good to one another and to all' (3.12; 5.13), thus admirably moving

the group to reach out beyond group lines as benefactors of the com-

munity, the very form of this exhortation reinforces (with the mention

first of 'one another') the meaningfulness of those group boundaries.

The local court of reputation formed by the church in Thessalonica is

consciously extended by Paul to include the churches of God in all of

Macedonia, Achaia, and Judaea, thus connecting the members of the

local 'chapter' of this minority culture to a larger network of believers

throughout the world.

Finally, Paul's directions to honor local church leadership and to

follow their instructions, as well as his affirmations of his team's honor

and exemplary conduct, also helps provide a focus for the believers as

they seek affirmation and reliable guides to honor before God's court.

This provides a positive counterpart to his denigration of outsiders, hiscensure of their conduct and ignorance, and therefore the unreliability of

33. Paul uses the more limited term φιλαδελφία, a term reserved for speaking of

love within the kinship group, rather than φιλανθρωπία, 'love for humanity' and

beneficence in general. This is not because Paul is uninterested in acts of love and

benevolence which reach beyond the group (cf. 3.12; 5.13), but because he needs to

promote, in the first place, that which will lead to the solidarity of the group and the

recognition by the individual member that these relationships are the most significant

(hence the construction of a fictive kinship within the group).

34 Indeed this group building leads eventually to the group's ability to use the


21/32


their evaluation of Christians and their new commitments. It is in this

light that we may make sense out of Paul's 'defense' of his apostleship

in 1 Thess. 1.5; 2.1-12. It is not as though Paul and his team's integritywas openly called into question or challenged (as in Galatia or Corinth).

It is rather part of a larger strategy of equipping beleaguered and possibly

wavering converts to continue trusting the figures who have called them

out from the society into this minority group and to continue resisting

the chastisement of their former compatriots.

Ethos was an essential component of the art of persuasion, and Paul

must here reaffirm the reliability of his character not against the slander

of opponents36 but in a vital contrast with the character and reliability ofthe other voice which threatens to seduce the believers away from the

truth (3.3-5). This contrast is made clearer by the juxtaposition of the

example of Paul's team in 4.1 with the pattern of conduct of the

(unbelieving) Gentiles in 4.4. As a corollary to this, Paul exhorts the

believers to respect the local Christian leadership which was left in

charge of the new congregation by Paul and his team—their regard for

these figures will give moment to the leaders' approval or admonition of

the group members, for they play an essential role in maintaining the

group's values and conduct (5.12-13).

Throughout 1 Thessalonians, therefore, we find Paul concerned with

delimiting and reinforcing the 'court of reputation' before which the

believers are to live, and whose opinion they are to regard. The

unbelieving society acts out the role of Satan, the tempter; it lives

shamelessly without regard for God or God's standards; it belongs to

the darkness, and its members even constitute a different order of being.The opinion of unbelievers, therefore, is not to be regarded as meaningful,

and hence should be in no way determinative of the believer's choices

and values. The believer is called to live so as to please God, to gain

God's approval: this is mirrored in the interaction of the believing

community, as its reliable and ethical leaders offer admonition and praise,

and as the group members reflect back to one another the group's

values and ideals. In this way, the minority culture is freed from the

dominant culture's social-control techniques to pursue the goals deemedhonorable within the group.


22/32


2. Affirming and Augmenting the Self-Respect of the Group. As Paul

reinforces the boundaries of the believer's 'court of reputation', he also

labors to assure the believers of their honor before that court in a varietyof ways. The loss of esteem they have suffered in society's eyes receives

ample compensation in the honor they now enjoy within the group of

those who are better equipped to evaluate what is truly honorable.

First, Paul gives clear indications of the believers' worth in the eyes of

the group. They receive praise from Paul for their 'work of faith and

labor of love and steadfastness' (1.3), for their reception of the gospel in

the face of society's opposition (1.6; 2.13-14). Paul's giving thanks to

God for these aspects of the community's life shows his team's approvalof the believers' progress, and also assumes God's approval—indeed,

God's agency in effecting this progress. 'Election' itself serves the goal

of strengthening commitment to the community, since it becomes a

mark of God's choice and approval to be a part of the church, as well as

obedience to God to remain a part of the church (1.4; 2.12; cf. 2 Thess.

1.11-12; 2.14). Paul also affirms them in their mindfulness of seeking so

to live as to please God (presumably here with regard to Paul's ethicalinstructions; 4.1), their expressions of love toward their fellow-believers

(4.9-10), and their preservation of the Christian view of reality through

mutual encouragement in pursuing group ideals (5.11).

Paul also greets them with a declaration of their growing reputation

among the churches throughout the regions of Macedonia (of which

Thessalonica was the capital) and Achaia.37 They enjoy a supra-local

honor because of their eager reception of the gospel, their welcome of

God's emissaries, and their endurance of affliction. Within the largernetwork of Christian communities, they enjoy fame, a good report:

You became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in

much affliction, with joy inspired by the Holy Spirit; so that you became

an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia. For not only

has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and

Achaia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, so that we need

not say anything. For they themselves report concerning us what a

37. That Paul is discussing here the believers' honor is by no means neglected in

th lit t ( f Ri h d Th l i 50 51) b t ith t di


23/32


welcome we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols, to

serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom

he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come(1.6-10, emphasis mine).38

This is comparable to a city's delight in achieving pre-eminence among

the other cities of a given province, or for fame among those cities and

beyond for some peculiar civic virtue or achievement.39

Paul here begins to reinterpret society's attempts to disgrace Christians

as actually leading toward honor within the alternate court of reputation.

Indeed, the society's main complaint against the Christians is their neglect

for the traditional Graeco-Roman gods and benefactors and therefore

their political and civic unreliability. What causes them to lose approval

and esteem from their non-Christian neighbors, however, becomes the

believers' claim to fame among all the churches in Greece (1.9-10).40

Moreover, Paul assures them that such hostility was 'normal', only to

be expected from the unbelieving world: 'You yourselves know that this

is to be our lot. For when we were with you, we told you beforehand

that we were to suffer affliction; just as it has come to pass, and as youknow' (3.3-4). It befell Paul (1.6; 2.1-2); it befell the churches in Judaea

at the hands of their neighbors (2.14); it happens now to the Thessalonians

(1.6; 2.14). This emphasis on normalcy is important, since the society

is trying to get the believers to see themselves as deviant and in need

of change. As Paul inverts this, society's rejection actually assures the

believers, more or less, that they are right where they should be, and not

'out of line'. Indeed, Paul also transforms his team's own experience of

dishonor at society's hands as an occasion to display courage, to actnobly in the face of great opposition (2.2).

Finally, we see Paul throughout the letter urging the believers to

shape their behavior ever with an eye toward attaining the honor and

38. This strategy appears again in 2 Thess. 1.3-4.

39. One might compare, for example, Dio's attempts to persuade Rhodes to take

a certain course of action in order to preserve their civic reputation among other cities

and provinces (Or. 31), as well as competition between cities for the provincialhonor of being named neokoros ('temple warden') of the imperial cult (cf. Price,


24/32


security which Jesus will provide to his faithful clients on the Day of the

Lord. The opinion of outsiders during these days of struggle is inconse

quential compared to the opinion God forms of the believers on thatDay of Visitation. Indeed, the gospel has given the Thessalonian believers

an incomparable advantage: 'But you are not in darkness, brothers and

sisters, for that day to surprise you like a thief (5.4). Unlike the

unbeliever, the Christian has received advance warning, and is in a privi

leged position to prepare for that day by seeking to please God in the

present.

The certainty of that day, and its promise of wrath and disgrace for all

who have not sought to please God through responding to God's favorin the gospel message,41 provides a powerful motivation to the believers

to endure the temporary dishonor and danger of marginalization in

order to attain the greater honor and security of being approved on that

day. Paul appreciates the strategic value of elevating, therefore, the Day

of the Lord throughout the letter:

You turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait

for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus whodelivers us from the wrath to come (1.9b-10).

We exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to

lead a life worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory

(2.11-12).

May the Lord...establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before our

God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his holy ones

(3.12-13).

God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our

Lord Jesus Christ (5.9).

May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit

and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord

Jesus Christ (5.23).

The ethic of the Christian community—the new kinship relations and the

associated obligations, the admonitions toward continence, the response

to death—is focused toward this future event, this day of reversal on

which their faith will be vindicated and their honor as children of God

manifested. Paul applies this focus even to his own missionary work:

Tor what is our hope or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord


25/32


20). On that day, Paul's only claim to honor will be his faithfulness in

carrying out his commission to call together for God a sanctified people:

knowing this, he seeks no other claim to honor before the unbelieving world. His selfrespect comes from his preparedness for that day.

It should be noted, however, that Paul does not give in to the impulse

to withdraw and shut out unbelievers completely, nor does he allow his

converts to do so. This response was far from unknown in the ancient

world, as the literature of Qumran, for example, attests. Rather, believers

are urged to reach out not only to fellow believers (though, of course,

this must be the primary arena of support) but also to all people:

May the Lord make you increase and abound in love to one another and to

all (3.12).

See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to

one another and to all (5.13).

The exhortation to 'seek to do good to all' orients the believers toward

the society as potential benefactors of their local community: by acting

as benefactors, they will be able to dispel, to some extent, society's

suspicion of them, and perhaps even begin to regain respect42

(although,of course, their behavior must remain detached from the opinion of

outsiders). Their lifestyle is not to confirm society's opinion of them as

disruptive, dissentious, noncontributing parts of the social body. While

freed from concern for society's opinion, they are nevertheless called to

'behave becomingly toward outsiders' (4.12), in order to make known

the noble character which they have received from God.

d. The Issue of the Literary Integrity of 1 Thessalonians

Much of 1 Thessalonians reflects Paul's attempt to do precisely what he

wished to do through a personal visit, namely, to 'supply what is lacking

in your faith' (3.10). 'Faith' in that context clearly refers to the believers'

perseverance in their commitment to the new social reality called the

εκκλησία του θεού in the face of the dominant culture's resistance and

disapproval. He does this by delineating the court of opinion before

whom the believers are to seek approval, giving them a claim to honor

before that court, and providing a groupmaintaining agenda to fulfill

th i λ ί th i d i f t


26/32


have noted above that 2.14-16 fits well into Paul's program for this

letter. Indeed, it should not even be relegated to the status of digression

This section picks up on the mimetic pattern announced in 1.6, wherethe Thessalonian Christians responded to the word in faith despite

society's resistance, even as Paul and his team carry out their response

of faithfulness to the word in the face of 'great opposition' (2.1-2). So

also, the Thessalonians imitate the pattern of the churches in Judaea,

where the movement had its start (2.14), so that Paul's claim regarding

the normalcy of society's opposition—that this is a pattern which has

been established and should actually affirm the Thessalonian Christians—

has a firm basis in the experience of believers worldwide. Secondly, itbelongs to Paul's strategy of emphasizing group boundaries (reinforcing

the closed circle of significant others or 'court of reputation'), drawing

the clear distinction between the outsiders who displease God (2.15)—

both Jews (2.15-16)44 and Gentiles (2.14b;45 4.3-6; 5.3-8)—and the

43. Wanamaker, Epistles, p. 49.

44. Johanson (Brethren, pp. 170-71) and F.D. Gilliard (The Problem of the

Antisemitic Comma between 1 Thessalonians 2.14 and 15', NTS 35 [1989],pp. 481-502, pp. 498-501) seek to limit Paul's remarks to those specific groups

within the Jewish people who were actually responsible for Jesus' death (i.e., 'some

Sadducees of the Sanhédrin' [Gilliard, Troblem', p. 499]) and those who actively

oppose Paul's mission to the Gentiles. Again, in the contemporary setting, it is

important to separate the ethnic category 'Jews' from the polemic category 'who

displease God'. In Paul's setting, however, all outsiders were guilty of displeasing

God. This is true of the 'Gentiles' who 'live in fleshly passion, not knowing God'

(4.4) as it is true of the Jews who 'displease God' and remain under 'wrath' (2.15-

16): all who have not entered the new community formed by trust in Jesus are

'under wrath' (1.10), even as all who have responded to God's favor revealed in

Christ, whether Gentile or Jew (cf. 1 Cor. 1.24), are delivered from wrath. The

polemic in 2.15-16 is primarily against non-Christians who happen to be Jews, just

as 4.1-4 is against non-Christians who happen to be Gentiles. Paul approaches it

from both sides because these two ethnic categories are so deeply etched in his mind,

appearing frequently throughout his writings as a binary pair.

Perhaps a more helpful approach to this text in the modern situation would be to

allow Paul's boundary-forming vituperations to stand and acknowledge them forwhat they are, but then also to acknowledge the very different social location of the

ti th f th i l l ti f th ft th thi d t


27/32


insiders who do seek to please God (4.1). Excising this passage from the

letter is not the only way to express our contemporary commitment to

respectful dialogue and cooperation rather than vituperation in ourrelationships with Jews.

The theory that 1 Thessalonians is itself to be divided into an 'earlier

missive' (2.134.2) and a later letter (1.12.12 + 4.35.28) has been

recently revived by Earl Richard.46

Richard asserts that 'the presump-

tion of integrity is an assumption unless it explains satisfactorily serious

structural and temporal anomalies'.47 While it would be out of place to

against God, and the like, was a matter of group survival. When the cultural rhetoric

changed—that is, when Christianity became the dominant culture (even before it

became the majority culture)—the group no longer needed such vituperation for the

preservation of its identity. Only in the new situation does the rhetoric become

dangerous and censurable. Indeed, Christianity has been guilty on many occasions of

using the minority cultural rhetoric of its origins within its new location as dominant

power, as a tool for expanding its cultural hegemony. To combat this, however, we

should focus on responsible hermeneutics, rather than let the current needs drive our

exegesis.

45. K.P. Donfried ('Paul and Judaism: 1 Thessalonians 2.1316 as a Test Case',

Int 38 [1984], pp. 24253, pp. 24647) asserts on the basis of the Acts 17 narrative

that Jews in Thessalonica were prominently involved in the hostility against the

believers there, which explains Paul's comment on the nonChristian Jews' historic

commitment to resist the gospel of God. This puts too much weight on the evidence

of Acts at a point where Acts clearly has a theological agenda (namely the systematic

rejection of the gospel by Jews), a problem pointed out by Johnson (Writings,

p. 261). Collins (Birth, p. I l l ) provides a better view of the situation, seeing the

believers' Gentile neighbors as the source of the antagonism in 2.14. ύπο των ιδίων

συµφυλετών does point to people of the same 'tribe', which is much closer to ethnic

identity, rather than to, say, fellowcitizens (συµπολίται) which might be Jews or

Gentiles.

This does not leave Paul's vituperation in 2.1516 'quite unmotivated and tangen-

tial to his present theme' (LH. Marshall, I and 2 Thessalonians [NCB; Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983], p. 78). Paul's 'theme'—the logical flow of discourse—is

not the only consideration, but also Paul's socialengineering program for thecommunity, which insists on sharp group boundaries and delegitimating the activity

f t id ( t i th t h t th b li th h t f li


28/32


discuss all the pertinent arguments,48

1 should like to venture some sug-

gestions which might help explain the anomalies without sacrificing the

shape of the letter as it has come down to us in the manuscript tradition.Richard calls attention to

distinct differences in tone in 2.131449

(where Paul had feared he had

'labored in vain' and expresses joy, relief, and warmth) and in 1.23 and

4.34 (where he knows that the preaching has not been 'in vain' and treats

in a more circumspect way the problems experienced and the issues

raised by a maturing community).50

Two suggestions may alleviate this difficulty. First, Paul writes this letter

both after he experienced anxiety over the Thessalonians and after he

received the news from Timothy that his anxiety was overwrought.

From this perspective of renewed confidence he writes both to the

community as it stands (i.e., with confidence) and about his anxieties

prior to the sending of Timothy (i.e., about his anxiety over not knowing

their condition, and his relief at Timothy's response—the same relief and

joy which allows him to write the thanksgiving of 1.210). Richard

appears to make a groundless objection here, since from Paul's vantagepoint in writing he may reflect back both on the anxieties and his relief.

Secondly, that Paul begins and ends with words of assurance about the

congregation's steadfastness, and only speaks of his anxiety (again, not

'fear' as if he had cause to distrust the Thessalonians' commitment) in

the middle section in retrospect, is rhetorically appropriate and well

planned. One can motivate commitment in others better by opening and

closing with a strong show of confidence in them rather than opening

with one's former doubts about their commitment and moving forwardfrom there for the sake of chronological presentation. As I have argued

above, Paul's earnest desire to 'supply what is lacking' in the Thessalonian

48. See the extensive survey of this discussion in R. Collins, Ά Propos the

Integrity of 1 Thess.', ETL 55 (1979), pp. 67106; Marshall, Thessalonians, pp. 11

16; Wanamaker, Epistles, pp. 2937.

49. This passage actually begins with a 'thanksgiving' for the Thessalonians'reception of the word as God's word to them, active in their lives (2.13), and so is

t di ti ti l ti i t Ri h d t


29/32


Christians' faith (3.10)—a need which remains even after his reception of

Timothy's positive report—is precisely what is accomplished throughout

1 Thessalonians.Richard also postulates that 2.134.2 was written shortly after Paul's

visit to Thessalonica (with which I do not disagree), but that 1.12.12 +

4.35.28 'presumes a lapse of time following the mission' because 'by

now the community's faith commitment, activities, and missionary

assistance are well known to the other communities of the Greek main-

land and beyond' (Macedonia and Achaia).51

First, we should note that

the report about the Thessalonians which goes out concerns only their

reception of Paul and his team ('they themselves report concerning us what a welcome we had among you', 1.9a) and their initial response to

the gospel ('and how you turned to God from idols, to serve a living

and true God', 1.9b). That is, people are talking only about the first

weeks of the Thessalonian believers' experience—not necessarily about

months of active service.

We have explored the strategic aim of Paul's report of the believers'

fame above, and we should perhaps allow the apostle to employ hyper- bole for the sake of encouraging the Thessalonian congregation (hence

the 'in every place', 1.8).52

Making some allowance for this, Paul's des-

cription in 1.89 does not necessitate so very great a lapse of time

between founding the congregation and writing this thanksgiving—at

least no more time than it would take Paul to come to the end of his

patience, send Timothy from Athens back to Thessalonica, receive word

back from him. This is particularly plausible if, following the Acts

itinerary (which seems remarkably reliable in its basic outline in chs. 1617, being confirmed by details in 1 Thess. 2.2 and 3.1), Paul goes on to

Corinth from Athens, and is there met by Timothy and from there

writes 1 Thessalonians.53

As Paul takes the word of the Lord on from

the Thessalonians (άφ' υµών, 1.8) through the regions of Macedonia and

Achaia, he encounters unconverted people who have heard from other

newsbearing travellers about the activity in Thessalonica.54

We should

51. Richard, Thessalonians, pp. 11, 14.


30/32


remember that the initial hostility in Thessalonica was remembered as

being quite public and disruptive, so that it should not be surprising that

news of this Christian movement would spread to the concerned citizensof other regions even before Paul has arrived to evangelize. After, or

during, Paul's successful evangelism, the Thessalonians about whom the

former unbelievers have heard with suspicion now become a meaningful

model of courageous response to this message of salvation in the face of

hostility from 'those who are perishing'.55

4. ConclusionsDue to stronger opposition to this fledgling community in Thessalonica

than in other cities, Paul devotes much of 1 Thessalonians to the prob-

lem of socialengineering: strengthening the boundaries of the group,

delegitimating the opinion (and thus the social pressure to conform) of

outsiders however this is actualized (the shape of 'affliction'), and pro-

moting the course of action which leads to the survival and growth of

the group. Society's vigorous application of social control techniques,

like shaming through insult, exclusion, and abuse, calls forth a more

vigorous counterprogram from Paul's team (both Timothy's visit and 1

Thessalonians). Honor discourse, as an essential component of social

control in the ancient Mediterranean, is thus a prominent feature of this

correspondence. Attention to honor and shame discourse does not by

any means exhaust the meaning and purpose of the epistles, nor does it

account for the whole correspondence, but it does highlight a prominent

concern of Paul's team running throughout their relationship with thecommunity. Paul's groupmaintaining techniques, while highly critical of

outsiders, do not result in a contracultural movement—a group which

seeks deliberately to violate the dominant culture's values. While there

are certain nonnegotiable areas, such as all forms of idolatry as opposed

to the singlehearted devotion to the one God, Paul's advice in both

55. This view may resolve the problem Wanamaker perceives between 1 Thess.1.8 ('we need not say anything') and 2 Thess. 1.4 ('we boast concerning you').

Wh P l i iti ll t d th h ld b hi t th h d


31/32


letters moves the group also toward the possibility of future rapproche-

ment with the dominant culture. Paul guards against the criticism that

Christians are not contributing parts of the larger society, that they lackthe basic virtues of φιλανθρωπία and generosity. While their citizenship

is indeed in heaven (Phil. 3.20), and their primary duty is toward their

fellowcitizens of the kingdom of God, Paul also includes the exhorta-

tions to extend their works of love and welldoing beyond the primary

reference group to 'all' (1 Thess. 3.12; 5.13).

Attention to honor and shame discourse, guided by observations of

how this language is used in the ancient world to reinforce cultural iden-

tity and boundaries, has opened up a new dimension of the rhetoricalstrategy of 1 Thessalonians. Judiciously employed, such analysis may be

used throughout the canonical and noncanonical literature of the period

to investigate how a group relates to other subcultures and to the domi-

nant culture, thus contributing to a social history of early Christianity

and other movements in the Hellenistic and GraecoRoman worlds.

Attention to this language also assists our attempts to understand the

correlations between theological expression (worldconstruction) and

social location, as in our correlation of eschatology with strong sectarian

boundaries and distinctive ethos in this letters.

ABSTRACT

An ancient proponent of a minority culture met the challenge of sustaining commit-

ment to the group through a number of distinct uses of honor discourse. The firsthalf of this article establishes a method for analyzing the rhetorical impact of honor

discourse in a text from the GraecoRoman period and its potential for sustaining

group values and commitment; the second half shows the method at work in

1 Thessalonians. Paul insulates the readers from concern for the opinion and

approval of the nonbelieving world by censuring outsiders as unreliable guides to

honorable behavior: society's censure of the believers thus should carry no weight.

Paul directs their ambitions to the eternal honor to be gained by securing God's

approval. The group members are called to reinforce one another's commitment to

those distinctive Christian values that will result in honor on the last day.


32/32

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Documents

Honor Discourse and Social Engineering in 1 Thess - David DeSilva