Introduction
On the First Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians
History of the founding of the Thessalonian church
The occasion for writing the epistle
Time and place of writing
Contents of the epistle
The authenticity of the epistle
Bibliography
On the First Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians
The Epistles to the Thessalonians were addressed to “the church of the Thessalonians,” which was located in the city of Macedonia called Thessalonica (modern Greek Σαλονίκη, in Turkish Selanik).
In the era of classical antiquity, this city bore the name Θέρμα or Θέρμη, a name apparently derived from the hot springs that existed there. It received the name Θεσσαλονίχη in 315 BCE, when Cassander, the son-in-law of Philip of Macedon, rebuilt the city on the site of ancient Θερμά, naming it Thessalonica in honor of his wife, the half-sister of Alexander the Great (Strabo, 330 and Herodotus, VII 121). The geographical position of the city, situated in the best location of the Thermaean Gulf (at that time called the “Thermean”), secured for it considerable importance both militarily and commercially. When Macedonia passed into the hands of the Romans in 168 BCE and was divided into four provinces, Thessalonica, “celeberrima urbs,” became the chief city of the province “Macedonia secunda.” In 146 BCE the Macedonian provinces were merged into one, and Thessalonica essentially became the capital of all Macedonia. Under Roman rule the city grew rapidly and acquired military, strategic, and especially commercial significance, thanks to the famous Roman road “Via Egnatia” which passed through it, connecting on one side the city of Dyrrachium on the Adriatic, and on the other the river Hebrus in Thrace, thus joining the eastern provinces of the empire with its very center, Rome. The importance of Thessalonica’s position was especially well noted by Cicero, who himself spent some time there during his exile in 58 BCE. “Thessalonieenses positi in gremio imperii nostri,” thus speaks the famous Roman orator (De prov. Consul. 2). In 49 BCE Thessalonica took an active part in the first civil war and served as the center of Pompey’s faction, but during the second war the city sided with Octavius and Antony, for which it is believed it received the status of “free city” (Plinius, N. H. IV:17: “Thessalonica liberae conditionis”). Thanks to its freedom (ελευθερία), Thessalonica retained its purely Greek character and was able to be governed through special magistrates who in Acts 17:6-8 are called “πολιτάρχαι.” This name is not found among classical writers, but the accuracy of the Book of Acts is wonderfully confirmed here by an inscription on a Roman arch in Thessalonica in the Vardar gate (now destroyed; the inscription is preserved in the British Museum in London), on which, strangely enough, three politarchs are mentioned—Sosipater, Secundus, and Gaius—who bore precisely the names of three persons who accompanied the Apostle Paul. The city had the right to settle its affairs through a popular assembly, which in turn is confirmed by the words of the Book of Acts, where this assembly is called “δήμος” (Acts 17:5).
In 304 CE the martyr Demetrius of Thessalonica suffered here, becoming the patron of the city. In 389 CE the city of Thessalonica was the site of a terrible massacre carried out by order of Emperor Theodosius, who was avenging the city for the murder of his official. For this bloody massacre Emperor Theodosius was rebuked by the holy Ambrose of Milan and was obliged to bear ecclesiastical punishment. In 904 CE Thessalonica was captured by Saracens, in 1185 CE it came under the power of Normans from Sicily, and in 1422 came under the protection of Venice. In 1430 CE the city was conquered by the Turks; and only in 1912 was it liberated by the combined efforts of Balkan Christians. At present it is the second largest city on the Balkan Peninsula and unfortunately is densely settled by Jews. For Slavs, Thessalonica will always be memorable as the birthplace of the great Apostles of Slavdom—the holy brothers Cyril and Methodius.
History of the founding of the Thessalonian church
The story of the coming of the light of Christ’s teaching to Thessalonica is told in the seventeenth chapter of the Book of Acts. There we read how the Apostle Paul, during his second missionary journey, accompanied by Silas and probably Timothy, having passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, came finally to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue. “Having suffered and been insulted” (1 Thess 2:2) in Philippi, the Apostle nonetheless dared to preach the word of God also in Thessalonica. Following his custom, the Apostle began by preaching among the local Jews. For three Sabbaths he held discussions with the Jews on the theme that “Christ was destined to suffer and rise from the dead, and that this Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah” (Acts 17:3). The results of preaching among the Jews turned out, however, to be not particularly brilliant; the grateful soil was not the proud sons of Abraham, but proselytes from among the Gentiles. “And some of them were convinced and joined Paul and Silas, including a great many of the devout Greeks and also some of the most prominent women” (Acts 17:4). Judging by this verse of the Book of Acts, the majority of those converted belonged to the category of “σεβόμενοι”—“God-fearing Greeks,” who had accepted the basic principles of Judaism and attended the synagogue. But if we turn to the first epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians, we find that the Thessalonian church in its composition was predominantly “from the Gentiles.” Confirmation of this is provided by the following three passages: 1 Thess 1:9 and further; and 1 Thess 4:1-5. In the first, the Apostle Paul reminds the Thessalonians how they “turned to God from idols” to serve the living and true God. Judging from the line of thought, this turning was the work of the Apostle Paul and Silas. But then this expression would hardly apply to the “σεβόμενοι” or to the Jews themselves, since both groups were already worshippers of the One God. In the second text, the words of the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians concerning the sufferings they endured from their own “kinsmen” directly indicate that here the latter are understood as Gentiles, not Jews, as the very opposition also makes clear. In the third text are given moral warnings and counsels concerning the observance of moral purity, which would be more understandable and appropriate to those only recently converted to Christ from among the Gentiles, rather than to the “σεβόμενοι” and Jews. Thus there emerges a kind of contradiction between the data of the Book of Acts and the data derived from the epistle itself. This is exactly what the head of the Tübingen school, Baur, emphasizes (in his “Paulus”). To reconcile this contradiction, the English scholar W. M. Ramsay (in his book “St. Paul The Traveller and The Roman Citizen,” London, 1897) proposes accepting in Acts 17:4 the reading obtained by comparing the Alexandrian codex (A) and the Bezae codex (D). With this reading one must introduce into the Textus Receptus the conjunction και after the words των (τε) σεβόμενων (op. cit. pp. 226–7; 235–6). In that case we would obtain the following reading: “and some of them were convinced; and also joined Paul and Silas many of the God-fearing proselytes, and a great multitude of Greeks, and also not a few of the prominent women.” But this reading, in our view, removes only a certain difficulty in the text, namely the somewhat unexpected combination of the words των σεβόμενων Ελλήνων, in which one cannot but see a kind of tautology. Judging from the line of thought in the Book of Acts, the author had no basis for placing any special emphasis on the nationality of these σεβόμενων, and the Athenian σεβόμενοι are simply called σεβόμε vo ι in that same chapter of the Book of Acts (Acts 17:17). But, accepting the unexpectedness of the combinations των σεβόμενων Ελλήνων, we still dare to think that Professor Ramsay’s correction is hardly necessary. We are inclined to stay with the T. Receptus and seek reconciliation by another path, namely on the basis of data taken from the epistles of the Apostle Paul himself. First of all, we must allow that the Apostle Paul stayed in Thessalonica much longer than three weeks, as this apparently follows from st. Acts 17:2. In his epistle to the Philippians he reminds them that they “both once and again sent aid for my needs” (Phil 4:16). But we know that Philippi is one hundred miles away from Thessalonica, and three weeks would hardly be sufficient for them to have sent assistance to the Apostle Paul once and twice. Thus, one must assume that the Apostle stayed in Thessalonica longer than three weeks, and having not encountered sympathy among the Jews, he turned to preach the kingdom of God directly to the Gentiles, among whom his “gospel of God with great conflict” (1 Thess 2:2) met with tremendous success, fully justifying the words of the first epistle to the Thessalonians in 1 Thess 1:9 and 1 Thess 2:14. It is quite plausible that the Book of Acts describes only that period in the Apostle’s missionary activity in Thessalonica which was connected with the synagogue. That the Apostle remained much longer in Thessalonica than 3 weeks is also shown by the fact that he saw fit to engage in his usual trade (σχηνοποιός τη τέχνη) so as not to be dependent on or burdensome to anyone, and in order to develop closer relations with his disciples and followers, thereby strengthening the good results of his preaching (1 Thess 2:7-12). Finally, judging by 1 Thess 5:12, the church in Thessalonica was somewhat organized, which also indicates that the Apostle Paul lived in Thessalonica longer than 3 weeks. Thus, without resorting to corrections in the text of the Book of Acts, we can easily reconcile the words of the Evangelist Luke with the data of the first epistle. The Apostle remained in Thessalonica long enough to establish a thoroughly “pagan” church in its origin, into which, of course, entered also a small element of proselytes converted to Christ through the synagogue.
Acts 17:5–6. But the apostolic activity of the holy Paul could not long remain without protest from his unbelieving kinsmen. The colossal success of his missionary work, the great loss in the ranks of the synagogue’s proselytes, the Apostle Paul’s direct turn to the Gentiles—all this provoked a terrible outbreak of Jewish fanaticism. But, remaining always true to their policy, the Jews rose up against the Apostle Paul not alone, but resorted to the help of various kinds of disreputable agitators (αγοραίοι), always capable of inflaming the mob and moving it to disorder. Judging by Acts 17:5–6, their goal was to accuse the Apostle Paul before the popular assembly (δήμος); the matter could have ended very badly for the herald of Christ. But fortunately, the Apostle Paul was not found in Jason’s house, to which the mob directed itself, and the whole matter was confined to the seizure of “Jason and some of the brothers,” and their accusation before the politarchs. The very accusation, put forth by the mob, undoubtedly at the instigation of the Jews, strikes one with its baseness and duplicity characteristic of the latter. The heralds were accused of being “world-disturbers,” of “acting against the decrees of Caesar, declaring another king, Jesus.” All this could only come from the Jews, who well knew the messianic hopes of their people and could give them an interpretation dangerous for Christians, but who nonetheless themselves awaited a king—the Messiah, who was destined to sweep from the face of the earth all the enemies of the Jewish people. But the accusation was cunningly calculated to arouse fears in the politarchs and to hasten the expulsion of the Apostle Paul from Thessalonica. Still, an uprising on the basis of politics was dangerous to the freedom of the city, and therefore the politarchs immediately demanded from Jason an “assurance” (λαβόντας το ίκανόν—apparently a monetary guarantee, security) that there would be no further disorders. During the night the Apostle Paul left the boundaries of Thessalonica and, accompanied by Silas and probably Timothy, went to Beroea. Here his preaching in the synagogue met with a more favorable reception and had great success. But the Jews from Thessalonica, having heard of this, came to Beroea as well and stirred up disorder there too. The Apostle Paul had no choice but to withdraw. He, in the company of “brothers,” traveled by sea to Athens. Silas and Timothy remained in Beroea, but received through the Apostle Paul’s messengers the order to come to him in Athens as soon as possible. If we follow the text of the Book of Acts, we might get the impression that Silas and Timothy came to the Apostle Paul not in Athens but directly in Corinth (Acts 18:5). But if we turn to the first epistle to the Thessalonians, we find that Timothy and Silas returned to the Apostle in Athens (see 1 Thess 3:1 εύδοκήσαμεν έπέμψαμεν), from where the first was sent on a mission to Thessalonica (1 Thess 3:1). Further, when Timothy returned to Corinth to the Apostle Paul to report on the state of the church in Thessalonica, he, according to the epistle, came “to us”—which probably indicates that Silas was already with the Apostle Paul in Corinth at that time, which again is not entirely in agreement with Acts 18:5. (In these disagreements Baur sees a strong argument against the authenticity of this epistle). But, despite all this, we should think that the Book of Acts and the epistle are to a certain degree reconcilable. Here the English scholar Paley is right, who in his Horae Paulinae remarks concerning the aforementioned the following: “the epistle reveals a fact which was not preserved in the history, but which gives to all that is said in the history more sense, probability, and consistency. Here in the history there is a noticeable omission; the epistle by means of a reference precisely points to that circumstance which fills this omission” (p. 474. Complete works of W. Paley. London. 1825. vol. III). That Timothy came to the Apostle Paul in Athens can hardly be doubted (1 Thess 3:1). We should think (on the basis of ηύδοκήσαμεν in 1 Thess 3:1) that Silas also came to the Apostle, obeying his εντολή. The coming of both to Athens is in part indicated by the expression “έχδεχομένου αυτούς” in Acts 17:16. From Athens Timothy was sent back to Thessalonica to learn about the state of affairs there. Judging by 1 Thess 3:1 Silas remained with the Apostle in Athens. Thus the entire difficulty consists in clarifying what were Silas’s movements while Timothy was going to Thessalonica and how they could arrive together in Corinth (contrary to ημάς in 1 Thess 3:6). All this can be “resolved by the assumption that after Timothy left for Thessalonica, the Apostle Paul thought it best for Silas to return to Macedonia, perhaps in order to visit the church in Beroea. It must be remembered that while Silas was forbidden to enter Thessalonica, the road to Beroea was not closed to him. 1 Hence Silas, perhaps, went to Beroea, and Timothy earlier to Thessalonica. Further, there is no need to assume that they returned from Macedonia together. Silas could have come first and, along with the Apostle Paul, could have met Timothy. In that case the plural ημάς in 1 Thess 3:6 would be fully understandable. But even if Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia to Corinth together, this ημάς would not be inexplicable. Silas himself could not have been in Thessalonica, and therefore in his knowledge concerning the Thessalonian church he must have depended on Timothy as much as the Apostle Paul. Finally, Timothy could have met Silas in Beroea and gone with him together to Corinth” (E. H. Askwith, An Introduction to the Thes. Epistles, p. 28, London. 1902). Thus the epistle and the Book of Acts can be to a certain degree reconciled.
The occasion for writing the epistle
Having spent some time in Athens, the Apostle Paul came to Corinth (Acts 18:1), where later Timothy and Silas returned from Macedonia with a detailed report on the state of the Thessalonian church. On the basis of 1 epistle to the Thessalonians, one can with sufficient completeness reconstruct the contents of what Timothy reported about the affairs of the Thessalonian church. It is quite possible that Timothy’s report was also supported by a letter from the Thessalonian Christians to the Apostle Paul.
Judging from everything, the account was quite favorable. The Thessalonians not only did not waver but even “became a model to all believers in Macedonia and Achaia” (1 Thess 1:7).
True, they had suffered persecution from their own kinsmen (1 Thess 2:14), but the danger was not in this; suffering was inevitable (1 Thess 3:3).
Among the believers there was a different danger—the undermining of the authority of the Apostle Paul through various kinds of slander and insinuation regarding the purity and sincerity of his apostleship. Taking advantage of the Apostle’s absence, his enemies accused him of spreading delusions from impure motives, of pursuing selfish and vainglorious goals, of currying favor and flattery, and finally of shameful cowardice, namely that in a critical moment he abandoned his flock to the mercy of fate (1 Thess 2:3-12). Where such accusations could have come from—this is easy to guess. Their source could in no way have been the pagan environment, for which the Apostle Paul was relatively little known in regard to his preaching (1 Thess 2:4) and his claims to apostolic authority; all these insinuations could have come only from the Jews, who, relying on their knowledge of the Apostle Paul, calculated to undermine his authority among his followers by means of these base accusations and thus reduce to nothing his work and make “his labor futile.” But that was not all. Although Timothy brought “good news of your faith and love” (1 Thess 3:6) of the Thessalonian church, still the pleasant picture had its dark sides. The recently converted to Christianity were still weak morally, and the dissolution inherent in the ancient Greek world apparently found adherents even among those newly converted to Christ (1 Thess 4:3-7). The internal discipline of the church also was somewhat lacking (1 Thess 5:12-13); there was a lack of respect for “those who lead.” There was noticed a somewhat elevated interest in the question of the coming of “the Day of the Lord,” of the onset of “the parousia,” which was beginning to affect the relatively even course of fraternal life by the development of “disorderliness” (1 Thess 5:1-14). Finally, Timothy brought to the Apostle Paul’s attention an important doctrinal difficulty that had arisen among the Thessalonian Christians in connection with the question of “the parousia.” During the Apostle’s absence from Thessalonica, there had apparently been cases of death among the Christians, which naturally could raise the question of what would happen to those who died before the coming of “the Day of the Lord”? Would they also share in the glory and blessedness of the parousia? All these reports, taken together, served as the occasion for the writing of the first epistle to the Thessalonians. The goal of the Apostle Paul consisted here in removing the reproaches against himself, strengthening the faith of the “suffering” Thessalonians, dispelling their misunderstandings and imparting to them counsels and instructions for their strengthening on the path of goodness, so that they “conduct yourselves in a way worthy of God, who called you into his kingdom and glory” (1 Thess 2:12).
Time and place of writing
As for the time and place of writing the 1st epistle to the Thessalonians, the aforementioned leads to the following conclusion. The epistle was undoubtedly written in Corinth, after Timothy and Silas returned there, and not in Athens, as we read in the Textus Receptus (έγράφη άπό Αθηνών). To refer the writing of this epistle to the time of the Apostle Paul’s stay in Athens is not permitted by the very brevity of the interval between the Apostle’s departure from Thessalonica and his arrival in Athens. The events in the Thessalonian church required somewhat more time for their development than the above assumption about the place of writing allows. Furthermore, if we were to refer the epistle to the Apostle Paul’s stay in Athens, it would then be difficult to understand how the Apostle Paul could have written verses 7–8 of the first chapter. Referring the writing of the epistle to the time after the Apostle Paul’s stay in Corinth is not permitted by two considerations; first—the liveliness of separation felt throughout the entire epistle (1 Thess 1:5; and especially 1 Thess 2:17), and second, the fact that, as far as we can judge from the Book of Acts, Timothy and Silas were with the Apostle Paul only during his second apostolic journey, and never after, so that the inscription of the epistle with the names of three heralds of the Gospel in Thessalonica, and the almost constant use in the epistle (ήμεής) of the first person plural will be understandable only if we assume that the 1st epistle to the Thessalonians was written from Corinth, where both Timothy and Silas were at the beginning of 51 CE, or at the end of 50 CE.
Contents of the epistle
The epistle begins with a very warm expression of wishes for peace and grace to the Thessalonian church (1 Thess 1:1). The author then turns to expressing his gratitude to God for the prosperity and flourishing of the church in Thessalonica (1 Thess 1:2-10) and immediately turns to an apology for his apostleship among the Thessalonians, which had been subject to slander and vilification by the enemies of the Gospel—the Jews (1 Thess 2:1-12). The author then returns again to the expression of gratitude to God for the steadfastness of the persecuted church in Thessalonica, and makes a sharp attack on unbelieving Jews (1 Thess 2:13-16). Continuing his apology, the author of the epistle describes his intentions regarding his return to Thessalonica and his relations with the church through the mediation of Timothy (1 Thess 3:10). The entire section ends with a prayer for the church in Thessalonica (1 Thess 3:11-13).
The Apostle begins the second part with exhortations—to keep themselves pure and avoid fornication (1 Thess 4:1-8) and adultery, to love their neighbor (1 Thess 4:9-10), and to lead a quiet life, laboring and conducting themselves properly before those outside (1 Thess 4:11-12). The Apostle then turns to the question that apparently troubled the Thessalonian community greatly—the question of the fate of those who died before the coming of the parousia (1 Thess 4:13-18), and says that the latter will share equally in the glory of “the Day of the Lord,” but when this day will come is unknown, and therefore it is necessary to “keep watch and be sober” (1 Thess 5:1-11).
Finally, the Apostle gives instructions concerning respect for the leaders of the church, concerning the disorderly in the community, and concludes the epistle with a series of concise but profound aphorisms of a religious and social character (1 Thess 5:12-22). The end of the epistle is occupied by prayer, blessing, and greeting of all the brothers (1 Thess 5:23-28).
The authenticity of the epistle
Doubts about the authenticity of the epistle to the Thessalonians arose in the nineteenth century; before that time the epistle enjoyed full recognition of its undoubted authenticity, although it was not rich in external evidence on this point. It is quite possible that echoes of the epistle can be found in the holy Ignatius the God-bearer, in his epistles to the Romans, chapter 2—1 Thess 2:4; to the Ephesians, chapter 10—1 Thess 5:17; and Hermas in his “Shepherd” (Vision III, IX:10, 1 Thess 5:13). Direct testimony in favor of our epistle we find in Irenaeus of Lyons (180 CE) in his Adv. haeres. V:6, 1: “in prima epistola ad Thessalonicenses” (ibid V:30, 2), in Clement of Alexandria (190 CE) in his “Paedagogus” (ch. 1, 5), and “Stromateis” (ch. 1, 2), and in Tertullian (200 CE). The epistle is found in the canon of the heretic Marcion (140 CE) in the Peshitta, in old Latin versions, and in the Muratorian canon (170 CE) it is placed sixth among the epistles of the Apostle Paul. As for the internal evidence in favor of our epistle, there is much. It is enough to read this epistle quickly to be immediately convinced that it could in no way have come from the hands of some later anonymous writer, writing under the name of the Apostle Paul. The character of the great Apostle to the Gentiles is imprinted on the entire epistle in the most indelible way. The language and style of the epistle also confirm this. “The internal evidence is so strong that it is entirely sufficient to convince the majority of critics. 1) If our epistle were spurious, it would naturally contain some reference to the important teaching of the Apostle Paul about justification by faith and the like. 2) It would hardly contain such a passage as 1 Thess 4:13-18, which apparently presupposes that the Apostle Paul expected to be a personal witness to the second coming of Christ. 3) Moreover, a spurious epistle would hardly be capable of recreating the warmth of feeling, the personal allusions, and the expressiveness and vigor of language that mark our epistle as genuine.... 4) Any forgery is made with a definite purpose; but no motive for forgery can be found for such an epistle as 1 Thess” (H. W. Fulford. Thessalonians, 1911, p. 8–9).
Bibliography
Askwith. E. H. An Introduction to the Thessalonian Epistles. London. 1902. The German literature on the monograph is listed in G. Milligan. Gloag. P. The Pauline Epistles, Edinburgh, 1876. Lake. K. The Earlier Letters of St. Paul, 1911. Shaw, R. D. The Pauline Epistles, Edinburgh, 1901. Scott, R. The Pauline Epistles Edinburgh, 1909.
In Russian literature it is necessary to point above all to the work of Professor N. N. Glubokovskii: The Gospel of the Holy Apostle Paul, 2 vols. 1905, 1910. Then follow: Fr. F. Titov: The 1st Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians, 1893, Kyiv, and his address before the defense of his dissertation: “The circumstances of the origin of 1 epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians.” Fr. V. Strakhov: The Second Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians. Sergiev Posad 1911. Bishop Nikanor: An accessible explanation of the epistles of the Holy Apostle Paul.
* * *
Notes
From the narrative of Acts 17 it is evident that the uprising in Thessalonica was directed mainly against the Apostle Paul and Silas, and consequently, the “assurance” of Jason extended only to them. Timothy, however, was not barred from entering Thessalonica.