The Pauline Epistles Part 1: Paul, His Letters, And 1 Thessalonians

[halconero]

I wanted to post a little project here on MD&D as a result of our current thread on the regularity of New Testament study in the Church. While I'm far from an expert on the New Testament, it is part of my degree, and has become a love of mine. While I hope to cover the Gospels, the non-Pauline epistles, the Revelation of John, and the extra-Biblical Christian works at a later time, I want to start with a short work on Paul. Save Jesus only, I find him the most fascinating character in the New Testament. Paul is simultaneously feisty, zealous, flawed, brilliant, humble, proud, clueless, insightful, contradictory, reconciling, and pragmatic. In short, he's human. If you understand Paul, his letters, his humanity, and his calling as an apostle of God, you can better understand the New Testament, Restorationist scripture (Book of Mormon, D&C, etc), modern day council from prophets, and our own relationship to the Spirit.

 

Before I go further I want to define a couple key terms which appear frequently in the academic study of scripture, and will probably used not only in this section on the Pauline epistles, but throughout:

 

1. Textual criticism - The branch of textual scholarship concerned with identifying both authentic, and fabricated ancient texts. It uses a number of criterion to establish authentic letters and sayings

 

2. Historical criticism - The establishment of authorship, dates, and geographical origin of texts

 

3. Pseudepigrapha - Falsely attributed works. Ancient writings attributed to an author, usually to establish authenticity, authoritativeness, and significance.

 

4. Authentic Letters of Paul - The epistles which were most certainly written by Paul in his apostolic ministry

 

5. Deutero-Pauline Letters - Epistles with disputed authenticity. Scholarship is more-or-less evenly divided on these letters, some speaking in favour, others in opposition to Pauline authorship. These include Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians

 

6. Pastoral epistles - Epistles concerned with social norms and ecclesiastical concerns. These letters are most likely pseudepigraphal, and were written in reaction to various social changes occurring in the Greco-Roman world. These include 1st and 2nd Timothy, and Titus. While not a pastoral epistle, Hebrews should be addressed here. While many in the world attribute it to Paul, the letter itself is actually anonymous.

 

My hope with these short essays is not to destroy anyone's faith. If anything, it should be the opposite. We believe that all scripture is scripture as long as it is translated correctly. As Latter-day Saints we are encouraged to rely on the Holy Ghost for our revelation. It is my hope that these illustrate the human, yet divinely-called nature of the ancient apostles.

[halconero]

Edit to the 1st post: I will also use the word cult a lot. This word does not carry the modern connotations we attribute to it. It refers to the local worship of a specific deity, usually in the home of one of the wealthier patrons in the area. It would have involved activities such as singing, prayer, instruction, worship, and holy rites.

 

Okay, here goes:

 

1 Thessalonians is often considered to have been the first letter written, usually dated around 51 AD. This makes it the first book in the New Testament. It is considered one of Paul's authentic letters, and occurred early in his ministry. In Thessaloniki, Paul established one of the first Jesus cults in Europe.

 

Who was it written to?

 

While Acts states that Paul started preaching from the synagogue in Thessaloniki, we ourselves have no archaeological record, nor official roman records of a Jewish presence in the city. Luke tells a slightly different story regarding Paul's missionary journeys than Paul's own accounts, which states that the converts in Thessaloniki had "turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God," indicating their Gentile origins. So where did Paul gain these converts? While we have no evidence of any Jewish settlement in Thessaloniki, we do have Paul's own modus operandi in doing missionary work. In chapter 2, verse 9 of his epistle, Paul states that he preached to the Gentiles of Thessaloniki while working full time in the industrial/labour quarter of the city. The labor and toil he refers to in verse 9 isn't missionary work, Paul is literally using language that indicates physical work. In short, Paul would often enter into cities, set up shop in the worker's district, and start preaching from there. In the conclusion that the Lukan-Acts account is true, then it was only a few Jews at most (perhaps members of a tiny Jewish house-cult, rather than a synagogue) who converted, ultimately being out numbered by a larger number of Gentile converts. 

 

By their conversion these Gentile converts not only underwent a religious change, but a huge social one. Polytheism was the norm in the Mediterranean, with monotheism either not being comprehended, or even abhorred. Any god, even the lesser ones, was more powerful than a mortal. Cities and cults might have had a particular patron deity, but they also acknowledged the other gods, and paid them due when necessary. When you migrated from one city to the next, you didn't abandon your old gods for the city's new gods, but simply included them in your worship. Paul's missionary efforts obviously included the abandonment of the worship of other gods, signalling a radical social departure. We must understand that conversion wasn't simply liking one religion more than the other, it was the potential change of state, and cultural loyalty. We don't know how Paul managed to convince these converts that were was only one God, maybe he recounted stories from the Hebrew Bible, maybe he used the logic that even some Gentiles held that there was ultimately one god in charge of the cosmos. Paul not only preached Jesus the crucified, but that everyone should turn away from idols.

 

Paul had also established a kinship system among the converts in Thessaloniki. Kinship in the Greco-Roman world implied ties of loyalty, reciprocity, equality, and love. Paul referred to the cult members as brothers and sisters, establish a familial co-fraternity with the group. He also strives to compare them to Jewish-Christian church in Jerusalem (2.13-16). As we'll see in his other writings, Paul often tries to establish the legitimacy of his ministry and his groups in the eyes of Jewish-Christians, and the twelve in Jerusalem. By equating his gentile converts with the Jewish church in their persecutions, he puts the Gentile group on the same level as them. Paul didn't teach them that they had to become Jews to be true believers, but he did teach them that they had to worship the God of Israel.

 

Why was Paul writing?

 

Paul actually seems quite happy with the Jesus-cult in Thessaloniki. As we see in many other letters, he starts his epistle to them by stating that he prays for and thinks of them continuously. Such is not the case in all his letters, especially those filled with reprove and censure. Evidently Paul had sent Timothy back to the group to check up on things (3.1-2), and wrote this letter in response to his companion's findings. Paul is pleased with the convert's faith and good works in the face of adversity. There is no indication that there was official governmental persecution among the Thessalonians, but his reminder of their abandoning idol worship indicates opposition from community members for their apostasy. In their opponents view, there was no problem with worship Jesus or the God of Israel, as long as the worship of other gods continued. Along with this persecution, he is also concerned with a worry that had arisen following Paul's departure from Thessaloniki to Athens (3.1): certain members of the group had died before the coming of Jesus.

 

Evidently, one of the focuses of Paul's original preaching among the Thessalonians was the prompt arrival of Jesus (5.4-9). Whether or not Paul himself believed in an imminent arrival of Jesus is not conclusive, though his statement that "we who are alive...at the coming of the Lord" indicates that such was the case. What we do know, is that the Thessalonians had taken to heart this arrival (5.1-3), and in their hope, had become concerned when some among them had died before Jesus' coming (4.13). The Thessalonians themselves were evidently asking themselves whether they were wrong about Jesus' coming. Probably even more worrying was the thought that the faithful dead had lost the chance to live with Jesus and God in their kingdom. In Greco-Roman culture, the dead simply became shades upon death. These were not really spirits, but less-defined smoky images of the individual, devoid of personality and life. Due to the concern the Thessalonians had for their dead, it is likely that they had not been instructed by Paul about the state of the dead. They thought their kindred faithful had simply lost the chance. This relates back to Paul's preaching that the 2nd coming was rather imminent, and with such imminence there was no need to teach them about the death and resurrection.

 

What is Paul's response?

 

In response to the persecution from the community, Paul exhorts his the Thessalonians to live exemplary lives. He admonishes them to be good to one another, to remain sexually pure, and to not given reason to others for their persecution (4.1-12).

 

With regards to the death of the Thessalonian faithful, Paul begins to teach them of the Resurrection. In verses 13 and 18 of chapter 4 he brackets his teaching with words of hope and encouragement. He tells the Thessalonians that at Jesus' coming the faithful dead will be resurrected, just as Jesus was resurrected. He also states that those left alive will be caught up to meet Jesus at his coming. This teaching includes admonishes from Paul to be faithful, remain focused on the coming of Jesus, and maintain their righteous living (chapter 5).

 

Why is this relevant today?

 

Paul himself, despite his calling, was figuring things out. He evidently began believing in the imminent return of Jesus. This caused him to miss important teachings such as the Resurrection of the dead, as occurred during his original ministry among the Thessalonians. It is likely that he originally didn't know of the Resurrection of the dead, otherwise he might have taught it. Upon learning of the concerns of the Thessalonians, it is possible if not likely from the faithful perspective that Paul inquired of the Lord, and learned through revelation that at the time of Jesus' coming the faithful dead would be raised first to meet Jesus. As we'll learn from other epistles, Paul would also learn that this coming wasn't so imminent as he originally hoped. Paul, even as an apostle, was figuring things out line by line, precept by precept, as we'll see throughout his epistles.

[boblloyd91]

I love this, I myself am trying to understand the NT in more then just a "devotional" way. Keep em coming!

[saemo]

Edit to the 1st post: I will also use the word cult a lot. This word does not carry the modern connotations we attribute to it. It refers to the local worship of a specific deity, usually in the home of one of the wealthier patrons in the area. It would have involved activities such as singing, prayer, instruction, worship, and holy rites.

Okay, here goes:

1 Thessalonians is often considered to have been the first letter written, usually dated around 51 AD. This makes it the first book in the New Testament. It is considered one of Paul's authentic letters, and occurred early in his ministry. In Thessaloniki, Paul established one of the first Jesus cults in Europe.

Who was it written to?

While Acts states that Paul started preaching from the synagogue in Thessaloniki, we ourselves have no archaeological record, nor official roman records of a Jewish presence in the city. Luke tells a slightly different story regarding Paul's missionary journeys than Paul's own accounts, which states that the converts in Thessaloniki had "turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God," indicating their Gentile origins. So where did Paul gain these converts? While we have no evidence of any Jewish settlement in Thessaloniki, we do have Paul's own modus operandi in doing missionary work. In chapter 2, verse 9 of his epistle, Paul states that he preached to the Gentiles of Thessaloniki while working full time in the industrial/labour quarter of the city. The labor and toil he refers to in verse 9 isn't missionary work, Paul is literally using language that indicates physical work. In short, Paul would often enter into cities, set up shop in the worker's district, and start preaching from there. In the conclusion that the Lukan-Acts account is true, then it was only a few Jews at most (perhaps members of a tiny Jewish house-cult, rather than a synagogue) who converted, ultimately being out numbered by a larger number of Gentile converts.

By their conversion these Gentile converts not only underwent a religious change, but a huge social one. Polytheism was the norm in the Mediterranean, with monotheism either not being comprehended, or even abhorred. Any god, even the lesser ones, was more powerful than a mortal. Cities and cults might have had a particular patron deity, but they also acknowledged the other gods, and paid them due when necessary. When you migrated from one city to the next, you didn't abandon your old gods for the city's new gods, but simply included them in your worship. Paul's missionary efforts obviously included the abandonment of the worship of other gods, signalling a radical social departure. We must understand that conversion wasn't simply liking one religion more than the other, it was the potential change of state, and cultural loyalty. We don't know how Paul managed to convince these converts that were was only one God, maybe he recounted stories from the Hebrew Bible, maybe he used the logic that even some Gentiles held that there was ultimately one god in charge of the cosmos. Paul not only preached Jesus the crucified, but that everyone should turn away from idols.

Paul had also established a kinship system among the converts in Thessaloniki. Kinship in the Greco-Roman world implied ties of loyalty, reciprocity, equality, and love. Paul referred to the cult members as brothers and sisters, establish a familial co-fraternity with the group. He also strives to compare them to Jewish-Christian church in Jerusalem (2.13-16). As we'll see in his other writings, Paul often tries to establish the legitimacy of his ministry and his groups in the eyes of Jewish-Christians, and the twelve in Jerusalem. By equating his gentile converts with the Jewish church in their persecutions, he puts the Gentile group on the same level as them. Paul didn't teach them that they had to become Jews to be true believers, but he did teach them that they had to worship the God of Israel.

Why was Paul writing?

Paul actually seems quite happy with the Jesus-cult in Thessaloniki. As we see in many other letters, he starts his epistle to them by stating that he prays for and thinks of them continuously. Such is not the case in all his letters, especially those filled with reprove and censure. Evidently Paul had sent Timothy back to the group to check up on things (3.1-2), and wrote this letter in response to his companion's findings. Paul is pleased with the convert's faith and good works in the face of adversity. There is no indication that there was official governmental persecution among the Thessalonians, but his reminder of their abandoning idol worship indicates opposition from community members for their apostasy. In their opponents view, there was no problem with worship Jesus or the God of Israel, as long as the worship of other gods continued. Along with this persecution, he is also concerned with a worry that had arisen following Paul's departure from Thessaloniki to Athens (3.1): certain members of the group had died before the coming of Jesus.

Evidently, one of the focuses of Paul's original preaching among the Thessalonians was the prompt arrival of Jesus (5.4-9). Whether or not Paul himself believed in an imminent arrival of Jesus is not conclusive, though his statement that "we who are alive...at the coming of the Lord" indicates that such was the case. What we do know, is that the Thessalonians had taken to heart this arrival (5.1-3), and in their hope, had become concerned when some among them had died before Jesus' coming (4.13). The Thessalonians themselves were evidently asking themselves whether they were wrong about Jesus' coming. Probably even more worrying was the thought that the faithful dead had lost the chance to live with Jesus and God in their kingdom. In Greco-Roman culture, the dead simply became shades upon death. These were not really spirits, but less-defined smoky images of the individual, devoid of personality and life. Due to the concern the Thessalonians had for their dead, it is likely that they had not been instructed by Paul about the state of the dead. They thought their kindred faithful had simply lost the chance. This relates back to Paul's preaching that the 2nd coming was rather imminent, and with such imminence there was no need to teach them about the death and resurrection.

What is Paul's response?

In response to the persecution from the community, Paul exhorts his the Thessalonians to live exemplary lives. He admonishes them to be good to one another, to remain sexually pure, and to not given reason to others for their persecution (4.1-12).

With regards to the death of the Thessalonian faithful, Paul begins to teach them of the Resurrection. In verses 13 and 18 of chapter 4 he brackets his teaching with words of hope and encouragement. He tells the Thessalonians that at Jesus' coming the faithful dead will be resurrected, just as Jesus was resurrected. He also states that those left alive will be caught up to meet Jesus at his coming. This teaching includes admonishes from Paul to be faithful, remain focused on the coming of Jesus, and maintain their righteous living (chapter 5).

Why is this relevant today?

Paul himself, despite his calling, was figuring things out. He evidently began believing in the imminent return of Jesus. This caused him to miss important teachings such as the Resurrection of the dead, as occurred during his original ministry among the Thessalonians. It is likely that he originally didn't know of the Resurrection of the dead, otherwise he might have taught it. Upon learning of the concerns of the Thessalonians, it is possible if not likely from the faithful perspective that Paul inquired of the Lord, and learned through revelation that at the time of Jesus' coming the faithful dead would be raised first to meet Jesus. As we'll learn from other epistles, Paul would also learn that this coming wasn't so imminent as he originally hoped. Paul, even as an apostle, was figuring things out line by line, precept by precept, as we'll see throughout his epistles.

Nice work. Though I disagree that Paul did not know of the resurrection of the dead. It is the Good News that he was preaching, everywhere he went. He reminds the new Thessalonian Christians where their Hope lies. That reminder remains a chief pastoral event, as all who follow Christ can lose sight in times of turmoil, outside influence, and spiritual confusion.

Paul is considered to be the one, historically and pastorally, who is teaching post resurrection of what it means to live a Christian life. Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again...what does that mean to a new convert?? Such a life is centered on Christ, and our Hope that is in Him. It is something Paul was fully aware.

As a side note, when teaching the Bible to new Christians in the process of converting, I teach the New Testament can be divided into the Synoptic Gospels, the Johannine corpus, the Pauline corpus, the Catholic letters, which are not addressed to any particular group but to the whole church (thus, catholic, in the term it is meant; universal) and the Apocalypse (which of course also is part of the Johannine corpus).

Also added to your list of understanding scripture in its authentic and historical context, is an understanding of literary devices, particularly those that were used during the period the first Christian writings were made.

Edited May 2, 2014 by saemo

[halconero]

Saemo, I'm not arguing that Paul wasn't aware of Christ's resurrection. He certainly knew that Christ lived, was killed, and rose again. What I'm arguing is that he wasn't fully aware of the Resurrection of the faithful super early on his ministry. At least in the case of the Thessalonians, one of his first ministries, he was more concerned with an imminent return of Jesus.

We do see his understanding change with increased revelation. Upon hearing of the predicament of the Thessalonian group, it is evident that he began to preach the application of the Resurrection of believers, but also the salvation of the living at Jesus' return. Later still, in his other epistles, you see a deepening understanding that the 2nd coming will be far off.

To put it in chronological order:

1) Paul began teaching the worship of the God of Israel, the risen Jesus, and his imminent return (pre Thessalonians)

2) Upon realizing that some followers are dying before Jesus returns, Paul begins teaching (learned via revelation from the faithful perspective) the Resurrection of the saved. He still believes the coming to be so soon that many of the living members will be caught up to meet Jesus, including Paul himself

3) Paul begins teaching that the 2nd coming might be after the early saints die, and focus becomes even more on the resurrection of the faithful and living the Christian life.

In short, Paul always taught a Christian lifestyle, but his understand of universal Resurrection and the 2nd coming evolved.

[saemo]

Saemo, I'm not arguing that Paul wasn't aware of Christ's resurrection. He certainly knew that Christ lived, was killed, and rose again. What I'm arguing is that he wasn't fully aware of the Resurrection of the faithful super early on his ministry. At least in the case of the Thessalonians, one of his first ministries, he was more concerned with an imminent return of Jesus.

We do see his understanding change with increased revelation. Upon hearing of the predicament of the Thessalonian group, it is evident that he began to preach the application of the Resurrection of believers, but also the salvation of the living at Jesus' return. Later still, in his other epistles, you see a deepening understanding that the 2nd coming will be far off.

To put it in chronological order:

1) Paul began teaching the worship of the God of Israel, the risen Jesus, and his imminent return (pre Thessalonians)

2) Upon realizing that some followers are dying before Jesus returns, Paul begins teaching (learned via revelation from the faithful perspective) the Resurrection of the saved. He still believes the coming to be so soon that many of the living members will be caught up to meet Jesus, including Paul himself

3) Paul begins teaching that the 2nd coming might be after the early saints die, and focus becomes even more on the resurrection of the faithful and living the Christian life.

In short, Paul always taught a Christian lifestyle, but his understand of universal Resurrection and the 2nd coming evolved.

What do you mean by revelation from the faithful?

Edited May 2, 2014 by saemo

[halconero]

What do you mean by revelation from the faithful?

I mean that a secular perspective would say Paul made it up. The faithful perspective (which both you and I hold) would believe that he learned it by revelation, or perhaps from the other apostles. The latter seems less likely, given Paul's infrequent contact with them. Given that the concern raised by the Thessalonians arose between his original ministry and his journey to Athens it seems more probable that he learned from the Holy Spirit the application of Jesus' resurrection to the believers. As you stated in an earlier post, this doctrine would become a key feature in Paul's ministry, but I argue that he still didn't quite understand it at the time of his first epistle.