Grace
Theological Journal 9.2(1988) 163-190
Copyright © 1988 by Grace Theological
Seminary.
Cited with permission.
THE LITERARY UNITY OF
1 THESSALONIANS 4:13-5:11
TRACY L. HOWARD
1 Thessalonians
4:13-5:11 has been a fertile source of debate
among both pre- and posttribulational
advocates. Yet often wrong
assumptions are made by the exegete when
he/she approaches this
important eschatological text of Paul. One
of those assumptions is
that 1Thessalonians
ent eschatological events. Coupled with
this is the assumption that
Paul describes both events through a
diachronic time scheme. How-
ever, Paul in no way attempts to
differentiate two events in this
passage. Instead, Paul's eschatological
presentation is very general or
even "aoristic" in focus. This
conclusion is drawn in some measure
from a clear literary unity that
characterizes the passage.
*
* *
INTRODUCTION
First
Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 is one of the longest and earliest
eschatological
sections in the Pauline corpus. The passage con-
tains a
discussion of both the Parousia of Jesus and the Day of the
Lord couched
in the imagery of apocalyptic contemporary to the first
century. The
descriptions of these apocalyptic events along with their
apparent
imminent nature has raised numerous theological questions.
Discussions
related to Paul's view of imminency, his concept of
eschatological
development, and his use of apocalyptic imagery fill
the
literature. Another question which immediately emerges from an
analysis of
this text is whether the events described in
5:1-11 are
to be viewed as distinct or in some sense equivalent. D. G.
Bradley proposed
that 1 Thessalonians
vidual
examples of the literary form topos.1
According to Bradley,
"the
distinctive characteristic of the topos
is that it is composed of
1D. G. Bradley, "The Topos
as a Form in the Pauline Paraenesis," JBL
72 (1953)
238-46.
164 GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
more than one sentence dealing with the
same subject.”2 Further-
more, the topos is an independent form which is
self-contained and
has a loose or even arbitrary
connection with the context.3
Hence
both 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
and 5:1-11, according to Bradley, deal
with two similar though quite
different situations. G. Friedrich has
raised the problem of the
authenticity of 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11.
He
sees such incongruity between
5:1-11 and the preceding passage,
18, that he concludes that 1
Thessalonians 5:1-11 is inauthentic, a
non-Pauline interpolation.4 Other such as Harnisch5 and
Schmithals,6
though accepting a Pauline
authorship, argue that Paul wrote 1 Thes-
salonians 5:1-11 at a later
date when the community became agitated
by Gnostics. I the context of the pretribulational and
posttribulational
rapture debate, a distinction
between the two texts is sometimes
suggested. For example, Walvoord, a pretribulationist,
writes:
The fact that the rapture is mentioned first in chapter 4
before the day
of the Lord is presented in chapter 5 is
significant. The important
subject was the rapture, including the resurrection of
the dead in Christ
and the translation of living believers. The rapture is not introduced as
a phase of the day of the Lord and seems to be distinguished from
it…Accordingly, it is clear that 1 Thessalonians 5 is not
talking
specifically
about the rapture, but about another
truth.7 (Italics added.)
2Ibid., 240-43.
3Criticism has been offered on specific points of
Bradley’s thesis. V. P. Furnish
says that Bradley’s attempt
to show this is not successful and adds: “There are few
passages in the Pauline
letters which cannot be related in some significant way to
particular problems and needs
the apostle is confronting” (The Love
Command in the
New Testament
[
likewise criticized Bradley’s
view. Terence Y. Mullins narrows
Bradley’s definition by
showing that the topos Has three essential elements:
injunction, reason, and
discussion (“Topos as a NT
Form,” JBL 99 [1980’ 541-47); John C.
Brunt has argued
additionally that appeal to
the topos form to show that advice is
not directed to a
specific situation is not
valid (“More on the Topos as a New
Testament Form,” JBL
104 [1985] 495-500). Brunt’s criticism is important. In reference
to this paper, an
appeal to the form topos is simply not sufficient to
indicate an isolated or arbitrary
unit. Thus although 1 Thess 5:1-11 may reflect the
form of topos, such does not of
necessity argue for its
isolation from 1 Thess 4:13-18 if other contextual features
suggest otherwise.
4 Gerhard Friedrich, Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser, Philipper, Kolosser, Thes-
salonicher und Philemon, NTD, vol. 8 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht,
1976)
203-51.
5 Wolfgang Harnisch, Eschatologishe Existenz: Ein Exegetischer Beitrag zum
Sachanliegen von 1.
Thessalonischer
Denhoeck and Ruprecht, 1973)
77-82.
6 John F.
Walvoord, The Blessed Hope and the
Tribulation: A Biblical and
Historical Study of Posttibulationism (
HOWARD:
LITERARY UNITY OF 1 THESSALONIANS 4:13-5:11 165
This feeling
of disparity between 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and
5:1-11 raises the need for a thorough
evaluation of the entire section
in order to see whether such disparity is
real or only apparent. Is
there a disjunction between the two texts
or does 1 Thessalonians
evaluate the literary and theological
unity of the entire pericope,
several questions must be addressed:
1. Does Paul’s
purpose change from
it remain the same throughout the pericope.
In other words,
does Paul maintain a parenetic purpose or
shift his purpose at
5:1?
2. Is the
subject matter the same in
to this question is the significance of peri> de< in 5:1. Does this
phrase constitute a major break in Paul’s
subject matter? If so,
does this disjunction automatically suggest
the disparity that
many attempt to support?
3. Are there
any stylistic parallels between
that would suggest literary unity
throughout both passages,
namely, the repetition of a pre-Pauline
credal formula or
perhaps an inclusio?
4. Is there
internal consistency throughout
be shown that
closely parallel in structure and
arrangement to another uni-
fied pericope in the New Testament, this
would suggest the
essential unity of
5. Is there
any evidence of theological change from
5:1-11, namely, is there any distinction
between parousi<a,
“Parousia” and “h[me<ra kuri<ou, “Day of
the Lord?” If not, why
does Paul change his terminology to
describe the same event?
Furthermore, if there is no distinction,
what then is the nature
of Pauline eschatology as presented in
The purpose
of this study is to address these questions and to set
forth reasons that support the literary
unity of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-
5:11. Limitation of space forbids a
detailed exegetical analysis of the
entire pericope. Thus while it is
necessary to present an exegetical
1976) 115; see also Paul D. Feinberg, “A
Response to ‘The Case for the Posttribulation
Rapture Position’ by Douglas J. Moo,” in The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribula-
tional?, ed. Richard R. Reiter (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1984) 226.
Feinberg argues that Paul clearly intends
some kind of distinction between 1 Thess
166 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
analysis of some texts, elsewhere the
discussion will be a presentation
of the results of the exegetical work done
in the passage.
The phrase literary unity is understood to mean
that an author,
in this case Paul, conveys the same
subject matter with a unified
purpose throughout a given text without a
major disjunction in either
subject matter or purpose. It will be
proposed that Paul deliberately
employs certain literary devices to
accomplish the task of communi-
cating a unified message. There are
several features which suggest that
1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 is to be
regarded as one unified pericope.
PAUL'S PARENETIC PURPOSE
Both 1
Thessalonians
pose. In 1 Thessalonians 4:1-5:22, Paul
amplifies the instruction he
gave while at Thessalonica in light of
information he received from
Timothy. In this portion of the letter he
considers their life and faith
in the community. For this reason, this
entire section of the epistle
has been called parenesis.8 However, the passage does not comprise
one subject but several.
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
Paul
addresses the issue of sexual purity (4:3-8) followed by
an exhortation to love one another
(4:9-12). He then shifts his fo-
cus to a lengthy eschatological discourse
which constitutes the heart
of his parenesis.9 Two major
issues comprise this discussion. The first
is the relation of the dead to the
Parousia (
the ethical responsibility of those alive
in view of the coming Day of
the Lord (5:1-11). The purpose of Paul's
discussion in 1 Thessa-
lonians 4:13-5:11 is not primarily
theological but eschatological issues
are addressed in view of ethical concerns. Paul's purpose in
stated explicitly in verse 13. For that
reason, a more detailed exami-
nation of verse 13 is appropriate in order
to clarify his parenetic
focus.
Paul
introduces a transition in thought which is indicated by the
particle de< as well as the phrase ou]
qe<lomen de> u[ma?j a]gnoei?n
a]delfoi<,
"now we do not desire you to be
ignorant brethren." This phrase is
used elsewhere by Paul to introduce a new
topic.10 Specifically, Paul
8Interpreter's Dictionary
of the Bible: Supplementary Volume, s.v. "Parenesis," by
D. Schroeder, 643. Schroeder defines
parenesis as a "technical term to refer to all
general exhortations of an ethical
nature."
9Edgar Krentz, "1
Thess.: A Document of Roman Hellenism" (unpublished paper
presented to the Thessalonians Seminar,
National Meeting of the Society of Biblical
Literature, December 1979) 15.
10Cf. 2 Cor 1:8; Rom
HOWARD:
LITERARY UNITY OF I THESSALONIANS
desires these believers not to be ignorant
"regarding those who have
fallen asleep," peri> tw?n
kekoimhme<nwn.11 From the use of peri>12
following a]gnoei?n, it is evident that the
problem these believers faced
centered on the fortune of the faithful
departed (tw?n kekoimhme<nwn).13
Thus it is likely that the cause of their
sorrow was not disappointment
over the nonarrival of the Parousia, as
Best suggests,14 but rather
anxiety over the issue of whether the
Christian dead would suffer a
disadvantage at the Parousia.15
The question still remains why Paul
11 The perfect kekoimhme<nwn has better geographical distribution (DFG M) than
the present koimwme<nwn (x A B 33.81)
and is preferred. There is little difference in
meaning in view of Paul's overall purpose.
The perfect would reflect the present state
of
those who had already died whereas the
present would suggest a continual process
during which various ones died at
different times.
12peri< with
the genitive denotes the object or person to which the action refers or
relates; see BAGD, 644.
13 koma<w was used literally in both non-biblical and biblical Greek to
denote the
activity of sleeping (Homer, Odyssey, 12.372; [LXX] Gen 19:14; 28:11;
1 Esdr 3:3; Tob
2:9; 1 Macc 11:6; Matt 28:13; Luke 22:45;
John 11:12; Acts 12:6). However, koima<w
was also used metaphorically in antiquity
in the sense of death (Homer, Illiad 11:241;
[LXX] 3 Kgs
cf. 2 Macc 12:42-45; in this text the
phrase "fallen asleep in godliness" closely resem-
bles the use found in 1 Thess 4:13). In
the New Testament, fourteen out of eighteen
occurrences of koima<w are references to death, and interestingly, all of the Pauline
uses
are in this category (1 Cor
occurrences in Paul, 7 appear in two major
eschatological texts, 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thess
4]). The use of sleep for death is
probably a euphemism (see Ernest Best, A
Com-
mentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians [
Row, 1972] 185; F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, WBC [
1982] 95; H. A. A. Kennedy,
Hodder and
implicit concept of that from which one would awaken (Bruce, 96), although it is quite
true that the word meant this in
contemporary Jewish writings (cf. 2 Esdr
the earth shall give up those who sleep in
it" [
of the joy experienced by the righteous in
their habitations immediately after death and
before they are awakened; see also 1 Enoch 100:51; 2 Apoc. Bar.
with seeing an implicit idea of awaken is
that the metaphor of sleep as death occurs in
works unacquainted with a resurrection
hope (R. H. Charles, Eschatology [
Schocken Books, 1963] 132, n. 1. For
example, in Catullus 5:4-6 one reads, "Suns may
set and rise again. For us, when the short
light has once set, remains to be slept the
sleep of one unbroken night."). Thus
such a metaphor does not arise from the idea of a
body left behind while the soul departs to
a continued existence elsewhere or from the
notion that the sleeping person will
afterwards wake up to new life. Certainly the
metaphor is in harmony with resurrection
(Alfred Plummer,
the Thessalonians [
similarity in appearance between a
sleeping body and a dead body, i.e., restfulness and
peace normally characterize both (TDNT, s.v. "kaqeu<dw," by A. Oepke, 3:433).
14 Best, Thessalonians,
203.
15 Bruce, Thessalonians,
95; W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic
Judaism (reprint ed.,
Testament (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1966) 108-09; Williams Neil, The Epistle
of Paul to the
168 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
would have
had to deal with this issue in this particular community.
A couple of
reasons may be suggested.
First, it is possible that this is an issue on which the
Thessalonian
Christians
had not been adequately informed.16 While with these be-
lievers it
is possible that Paul had not discussed the relation of
survivors to
the dead at the Parousia. Apparently some of the be-
lievers had
died since the time of Paul's visit and, consequently,
questions
had arisen concerning the relation of the faithful departed
to the
Parousia.
Second, it is possible that a subtle polemic is offered against a
contemporary
teaching that advocated the advantage of those alive at
the
inauguration of the Messianic Kingdom. One of the main currents
of
eschatological thought in Judaism was that the Messianic King-
dom would be
the consummation of world history and its scene
would be
this earth, albeit an earth transformed in different ways.
Davies says
that "according to the earliest sources only those alive at
the advent
of the Messiah would be judged and could participate in
the
blessings of the Messianic Kingdom.”17 In 4 Ezra the author gives
a vision of
the Man rising from the sea; in this vision the pre-
existent
Messiah, following the annihilation of His enemies, gathers a
multitude of
his own remnant to himself. 4 Ezra 13:22-24 says:
As for what you said about those who are left, this is the
interpretation:
He who brings the peril at that time will himself protect those
who fall
into peril, who have works and have faith in the Almighty.
Understand
therefore that those who are
left are more blessed than those who have
died.18 (Italics added.)
The
suggestions of a polemic against such teaching would help to
explain the
anxiety growing out of the possibility that those who died
did not have
the same advantage as those who were alive at the
Parousia.
This might also explain why Paul uses such emphatic
Thessalonians (New York: Harper and
Brothers, 1950) 99; Beda Rigaux, Les
Epitres
Aux Thessalonioiens (Paris:
Librairie Leoffre, 1956) 527.
16 Bruce, Thessalonians,
p. 95; James E. Frame, A Critical and
Exegetical Com-
mentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, ICC (
(1969) 26.
17 Davies, Judaism, 287.
18 B. M. Metzger, "The Fourth Book of Ezra: A New Translation
and Introduc-
tion," in vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed.
James H. Charlesworth
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company,
1983) 552; see also 2 Apoc. Bar.
70.1-
71-1. It is not out of the question that
such a view may have been held by scribes prior
to A.D. 70 and that the Thessalonians had
been influenced by such a view through their
exposure to the synagogue (cf. Acts.
17:2-4).
HOWARD:
LITERARY UNITY OF THESSALONIANS 4:15-5:11 169
language as,
"we who are alive and remain until the Parousia will by
no means
precede those who have died" (cf. v. 15, ou) mh> fqa<sw-
men).19 One,
however, need not suppose with Schmithals that the
community
was misled by gnosticizing visitors who completely denied
the future
resurrection hope.20
The purpose of Paul's desire for these believers not to be ig-
norant
regarding those who had died is that "they might not grieve as
those who do
not have hope," i!na mh> luph?sqe
kaqw?j kai> oi[
lipoi<
oi[ mh> e@xontej
e]lpi<da. The i!na should be taken as introducing pur-
pose rather
than result.21 This is the only purpose statement in
18 and it is
related to pastoral or parenetic concerns, namely, that
these
believers "might not grieve." The verb lupe<w normally conveys
the idea of
"grief, distress, sadness, or sorrow.”22
The negative mh>
with the
present subjunctive may suggest in this context the desire for
the cessation
of an action already in progress. Those in this com-
munity were
in the process of grieving over loved ones who had died,
apparently
for fear that they might suffer disadvantage at the Parou-
sia. Paul is
thus attempting to comfort them in this grief (cf.
Paul further qualifies his purpose by a comparative clause intro-
duced by kaqw>j
kai<. He states
that his desire is that these believers
not grieve
''as also the rest who do not have hope," kaqw>j
koipoi> oi[ mh>
e@xontej e]lpi<da. Two
alternatives are possible for the
interpretation
of kaqw<j. First, it is possible to take the comparative
particle as
introducing a comparison of manner.23
This would mean
that Paul
did not desire this congregation to grieve in the same way
as those who
have no hope. The second possibility is to take kaqw<j in
an absolute
sense.24 This would mean that Paul
is telling those at
Thessalonica
not to grieve at all as do unbelievers who have no hope.
Such an
absolute sense would not exclude sorrow over the loss of a
19 The construction ou'
mh< with the subjunctive fqa<swomen here expresses emphatic
negation.
20 Walter Schmithals, Paul and
the Gnostics, trans. John E. Steely (
Abingdon Press, 1972) 160-62.
21 BAGD, p. 376; i!na most frequently denotes purpose rather than conceived result,
although at times it becomes very
difficult to distinguish the two. The problem is that
the semitic mind was reluctant to
distinguish between the purpose and consequence,
particularly in light of God's actions
(cf. M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek,
trans. Joseph
Smith [
Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek [
22 Ibid.,481.
23 Ibid.,391.
24 John Eadie, A Commentary on
the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the
Thessalonians (reprint ed.,
1977) 145-49; Frame, Thessalonians, 167; Neil, Thessalonians,
92; D. E. H. Whiteley,
Thessalonians (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1969) 68.
170 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
loved one,
but it would preclude sorrow as far as the Parousia is
concerned.25
The discussion to this point reveals Paul's parenetic purpose for
writing 1
Thessalonians 4:13-18. He is not attempting to set forth an
isolated
eschatological discourse but is addressing a very practical
problem
within the community that involved eschatological concerns.
Paul desires
to communicate a message of comfort, a message that
promises
resurrection for departed believers by virtue of their identifi-
cation and
union with Christ. This same union also provides the basis
for the
translation of those who are alive at His Parousia (cf.
That the
hope of resurrection to be with Christ is grounded in the
resurrection
of Christ Himself26 is made evident in verses 15-17.
Because
Christ arose from the dead, those believers who have died in
the Lord
prior to the Parousia will in no way experience any dis-
advantage
when Jesus comes. Instead, they will actually precede those
who are
alive at that time (
1 Thessalonians 5:1-11
Paul's parenesis continues in 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11. In
he addresses
the issue of the position of the dead in
Christ at the
Parousia
with the purpose of comforting those alive. He now shifts
his emphasis
slightly to address the ethical responsibilities of living
believers in
light of the coming Day of the Lord. Instead of address-
ing the time
in which the Day of the Lord will come, he states that no
one knows the times and the seasons (twm
xro<nwn kai> tw?n kairw?n)
25 Best, p. 186. The reason why such a grief is precluded is because
it is a
characteristic of "those who do not
have hope." Most likely this denote unbelieving
humanity outside of Christ (cf. Eph 2:3,
12). The concept of hope for Paul is especially
related to the promise of blessedness and
joy the believer will experience at the
Parousia (cf. Titus
after-life is clear. It is evident from
Greek writers, both pagan and Jewish, that there
was a belief in an after-life (Plato in Gorgias, 524D states that the individual
should
not be judged except after death for then
the soul is separated from the body; then the
soul strips out of the deceiving clothing
of the body and it can be judged justly; cf.
Cratylus, 403B. Furthermore, there also existed a
hope in view of death in Jewish
circles; cf. Philo, de Virtutibus, 76; Legum
Allegoriarum,
Greek view that the nakedness of the soul
after death was desirable; see Wis 3:1-4:
"But the souls of the righteous are
in the hand of God, and no torment shall touch
them...yet is their hope full of
immorality"; also it is evident that resurrection was an
aspect of rabbinic theology; cf. Sota 9.15; Sanh 10:1). However, the believer has been
identified in a union with both the death and the resurrection of Christ (cf. Rom
6:3-
5). Because of this union, those believers
who have died will be raised to be with Christ
when He returns at the Parousia. This is a
hope about which the pagan world knew
nothing.
26 A Theological Word Book of
the Bible s.v. "Hope," by Alan Richardson;
NIDNTT, s.v. "Hope," by E.
Hoffmann, 2:242.
HOWARD:
LITERARY UNITY OF I THESSALONIANS
of its
coming because it comes ''as a thief in the night" (w[j
kle<pthj e]n
nukti<)
(vv. 1-2). Paul is telling the Thessalonians that they do not
need someone
to write to them concerning the times and the seasons
of the Day
of the Lord because it is not for any person to know this
information.27 However, what they should know is that the
Day is
coming and
one's preparation for it is dependent on that person's
spiritual
condition. Paul says that those who ate unbelievers will be
overtaken in
surprise and will by no means escape
judgment (v. 3).28
Paul shifts his emphasis in verse 4 to address the relation of the
Day of the
Lord to the believing community.29
Paul employs an
indicative-imperative model in his discussion. He first tells
these
believers
what they are in verses 4-5 (indicative)
and then he exhorts
them to live out what they are in verses 6-8 (imperative). In verses
4-5 Paul
says that believers are not in darkness (e]n sko<tei) but
instead are
sons of light (ui[oi> fwto<j).30 Christians are not a part
of
the darkness
in which the unbelieving world lies. They are instead
identified
with Christ. Thus as a result (i!na)31 they will not be in a
27 Robert H. Gundry, The
Church and the Tribulation (Zondervan Publishing
House, 1973), pp. 107-08; also John A.
Sproule, "An Exegetical Defense of Pretribu-
lationism" (Th.D. dissertation, Grace
Theological Seminary, May 1981) 157.
28 This is the second time Paul uses ou] mh< with the subjunctive (e]kfu<gwsin) in this
eschatological discourse for emphatic
negation (cf.
29 The shift to believers from humankind in general is indicated by
the adversative
use of de> as well as the change to the second person u[mei?j
along with the vocative
a]delfoi<.
30 The imagery of light and darkness is frequently used throughout
ancient litera-
ture. The figures of "darkness"
(j`w,H) and "light" (rOx) are found in the Old Testament
to denote two opposing ethical spheres in
which sinners and believers exist (darkness:
Job 29:3; Isa 2:5; Mic 7:8; light: Job 22:9-11; Pss 74:20; 82:5).
The use of light and
darkness in relation to eschatology and
ethics became especially strong at
well as in Jewish apocalyptic material
(see IQS
describes two categories of humanity: one
of light and the other of darkness. The text
says in
their [two] ways they walk and the entire
work of their activity [falls] within their [two]
classes, according to everybody's share,
large or small, in all times forever"; then in 26,
"He knows the work of their actions
in all times [of eternity] and He allots them to
mankind for knowledge of good [and evil],
this deciding the fate of every living being,
according to his spiritual quality...visitation," [Italics added], The Manual of Disci-
pline, trans. P. Wenberg Moller [
darkness in
nologie Der Qumran Texte [
light and darkness
in Jewish apocalyptic, see T. Naph.
2:7-10; T. Benj. 5:3; 1 Enoch
61:12; 108:11). The antithesis of light
and darkness is also frequent in the New
Testament, particularly in Paul (Rom 1:21;
2:19; 13:11-13; 1 Cor 4:5; 2 Cor 4:6; 6:14).
In Paul these figures seem to portray a
position or sphere in which one exists by virtue
of whether or not that person is in union
with Christ.
(31) Although i!na normally introduces purpose, most of the
grammarians list this as
a rare example of result; cf. BDF, #391.5;
Zerwick, #351-52; Moule, p. 142; A. T.
172 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
state that
the Day may surprise them as a thief (w[j
kle<pthj). In
addition to
calling these believers ui[oi> fwto<j, Paul also says they are
"sons
of the day" (ui[oi> h[me<raj). The Day has not yet arrived but
believers in
Christ are sons of the day already by a form of realized
eschatology.
Paul's eschatology for the most part assumes a frame-
work of the
aeons, one present and one to come.32
However, for Paul
the
Christian, the age to come has been inaugurated in the death and
resurrection
of Jesus who is the first fruits of many to follow (cf.
identification
with Christ in His death and resurrection, now live
paradoxically
in two worlds. Although they still live in the present
age there is
a sense in which they are a part of the age to come,
children of
the Day. Those, on the other hand,
who have not come to
the light but
still live in darkness will be caught off guard by the Day
when it
comes. That believers have some kind of relationship to the
Day of the
Lord seems to be without question. Paul clearly says that
when this
event breaks into human history those who are in the light
and who are
sons of the day will not be surprised. He does not say
that they
will not be surprised because they will
not be here.
Paul has emphatically stated that Christians and non-Christians
belong to
different spheres of existence; the former are new creations
(2 Cor
his purpose,
namely, his parenetic concerns. The Christian is able to
respond
differently than the non-Christian to the apocalyptic situa-
tion. The
transition to exhortation is made by the Apostle through a
tactful
change in verse 5b from second to first person (from e]ste< to
e]smen)
suggesting that Paul includes himself in the exhortation he
offers in
verses 6-8.
The introductory phrase a@ra
ou#n in verse 6 is strongly inferential
and always
indicates a new stage in the argument in Paul (cf. Rom
5:18; 7:3,
25; 8:12),33 in this case a move to parenesis. As Best notes,
this
parenesis "is based on what Christians are as ‘sons of light.’",34
Robertson, A Grammar of the New Testament in Light of Historical Research
(Nash-
ville: Broadman Press, 1934) 998.
32 Cf. Rom 12:2; 1 Cor 1:20; 2:6, 8; 3:18, 2 Cor 4:4; Gal 1:4; Eph
1:21; 2:2, 7; 3:9;
tological framework which is frequently
found is that of the two ages, i.e., the present
age which is evil and rebellious (2 Esdr
7:50; 4:27; 6:7-9; 2 Enoch 66:6) and
the age to
come, or Blessed Age (2 Enoch 58:5; 61:2; 2 Apoc.
Bar. 44:12; see also Isa 65:17; Jer
31:10-14; Zech 14:7; Dan 7:22; 12:9, 13);
for a good discussion of this concept at
vol. 5, pt. 2 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag,
1968) 296-302; see also Davies, Judaism,
317-
18 (cf. Sanh 10).
33 Best, Thessalonians,
211; BAGD, 103.
34 Ibid.,211.
HOWARD:
LITERARY UNITY OF I THESSALONIANS 4:13-5:11 173
While
"sons of light" may be a proper designation to the new age,
Christians
are not yet completely in that age and still have to deal
presently
with the struggles of this age. Paul thus exhorts these
believers to
spiritual alertness through a series of hortatory subjunc-
tives. He
first exhorts them not to sleep (mh>
kaqeu<dwmen) but
to be
awake (grhgorw?men) and alert (nhfw?men) (v. 6). Paul desires them
not to sleep
because such behavior is a characteristic of this age.35
Instead they
are exhorted to exhibit a behavior which is ethically
upright.36 In verse 8 Paul reiterates the indicative-imperative model.
Because the
believer is characterized by the Day,37 he is exhorted to
be vigilant
(nhfw?men) in view of the coming Day of the Lord.38
Paul's
parenetic focus is quite clear. From the use of the metaphors of
wakefulness and sobriety
it is apparent that Paul desires the believer
to exhibit a
certain character at the Day of the Lord; he is not simply
suggesting
an attitude of sober awareness of what is happening but
moral
sobriety. This idea is not uncommon in Paul, particularly in
1
Thessalonians. In 3:13 and 5:23 he writes that the believer will stand
"before"
Jesus (e@mprosqen)
when the Parousia occurs, and it is His
desire that
the believer be "blameless" (a]me<ptouj). This would mean
that the Day
of the Lord and Parousia impose similar ethical demands
on the
believer and would also suggest their similarity, if not their identity.
It has been shown that Paul's purpose in both 1 Thessalonians
4:13-18 and
5:1-11 is similar, namely, parenetic. He is not concerned
about
eschatological details but instead how eschatology relates to
ethics. He
does not attempt to give any future chronology but instead
is concerned
about how a future event (the Parousia/Day of the
35 BAGD, 388; the figurative nuance is also
found in classical Greek with a
derogatory sense; the term serves to
indicate defective concentration or a deficient
action (cf. Plato, Ion, 536b).
36 B. N. Kaye, "Eschatology and Ethics
in I and 2 Thessalonians," NovT
17 (1975)
49; grhgore<w and nh<fw
occur elsewhere in eschatological contexts (grhgore<w: Matt
24:42; 25:13; Mark
excellent discussion of nh<fw and
its eschatological flavor see TDNT,
s.v., "nh<fw," by
O. Baurenfiend, 4:936-39; also Evald
Lovestam, Spiritual Wakefulness in the
New
Testament (Lund: CWK Gleerup,
1963) 54. The word was used in non-biblical Greek
as sober
in contrast to drunkenness
(Aristotle, Politics, 1274b);
however, in Corpus
Hermeticum it was used
metaphorically for sober mindedness
(see 133.11; 171.22; in
both of these texts the contrast is made
with meequ<w, also used metaphorically). It
would appear that Paul is employing a
similar nuance, namely, a sober expectancy in
view of the coming Day of the Lord.
bility of moral behavior as drunkenness
denotes the abandonment of self control and
responsibility" (Parousia, 74).
37 The
participle o@ntej should be taken as causal.
38 The
translation "vigilant" is suggested by the military figures employed
in v. 8
(qw<raka and perikefalai<an).
174 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
Lord)
affects the present lifestyle of believers. Nevertheless, that each
passage
(4:13-18 and 5:1-11) is parenetic would certainly not be
sufficient
to demonstrate literary unity were it not for the fact that
each passage
deals with the same subject matter, namely eschatology.
Thus the
similarity in subject matter gives the second basis for advo-
cating the
literary unity of the entire pericope.
SIMILARITY IN SUBJECT
MATTER
Although Paul began his parenetic discourse in 4:1, he does not
discuss
eschatology until 4:13. Furthermore, he leaves his discussion
of
eschatology in 5:12 to address general community ethics. Thus in
4:13-5:11
one might suggest that the same subject and event are
described,
albeit from two different perspectives. There are, however,
two factors
which must be addressed in conjunction with this propo-
sal. The
first is the structural problem of peri> de< in 5:1 and the second
is the
problem of equating Parousia with Day of the Lord.
According to some, the use of peri> de< proposes a sharp contrast
in thought,
thus introducing a new response to a question asked by
the
Thessalonian community.39
Others prefer to see it as introducing
a shift to
new subject without necessarily any reference to a response
to a
question. For example, Paul Feinberg says:
the
connective is not simply de< but peri>
de<. The subject need not be so
different
that they are in contrast, but there is
not simply the continua-
tion of the same subject. This is
Paul's typical way of introducing a
new topic (e.g., 1 Thess. 4:9,
13). Paul clearly intends some kind of
distinction
here.40 (Italics added.)
It is
puzzling that Feinberg lists 4:13 as an example of the use of peri>
de< when
actually only de<
occurs there. One, however, might agree
with some of
what Feinberg has suggested. There is a sense in which
peri> de> does introduce a contrast; particularly in lists of similar things
it brings
about a clearer separation.41
However, such does not hamper
a proposal
of literary unity for the passage. One could easily argue
that in 5:17
peri>
de< does not
necessarily introduce a new subject but
rather a
different ethical concern in light of the same subject, namely,
comfort
regarding the Parousia in 4:13-18 and exhortation to spirit-
ual
alertness in light of the Parousia/ Day of the Lord in 5: 1-11. Also,
39 See C. E. Faw, "On the Writing of First Thessalonians,"
JBL 71 (1952) 217-32;
J. R. Harris, "A Study in
Letter-Writing," Expositor,
series 5, 8 (1898) 161-80; the
suggestion of a response to a letter is
based on the way Paul uses the phrase in 1 Cor
7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1 and 16:1.
40 Feinberg, Response to Moo,
226.
41 BAGD, 171.
HOWARD:
LITERARY UNITY OF I THESSALONIANS 4:13-5:11 175
that Paul
continues the same subject might be suggested by the way
in which he
employs peri> de< both in 4:9 and in 5:1. In 1 Thessalonians
4:6 Paul
warns against transgressing (u[perbai<nw) and defrauding
(pleonekte<w) one's brother. These activities are the
very opposite of
"brotherly
love" (filadelfi<a), activities that Paul desires these be-
lievers to
avoid. Paul then picks up the theme of "brotherly love" in
4:9 which he
introduces with peri> de<. He says, "now concerning the
love of the brethren, you have no need for anyone to write to
you, for
you
yourselves are taught by God to love one another." Best ac-
knowledges
the connection between the preceding discussion, i.e.,
defrauding a
brother, and the concept of "brotherly love" in verse 9.
He says,
"Here the break must be Paul's movement from a general
statement on
brotherly love to the nature of that love in a particular
situation.”42 Likewise, in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 Paul
writes on the
subject of
the Parousia. Then in 5:1 he continues the same subject
(although
now he addresses the time of the
Parousia) which he also
introduces
by peri>
de<. He writes,
"now concerning the times and the
epochs (of
the Parousia), brethren, you have no need of anything to
be written
to you, for you yourselves know full well that the Day of
the Lord
will come as a thief. ..." In both instances (4:9 and 5:1)
peri> de< picks up the preceding
theme and reintroduces it with addi-
tional
discussion. Note the structure indicated in Chart A.
1 Thess
4:3-8 (defrauding one's 1
Thess 4:13-18 (Parousia-believing
brother in
the context of sexual dead
will experience no
misconduct) disadvantage)
1 Thess 4:9 peri>
de<
"brotherly love" 1
Thess 5:1 peri> de< “times and
seasons”
[ou]
xrei<an e@xete gra<fein u[mi?n] ----à[ou] xrei<an e@xete u[mi?n gra<fesqai]
[ga>r] -------------------------------à ga>r
au]toi>
u[mei?j qeodi<daxtoi< e]ste au]toi> a]xribw?j
oi@date
CHART A
Because peri>
de< is used in
1 Thessalonians 4:9 it is reasonable to
look for
parallels with its use in 5:1. The chart above suggests that
possibility.
However, it is also possible that peri> de< finds a parallel in
42 Best, Thessalonians,
171; see also George Milligan,
Thessalonians (London: Macmillan Co.,
1908) 52; he says, "From impurity, which is at
176 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
Matthew
24:36. In both 1 Thessalonians 5:1 and Matthew 24:36 peri>
de<
introduces statements that describe the unknowable
character of
the
Parousia/Day of the Lord. Also, the fact that Matthew rarely
uses peri>
de< (only here
and 22:31) may suggest that the phrase was
part of an
oral tradition upon which both Matthew and Paul drew
and should
not be considered simply a stylistic inclusion on the part
of each
writer. Other parallels in language between 1 Thessalonians 4
and 5 and
Matthew 24 and 25 (as will be discussed later) might
likewise
support this suggestion. If 1 Thessalonians 5:1 and Matthew
24:36 are
parallel, this might help to explain how Paul uses peri>
de< in
5:1. For
example, Matthew 24:29-31 describes the coming (Parousia)
of the Son
of
day..."
(peri>
de> th?j h[me<raj e]kei<nhj).
The obvious question is what .
day? In
24:37, this is answered by employing the phrase h[ parousi<a
out? ui[ou? tou?
a]nqrw<pou;
here the reference is to the Parousia of the
Son of Man,
the same event he portrayed earlier in verses 29-31.
There is no
change to a different subject but instead a shift in
emphasis in
light of the same subject, namely, the coming Parousia.
Matthew,
like Paul, also moves to a series of ethical injunctions
regarding
alertness in view of the unexpected character of the Parou-
sia of the
Son of Man (cf. Matt 24:42, 44; 25:13). Hence the literary
structure of
both Matthew and Paul exhibit interesting similarities.
Although the phrase peri> de< remains a problem, it is certainly
not
overwhelming to the proposed thesis of literary unity. Yet, there
is another
problem which must be answered if it is concluded that
Paul is
portraying the same event but with a difference in focus or
emphasis;
the problem is Paul's shift in terminology from Parousia in 1
1
Thessalonians
terminology
might lead to the notion of disparity between the two
sections,
4:13-18 and 5:1-11. However, if Parousia and Day of the
Lord are
references to the same event why does Paul change his
terminology?
The basic meaning of parousi<a is either presence43 or arrival.44
In the
hellenistic world the word came to have particular associations
with the
arrival of a central figure. It denoted the ceremonial arrival
of a ruler
to a city where he was greeted with honors of one kind or
another.45 The "parousia" was more than the
physical act of arrival.
It also
included the attendant ceremonies with which the ruler was
root so cruel and selfish, the Apostles
pass by a subtle link of connexion to the practice
of brotherly or Christian love, admitting
frankly at the same time the Thessalonians'
zeal in this respect."
43 2 Macc 15:21; 3 Macc 3:17; 2 Cor 10:10; Phil 2:12.
44 Jdt 10:18; 2 Macc 8:12; 1 Cor 16:17; 2 Cor 7:6-7.
45 In Tebtunis papyrus 48:14, a description is given of plans
"in connection with the
king's visit," pro>j th>n tou? basile<wj
parousi<an; cf. Corpus
Hermeticum (Poimandres)
HOWARD:
LITERARY UNITY OF I THESSALONIANS 4:13-5:11 177
honored.46 In the New Testament the word takes on a
technical sense
for the
future advent of Christ. Out of its twenty-four uses in the New
Testament
sixteen relate to the future advent of Christ.47 However,
outside of
the Thessalonian correspondence, 1 Corinthians 15:23 is
the only
passage in which Paul speaks of Christ's Parousia.48 For this
reason
Deissmann sees a close association between Paul's use of the
word and the
technical sense it attained in the hellenistic world.49 Yet,
it is very
possible that Paul conceives of the Parousia in 1 Thes-
salonians
4:15-17 as the coming of the Son of Man described in
Matthew
24:27, 37, 39. This is suggested by the use of
parousi<a in
both
contexts. As Best points out, "in the primitive community Jesus
comes to be
identified with the Son of Man and since the Son of Man
is an
eschatological future figure and has to still appear Jesus must
return as
the Son of Man and in the epistles this is interpreted either
as the
Parousia of Christ or as the Day of the Lord.”50 This
eschato-
logical
coming of the Son of Man involves not only the glorious
manifestation
of Christ but can also mean judgment.51
However, in
1
Thessalonians, Paul's use of parousi<a has
very positive connota-
tions for
the believer (cf. 1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15-17; 5:23).
The fact that the eschatological coming of the Son of Man
Involved
judgment on sinners may explain why Paul shifts his termi-
nology to
Day of the Lord in 5:2, namely, because of the judgment
motif he
introduces in this verse. In the Old Testament the phrase
hvhy MVy denotes
a decisive intervention of God for judgment and
1.26a; 1.127.17; a similar use is found in
Josephus, Antiquities, 111.80, 202;
IX. 55;
XVIII. 284. For a good discussion of this
nuance of parousi<a see TDNT, s. v. "parou-
si<a," by A. Oepke, 5:858.
46 Deissmann notes that when an event of this nature occurred, coins
were minted,
money was collected, and even in the case
of Hadrian, a new era was reckoned (Adolph
Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (reprint ed.,
House, 1978) 368-73.
47 Cf. Matt 24:3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Cor 15:23; 1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15;
5:23; 2 Thess 2:1;
Jas 5:7, 8; 2 Pet 1:16; 3:4, 12. For a
discussion of synonymous terms also used for
Christ's future advent, see Gundry, Tribulation, 158-59.
48 Elsewhere in Paul's letters parousi<a always refers to the
arrival of a human
being; cf. 1 Cor 16:17; 2 Cor 7:6; 10:10;
Phil 1:26; 2:12; in the last of these three texts
Paul refers to himself; for a treatment of
this concept, see Robert Funk, "The Apostolic
Parousia: Form and Significance," in Christian History and Interpretation:
Studies
Presented to John Knox, ed. W. A.
Farmer, C. F. D. Moule and R. R. Niebuhr
(Cambridge: University Press, 1967)
249-68.
49 Deissmann, Light, 372.
50 Best, Thessalonians, 350-51; also H. J. Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of the
Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History, trans. Harold Knight (
51 L. Cerfaux notes the similarity in descriptions between the
eschatological coming
of the son of Man in 1 Enoch and that of Christ (the Son of Man) (Christ in the
Theology of
description of the coming of the Son of
Man in the New Testament as well as in Jewish
178 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
deliverance.52 It can refer to a near event or to the final
climactic
event,
although it is not always clear that the prophets distinguished
the two.53 Yet,
while the Day is frequently described as one of
judgment,54
deliverance for the people of God is also delineated as
part of the
Day.55 In the New Testament there
is great variety of
expressions
for the Day (which consistently refers to the end of the
age) and it
is evident that there is no fixed terminology.56 The Old
Testament
idea of the Day of the Lord is thoroughly Christianized
in
Paul and
hence the blessing associated with it is directly connected to
one's
relationship with Christ. Those who are in
Christ anticipate His
presence or Parousia whereas those who are outside of Christ will be
overtaken in
judgment, a motif in harmony with the phrase h[me<ra kuri<ou.
The question then is what does this imply regarding the literary
unity of 1
Thessalonians 4:13-5: 11? Instead of Paul presenting two
different
events, it is suggested that Paul is presenting a single escha-
tological
event from two perspectives. In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
Paul
describes this event as a time of blessing for Christians and
hence uses
the term [arpisi<a
whereas in 5:1-3 he describes the
judgment
this event brings and thus uses the phrase h[me<ra kuri<ou.
Paul's
eschatological presentation might be considered aoristic in that
it says nothing about whether these aspects
(blessing and judgment)
are in
actuality on different parts of a chronological time line. Fur-
thermore, he
says absolutely nothing about a seven
year Tribulation
period
although his presentation certainly allows for it. A challenge
can be raised
to Gundry who, while equating Parousia and Day of
apocalyptic material is probably under the
influence of the Danielic figure in Dan 7; see
1 Enoch 48:2, 7; 49:2, 4; 51:3; 62:5; 69:27, 29;
71:16. Particularly interesting in this
regard is 1 Enoch 69:26-29 in which the revelation of the Son of Man is
described. It is
said to be a great blessing for the
righteous and judgment for sinners.
52 C. H. H. Rowley, The Faith
of
(London: SCM, 1956) 178-200.
53 Dougias J. Moo, "The Case for the Posttribulation Rapture
Position," in The
Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulational?, ed. Richard R. Reiter (
Zondervan Publishing House, 1984) 183.
54 Amos 5:18-20; Joel 1:15; Isa 13:6,9; for a good discussion of the
"Day of the
Lord" in the Old Testament and its
connection with judgment, see TDNT,
s.v. "h[
me<ra," by Gerhard von Rad, 2:944-47.
55 Isa 27; Jer 30:8-9; Joel 2:32; 3:18; Obad 15-17.
56 Moo lists at least eighteen different expressions that refer to
this concept; the
most noticeable are: 1) "The day of
Christ" (Phil 1:10; 2:16); 2) "The day of our Lord
Jesus" (2 Cor 1:14); 3) "The day
of Jesus Christ" (Phil 1:6); 4) "The day of our Lord
Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 1 :8); "The
day of the Son of Man" (Luke 17:30). It is particularly
interesting the way Paul, when referring
to the Day, can combine "Lord" and "Christ"
in one expression (1 Cor 1:8); similarly
"Lord" and "Jesus" (2 Cor 1:14). As Moo says,
"surely this suggests that since for
Paul Jesus Christ is the Lord, he uses terms such as
"Day of the Lord" and "Day
of Christ" interchangeably," Posttribulation
Rapture,
248, n. 27.
HOWARD:
LITERARY UNITY OF I THESSALONIANS
the Lord,
places these events at the end of the Tribulation period. In
other words,
he assumes a Tribulation framework in
his discussion of
1
Thessalonians 4:13-5:11.57
However, nowhere does Paul mention
the
Tribulation. Moo recognizes this and is more cautious in his
appraisal,
though not disagreeing with Gundry's conclusions. He
writes,
"The fact that the Tribulation seems not to be part of the Day
suggests
that it precedes all these events, but this is not certain.”58
What can be
said is that Paul presents the Parousia and the Day as "a
general
denotation of the great future that dawns with Christ's com-
ing.”59 Chart B may help to visualize the difference
between the
proposal
offered here and the position of Gundry and Moo.
PROPOSAL GUNDRY/MOO
SCHEME
Parousia-Believers Parousia/
(Either is Possible) Day of the Lord
7 Year Tribulation 7 Year
Tribulation
Day of Lord (Armageddon
or 7 Year Tribulation)
Exchatological
Event-Aoristic Eschatological
Event-Precisely at the
End of the Tribulation
-Paul makes
no statement as to
where each
aspect falls on the time -Paul
assumes a 7 year Tribulation
line,
however, his presentation allows and
thus is focusing only on the End
for either
pre- or post- Tribulation- of
this time line. This demands a
ism. The
presentation is general posttribulational
rapture if Parousia
and
unrefined, hence the description and
Day of the Lord are equated.
"
Aoristic."
CHART B
57 Gundry, Tribulation,
100-11.
58 Moo, Posttribulation Rapture,
184.
59 Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An
Outlines of His Theology (
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975) 530-31; cf.
also George E. Ladd, A Theology of the
New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974) 555.
180 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
Neither the structural problem of peri> de< nor the shift in terms
from parousi<a to h[me<ra kuri<ou is sufficient to disprove the literary
unity of 1
Thessalonians 4: 13-5:11. However, in addition to the fact
that Paul's
purpose and subject matter are the same in both 4:13-18
and 5:1-11,
a third reason can be given which suggests the literary
unity of the
entire passage.
PARALLELS BETWEEN 1 THESSALONIANS 4 AND 5
AND MATTHEW 24 AND 25
A significant reason to regard 1 Thessalonians
literary
unit is based on Paul's use of apocalyptic symbols throughout
the passage.
Many of the symbols which Paul uses can be found in
the Old
Testament as well as in Jewish apocalyptic material.60 How-
ever, the
imagery Paul uses bears a striking resemblance to the
eschatological
teaching regarding the coming of the Son of Man in
the Olivet
discourse of the synoptic gospels, particularly the Mat-
thean form.
Although many of the symbols do occur in Jewish
apocalyptic,
the figures appear in isolated texts but never all together
as one finds
in the Matthean parallels.
That Paul is drawing on traditional eschatological material is
implied by
his statement in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 in which he says,
"We say
this to you by the word of the Lord."
A number of solutions
have been
offered for this difficult phrase.61
Hill is probably correct
when he
writes, "May it not mean, as Rigaux and others maintain,
60 In the Old Testament (with reference to theophanic appearances
and the Day of
the Lord) one find references to such
imagery as trumpets (Exod
27:13; Zech
30:3; Dan 7:13; Joel 2:2). For a
discussion of the use of contemporary apocalyptic
symbolism, see Neil, Thessalonians, 98. That Paul is not creating his own imagery can
be shown from its occurrence in Jewish
apocalyptic material (e.g., the figure of
judgment as "travail upon an
expectant mother" [cf. 1 Thess 5:3; Matt 24:8] can be
found in 1 Enoch 62:4 which says, "the pain shall come upon them as a
woman in
travail, and she has pain in bringing
forth;"" see also 4 Ezra
Furthermore, some of the Pauline
metaphors, such as waking and sleeping
(cf. 1 Thess
5:6-7) are found also in classical Greek
(e.g., Plato, Symp., 203a which says,
"God with
man does not mingle: but the spiritual is
the means of all society and converse of men
with gods and of gods with men, whether waking or sleeping" [kai> e]grhgoro<si kai>
kaqeu<dousi] [Italics added]).
61 J. Jeremias suggests that the phrase refers to an agraphon (Unknown Sayings of
Jesus [
the exalted Jesus given to the church
through one of its prophets (possibly including
himself) ("The Genesis of Belief in
an Imminent Parousia," JTS 14
[1963] 106); Neil
states that Paul is drawing from a Jewish
or Christian apocalyptic writing (Thes-
salonians, p. 98); Gunther
Bornkamm says that the phrase means an apocryphal word
of Jesus which came into existence only in
the post-Easter church (Paul trans.
D.
Stalker [
HOWARD:
LITERARY UNITY OF I THESSALONIANS
that Paul
goes back, not to a single saying of Jesus but to his
apocalyptic
teaching as a whole, in order to validate his message and
clarify the
issues which agitated some of his correspondents?”62 In
verse 15b
Paul states a theological summary of "the word of the
Lord"
which he then gives in the following verses, drawing on tradi-
tional
material into which he inserts his own unique material to suit
his
parenetic purpose.63 Yet, he does not stop at
verse 17 in his use of
traditional
material. He continues until 5:7. In fact, no less than
sixteen
parallels occur between Matthew 24-25 and 1 Thessalonians
4-5. Note
the following parallels:
1. Christ Himself returns (1 Thess
2. From heaven (1 Thess
3. With a shout (1 Thess
4. Accompanied by angels (1 Thess
5. With the trumpet of God (1 Thess
[trumpet is unique to
Matt in the synoptic tradition]).
6. Believers are supernaturally gathered to Christ (1 Thess
with Matt 24:31; 40-41).
7. Believers meet the Lord (1 Thess
25:1, 6 [u[pa<nthsij and a]pa<nthsij]).
8. In the clouds (1 Thess
9. The time is unknown (1 Thess 5:1-2 with Matt 24:36); it is
interesting to note that peri> de< introduces both discussions
regarding the fact that the time is unknowable.
10. Will come as a thief (1 Thess 5:2, 4 with Matt 24:43).
11. Will come at night (1 Thess 5:2 with Matt 24:43 [night is
unique to Matt in the synoptic tradition]).
12. Unbelievers are unaware of impending judgment (1 Thess 5:3
with Matt 24:37-39).
13. Judgment comes as travail upon an expectant mother (1 Thess
5:3 with Matt 24:8 [cf. RSV]).
14. Believers are not deceived (1 Thess 5:6 with Matt 24:4-5).
15. Believers are to watch (1 Thess 5:6 with Matt 24:42).
16. Warning against drunkenness (1 Thess 5:7 with Matt 24:49).
It should be
noted that not only are the principal features of Paul's
discussion
found in the Matthean account but even the order is sub-
stantially
the same. Although there are several places in the parallels
62
David Hill, New Testament Prophecy
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1979) 130-31.
63
For example, statements in the first person like h[mei?j oi[ zw?ntej
oi[ perileipo-
menoi are possibly a reworking of the tradition as well as ku<rioj; instead of an original
ui[o>j a]nqrw<pou,
Jeremias, Unknown Sayings, 80-83.
182 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
in which the
material is drawn from what scholars call the traditional
Q material
(cf. Matt 24:37-39; 43-44) or in which material is unique
to Matthew
(cf. trumpet in Matt 24:31 and night in 24:43), there are
virtually no
places in either Luke or Mark that contain parallels that
Matthew
lacks. In other words, Matthew contains all the parallels
while the
other gospels only contain several.
A few observations should be made regarding the parallel sym-
bols. First,
these parallels do not begin at 5:1 or at
4:17.
Instead, they begin at
that the
parallels are not identical always but do exhibit moderate
dissimilarity
suggests that underlying both Matthew 24-25 and 1 Thes-
salonians
4-5 is an early tradition about the Parousia and resurrection
with which
distinct apocalyptic figures were associated, i.e., trumpet,
cloud,
thief, and others.64 The dissimilarity of the
imagery in both
accounts may
indicate that each writer has used the tradition to suit his
own
individual purpose. Furthermore, if this is true, it might suggest a
tradition
which is more dynamic (oral) rather than static (source/
document).
The parallels here cited have been noticed by others, especially
those of the
posttribulational persuasion,65
and have been used to
demonstrate
the similarity between the events of Matthew 24-25 and
1
Thessalonians 4-5. Feinberg has recognized this to be a legitimate
problem for
pretribulationalism and thus has attempted to respond to
it. He
writes:
First, that there should be similarities between passages dealing
with
the posttribulation return of Christ and a pretribulation Rapture
of the
church should not surprise us. While the two events are different,
they
are not entirely dissimilar. The two events may be similar, but
they are
not the same. For me the
fact that there are differences, even if they are
not contradictory, is
more significant than the similarities. Second, the
similarities can be
maintained only if we understand the passages in
their most general sense.66
(Italics added.)
Yet,
Feinberg's effort is not convincing. He is quite atomistic in his
evaluation
of the apocalyptic symbols used and as a result makes
64 Cf. J. B. Orchard, "Thessalonians and the Synoptic
Gospels," Bib 19 (1938) 19-
42; see also G. Henry Waterman, "The
Sources of Paul's Teaching on the 2nd Coming
of Christ in 1 and 2 Thessalonians," JETS 18 (1975) 105-13.
65 Cf. William E.
Doctrine in Christian Eschatology"
(Th.D. dissertation,
1967) 249-50; Gundry, Tribulation, 102-11; Moo, Posttribulation
Rapture, 181; 190-
96. This writer observed these parallels
independent of any of these works in "The
Literary and Theological Unity of 1
Thessalonians 4:13-5:11" (unpublished M. A.
thesis,
66 Feinberg, Response to Moo,
225.
HOWARD:
LITERARY UNITY OF 1 THESSALONIANS 4:13-5:11 183
some
unguarded statements. For example, in his evaluation of the
parallel
regarding the association of clouds with Jesus' coming he
writes,
"In Matthew the Son of Man comes on
the clouds, while in
1Thessalonians
4 the ascending believers are in
them.”67 (Italics
added.)
However, can one maintain this level of refinement when
dealing with
such apocalyptic symbolism? It would appear that the
gospel
writers did not because in the parallel accounts of Mark
and Luke
Both of
these phrases have the prepositions e]n (cf. 1 Thess
likewise
uses e]n) in contrast to Matthew's use of e]pi<. Also there is a
distinction
between the plural (Mark
use of nefe<lh. It would seem that Feinberg has failed
to consider the
parallel
accounts of Matthew 24:30 in the other gospels. Another
example of
Feinberg's criticism of parallels between the Olivet Dis-
course and
1Thessalonians 4-5 is his evaluation of angels in both
texts. He
says, "In Matthew the angels gather the elect; in 1 Thessa-
lonians the
Lord Himself gathers the believers.”68
However, an exam-
ination of 1
Thessalonians 4:16 reveals that there is not as much
dissimilarity
as Feinberg suggests. Paul writes, o[ ku<rioj e]n keleu<s-
mati. . . katabh<setai, "the Lord will descend with a shout." Fol-
lowing this
assertion there are two additional prepositional phrases
introduced
by e]n
and connected by kai<. Yet, these two phrases are
linked
asyndetically to e]n keleu<smati and may suggest that the
"shout"
or "command" is accomplished by means of the "voice of an
archangel"
(e]n
fwh^? a]rxagge<lou) and
"the, trumpet of God" (e]n
sa<lpiggi qeou?).
simply using
standard apocalyptic imagery in which the
commands of
God can be given through the intermediary
of angels (e.g. Rev.
7:2).”69 (Italics added.)
If the parallels are not as dissimilar as Feinberg states, then
does
the proposal
of parallels between Matthew 24-25 and 1 Thessalonians
4-5 demand a
posttribulation position as
contend? I
would suggest that such an interpretation is not necessarily
conclusive.
As has been proposed earlier, it is possible that Paul in no
way is
working with a refined diachronic time scheme but instead is
presenting a
general eschatological event which has two effects on two
qualities of
people, believers and unbelievers. This general nature of
Paul's
eschatological discussion is quite similar to the eschatological
presentation
of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse. In that discourse there
is likewise
no clear diachronic scheme but instead the portrayal is
67 Ibid., 225.
68 Ibid., 225.
69 I. Howard Marshall, 1 and 2
Thessalonians, NCBC (
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983) 129.
184 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
very general
and unrefined. In fact, one could argue that not only is
Paul's
presentation unrefined but that he has essentially followed the
methodology
of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse. John A. Sproule,
regarding
the prophetic methodology of Jesus, writes:
In that
discourse (cf. Luke
of
segments of
the same historical event even though almost 2,000 years
have already
intervened between those two events. If one compares
Luke 21:20,
21 with Matthew 24:15, 16, it appears to the reader that
the
surrounding of
and the
appearance of the "abomination of desolation" (taken by
almost all
as the event marking the middle of Daniel's seventieth week)
are the same
event since both are immediately followed by the state-
ment,
"Then let those who are in
24:16; Luke
21:21). Yet they are apparently events separated in time by
almost 2,000
years also. In fact, one wonders if perhaps these two
events might
not actually be a reference to the same event.70
Jesus describes the Parousia without placing it on a diachronic
time line.
He portrays it as an event which will come at the end of the
age. Like
Paul's presentation in 1 Thessalonians 4-5, Jesus' presenta-
tion of His
Parousia could be described as aoristic.
Thus one would
expect close
similarities between the Matthean and Pauline accounts.
Paul was
certainly acquainted with the essential content of Jesus'
discourses.
As Sproule says, "Even though this discursive material
may have not
been committed to writing when Paul was writing his
earliest
epistles, it formed a significant portion of the oral tradition
with which
Paul would be well acquainted since much of the oral
tradition
had become fundamental to the very early Christian faith.”71
Therefore, it is suggested that the eschatological presentations
of
both Jesus
and Paul are in concord as to their unrefined and general
nature and
that each describe the Parousia without any commitment
to a
diachronic time scheme. Both presentations instead are more
qualitative in nature. If this is true then the
parallels between 1 Thes-
salonians
4-5 and Matthew 24-25 do not necessarily support either
posttribulationism
or pretribulationism. That would mean that it is
possible to
embrace the viability of the parallels while still advocating
a
pretribulational rapture position. Having proposed the viability of
such
parallels, it "is necessary to evaluate how they support the literary
unity of the
passage under discussion. It is important to note that the
parallels
with the Olivet Discourse do not occur just in 1 Thessa-
lonians
4:13-18 or in 5:1-11 but as previously noted, run throughout
70 Sproule, Pretribulation
Defense, 148.
71 Ibid., 150.
HOWARD:
LITERARY UNITY OF I THESSALONIANS
the entire
passage. Furthermore, it should also be observed that these
parallels
are more than verbal or semantic in nature but are also
structural,
i.e., they exhibit similar arrangement. For that reason, I
would
suggest that Paul follows basically the same structure in
arranging
the parallels as does Matthew. The following table demon-
strates the
relationship.
Matthew 24 and 25 1
Thessalonians 4 and 5
Parousia Event Parousia Event
Matthew 24:30 (Son of Man returns
1 Thessalonians 4:16 (Jesus returns
from heaven in power) from heaven with a
shout)
Matthew 24:31 (Son of Man attended
1 Thessalonians
by angels, a trumpet, and the tended by an archangel, a
elect are gathered trumpet, and the dead in Christ
Matthew 24:30 (Son of Man associ- rise)
ated with clouds) 1 Thessalonians
believers associated with clouds
Time of the Day Unknown Time of the Day Unknown
Matthew 24:36 (Nobody 1 Thessalonians 5:1
(Nobody
knows where the Day of His knows when the Day of the
Lord
Parousia occurs; note the use of occurs; note the use of peri> de<)
peri> de<)
Unexpected Nature of the Day Unexpected Nature of the Day
Matthew 24:43 (the Parousia 1 Thessalonians 5:2 (the Day
of the
will occur as a thief in the night- Lord will occur as a thief in the
this is the only place
in which a
night)
parallel fails to correspond in 1 Thessaloninans 5:3 (unbelievers
order) are taken by surprise)
Matthew 24:37-39 (unbe-
lievers are taken by surprise)
Exhortations to Watch Exhortations to Watch
Matthew 24:42 * (believers are 1 Thessalonians 5:6 (believers
are
to watch)
to watch)
Matthew 24:29 (believers are 1 Thessalonians 5:7
(believers are
warned against drunkenness by implication warned to
avoid
[spiritual] which is a quality of drunkenness [spiritual] which
is
unbelief)
a quality of the night [spiritual])
*The exhortation to watch is
also found in Matthew 25:13 fol-
lowing the parable of the Bride-
groom and the Virgins.
186 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
If one assumes the essential cohesion and unity of Matthew's
presentation
of Jesus' discourse without disparity or disjunction (par-
ticularly at
Matt 24:36), is it not reasonable to assume the same on
the part of
Paul? For this reason it is suggested that Paul has
composed a
single, uninterrupted, literary unit in harmony with Jesus'
eschatological
presentation in Matthew 24-25. The similarity of both
verbal and
structural parallels with Matthew strongly supports this
conclusion.
THE INCLUSIO BETWEEN 1 THESSALONIANS
4:13-14 AND 5:9-10
A final reason for acknowledging literary unity between 1 Thes-
salonians
between
brackets or
borders for the entire pericope. There are two reasons for
arguing that
5:9-11 is an inclusio with
First, it is possible that Paul employs a pre-Pauline credal form-
ula in both
4:13-14 and 5:9-10. In
kai> a]ne<sth. The use of ]Ihsou?j rather than the more xristo<j
suggests
that Paul is drawing from terminology not customary to his
normal
vocabulary. Also Paul uses a]ne<sth rather
than the more
usual h]ge<rqh. Paul uses e]gei<rw much more frequently in his letters
for
resurrection, whether of Christ or of His people, a]ni<sthmi being
found only
here, in 4:16 and in Ephesians 5:1472 On the other hand,
e]gei<rw is
used forty time by Paul, normally in the passive.73 Inter-
estingly, it
appears from patristic citations that a]ni<sthmi continued to
be used of
the resurrection of Christ.74
Thus the infrequent occur-
rence of the
terminology in 4:13-14 suggests that Paul is drawing on
foreign
material. A pre-Pauline credal formula is also suggested in
5:10 by the
phrase tou? a]poqano<ntoj u[pe>r h[mw?n. Bruce notes that its
similarity
in construction to Galatians 1:4 (an articular participle
which is
equivalent to a relative clause), which Bovon has discerned
to be a
pre-Pauline formula, might suggest that we are dealing with
such a
formula in 1 Thessalonians 5:10 as well.75
Havener likewise has
72 0ne could argue that a]ni<sthmi occurs in
Pauline preaching in Acts 17:3. How-
ever, the use there may be Lucan since he
frequently employs a]ni<sthmi (forty four
times in Acts aloe while using e]gei<rw twelve times).
73 Cf. Best, Thessalonians,
187; he states that the passive suggests that "Christ is
raised by God." However, note M. Zerwick
who states a contrary view, Biblical
Greek, #231.
74 Cf. Ign.
appear together, the same two words that
occur in 1 Thess 4:14); Barn. 15:9 (a]ne<sth, the same
form as in 1 Thess 4:14).
75 Bruce, Thessalonians,
113; he cites F. Bovon, "Une formule prepaulinienne dans
l'epitre aux Galates (Ga 1, 4-5)," in
Paganism, Judaisme, Christianisme,
Melanges
offerts a M.
Simon, ed. A. Benoit, M. Philonenko, C. Vogel (Paris: Boccard, 1978),
91-107.
HOWARD:
LITERARY UNITY OF I THESSALONIANS 4:13-5:11 187
attempted to
argue for pre-Pauline material in 5:10, particularly by
an
evaluation of the phrase "who died for us," in verse 10a.(76) If it is
true that
Paul is employing a credal formula here as well as in 4:13-
14, such
would mean that Paul begins and closes his eschatological
discourse
with a confession that the death of Jesus is the basis for
eschatological
hope. However, it must be admitted that such an
evaluation
regarding the pre-Pauline material is somewhat specula-
tive and
inconclusive.
There is a second and much stronger reason for the presence of
an inclusio, namely, the close stylistic
and semantic parallels found
between
4:13-14 and 5:9-10. Note the structure indicated in Chart C.
1 Thessalonians 4:13-14,
18 1 Thessalonians
5:9-11
v 13
peri> tw?n
xoinwme<nwn
v 14 vv
9-10
ei] . . .
]Ihsou?j a]pe<qanen
kai> e@qeto . . . o[
qeo>j
a]ne<sth . . . o[ qeo>j dia>
. . . ]Ihsou? Xristou?
tou>j
koimhqe<ntaj tou? a]poqano<ntoj u[pe>r h[mw?n
dia> tou? ]Ihsou? a@cei . . . ei@te grhgorw?men ei@te
su>n au]t&? kaqeu<dwmen
su>n
au]t&? zh<swmen
vv 15-17 (Explanatory/Confirmatory)
v 18 v
11
!Wste parakalei?te a]llh<louj Di>o parakalei?te
a]llh<louj
(cf. Vv 13-17) (cf. v 10)
CHART C
(76)Ivan Havener, "The Pre-Pauline
Christological Credal Formulae of 1 Thessa-
lonians," SBLSPA, vol. 20, ed. Kent H. Richards (Chico, CA: Scholars Press,
1981)
115; Harnisch has provided the most
detailed reasons for a suggestion of a pre-Pauline
credal formula in 5:9-10. According to
him, the signs of a stereotyped confession or
confessional fragment include: 1) the
prepositional phrases "through our Lord Jesus
Christ" and "for us," 2)
participial style in v. 10a, 3) the introductory o!ti in v. 9a, 4) the
word peripoi<hsij which is a hapax legomenon for Paul, 5) the use of
the verb e@qeto in
the aorist, the tense most frequently used
in confessional formulae (Eschatological
Existenz, 122-23. To this Havener adds a sixth
reason: the use of h[ma?j, since credal
formulae frequently employ the first
person plural of the personal pronoun (p. 117).
188 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
Although the
parallels do not exhibit identical order and form, their
semantic
equivalence throughout argues for intentional parallelism.
In each
passage the death of Christ (a]pe<qanen and a]poqano<toj) is
the basis
for the believer's hope of life with Him. Each text stresses
the
believer's presence "with Christ" (su>n au]t&). Each text asserts
that Jesus
is the intermediate agent through whom God performs the
action (dia>…. ]Ihsou?). Also, God is the author of both actions (o[
qeo>j a@cei and o[ qeo>j e@qeto). Furthermore, in verses 13-17 the major
problem is the
relation of the dead to the Parousia, i.e., verses 13-17
give the
essential assertion, followed by an explanation in verses 15-
17. Then
verse 18 follows with an exhortation "to comfort one
another."
In the same manner, 1 Thessalonians
same promise
of
then verse
11 follows with the corresponding exhortation "to comfort
one
another." There is, however, one obstacle to the parallelism and
that is the
identification of the nuance of kaqeu<dw in
Can kaqeu<dw be
equated with koima<w in
uses koima<w when he employs the metaphor of sleep for
the death of
the
believer.77 Furthermore, he uses kaqeu<dw for spiritual
insensibility
in 5:6. For
this reason, Edgar78 and Kaye79 have argued that Paul
uses the
verb with reference to spiritual insensibility in
there is
good evidence to the contrary, namely, that Paul uses the
verb to mean
"death" and hence it is to be taken as a synonym with
koima<w in
First, although kaqeu<dw is
not used elsewhere by Paul as a
metaphor for
death, the verb is used this way in biblical Greek.
Particularly
interesting is Daniel 12:2 (LXX) which says, "many of
them that sleep (tw?n daqeudo<ntwn) in the dust shall awake, some to
everlasting
life, and some to reproach and everlasting shame.81 In fact,
in light of
the eschatological nature of Daniel 12:2 (cf. zwh>n ai]w<nion),
it is
possible that Paul is alluding to it and therefore employs the same
terminology
(this would not be a problem given the aoristic nature of
Paul's
eschatological presentation). The verb kaqeu<dw is also most
likely a
reference to death in Mark 5:39, Matthew 9:24, and Luke
8:52. In
these texts the account is given of Jesus raising Jairus'
daughter
from the dead.82 One thing, however, is important, namely,
77 Cf. 1 Cor
78 Thomas Edgar, "The Meaning of 'Sleep' in 1 Thessalonians
(1979) 345-49.
79 B. N. Kaye, "Eschatological and Ethics in 1 and 2
Thessalonians," NovT 17 (1975)
52.
80 See Tracy L. Howard, "The Meaning of 'Sleep' in 1
Thessalonians
Reappraisal," GTJ6 (1985) 337-48.
81 The Theodotion text also uses tw?n kaqeudo<ntwn as a
reference to those who
have died but who will experience
resurrection (see The Septuaginta,
ed. Alfred Rahlfs
[
88 For a full discussion of this point, see Howard, "The
Meaning of 'Sleep,'" 340.
HOWARD:
LITERARY UNITY OF 1 THESSALONIANS 4:13-5:11 189
the nuance
of "death" is not out of concord with the semantic field of
the verb kaqeu<dw. Second, the context of 1 Thessalonians
5:6-8 war-
rants the
nuance of "death" for kaqeu<dw. To render it simply as
"spiritual
insensibility" weakens greatly the preceding exhortations. If
one did give
kaqeu<dw such a nuance, a paraphrase of verse 10
might be,
"although
I desire you to maintain spiritual alertness in view of the
imminent
Parousia, Jesus died so that whether we are spiritually insen-
sible or
not, we still might live with Him." Bruce draws a similar
conclusion
when he writes, "It is ludicrous
to suppose that the writers
mean,
'whether you live like sons of light or sons of darkness, it will
make little
difference: you will be alright in the end.' “83 (Italics added.)
The
weakening of the previous series of hortatory subjunctives is
obvious (cf.
vv. 6, 8). Third, Paul has already used kaqeu<dw in verses
6-7 in two
different ways (v. 6 metaphorically and v. 7 Iiterally).84 Thus
for Paul to
give it a nuance of "death" would not be surprising at all
since he has
previously used the verb with two different nuances in the
same
context. In fact, he may be employing an intentional word play
with the
uses in verses 6 and 7. Fourth, the nuance of "death" for
kaqeu<dw in
verse 10 is supported by the majority of both commen-
tators and
lexicographers.85 Finally, as noted above, the numerous
parallels
which already exist between
argue that kaqeu<dw is parallel to koima<w in
probability
of an inclusio between
gests the
essential unity of the entire pericope.
It has been proposed that parallels exist between 1 Thessalonians
4-5 and
Matthew 24-25. The suggestion has also been made that
Paul employs
an inclusio between 1 Thessalonians
4:13-14 and 5:9-
10. If both
of these observations are combined Chart D offers a clear
display of
the literary unity of the entire passage.
1 Thessalonians 4: 13-14
(Death of Christ as the Basis for Resurrection)
1 Thessalonians 4:16-5:8
The lnclusio
Brackets
(Verbal and Structural Parallels with
the
Discussion of The
Matthew 24 and 25)
Parousia/Day
of the
Lord 1
Thessalonians 5:9-10
(Death of Christ as the Basis for Resurrection)
CHART D
83 Bruce, Thessalonians,
114.
84 BAGD, 388.
85 See Howard, "The Meaning of 'Sleep,'" 346, n. 25.
190 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
It would
appear that Paul has bracketed off his discussion of the
coming
Parousia/Day of the Lord with a reminder that the basis for
the hope of
believers (both alive and dead) is the death and resurrec-
tion of
Christ. Such may suggest that this is the main issue behind the
entire
eschatological discourse. Based on this hope, Paul can exhort
these
believers to "comfort one another" (cf.
SUMMARY
Several reasons have been offered for taking 1 Thessalonians
by peri>
de< in 5:1.
First, it has been suggested that Paul's purpose is
the same in
both, namely, parenetic. Paul points out the different
effects the
Parousia/Day of the Lord will have on those with different
spiritual
conditions (believers and unbelievers). Second, Paul appears
to be
describing a single aoristic event
from two perspectives. For the
believer it
will be a time of blessing and thus Paul uses the word
Parousia,
whereas for the unbeliever it will be a time of judgment and
hence Paul
shifts his terminology to Day of the Lord. The third and
fourth
reasons are most significant. The parallels exhibited with the
Olivet
Discourse along with the inclusio
between 1 Thessalonians
4:13-14 and
5:9-10 support the present thesis, namely, that the entire
passage is a
single literary unit. Thus there is no reason to regard
5:1-11
either as a non-Pauline interpolation, a passage written later
to counter
gnostic threats, an example of the literary form topos, or
as a
reference to a different situation and event than that found in
4:13-18.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Grace
Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu