Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:15:36.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Hellenization of Dominical Tradition and the Christianization of Jewish Tradition in the Eschatology of 1–2 Thessalonians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Robert H. Gundry
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The eschatological teachings in 1–2 Thessalonians have a common purpose: correction. In 1 Thessalonians Paul wants to correct a disbelief that caused sorrow over the fate of deceased Christians. The author of 2 Thessalonians wants to correct a belief in the immediacy of Christ's return, a belief that may have had its origin in (or at least have been abetted by) exhortations to readiness in 1 Thessalonians. In both letters, earlier traditions come into play for the purposes of correcting the disbelief that caused sorrow, of exhorting the readers to readiness, and of correcting the belief in immediacy. Both dominical and Jewish materials make up these traditions. Though we may take a side-glance at the question of authorship in 2 Thessalonians, an examination of the ways in which the traditions are molded to make the correction in that epistle depends very little on the answer to the question. We shall discover that Paul (whose name will cover the authorship of both letters without prejudice) hellenizes dominical tradition and Christianizes Jewish tradition in order to make his corrections and rein-force his exhortation.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , April 1987 , pp. 161 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

[1] Best, E., The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1972) 199Google Scholar; cf. Dupont, J., ΣϒΝ ΧΡΙΣΤΩΙ: L'Union avec le Christ suivant Saint Paul (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1952) 64–73.Google Scholar

[2] For example, B. Rigaux, who is inclined to reject Dupont's exclusive attention to OT and Jewish backgrounds, follows him in supposing that the use of παρονσία for the second coming antedates Paul (see commentary, Rigaux's, Saint Paul: Les Épîtres aux Thessaloniciens [EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1956] 232–3).Google Scholar Dupont himself, finding no suitable occurrence of παρουσία in the LXX, derives the Christian use of the word from its cognate verb άρειμι which occurs twice in Dan 7. 13 LXX, an important text for the NT doctrine of the Son of man (L'Union avec le Christ, 49–64). But not only does the absence of the noun from that passage weaken Dupont's suggestion. So also does the use of the verb for the coming of the angelic hosts as well as of the man-like figure. Even though we were to follow Dupont's suggestion that άρειμι, ur in Dan 7. 13 LXX led to in the NT, the possibility remains open that the latter carried hellenistic connotations. It is wrong of Dupont to dismiss the possibility of Paul's influence, direct or indirect, on later NT writers (cf. 2 Peter 3. 12 with 15–16). This criticism applies also to Siber, P., Mit Christus leben (ATANT 61; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1971) 36.Google ScholarOepke, A. (‘παρουσία, άρειμι’, TDNT 5 [1967] 865)Google Scholar makes Paul responsible for the special Christian use of παρουσία, but provides no argumentation apart from the early date of Paul's writings.

[3] Contrast the parallel passages Mark 13. 4; Luke 17. 24, 26, 30; 21. 7, which do not have παρουσία; and see Gundry, R. H., Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 476Google Scholar, 486, 492, 493. Holtz, T. (‘Traditionen im 1. Thessalonicherbrief’, Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments [Festschrift for Schweizer, E.; ed. Luz, U. and Weder, H.: Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983] 63)Google Scholar argues for pre-Pauline tradition not only from Matthew's use, but also from the un-Pauline character of surrounding elements in 1 Thess 4. 15–17: φθάνω in the sense ‘precede’, ού μή, and sleep as a euphemism for death. But in Rom 9. 30–31 φθάνω does appear to denote precedence: since the Gentiles have attained righteousness, Israel, though pursuing it, did not beat them to it. Holtz himself notes that outside quotations from the LXX, Paul uses ού μή in 1 Cor 8. 13;Gal 5. 16; 1 Thess 5. 3. Holtz also admits that Paul has used the euphemism of sleep outside traditional material (1 Thess 4. 13–14), but he suggests that Paul borrowed it from the Thessalonians' question. If so, however, the euphemism does not favour his borrowing from earlier Christian tradition in 1 Thess 4. 15–17 (and the same possibility applies to φθάνω ). Moreover, Paul uses the euphemism a num ber of times elsewhere in his own composition (1 Cor 7. 39; 11. 30; 15. 6, 18, 20, 51).

[4] See part II of Goulder's, M. D.Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974)Google Scholar passim.

[5] See esp. Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels (2nd ed.: London: MacMillan, 1930) 500–23Google Scholar; also Gundry, , Matthew, 609.Google Scholar Not all Streeter's arguments are acceptable.

[6] See esp. Peterson, E., ‘Die Einholung des Kyrios’, ZST 7 (1930) 682–702Google Scholar; also idem, ‘άάντησις’, TDNT 1 (1964) 380–1Google Scholar; Deissmann, A., Light from the Ancient East (2nd Engl. ed.; New York: Doran, 1927) 368–73Google Scholar; Oepke, A., ‘αρουσία, άριμί’ TDNT 5 (1967) 860Google Scholar; and Rigaux, , Thessa loniciens, 196–201Google Scholar; and further literature, both primary and secondary, cited in BAGD s. v. παρουσία

[7] Foerster, W., ‘ύρις’, TDNT 3 (1965) 1054–8.Google Scholar

[8] Radi, W. (Ankunft des Herrn [15; Frankfurt a.M.: Peter D. Lang, 1981] 173–81)Google Scholar overlooks this near certainty in suggesting that παρουσία may here mean the epiphany of a god. The suggestion is part of Rad's scaling down Paul's interest in apocalyptic. Dupont, (L'Union avec le Christ, 71–2)Google Scholar suggests that the exultation and crown at the παρουσία may reflect OT themes, but he does not account for the clustering of terms which would carry a hellenistic connotation. The eschatological cry ‘Maranatha’ (1 Cor 16. 22) doubtless aided the eschatological use of κύριος.

[9] Against Luz, U., Das Geschichtsverständnis des Paulus (BEvT 49; Munich: Kaiser, 1968) 310, n. 47Google Scholar; Schade, H. H., Apokalyptische Christologie bei Paulus (GTA 18; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981) 27.Google Scholar

[10] See esp. Best, , Thessalonians, 152–3Google Scholar; also Frame, J. E., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1912) 139Google Scholar; Whiteley, D. E. H., Thessalonians (New Clarendon Bible, NT; London: Oxford, 1969) 57–8Google Scholar; Masson, C., Les deux έpītres de Saint Paul aux Thessaloniciens (Neuchātel: Delachaux & Niestlέ, 1957) 43–4Google Scholar, for power ful arguments in favour of angels and against saints. Of course, an army of saints would support the connotation of an imperial visit just as well as an angelic army would support it.

[11] At least three possibilities exist concerning the interrelation of the trumpets in Matt 24. 31 and 1 Thess 4. 16: (a) Matthew represents dominical tradition at this point and Paul draws on that same tradition; (b) Paul draws on Jewish tradition and Matthew shows direct or indirect influence from Paul; (c) Matthew and Paul independently draw on Jewish tradition.

[12] Cf. Henneken, B., Verkündigung und Prophetie im Ersten Thessalonicherbrief (SBS 29; Stuttgart: KBW, 1969) 92.Google Scholar The objection of Hoffmann, P. (Die Toten in Christus [NTAbh n.f. 2; Mün ster Aschendorff, 1966] 219) that Paul uses, κατά άοκλυψιν for divine revelation to himself (Gal 2. 2) has little force, for several reasons: (1) Paul does not quote the revelation in Galatians as he does quote the word of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians; (2) the revelation appears to have been for private direction, whereas the word of the Lord is directed to the community; (3) ‘according to revelation’ does not really tell us that the revelation came to Paul directly rather than through someone else (as in Acts 21. 4, 11); and (4) single instances of each expression are not enough to establish a distinction of meaning in Paul's usage.Google Scholar

[13] Cf. Luz, , Geschichtsverständnis, 326–9.Google Scholar

[14] Jeremias, J., Unknown Sayings of Jesus (2nd Engl ed.; London: SPCK, 1964) 80–3Google Scholar; most recently, Holtz, ‘Traditionen’, 55–78.

[15] So, e.g., Luz, , Geschichtsverständnis, 327–9Google Scholar; Harnisch, W., Eschatologische Existenz (FRLANT 110; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973) 42–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Baumgarten, J., Paulus und die Apokalyptik (WMANT 44; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975) 94, n. 186Google Scholar; Best, , Thessalonians, 193–4.Google Scholar If Paul is responsible for introducing some of the apocalyptic furniture, as I am urging, it will be hard for Harnisch and Baumgarten to maintain that he reduces the apocalyptic element in favour of existential considerations.

[16] For details, see Wilcke, H.-A., Das Problem eines messianischen Zwischenreich bei Paulus (ATANT 51; Zürich: Zwingli, 1967) 130–1.Google Scholar

[17] See, e.g., Hill, D., ‘On the Evidence for the Creative Role of Christian Prophets’, NTS 20 (1974) 262–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dunn, J. D. G., ‘Prophetic ‘I”-Sayings and the Jesus Tradition: the Importance of Testing Prophetic Utterances within Early Christianity’, NTS 24 (1978) 175–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[18] Boring, M. E. (Sayings of the Risen Jesus [SNTSMS 46; Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1982] 253–4, n. 40)Google Scholar points out the possibility that Paul may have been distinguishing his own statements from sayings of the risen Jesus spoken through other Christian prophets. On the other hand, what would be the point of Paul's distinguishing his own Spirit-inspired utterances from utterances of other Christian prophets similarly inspired? In Revelation 2–3 the words of the risen Jesus are presented as such, without possibility of confusion with words of the earthly Jesus.

[19] Against Nepper-Christensen, P. (‘Das verborgene Herrnwort. Eine Untersuchung über 1. Thess. 4, 13–18’, ST 19 [1965] 152–3)Google Scholar, who thinks John 11. 25–26 is a foreign body in the story of Lazarus.

[20] A. Guilding (‘The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship’ [Oxford Clarendon, 1960] 148–9) thinks John 11. 25–26 rests on 1 Thess 4. 16–17 rather than on a dominical saying used by both Paul and John. But the at-homeness of the saying in the story of Lazarus and the great amount of substractive redaction entailed in a development from Paul to John favour a borrowing in the opposite direction. Nepper-Christensen (loc cit) and Holtz (‘Traditionen’, 61, 64) stress a dependence of 1 Cor 15. 52 and the present passage in 1 Thessalonians on the same dominical saying.

[21] Cf. Koester's, H. noting (History and Literature of Early Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982] 2. 179–80)Google Scholar isolated sayings of Jesus in texts from Nag Hammadi that may have provided John with nuclei for the development of discourses and dialogues.

[22] Nepper-Christensen (‘Herrnwort’, 136–54) sees a connection between 1 Thess 4. 16–17 and John 11. 25–26 but weakens his case by including in the word of the Lord the material at the start of 1 Thess 4. 16 and by thinking that Paul speaks to the question of Christian martyrs.

[23] See, e.g., Matt 25. 1, 6; Acts 28. 15; 1 Kgdms 9. 14 LXX; etc. The attempt to derive εクςπάντησιν in 1 Thess 4. 17 from the same or a similar phrase in tradition behind Matt 25. 1, 6 (so, e.g., Schenk, W., ‘Auferweckung der Toten oder Gericht nach den Wirken. Tradition und Redaktion in Matthäus xxv 1–13’, NovT 20 [1978] 294–8)Google Scholar must turn aside the possibilities of Pauline influence on Matthew and of Matthean redaction in the phrase (cf. Gundry, , Matthew, 498Google Scholar). Even though Paul draws the phrase from dominical tradition, he hellenizes it by adding the element of imperial pageantry.

[24] A convenient collection may be found in Rigaux, , Thessaloniciens, 230–4.Google ScholarDupont, (L'Union avec le Christ, 64–73)Google Scholar also sets out the primary materials, but rejects hellenistic influence on Paul. Wilcke, (Zwischenreich, 143–7)Google Scholar argues against a technical hellenistic usage by Paul. True, there is no set phrase. But the suggestion that εクς πάντησιν amounts to little or no more than a preposition meaning ‘to, toward’ overlooks that Paul's ‘in the air’ puts some weight of meaning on πάντησιν as a distinct meeting. Peterson (‘Einholung’, 701–2) is able to cite evidence that the idea of meeting kept its liveliness through and beyond NT times.

[25] Against Wenham, D. (‘Paul and the Synoptic Apocalypse’, Gospel Perspectives [ed France, R. T. and Wenham, D.; Sheffield: JSOT, 1981]Google Scholar 2. 348), who argues that the agency of angels in gathering the elect implies that ‘the elect are lifted up from the earth to the Lord’. The hidden, false presupposition of the argument is that an angelic activity cannot be limited to the earth. Contrast, e.g., Rev 9. 13–21.

[26] See Best, E. in Bib 55 (1974) 446–9Google Scholar for telling criticisms of W. Trilling's recent attempt to establish the inauthenticity of 2 Thessabonians (Untersuchungen zum zweiten Thessalonicherbrief [Erfurter Theologische Studien 27; Leipzig: St. Benno, 1972Google Scholar; for further criticisms see Snyder, G. F. in JBL 92 [1973] 614Google Scholar; Best, , Thessalonians, 50–8Google Scholar); Harvey, A. E., ‘“The Workman is Worthy of His Hire”: Fortunes of a Proverb in the Early Church’, NovT 24 (1982) 215–16Google Scholar (against an argument of Bailey, J. A., ‘Who Wrote II Thessalonians?’ NTS 25 [1979] 131–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar); J. C. Hurd, ‘Concerning the Authenticity of 2 Thessalonians’, SBL paper distributed at Annual Meeting, Dallas, 19–22 December 1983. In addition, the non-explanation of the restraint and restrainer in 2 Thess 2. 6–7 does not look like the work of a pious forger, who would probably have appealed to something in Paul's genuine writing or said nothing at all here rather than grasping at thin air with a reference wholly mysterious to his audience. According to Trilling (Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher [EKKNT 14; Zürich: Benziger Verlag/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980] 71–2, 85–6Google Scholar, 89–90, 102), the forger had nothing particular in mind. This supposition makes the shift from neuter to masculine harder than ever to understand. Why would a forger who had nothing particu lar in mind have bothered to make so tantalizing a statement? Though Paul's reminder in v. 5 has to do with the preceding verses, it probably triggered his references to the restraint and restrainer on the basis of past oral teaching, which made the shift in genders intelligible. 2 Thess 2. 1–12 teaches against the certainty of an immediate return of Christ and therefore does not contradict the possibility of a near return of Christ as implied by the exhortations to watchfulness in 1 Thess 5. 1–11. That such watchfulness can take into its purview presaging signs is proved by the juxta position of exhortations to watch and predictions of such signs in the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation (cf. the indeterminate shortening of the tribulation in Mark 13. 20; Matt 24. 22 and the cancellation of the seven thunders in Rev 10. 1–7, where sealing up must mean not bringing to pass, because opening the seven seals has brought to pass a series of calamities; also, since writing the prophetic word effects its coming to pass, the command not to write down the seven thunders means they cannot come to pass). The argument of Whiteley, (Thessalonians, 13–14Google Scholar) that the ‘peace and safety’ preceding the day of the Lord in 1 Thess 5. 2–3 disagrees with the disturbing events preceding the day of the Lord in 2 Thess 2. 1–12, and therefore speaks against common authorship, stumbles over the failure of the latter passage to describe the preceding events as those that would or will be unpeaceful and unsafe from the standpoint of unbelievers.

[27] This difference is the more remarkable if to be taken means to be judged and to be left means to be saved (cf. Collins, R. F., ‘Tradition, Redaction, and Exhortation in 1 Th 4, 13–5, 11’, L'Apocalypse johannique et l'Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament’ [ed Lambrecht, J.; BETL 53; Louvain: Leuven UP, 1980] 333Google Scholar; but see also Gundry, , Matthew, 494).Google Scholar

[28] See Holtz, ‘Traditionen’, 59–61, on v. 14b as Paul's interpretation of a Christian confession in v. 14a.

[29] Paul writes from the earthly standpoint: ‘the Lord himself will descend from heaven … we who are alive and remain … will be caught up’. Interpreting him to mean that God will bring believers with Jesus to heaven misses this standpoint and overlooks the paraphernalian indications of an imperial παρουσία. For further arguments favouring continued descent (though that is not Paul's main point), see Best, Thessalonians, 199–200, and esp. P. W. Schmiedcl, Die Briefe an die Thessalonicher und die Korinther (HKNT; Freiburg i. B.: Molur [Siebeck], 1893) 29–30). Masson, (Thessaloniciens, 59–60)Google Scholar argues against a heavenward journey that then the Lord would be meeting the saints. In fact, Thomas, R. L. (‘1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians’, The Expositor's Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978]Google Scholar 11. 279) is so intent on seeing a heavenward journey that he reverses Paul's phraseology: ‘… the saints continue on to heaven with the Lord who has come to meet them. …’ Similarly, Harnisch, (Eschatologische Existenz, 43–4, n. 23)Google Scholar says the saints are caught up into the sphere of heaven, whereas Paul refers to the air, not to heaven. Plevnik, J. (‘The Parousia as Implication of Christ's Resurrection: An Exegesis of 1 Thes 4:13–18’, Word and Spirit [Essays in Honor of Stanley, D. M.; Willowdale, Ontario, Canada: Regis College, 1975] 212–24Google Scholar, 226, 229, 265–7) sees an exodus-motif and appeals to believers' heavenly citizenship and heavenly bodies in order to argue that in Paul's view God will bring believers to heaven with Jesus. But though our citizenship is in heaven according to Phil 3. 20–21, Paul says we wait for Jesus to come from heaven; and he gives no indication that Jesus will go back to heaven with us. According to 2 Cor 5. 1–4 our new body is from heaven. So also 1 Cor 15. 47–49 has to do with origin, not location. Similarly, Plevnik's argument (pp. 267–72) that Mark 9. 7 (par. Matt 17. 5; Luke 9. 34); Acts 1. 9–11; and Rev 11. 12 point to the clouds' taking believers up to heaven in 1 Thess 4. 15 17 overlooks that Paul writes of ‘a meeting in the air’, not of a going ‘to heaven’ (and that the cited synoptic passages speak only of disappearance, not of being taken up to heaven). A descent to earth implies nothing one way or the other about a chiliastic view on Paul's part (though some have tried to pair a positive implication with an absence of chiliasm elsewhere in his epistles to argue against a descent to earth – so Siber, , Mit Christus leben, 30–2).Google Scholar

[30] See Marshall, I. H., ‘Martyrdom and the Parousia in the Revelation of John’, SE 4/1 (= TU 102) 337–8Google Scholar, that the harvest in Rev 14. 14–16 represents the gathering of the saints, which is then omitted in 19. 11–16; 20. 4 as aheady taken care of. By the time Revelation was written, Paul's doctrine of the rapture, if not 1 Thessalonians itself, might have circulated. Even in Rev 14. 14–16, however, it is not explicitly stated that the saints are gathered up, though we might infer an upward gathering from the position of the reaper on a cloud and from the contrastive judgment just outside the earthly city in 14. 17–20.

[31] See the mass of references to primary and secondary literature in Baumgarten, , Paulus und die Apokalyptik, 131.Google Scholar

[32] See Lohfink, G., Die Himmelfahrt Jesu (SANT 26; Munich: Kösel, 1971) 32–74.Google Scholar Lohfink also notes that in both Judaism and Hellenism bodily rapture replaced death. In 1 Thess 4. 15–17 it includes the deceased who will rise as well as the still living. Cf. Plevnik, J., ‘The Taking Up of the Faithful and the Resurrection of the Dead’, CBQ 46 (1984) 275–6.Google Scholar

[33] Particularly in view of Paul's writing that ‘the dead in Christ will rise first’, and his doing so to keep the Thessalonians from sorrowing as those ‘who do not have hope’, it is hard to understand A. F. J. Klijn's argument that ‘Paul omits every opportunity to speak of the resurrection of the dead’ (‘I Thessalonians 4. 13–18 and its Background in Literature’, Apocalyptic, Paul and Paulinism [Essays in honour of Barrett, C. K.; ed. Hooker, M. D. and Wilson, S. G.; London: SPCK, 1982] 68).Google Scholar As Klijn points out, 4 Ezra 13. 16–24 puts the living at an advantage over the dead because the living will witness firsthand the Lord's salvation at the end (cf. Isa 52. 10; Dan 12. 12–13;4 Ezra 6. 25; Pss. Sol. 17. 50; 18. 7; 2 Apoc. Bar. 29. 2; 40. 2; 71. 1; Luke 2. 30; 10. 23–24). But such an advantage fails to explain Paul's comparison to those who ‘have no hope’, for in 4 Ezra 13. 16–24 the disadvantage of the dead consists only in not being able ‘to see what will happen in the last time’. Similarly, Klijn's citations of 4 Ezra 5. 41–45; 6. 20; 2 Apoc. Bar. 30. 2b; 51. 13;Bib. Ant. 19. 20 as background for the catching up ‘together’ of the living and the resurrected fall somewhat short; for Paul writes earlier, and those passages have to do with the simultaneity of resurrection, or of presence at the last judgment, or of enjoyment of eternal blessedness, not with the simul taneity of anything similar to the rapture in Paul's teaching.

[34] Malherbe, A. J., ‘Exhortation in First Thessalonians’, NovT 25 (1983) 255–6.Google Scholar

[35] Cf. Wis 4. 11; Acts 8. 39; 2 Cor 12. 2; Rev 12. 5; and on the use of the passive voice for God's actions, see Jeremias, J., New Testament Theology (New York: Scribners, 1971)Google Scholar 1. 9–14, and a caveat by Sidebottom, E. M., ‘The So-Called Divine Passive in the Gospel Tradition’, ExpTim 87 (1976) 200–4.Google Scholar See also Lohfink, (Himmelfahrt, 40)Google Scholar on the divine passive of ρπάζω in hellenistic stories of bodily rapture. By no means does the catching up imply a non-physical body at the resurrection (against Rigaux, , Thessaloniciens, 243Google Scholar). Spörlein, B. (Die Leugnung der Auferstehung [Billische Untersuchungen 7; Regensburg: Pustet, 1971] 128)Google Scholar points out that in 2 Cor 12. 2, 4 Paul entertains the possibility of having been caught up to the third heaven in his present physical body.

[36] Clouds appear also in heilenistic stories of rapture (Lohfink, , Himmelfahrt, 44Google Scholar, 73).

[37] Some commentators have suggested that Paul refers to the air because in hellenistic thought it was the abode of the spiritual principalities and powers which dominate the world and because Paul wants to imply that Jesus is Lord over that realm and that the saints share, or will share, in that lordship (Eph 2. 2; 6. 12). If so, we have further evidence of Paul's hellenization of the tradition. But perhaps the air is simply the natural meeting place between heaven, from which the Lord descends, and earth, from which believers are caught up.

[38] See Book I, Chapter 9, of Epictetus's Discourses for an example contemporaneous with Paul; for a brief survey, Grundmann, W., ‘σύν-μετά’ TDNT 7 (1971) 781Google Scholar; for more details from primary sources, Dupont, , L'union avec le Christ, 166–9, 181–2Google Scholar; cf. Malherbe, ‘Exhortation’, 255–6. One might also think of the dominical saying in Luke 23. 43.

[39] Bultmann, R.Lührmann, D., ‘πιφαίνω, TDNT 9 (1974) 7–10Google Scholar; Rigaux, , Thessaloniciens, 201–4.Google Scholar Rigaux (p. 203, n. 4) rejects Dupont's effort (L'Union avec le Christ, 73–7) to avoid the implication of the hellenistic connotation of πιφάνεια.

[40] See Harnisch, , Eschatologische Existenz, 60–2.Google Scholar

[41] Harnisch (Eschatologische Existenz, 94–5) is hypercritical in denying that Paul draws on dominical tradition and in supporting the denial with the argument that in 1 Thess 5. 2 the thief represents the manner of the coming of the day of the Lord, whereas Matt 24. 43; Luke 12. 39 speaks of a householder who would have watched had he known what hour the thief was going to come and steal his effects. Paul merely seizes on the point of unexpected disaster, as was easy to do because the next dominical saying interprets the unexpected coming of a thief in terms of the Unexpected coming of the Son of man, and we have no good reason to break up these sayings. It is gratuitous of Harnisch to suppose that both NT passages derive from earlier Jewish apocalyptic. Why multiply sources unnecessarily? See Plevnik, J., ‘1 Thess 5,1–11: Its Authenticity, Intention and Message’, Bib 60 (1979) 80–7.Google Scholar

[42] Collins, ‘Tradition, Redaction, and Exhortation’, 338; Laub, F., Eschatologische Verkiindi gung und Lebensgestaltung nach Paulus (Biblische Untersuchungen 10; Regensburg: Pustet, 1973) 159.Google Scholar

[43] Collins, ‘Tradition, Redaction, and Exhortation’, 339. Against Paul's direct use of Isa 59. 17, Holtz (‘Traditionen’, 68–9) asks why Paul did not take up Yahweh's garment or mantle for the third Christian virtue rather than packing two Christian virtues into one piece of armour. The answer probably lies in Isaiah's associating the garment and mantle with vengeance and retribution, which hardly offer possibilities of linkage with Christian virtue as ‘righteousness’ and ‘salvation’ do. Besides, garments and mantles are not pieces of armour such as Paul wants to portray as Christian defence against worldliness. His other uses of Isa 59. 17 (see Rom 6. 13; 13. 12; 2 Cor 6. 7; 10. 3–6; Eph 6. 11–17) do not demand his borrowing from an intermediate Christian tradition.

[44] Cf. Hartman, L., Prophecy Interpreted (ConB NT Series 1; Lund: Gleerup, 1966) 192–3Google Scholar; but see D. Wenham, ‘Paul and the Synoptic Apocalypse’, 353–6. On birth-pangs as indicating inescap ability, see Harnisch, (Eschatologische Existenz, 69–77)Google Scholar, who cites Isa 66. 9; 4 Ezra 4. 40–42; 6 Ezra 2. 36–40.

[45] See, e.g., Aus, R. D., ‘The Relevance of Isaiah 66. 7 to Revelation 12 and 2 Thessalonians 1’, ZNW 67 (1976) 263–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The gnostic hypothesis of Schmithals, W. (Paul and the Gnostics [Nashville: Abingdon, 1971] 166–7, 202–8Google Scholar) and others that the Thessalonians thought the day of the Lord had already come in a spiritualized form, Gnosticism being a kind of over-realized eschatology, has rightly been rejected by most NT scholars. For one thing, the arrival and presence of such a day of the Lord would bring joy and confidence, not the consternation characterizing the Thessalonians in 2 Thess 2. 1–2 (cf. 1 Thess 4. 13; see Trilling, , Untersuchungen, 125–6Google Scholar). Furthermore, over- realized eschatology does not normally arise out of intense persecution such as the Thessalonian believers were suffering. Out of intense persecution, on the contrary, arises futuristic eschatology. And a gnostic sort of spiritual enthusiasm makes Paul's exhortation not to quench the Spirit (1 Thess 5. 19) hit the wrong note. Against the gnostic hypothesis as it relates to 1 Thessalonians, see Hyldahl, N., ‘Auferstehung Christi – Auferstehung der Toten’, Die Paulinische Literatur und Theologie (ed. Pedersen, S.; Teologiske Studier 7; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980) 124–6.Google Scholar

[46] Staab, K. (Die Thessalonicherbriefe [RNT 7/1; 5th ed.; Regensburg: Pustet, 1969] 51Google Scholar) thinks the man of lawlessness does not instigate the rebellion, but only appears at its high point. But irpC ‘first’, may modify the whole protasis rather than indicate that the rebellion will take place before the man of lawlessness is revealed. See Best, (Thessalonians, 281–3)Google Scholar, Rigaux, (Thessa loniciens, 253–8)Google Scholar, and Frame, (Thessalonians, 251)Google Scholar that Paul does not mean an apostasy of Chris tians. Cf. Rom 1. 18–32 for the kind of general falling away from God in the world at large that Paul has in mind. Best thinks more narrowly of Jewish rejection of the gospel. Thomas (‘1 Thessa lonians, 2 Thessalonians’, 320–1, 323) argues that the rebellion comes first within the day of the Lord, not before it, and cites the use of πρτον in Mark 3. 27;Matt 12. 29; John 7. 51;Rom 15. 24. But none of the cross-references have in view a period of time (such as the day of the Lord) within which different events occur. By taking πρτον in 2 Thess 2. 3 as indicating the priority of the rebellion (Thomas rightly avoids equating άποστασία with the rapture) to the revelation of the lawless one, Thomas can say that the rebellion is not absolutely first in the day of the Lord (or the tribulational part of it), but only first in relation to the revelation of the lawless one. To say so, however, breaks the connection with vv. 1–2, which requires Paul to tell why the day of the Lord is not present, not irrelevantly to sort out the order of events within the day of the Lord after the rapture has occurred. The exhortations in 1 Thess 5. 1–11 to be watchful and ready for the day of the Lord imply that however long or short it may be it starts with the παρουσια. Thomas's further argument (p. 318) that ‘if Paul had given oral or written instruction to this effect [viz., that the παρουσια as a single event initiates the day of the Lord after the tribulation], the false claim that the day of the Lord was already present could hardly have alarmed these Christians’ does not take account of the reproachful tone of Paul's question in v. 5: ‘Don't you remember that I told you these things when I was still with you?’ They should have known better than to be persuaded by the false teaching that the day of the Lord was already present. Later, Thomas himself recognizes Paul's reproachful tone (p. 324). On page 319 Thomas strangely says the false teachers were deny ing the deliverance from the tribulation he thinks Paul promised them in 1 Thess 5. 9. Thomas's argument on page 318 that the Thessalonians would not have believed a contradiction of Paul‘s genuine teaching therefore disagrees with Thomas's own view on page 319.

[47] Str-B 3.637–40.

[48] Cf. Vos, G., The Pauline Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952 reprint) 95–6, n. 2.Google Scholar

[49] It makes no difference to Paul's linking the passages in Daniel and Ezekiel who the Daniel referred to in Ezekiel might have been. Hartman, (Prophecy Interpreted, 199)Google Scholar thinks Paul drew on Deut 13. 2–3, 11, 14, too.

[50] Antiochus Epiphanes did not himself sit in the temple at Jerusalem, but only had a pagan altar set up there (1 Macc 1. 36–40, 54, 59). Nor did Caligula sit in the temple; he only ordered a statue of himself to be erected there (Philo, , Leg. Gaius 188Google Scholar; Josephus, J. W. 2.10.1 §185Google Scholar; Ant. 18. 8.2 §261). Despite their actual and attempted desecrations of the temple, then, these emperors do not provide fully adequate models for Paul's man of lawlessness. Aus, R. D. (‘God's Plan and God's Power: Isaiah 66 and the Restraining Factors of 2 Thess 2:6–7’, JBL 96 [1977] 537–53)Google Scholar suggests that 2 Thess 2. 1–12 rests in part on Christianizing Isa 66. 7 as a reference to the Messiah, whom God will not ‘hold back’ (cf. Isa 66. 9 MT). Speculativeness makes the suggestion hard to verify or falsify.

[51] Paul's use of ποκάλυψις for Jesus' παρουσία appears to be another Christianization of a Jewish theme, that of God's revealing himself (cf. Oepke, A., ‘ποκαλύπτω, TDNT 3 [1965] 571–92).Google Scholar Passages in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 48. 6; 62. 7) and 4 Ezra 13. 32;2 Apoc. Bar. 29. 3; 39. 7 are probably too late to have affected Paul's usage.

[52] Cf. the somewhat similar remarks of Hartman, , Prophecy Interpreted, 202.Google Scholar But he thinks Paul used a gospel tradition related to and lying behind Matthew. We might rather suppose that Paul influenced Matthew directly or indirectly (see notes 3 and 4 and the discussion in the body of the text to which they refer). Ridderbos, (Paul [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975] 513)Google Scholar pays too much attention to the man of lawlessness as a false prophet, deceiving people with signs and wonders, and so neglects the man of lawlessness as anti-God, demanding to be worshipped, and (implicitly) as anti-Christ, having a revelation and a παρουσία (cf. Best's criticism [ Thessalonians, 283–4] of Giblin). Vos (The Pauline Eschatology, 114–16) makes the same kind of mistake by centering on the man of lawlessness as anti-God in order to argue against the similarly incorrect view that he is a false Messiah of the Jews. So also Trilling, (Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher, 86–7)Google Scholar, who puts undue emphasis on ἄνθρωπος (in the phrase ‘the man of lawlessness’) over against θεός. The primary emphasis falls on the lawlessness of the man rather than on the humanity of the lawless one. Ridderbos, (Paul, 514)Google Scholar thinks Paul contrasts the man of lawlessness with Christ the man just as in later epistles he will contrast the first man Adam and the last man Christ. But again too much emphasis is falling on ἄνθρωπος. Adam is a given in the OT - and his very name means ‘man’ - whereas the man of lawlessness is Paul's construction. See Rigaux, (Thessaloniciens, 270–2, 656–7)Google Scholar against deriving the man of lawlessness from Beliar or Belial.

[53] Luedemann's, G.Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles. Studies in Chronology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984)Google Scholar did not reach the present author before submission of the foregoing article to NTS. There is large scale agreement with his view that in Thessalonica Paul had not preached the resurrection of deceased Christians (219–20). The article anticipates and refutes Luedemann's appeal to word statistics (which, however, he is not the first to put forward) in favour of denying apocalyptic elements to Paul (222–5). More importantly, Luedemann gives no consideration whatever to John 11. 25–26 and attributes ‘the word of the Lord’ to Jewish apocalyptic tradition in which the resurrection of the dead chronologically followed the withdrawal of the living. Accordingly, Paul inverted the order (225–36). But Luedemann can find no Jewish apocalyptic precedent for an aerial meeting. The most glaring weakness of all: on the order of resurrection and withdrawal he makes Paul appeal to an apocalyptic tradition that said exactly the contrary of what Paul wanted to say, and did say.